We are told: The recipe for the origin of life has been revised

_{Denyse O'Leary

April 29, 2020

Intelligent Design, Origin Of Life}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

The proposed revision is a tweak on RNA world:

Recently, Nobel laureate Jack Szostak’s lab made serious headway in answering the life origin question by publishing the first recipe for making a spontaneously self-reproducing gene in a 2020 Journal of the American Chemical Society paper…
These observations together point to a chemically functional role of ANAs [arabinonucleic acids] that would significantly increase the rate of RNA synthesis and stability in the environment of a primordial Earth. Szostak’s unusual addition to his recipe likely became the “secret ingredient” to making the most plausible RNA-filled gazpacho to date. And with that, the scientific debate around the origins of life on Earth keeps on simmering.
Lauren Gandy, “Scientists have revised the recipe for the first gene and the origin of life” at Massive Science

Scientists revising their origin of life theories is—in the present climate—somewhat like fiction writers revising their novels. Nothing in the world wrong with it. But let’s be clear what level of real-world information we are talking about.

See also: Astonishing! Astrophysicist determines that the odds are against a random origin of life. One might ask why he thinks that “science” must find a random origin for life. Who decided that life originated randomly? What if it did not? Is science still committed to finding a random origin?

and

Welcome to “RNA world,” the five-star hotel of origin-of-life theories

Comments

Seversky, you falsely claimed that,
Yet, strangely, while they all might have attributed the original creation to God, all their theories were materialistic explanations of whatever natural phenomena they happened to be studying.
That is a false claim. "Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver."
The God Particle: Not the God of the Gaps, But the Whole Show - Monday, Aug. 2012 Excerpt: C. S. Lewis put it this way: "Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver." http://www.christianpost.com/news/the-god-particle-not-the-god-of-the-gaps-but-the-whole-show-80307/ The Genius and Faith of Faraday and Maxwell - Ian H. Hutchinson - 2014 Conclusion: Lawfulness was not, in their thinking, inert, abstract, logical necessity, or complete reducibility to Cartesian mechanism; rather, it was an expectation they attributed to the existence of a divine lawgiver. These men’s insights into physics were made possible by their religious commitments. For them, the coherence of nature resulted from its origin in the mind of its Creator. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-genius-and-faith-of-faraday-and-maxwell “Our monotheistic traditions reinforce the assumption that the universe is at root a unity, that is not governed by different legislation in different places.” John D. Barrow "All the early scientists, like Newton, were religious in one way or another. They saw their science as a means of uncovering traces of God's handiwork in the universe. What we now call the laws of physics they regarded as God's abstract creation: thoughts, so to speak, in the mind of God. So in doing science, they supposed, one might be able to glimpse the mind of God - an exhilarating and audacious claim." - Paul Davies http://ldolphin.org/bumbulis/
There is nothing 'materialistic' about the Christian founders of modern science discovering the laws of nature. In fact, materialism, with its assumption of chaos instead of rational order, is antithetical to presupposing there should be laws of nature. In 2007 Paul Davies stated, “All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way. You couldn’t be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed.,,, ,,, the very notion of physical law is a theological one in the first place, a fact that makes many scientists squirm. Isaac Newton first got the idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws from the Christian doctrine that God created the world and ordered it in a rational way. Christians envisage God as upholding the natural order from beyond the universe,,,”
Taking Science on Faith – By PAUL DAVIES – NOV. 24, 2007 Excerpt: All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way. You couldn’t be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed. ,,, the very notion of physical law is a theological one in the first place, a fact that makes many scientists squirm. Isaac Newton first got the idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws from the Christian doctrine that God created the world and ordered it in a rational way. Christians envisage God as upholding the natural order from beyond the universe, while physicists think of their laws as inhabiting an abstract transcendent realm of perfect mathematical relationships. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html
Atheists, with their ‘bottom up’ materialistic explanations, simply have no clue why there should even be universal laws that govern the universe in the first place:
“There cannot be, in principle, a naturalistic bottom-up explanation for immutable physical laws — which are themselves an ‘expression’ of top-down causation. A bottom-up explanation, from the level of e.g. bosons, should be expected to give rise to innumerable different ever-changing laws. By analogy, particles give rise to innumerable different conglomerations. Moreover a bottom-up process from bosons to physical laws is in need of constraints (laws) in order to produce a limited set of universal laws. Paul Davies: “Physical processes, however violent or complex, are thought to have absolutely no effect on the laws. There is thus a curious asymmetry: physical processes depend on laws but the laws do not depend on physical processes. Although this statement cannot be proved, it is widely accepted.” Saying that laws do not depend on physical processes, is another way of saying that laws cannot be explained by physical processes.” – Origenes – UD blogger
Einstein himself stated, ““You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way”,,,
On the Rational Order of the World: a Letter to Maurice Solovine – Albert Einstein – March 30, 1952 Excerpt: “You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way .. the kind of order created by Newton’s theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if a man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the ‘miracle’ which is constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands. There lies the weakness of positivists and professional atheists who are elated because they feel that they have not only successfully rid the world of gods but “bared the miracles.” -Albert Einstein http://inters.org/Einstein-Letter-Solovine
Likewise, Eugene Wigner also stated, “It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here, quite comparable in its striking nature to the miracle that the human mind can string a thousand arguments together without getting itself into contradictions, or to the two miracles of the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind’s capacity to divine them.,,,”
The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960 Excerpt: ,,certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin’s process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,, It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here, quite comparable in its striking nature to the miracle that the human mind can string a thousand arguments together without getting itself into contradictions, or to the two miracles of the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind’s capacity to divine them.,,, The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning. http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html
Max Planck, one of the main pioneers of Quantum Theory, certainly did not believe in Atheistic Materialism
“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.” – Max Planck
It is simply blatantly dishonest for Seversky to repeatedly falsely claim that science is a materialistic enterprise. The philosophy and Atheistic Materialism, (i.e. the belief that there is nothing beyond the material realm), had nothing to do with the founding of modern science nor does that horrid nihilistic philosophy have anything to do with the continued success of science.
contrary to what many people have been falsely led to believe by Darwinian atheists, about Intelligent Design supposedly being a pseudo-science, the fact of the matter is that all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism. From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science itself, (namely that the universe is rational and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can dare understand that rationality), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results themselves, from top to bottom, science itself is certainly not to be considered a ‘natural’ endeavor of man. Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analyzed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial logic and immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place. Again, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism.
Moreover, not only does the philosophy of atheistic materialism have nothing to do with the founding nor current practice of science, materialism has now been falsified by advances in empirical science.
Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism (v2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM0IKLv7KrE
Verse and quote:
Colossians 2:3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." - Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio
bornagain77_{April 30, 2020
April
04
Apr
30
30
2020
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT}

seversky:
If your answer to every conundrum in the physical universe is “Goddidit” or “it is God’s will” then it very definitely is a science-stopper.
And yet science giants such as Newton and Kepler saw science as a way to understand God's Creation.ET_{April 30, 2020
April
04
Apr
30
30
2020
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT}

seversky:
I couldn’t have put it better myself.
Insipid trolls do think alike.ET_{April 30, 2020
April
04
Apr
30
30
2020
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77 @ 8
FYI, belief in God certainly did not stop the Christian founders of modern science from investigating the universe to try to figure out how God did it.
Yet, strangely, while they all might have attributed the original creation to God, all their theories were materialistic explanations of whatever natural phenomena they happened to be studying. None of their theories include terms like "Here there be miracles" or "Here their be divine interventions". And none of them had the slightest idea of how God, if He exists, accomplished the Creation.
FYI, belief in God certainly did not stop the Christian founders of modern science from investigating the universe to try to figure out how God did it.
If your answer to every conundrum in the physical universe is "Goddidit" or "it is God's will" then it very definitely is a science-stopper.Seversky_{April 30, 2020
April
04
Apr
30
30
2020
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT}

Ed George @ 8
I see two solitudes here. One side hypothesizes different possible scenarios for the origin of life, presents it to the world for criticism and devises experiments and observation to test the viability of the hypothesis. The other side concludes that it was the result of intelligent design and refuses to propose the nature of the designer, the mechanism of the design or devise experiments to test and observe these proposed means of design. As a rational, reasoned approach, I prefer the former approach. It has the benefit of being the starting point of further investigation, not the end of it.
I couldn't have put it better myself.Seversky_{April 30, 2020
April
04
Apr
30
30
2020
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT}

Suffice it to say, I have little patience with the "identify the designer" rhetoric. It's not just an example of sloppy thinking. It's a form of sloppy thinking that gunks up any sincere interest in design. It turns an attempt to adhere to logical, responsible thinking into a sinister motive. So perhaps, there is a better question to ask. Why do ID critics refuse to publicly acknowledge that it is illogical to identity the designer using the criteria of mainstream ID (IC and CSI)?- Mike Gene
IDists agree with Mike Gene. And no one can find any real fault with what Mike Gene said.ET_{April 30, 2020
April
04
Apr
30
30
2020
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT}

JVL:
We know it was humans living in the area at the time.
That is not a who. Thank you for making my point.
We know some of the tools they used. We know some things about their diet and the kind of structures they lived in.
As I said- everything we do know came from centuries of study.
What kind of designer? What was their purpose? Were they aliens trying to populate the whole galaxy for nefarious reasons? Did they set up the whole of life on earth just so they could come along later and harvest us for meat and nutrients? What was their purpose? Don’t you care? Are you asking those questions?
Can't answer those questions from what we have to examine.
Well, what’s the point of ID then?
The same as the point of science. To try to understand what we are observing.
And then what?
The same as I have always told you. We study it so we can understand it. We want to understand it so we can properly maintain it. And possibly duplicate it. That is for a start.
And you’ve claimed design has been detected! Quite a while ago now. And so . . . .
Now we either have to kill the denialists, hope they just die or force them into a debate to see which side has the science and which side is total BS.
Well, evolutionary theory has papers published every day and yet ID has almost nothing published.
Nonsense. There isn't any scientific theory of evolution and there aren't any papers that support evolution by means of natural selection or any other bind and mindless processes.
I think evolutionary researchers ARE asking the hard questions and working on them.
No one cares what you think. What labs are looking into the evolution of bacterial flagellum? Which developmental biologists are trying to figure out what determines form? Putting imagination on paper isn't working on it. But look, Jerad, you are clearly willfully ignorant. Not all design detection has been completed. And the thing is to be able to do SCIENTIFIC research nd be able to come to a design inference, if warranted. And given the codes that rule biological organisms, the design inference is warranted. There isn't any other viable explanation for the coded systems in biology. Try to answer questions? For over 160 years and your side still has nothing to answer the questions. You don't have a mechanism capable. All you have is hope, misguided hope at thatET_{April 30, 2020
April
04
Apr
30
30
2020
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT}

ET: We don’t even know who built Stonehenge nor how they built it. Everything we know about it came from centuries of studying it and all relevant evidence. We know it was humans living in the area at the time. We know some of the tools they used. We know some things about their diet and the kind of structures they lived in. The mere existence of intelligent design is evidence that at least one intelligent designer existed. And you can remove the designer requirement by demonstrating that nature is up to the task. But you can’t. You have nothing but your blind reliance on some alleged experts. What kind of designer? What was their purpose? Were they aliens trying to populate the whole galaxy for nefarious reasons? Did they set up the whole of life on earth just so they could come along later and harvest us for meat and nutrients? What was their purpose? Don't you care? Are you asking those questions? Those have nothing to do with ID. But it does prove that ID forces us to ask other questions and because of that ID isn’t a science stopper. I think ID brings up a lot of other questions. But no one seems to be working on them. ID is not about the how. How many times do you have to be told that? In “No Free Lunch” Wm. Dembski says it. He goes on to say that ID doesn’t prevent anyone from looking onto it. Again, I have been over and over this with you. Clearly you have some issue you need help with. Well, what's the point of ID then? Just to stand there and say: see, there is design? And then what? If that's all ID is about then, according to you, it was done and dusted awhile ago. Then you should be moving on now shouldn't you? Now you are running around with the goal post like a little child. ID is NOT about the who or how. That is because we do NOT have to know the who or how before we can determine design exists or not. We don’t even ask about the who or how until after design has been detected. And you've claimed design has been detected! Quite a while ago now. And so . . . . One thing is certain- ID is not beholden to your asinine agenda. Your side has all the power to refute ID and yet has nothing to show for itself. You have to be full-on delusional to think that nature can produce coded systems from the bottom up. You have to be a desperate cling-on to think the studies offered so far, in any way shows nature has that capability. Well, evolutionary theory has papers published every day and yet ID has almost nothing published. There doesn't seem to be any work being done. Why is that? You can pick your own agenda so . ... what is it? What are you doing? Why aren’t you and yours asking the hard questions with respect to whatever alternative to ID you think that you have? Why don’t you care that you are a hypocrite? I think evolutionary researchers ARE asking the hard questions and working on them. Even Denyse published a post about a variation on the RNA World theory recently. You may disagree with it but that shows that people are working the problem. What are ID proponents doing? What research is being done? What is the research agenda? IF ID is just about design detection and since you've all claimed that design was detected (multiple times) a while ago then what are you doing now? What science are you doing? What is your research agenda? What questions are you pursuing? That's what scientists do after all, they try to answer questions.JVL_{April 30, 2020
April
04
Apr
30
30
2020
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT}

JVL:
I will stand by my statement that it’s hard to get any ID proponent to take a stand on the nature of the designer or the techniques utilised. Or even when design was implemented.
Those have nothing to do with ID. But it does prove that ID forces us to ask other questions and because of that ID isn't a science stopper.
So, you’re happy if the designer you detected was an alien from another solar system.
I am OK with that.
Who was trying to do what in a far flung system for what reason? I mean, serously, some aliens travelled light years just to seed iife on another planet? Why? Why would they do that?
To get liberals to act like lost children on internet forums.
So, ID doesn’t care about HOW design was implemented?
ID is not about the how. How many times do you have to be told that? In "No Free Lunch" Wm. Dembski says it. He goes on to say that ID doesn't prevent anyone from looking onto it. Again, I have been over and over this with you. Clearly you have some issue you need help with.
I can not believe that someone would support ID and not care about the designer and he/she/it’s methods and motivations.
Now you are running around with the goal post like a little child. ID is NOT about the who or how. That is because we do NOT have to know the who or how before we can determine design exists or not. We don't even ask about the who or how until after design has been detected. And again, we have been over and over that but you have some willful ignorance problem. One thing is certain- ID is not beholden to your asinine agenda. Your side has all the power to refute ID and yet has nothing to show for itself. You have to be full-on delusional to think that nature can produce coded systems from the bottom up. You have to be a desperate cling-on to think the studies offered so far, in any way shows nature has that capability. Why aren't you and yours asking the hard questions with respect to whatever alternative to ID you think that you have? Why don't you care that you are a hypocrite?ET_{April 30, 2020
April
04
Apr
30
30
2020
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT}

We don't even know who built Stonehenge nor how they built it. Everything we know about it came from centuries of studying it and all relevant evidence. The mere existence of intelligent design is evidence that at least one intelligent designer existed. And you can remove the designer requirement by demonstrating that nature is up to the task. But you can't. You have nothing but your blind reliance on some alleged experts.ET_{April 30, 2020
April
04
Apr
30
30
2020
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT}

ET: And it still remains that design is a mechanism, by definition. And saying design is a mechanism is just as valid as saying natural selection is a mechanism. How was it implemented? You cannot get design in nature without a designer and a method of implementation. So . . .JVL_{April 30, 2020
April
04
Apr
30
30
2020
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT}

ET: Your ignorance is not an argument. “Built-in responses to environmental cues” was a mechanism proposed in 1997. I will stand by my statement that it's hard to get any ID proponent to take a stand on the nature of the designer or the techniques utilised. Or even when design was implemented. Would it? Do we have to know who the designer was before determining something was designed? Do we have to know how the design was implemented before we can determine that design exists? No, to both. So, you're happy if the designer you detected was an alien from another solar system. Who was trying to do what in a far flung system for what reason? I mean, serously, some aliens travelled light years just to seed iife on another planet? Why? Why would they do that? The science of ID is the detection and study of designs in nature. The other side is supposed to be all about mechanisms and yet they have failed to present one that can to the task. So, ID doesn't care about HOW design was implemented? Or is that just you? And why wouldn't ID care? Surely how design was implemented would say something about the designer yes? I can not believe that someone would support ID and not care about the designer and he/she/it's methods and motivations. And if you care about those things then why not research them? You keep saying that's not part of ID but then what are those questions part of? If the designer(s) are aliens then those questions are not theology. ID doesn't seem to go anywhere; no one seems interested in pursuing the obvious follow-on questions. It's your call but after supposed design detection what are you guys doing?JVL_{April 30, 2020
April
04
Apr
30
30
2020
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT}

AaronS1978 @11 you have mentioned an appendix are you aware of this? from a mainstream magazine: "The appendix may not be useless after all. The worm-shaped structure found near the junction of the small and large intestines evolved 32 times among mammals, according to a new study." https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/02/appendix-evolved-more-30-timesmartin_r_{April 30, 2020
April
04
Apr
30
30
2020
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT}

And it still remains that design is a mechanism, by definition. And saying design is a mechanism is just as valid as saying natural selection is a mechanism.ET_{April 30, 2020
April
04
Apr
30
30
2020
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT}

JVL:
But you’ll never get any of them to do it!
Your ignorance is not an argument. "Built-in responses to environmental cues" was a mechanism proposed in 1997.
But, it would matter if the intelligent designer(s) were aliens from another solar system would it not?
Would it? Do we have to know who the designer was before determining something was designed? Do we have to know how the design was implemented before we can determine that design exists? No, to both. The science of ID is the detection and study of designs in nature. The other side is supposed to be all about mechanisms and yet they have failed to present one that can to the task.ET_{April 30, 2020
April
04
Apr
30
30
2020
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT}

will Nobel laureate Jack Szostak retract this paper as well ? Because he retracted an origin-of-life-research paper before: RetractionWatch.com: "”Definitely embarrassing:” Nobel Laureate retracts non-reproducible paper in Nature journal" https://retractionwatch.com/2017/12/05/definitely-embarrassing-nobel-laureate-retracts-non-reproducible-paper-nature-journal/martin_r_{April 30, 2020
April
04
Apr
30
30
2020
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

Nobel price laureate Jack Szostak is a funny guy. In 2014, in an interview with Suzan Mazur, Szostak said: "Life in the lab in 3-5 years, more likely in 3 years" (source: https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1406/S00007/jack-szostak-life-in-lab-in-3-5-years.htm) Szostak said that in 2014 ... now it is 2020 and all what he got is some 'secret ingredient' :))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) these darwinian clowns .... after 150 years of OOL-research, they have got nothing to show us ... only some messed up molecules ...martin_r_{April 30, 2020
April
04
Apr
30
30
2020
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT}

Ed George,
Could you link me to the research about the nature of the designer? Or the research on the mechanisms that were used by the designer to realize her design?
Well, for one, upon discovering the laws of planetary motion, Johann Kepler declared:
‘O God, I am thinking your thoughts after you!’ http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/introductory_articles/bcs104.html
Here are a few more quotes to help you get a small inkling of the Christian thinking behind these great men of science,,,:
Founders of Modern Science Who Believe in GOD - Tihomir Dimitrov - (pg. 222) Quotes: “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of His dominion He is wont to be called Lord God.” (Newton 1687, Principia) “When I reflect on so many profoundly marvellous things that persons have grasped, sought, and done, I recognize even more clearly that human intelligence is a work of God, and one of the most excellent.” (Galileo, as cited in Caputo 2000, 85). “To know the mighty works of God, to comprehend His wisdom and majesty and power, to appreciate, in degree, the wonderful working of His laws, surely all this must be a pleasing and acceptable mode of worship to the Most High, to whom ignorance cannot be more gratifying than knowledge.” (Copernicus, as cited in Neff 1952, 191-192; and in Hubbard 1905, v) “Since we astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature, it befits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God.” (Kepler, as cited in Morris 1982, 11; see also Graves 1996, 51). “It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion. For while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them, confederate and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity.” (Bacon 1875, 64). “And thus I very clearly see that the certitude and truth of all science depends on the knowledge alone of the true God, insomuch that, before I knew him, I could have no perfect knowledge of any other thing. And now that I know him, I possess the means of acquiring a perfect knowledge respecting innumerable matters, as well relative to God himself and other intellectual objects as to corporeal nature.” (Descartes 1901, Meditation V). “The book of nature which we have to read is written by the finger of God.” (Faraday, as cited in Seeger 1983, 101). “I think men of science as well as other men need to learn from Christ, and I think Christians whose minds are scientific are bound to study science that their view of the glory of God may be as extensive as their being is capable of.” (Maxwell, as cited in Campbell and Garnett 1882, 404-405) - James_Clerk_Maxwell “Overpoweringly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie all around us; and if ever perplexities, whether metaphysical or scientific, turn us away from them for a time, they come back upon us with irresistible force, showing to us through Nature the influence of a free will, and teaching us that all living things depend on one ever-acting Creator and Ruler.” (Kelvin 1871; see also Seeger 1985a, 100-101) “When with bold telescopes I survey the old and newly discovered stars and planets, when with excellent microscopes I discern the unimitable subtility of nature’s curious workmanship; and when, in a word, by the help of anatomical knives, and the light of chemical furnaces, I study the book of nature, I find myself often times reduced to exclaim with the Psalmist, ‘How manifold are Thy works, O Lord! In wisdom hast Thou made them all!’ ” (Boyle, as cited in Woodall 1997, 32) "Wishing them also a most happy success in their laudable attempts to discover the true nature of the works of God, and praying, that they and all other searchers into physical truths may cordially refer their attainments to the glory of the Author of Nature, and the benefit of mankind." — Robert Boyle (1627-1691) largely regarded today as the first modern chemist, speaking of the Royal Society in his will “The examination of the bodies of animals has always been my delight, and I have thought that we might thence not only obtain an insight into the lighter mysteries of nature, but there perceive a kind of image or reflection of the omnipotent Creator Himself.” (Harvey, as cited in Keynes 1966, 330) “There is for a free man no occupation more worth and delightful than to contemplate the beauteous works of nature and honor the infinite wisdom and goodness of God.” (Ray, as cited in Graves 1996, 66; see also Yahya 2002) “The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. Science brings men nearer to God.” (Pasteur, as cited in Lamont 1995; see also Tiner 1990, 75) 50 Nobel Laureates and other great scientists who believed in God by Tihomir Dimitrov PART IV. FOUNDERS OF MODERN SCIENCE (16th - 21st Century) - page 89 http://nobelists.weebly.com/uploads/4/0/2/0/4020654/50-nobelists-english.pdf
And Pastuer, who gave us the law of biogenesis (only life begets life), made this almost prophetic quote about a beginning for the universe being discovered in the future,
"Science brings men nearer to God.,, Posterity will one day laugh at the foolishness of modern materialistic philosophers. The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. I pray while I am engaged at my work in the laboratory.,, The Greeks understood the mysterious power of the below things. They are the ones who gave us one of the most beautiful words in our language, the word enthusiasm: a God within.,,, I have been looking for spontaneous generation for twenty years without discovering it. No, I do not judge it impossible. But what allows you to make it the origin of life? You place matter before life and you decide that matter has existed for all eternity. How do you know that the incessant progress of science will not compel scientists to consider that life has existed during eternity, and not matter? You pass from matter to life because your intelligence of today cannot conceive things otherwise. How do you know that in ten thousand years, one will not consider it more likely that matter has emerged from life? You move from matter to life because your current intelligence, so limited compared to what will be the future intelligence of the naturalist, tells you that things cannot be understand otherwise. If you want to be among the scientific minds, what only counts is that you will have to get rid of a priori reasoning and ideas, and you will have to do necessary deductions not giving more confidence than we should to deductions from wild speculation." Pasteur - [en francais, Pasteur et la philosophie, Patrice Pinet, Editions L’Harmattan, p. 63.]
Verse:
John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.
bornagain77_{April 30, 2020
April
04
Apr
30
30
2020
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT}

I hate this argument, evolutionists are guilty of literally the same thing, vestigial organs, appendix is a good example Now instead of pointing figures at one another on who’s view is better for science let’s discuss the fact the this man has the recipe for the “ultimate cookie” and has not baked such “ultimate cookie” or am I missunderstanding this. I truly think they are over stating what he really has done hereAaronS1978_{April 30, 2020
April
04
Apr
30
30
2020
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT}

ET: ID does NOT refuse to propose the nature of the designer, the mechanism of the design. But you'll never get any of them to do it! Those are SEPARATE questions and have absolutely no bearing on whether or not we can determine ID exists. We do not have to know the who and how before making that determination. But, it would matter if the intelligent designer(s) were aliens from another solar system would it not? That would make their purposes somewhat suspect wouldn't you say? Also, being much like us but more advanced they would need to have labs and raw materials and energy sources and living quarters and waste disposal facilities and and and. Plus they would have to have some kick-ass propulsion systems! Unless they managed the whole thing by sending their life 'seed' on some long lived interstellar probe . . . but that would mean no further intervention after life got started. Which would change the way you looked at the development of life on earth (opposed to a frequent intervention model). But that could all just be me I suppose. I would certainly have a lot of questions!JVL_{April 30, 2020
April
04
Apr
30
30
2020
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT}

BA77
FYI, belief in God certainly did not stop the Christian founders of modern science from investigating the universe to try to figure out how God did it.
Really? Could you link me to the research about the nature of the designer? Or the research on the mechanisms that were used by the designer to realize her design?Ed George_{April 30, 2020
April
04
Apr
30
30
2020
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT}

EG at 6, FYI, belief in God certainly did not stop the Christian founders of modern science from investigating the universe to try to figure out how God did it. In fact many of the founders of modern science considered science to be somewhat of a divine vocation. For instance Maxwell's bible verse he had inscribed above his laboratory
Psalm 111:2 The works of the LORD are great, sought out of all them that have pleasure therein. (‘Magna opera Domini exquisite in omnes voluntates eius’), the verse is carved into the heavy wooden doors of the old Cavendish Laboratory (Department of Physics) of Cambridge University, albeit in ornate gothic lettering which is not easy to read. It was apparently put there at the behest of James Clerk Maxwell, the first Cavendish Professor, at the time of the building of the laboratory in the early 1870s.
Belief in God, is a science starter, not a science stopper,,,
Is Religion a Science-Stopper? – REGIS NICOLL – OCTOBER 18, 2017 Excerpt: On the Shoulders of Giants Christians remained in the vanguard of scientific discovery well into the nineteenth century. Groundbreaking advances in electro-magnetism, microbiology, medicine, genetics, chemistry, atomic theory and agriculture were the works of men like John Dalton, Andre Ampere, Georg Ohm, Michael Faraday, Louis Pasteur, William Kelvin, Gregor Mendel, and George Washington Carver; all believers whose achievements were the outworking of their Christian faith. Scientists in the truest sense of the word; these were investigators who doggedly followed the evidence wherever it led, approaching the gaps of understanding not with “God did it!” resignation, but with “God created it” expectation. https://www.crisismagazine.com/2017/religion-science-stopper
As to Ed George supposedly preferring "a rational, reasoned approach" instead of belief in God in OOL research,,, Might I ask EG, exactly how are rationality and reason themselves to be grounded within his Atheistic materialistic worldview in which the existence of free will is resolutely denied?
Sam Harris's Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It - Martin Cothran - November 9, 2012 Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state -- including their position on this issue -- is the effect of a physical, not logical cause. By their own logic, it isn't logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/sam_harriss_fre066221.html (1) rationality implies a thinker in control of thoughts. (2) under materialism a thinker is an effect caused by processes in the brain (determinism). (3) in order for materialism to ground rationality a thinker (an effect) must control processes in the brain (a cause). (1)&(2) (4) no effect can control its cause. Therefore materialism cannot ground rationality. per Box UD “One absolutely central inconsistency ruins [the popular scientific philosophy]. The whole picture professes to depend on inferences from observed facts. Unless inference is valid, the whole picture disappears… unless Reason is an absolute, all is in ruins. Yet those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based.” —C.S. Lewis, Is Theology Poetry (aka the Argument from Reason) Why Evolutionary Theory Cannot Survive Itself Nancy Pearcey - March 8, 2015 Excerpt: Applied consistently, Darwinism undercuts not only itself but also the entire scientific enterprise. Kenan Malik, a writer trained in neurobiology, writes, "If our cognitive capacities were simply evolved dispositions, there would be no way of knowing which of these capacities lead to true beliefs and which to false ones." Thus "to view humans as little more than sophisticated animals …undermines confidence in the scientific method.",,, Of course, the atheist pursuing his research has no choice but to rely on rationality, just as everyone else does. The point is that he has no philosophical basis for doing so. Only those who affirm a rational Creator have a basis for trusting human rationality. https://evolutionnews.org/2015/03/why_evolutionar/
i.e. If you believe in reason then you must believe in God.
“Atheists can give no reason why they should value reason, and Christians can show how anyone who believes in reason must also believe in God.” Cogito; Ergo Deus Est by Charles Edward White Philosophy Still Lives Because God Isn't Dead
Verse and quote:
John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” of note: ‘the Word’ in John1:1 is translated from ‘Logos’ in Greek. Logos also happens to be the root word from which we derive our modern word logic http://etymonline.com/?term=logic What is the Logos? Logos is a Greek word literally translated as “word, speech, or utterance.” However, in Greek philosophy, Logos refers to divine reason or the power that puts sense into the world making order instead of chaos.,,, In the Gospel of John, John writes “In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). John appealed to his readers by saying in essence, “You’ve been thinking, talking, and writing about the Word (divine reason) for centuries and now I will tell you who He is.” https://www.compellingtruth.org/what-is-the-Logos.html
bornagain77_{April 30, 2020
April
04
Apr
30
30
2020
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT}

One side IMAGINES, not hypothesizes. The Intelligent Design side has the tests. We can test if what we are investigating can arise via nature, operating freely. And we can test to see if what we are investigating matches what we know takes a mind/ intelligent agency to produce. ID does NOT refuse to propose the nature of the designer, the mechanism of the design. Those are SEPARATE questions and have absolutely no bearing on whether or not we can determine ID exists. We do not have to know the who and how before making that determination. Does Eddie think that if scientists genetically engineered a ribosome that would be evidence for ID? Because they have done that. And yet no one has ever seen nature doing it. The two solitudes> One has imagination based on hope. The other, ID, has the science and evidence. And only a moron would think that the design inference is the end. Yet that same moron thinks that fantasy is a starting point.ET_{April 30, 2020
April
04
Apr
30
30
2020
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT}

I see two solitudes here. One side hypothesizes different possible scenarios for the origin of life, presents it to the world for criticism and devises experiments and observation to test the viability of the hypothesis. The other side concludes that it was the result of intelligent design and refuses to propose the nature of the designer, the mechanism of the design or devise experiments to test and observe these proposed means of design. As a rational, reasoned approach, I prefer the former approach. It has the benefit of being the starting point of further investigation, not the end of it.Ed George_{April 30, 2020
April
04
Apr
30
30
2020
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT}

Darwinists feel they are right, which is a big difference from knowing something. Emotions cloud judgement and the stronger the emotion, the less logical the justification. Without God, there can be no life. You cannot get something from nothing. Without God, math could not exist, since there would be nothing to discover. Without God, there can be no laws of physics, since the must have been put in place by something. Order does not come from chaos.BobRyan_{April 30, 2020
April
04
Apr
30
30
2020
01:46 AM
1
01
46
AM
PDT}

https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/researchers-homogenous-rna-could-emerge-from-a-primordial-mess/ So it’s this again He still didn’t make the spontaneous Self generating DNA molecule Apparently this is serious headway Am I missing something here?AaronS1978_{April 30, 2020
April
04
Apr
30
30
2020
01:02 AM
1
01
02
AM
PDT}

Have Dr Denis Noble and Dr George Church looked at any serious entry to the contest yet? :)jawa_{April 29, 2020
April
04
Apr
29
29
2020
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT}

Any news on Dr Lee Cronin’s attempt to grab the coveted Evo2.0 $10M OOL prize? There yet? :)jawa_{April 29, 2020
April
04
Apr
29
29
2020
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT}

The “secret ingredient” for anyone to believe that a naturalistic origin of life is remotely feasible has always been ignorance as to what 'simple' life actually entails:
Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information - David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors - Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, page 8 "No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organism with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms' genomes programmed?" http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1742-4682-2-29.pdf First-Ever Blueprint of 'Minimal Cell' Is More Complex Than Expected - Nov. 2009 Excerpt: A network of research groups,, approached the bacterium at three different levels. One team of scientists described M. pneumoniae's transcriptome, identifying all the RNA molecules, or transcripts, produced from its DNA, under various environmental conditions. Another defined all the metabolic reactions that occurred in it, collectively known as its metabolome, under the same conditions. A third team identified every multi-protein complex the bacterium produced, thus characterising its proteome organisation. "At all three levels, we found M. pneumoniae was more complex than we expected," http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091126173027.htm To Model the Simplest Microbe in the World, You Need 128 Computers - July 2012 Excerpt: Mycoplasma genitalium has one of the smallest genomes of any free-living organism in the world, clocking in at a mere 525 genes. That's a fraction of the size of even another bacterium like E. coli, which has 4,288 genes.,,, The bioengineers, led by Stanford's Markus Covert, succeeded in modeling the bacterium, and published their work last week in the journal Cell. What's fascinating is how much horsepower they needed to partially simulate this simple organism. It took a cluster of 128 computers running for 9 to 10 hours to actually generate the data on the 25 categories of molecules that are involved in the cell's lifecycle processes.,,, ,,the depth and breadth of cellular complexity has turned out to be nearly unbelievable, and difficult to manage, even given Moore's Law. The M. genitalium model required 28 subsystems to be individually modeled and integrated, and many critics of the work have been complaining on Twitter that's only a fraction of what will eventually be required to consider the simulation realistic.,,, http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/to-model-the-simplest-microbe-in-the-world-you-need-128-computers/260198/
And also entails ignorance as to what scientists are actually up against in trying to create 'simple life'
(July 2019) "We have no idea how to put this structure (a simple cell) together.,, So, not only do we not know how to make the basic components, we do not know how to build the structure even if we were given the basic components. So the gedanken (thought) experiment is this. Even if I gave you all the components. Even if I gave you all the amino acids. All the protein structures from those amino acids that you wanted. All the lipids in the purity that you wanted. The DNA. The RNA. Even in the sequence you wanted. I've even given you the code. And all the nucleic acids. So now I say, "Can you now assemble a cell, not in a prebiotic cesspool but in your nice laboratory?". And the answer is a resounding NO! And if anybody claims otherwise they do not know this area (of research).” - James Tour: The Origin of Life Has Not Been Explained - 4:20 minute mark (The more we know, the worse the problem gets for materialists) https://youtu.be/r4sP1E1Jd_Y?t=255 Origin of Life: An Inside Story - Professor James Tour – May 1, 2016 Excerpt: “All right, now let’s assemble the Dream Team. We’ve got good professors here, so let’s assemble the Dream Team. Let’s further assume that the world’s top 100 synthetic chemists, top 100 biochemists and top 100 evolutionary biologists combined forces into a limitlessly funded Dream Team. The Dream Team has all the carbohydrates, lipids, amino acids and nucleic acids stored in freezers in their laboratories… All of them are in 100% enantiomer purity. [Let’s] even give the team all the reagents they wish, the most advanced laboratories, and the analytical facilities, and complete scientific literature, and synthetic and natural non-living coupling agents. Mobilize the Dream Team to assemble the building blocks into a living system – nothing complex, just a single cell. The members scratch their heads and walk away, frustrated… So let’s help the Dream Team out by providing the polymerized forms: polypeptides, all the enzymes they desire, the polysaccharides, DNA and RNA in any sequence they desire, cleanly assembled. The level of sophistication in even the simplest of possible living cells is so chemically complex that we are even more clueless now than with anything discussed regarding prebiotic chemistry or macroevolution. The Dream Team will not know where to start. Moving all this off Earth does not solve the problem, because our physical laws are universal. You see the problem for the chemists? Welcome to my world. This is what I’m confronted with, every day.“ James Tour – leading Chemist https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/origin-of-life-professor-james-tour-points-the-way-forward-for-intelligent-design/
Shoot, a single functional protein is far beyond the reach of any naturalistic explanation, much less 'simple life':
Origin: Probability of a Single Protein Forming by Chance https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1_KEVaCyaA Mathematical Basis for Probability Calculations Used in (the film) Origin Excerpt: Putting the probabilities together means adding the exponents. The probability of getting a properly folded chain of one-handed amino acids, joined by peptide bonds, is one chance in 10^74+45+45, or one in 10^164 (Meyer, p. 212). This means that, on average, you would need to construct 10^164 chains of amino acids 150 units long to expect to find one that is useful. http://www.originthefilm.com/mathematics.php Minimal Complexity Relegates Life Origin Models To Fanciful Speculation - Nov. 2009 Excerpt: Based on the structural requirements of enzyme activity Axe emphatically argued against a global-ascent model of the function landscape in which incremental improvements of an arbitrary starting sequence "lead to a globally optimal final sequence with reasonably high probability". For a protein made from scratch in a prebiotic soup, the odds of finding such globally optimal solutions are infinitesimally small- somewhere between 1 in 10exp140 and 1 in 10exp164 for a 150 amino acid long sequence if we factor in the probabilities of forming peptide bonds and of incorporating only left handed amino acids. - per arn The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds - Douglas Axe - 2010 Excerpt Pg. 11: "Based on analysis of the genomes of 447 bacterial species, the projected number of different domain structures per species averages 991. Comparing this to the number of pathways by which metabolic processes are carried out, which is around 263 for E. coli, provides a rough figure of three or four new domain folds being needed, on average, for every new metabolic pathway. In order to accomplish this successfully, an evolutionary search would need to be capable of locating sequences that amount to anything from one in 10^159 to one in 10^308 possibilities, something the neo-Darwinian model falls short of by a very wide margin." https://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.1
Verse:
John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.
bornagain77_{April 29, 2020
April
04
Apr
29
29
2020
06:26 PM
6
06
26
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply