What aspect of life on the Earth requires supernatural powers?

_{December 1, 2008

Intelligent Design}

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

Some people who support ID doggedly hold that life on the planet earth requires a supernatural agency to make it happen. Others who don’t support ID also doggedly hold that ID requires a supernatural agency.

I’ve asked, many times, what is it about the construction of organic life on this planet that requires supernatural intelligence to make it happen? What laws of physics or chemistry must be violated to produce any aspect of any living organism thus far examined?

I admit that the origination and diversification of organic life on the earth seems best explained by participation at some point or points by an intelligent agency but I don’t see where a supernatural intelligent agency able to bend or break the laws of physics and chemistry is required.

I concede that the creation of the entire universe out of nothing seems to require an agency with capabilities that go beyond the laws of physics and chemistry as we understand them today but my question isn’t about the creation of a whole universe. My question is just about the creation of organic life on this planet.

Comments

IDSkeptic, If you should still be lurking. ID does not require a supernatural designer for life on Earth. ETs could have done it. Now, who would have made the ETs, is not addressed by ID seeking to describe life on Earth. Obviously, somewhere along the line the matter of an infinite loop would have to be resolved, but how is that different from methodological naturalism?tribune7_{December 9, 2008
December
12
Dec
9
09
2008
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT}

IDSkeptic Move along to another thread please. You're not contributing in a constructive manner to this one.DaveScot_{December 9, 2008
December
12
Dec
9
09
2008
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT}

But Doesn't Intelligent Design Refer to Something Supernatural?:
From an ID perspective, the natural-vs.-supernatural distinction is irrelevant. The real contrast is not between natural laws and miracles, but between undirected natural causes and intelligent ones. Mathematician and philosopher of science William Dembski puts it this way: "Whether an intelligent cause is located within or outside nature (i.e., is respectively natural or supernatural) is a separate question from whether an intelligent cause has operated." Human actions are a case in point: "Just as humans do not perform miracles every time they act as intelligent agents, so there is no reason to assume that for a designer to act as an intelligent agent requires a violation of natural laws." On the other hand, even if an object were miraculously created, it could still be studied. Take the flagellum, for example. No matter what its origins, a flagellum is a flagellum. We can take it apart, we can examine its components, we can modify it, we can figure out how it works. And we can do that whether it evolved over eons or popped into existence two seconds ago. In the world of human technology, this is called reverse engineering. But the same process is also used in biology. "That’s basically what everybody at the bench is doing," said Scott Minnich, a microbiologist at the University of Idaho. "We don’t have the blueprints in the true sense. We have the DNA code for a lot of organisms, but in terms of the assembly of these molecular machines, it’s a matter of breaking them apart and trying to put them back together to figure out how they function." This is also the kind of work that will be done with the human genome. Speaking to the New York Times in late June, when the human genome breakthrough was announced, Harold Varmus, former director of the National Institutes of Health commented, "The important thing is having pieces of DNA in your hand, and being able to figure out how they work by modifying and mutating them. That's where the game is now." Fittingly, the metaphor he used to describe this process was examining a clock: "You can take the clock apart, lay the pieces out in front of you, and then try to understand what makes it tick by putting it back together again."
Joseph_{December 9, 2008
December
12
Dec
9
09
2008
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT}

The designer must be supernatural because ID says it is.
That is odd because ID doesn't say anything about the designer.Joseph_{December 8, 2008
December
12
Dec
8
08
2008
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT}

I know what was written. ID does not require a supernatural entity for the OoL. If it is outside of nature then we can't say now can we? No we cannot. And that is because what is outside of nature is not amendable to study. So the best we can do is say it is outside of nature and leave it at that. And your claim of super is meaningless. MY point that is in any "infinite regress" game, your position regresses back to the SAME point.
non-natural = supernautral
It could, but it does NOT have to. You know that Venn diagram and all. Tu quoque A makes criticism P. A is also guilty of P. Therefore, P is dismissed. I am not dismissing anything. I am just saying there is equality. Please read what was written.Joseph_{December 8, 2008
December
12
Dec
8
08
2008
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT}

Please read what was written. Joe - "And even YOUR position also requires something beyond nature." that's Tu Quoque Joe, and fallacious within the context of Why ID requires a supernatural entity for OOL. Work on that Venn Diagram, it will help.IDskeptic_{December 8, 2008
December
12
Dec
8
08
2008
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT}

1. IDskeptic makes claim X about ID 2. Joseph points out that claim X, is not only false, it also pertains to IDskeptic's position Nope, no 'tu quoque’ involvedJoseph_{December 8, 2008
December
12
Dec
8
08
2008
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT}

Joe, you are playing games with synonyms: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/non%20natural “ nonnatural adjective existing outside of or not in accordance with nature; "find transcendental motives for sublunary action"-Aldous Huxley “ non-natural = supernautral Tell you what, help me out. Draw a Venn diagram of natural and non natural for me. Then we can discuss. As for “wah wah wah” tu quoque, I don’t care – and the posts isn’t “Does naturalism require a supernatural genesis?” I’m just addressing the post above, using ID theory. The designer must be supernatural because ID says it is. I’m not necessarily agreeing with it, just staying on topic.IDskeptic_{December 8, 2008
December
12
Dec
8
08
2008
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT}

Oops- I forgot non-natural: • adjective not produced by or involving natural processes. IOW you still lack reading comprehension skills and you still do not apply your skepticism evenly.Joseph_{December 8, 2008
December
12
Dec
8
08
2008
04:00 AM
4
04
00
AM
PDT}

IDskeptic, All your definition says is that the supernatural is beyond nature. Well duh. Not everything beyond nature has to be supernatural. Things that are unnatural fit the bill. Things that are other dimensional also fit the bill. And even YOUR position also requires something beyond nature. You cannot get around that simple fact. Ya see IDskeptic YOUR position still regresses to the SAME point.
I think perhaps you might want to (re)read some of Dr^2 Dembski’s work on the UPB.
Why? Did I say something that contradicts it? If you think so please present it.Joseph_{December 8, 2008
December
12
Dec
8
08
2008
03:57 AM
3
03
57
AM
PDT}

Hi Joe. I think perhaps you might want to (re)read some of Dr^2 Dembski’s work on the UPB. He postulates “10^80, the number of elementary particles in the observable universe. 10^45, the maximum rate per second at which transitions in physical states can occur (i.e., the inverse of the Planck time). 10^25, a billion times longer than the typical estimated age of the universe in seconds. “ We get 10^150 from all of this. If the odds of something happening are 10^150, it can’t happen – and this is key – not only on earth but anywhere in the natural universe at this point in time. With regards to “Supernatural”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural “The term supernatural or supranatural (Latin: super, supra "above" + natura "nature") pertains to entities, events or powers regarded as beyond nature, in that they lack a clear scientific explanation” You’re welcome to have your own personal definition, but what is postulated clearly fits *this*, widely accepted definition.IDskeptic_{December 7, 2008
December
12
Dec
7
07
2008
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT}

Hi Joseph. You seem to be confused. First you say ID doesn’t require supernatural agency (it does because ID postulates not enough probabilistic resources from natural agency causing OOL)
That is nature, operating freely
then in the very next sentence you talk about naturalism needing a supernatural expliantion.
The "confusion" is all yours. I said something beyond nature. And I am not sure that everything beyond nature needs to be supernatural. My point is if you want to regress ID you have to apply the SAME standard to your position as well as all/ any other alternatives. So the bottom-line is you lack reading comprehension skills and fail to apply your "skepticism" evenly. Not to worry Mike Shermer has the same mental issues.Joseph_{December 6, 2008
December
12
Dec
6
06
2008
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT}

Hi Joseph. You seem to be confused. First you say ID doesn't require supernatural agency (it does because ID postulates not enough probabilistic resources from natural agency causing OOL), then in the very next sentence you talk about naturalism needing a supernatural expliantion. 1) I'm not sure it does 2) This is 'tu quoque', which is fallacious 3) It seems a tacit admission that ID required supernatural design. Thanks!IDskeptic_{December 6, 2008
December
12
Dec
6
06
2008
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT}

David Chalmers posts on consciousness and ID, Michael Egnor responds. http://fragments.consc.net/djc/2008/10/the-problem-of-consciousness-meets-intelligent-design.html http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/12/consciousness_and_intelligent.htmltragicmishap_{December 6, 2008
December
12
Dec
6
06
2008
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT}

What aspect of life on Earth requires supernatural powers? The late Leslie E. Orgel was not optimistic about natural formation of necessary prebiotic processes to enable the natural formation of life on earth for some time. Orgel and Crick coauthored a book that proposed that life did not originate from natural processes on earth, but from "extra-mundane" sources, without specifying their particular identity. Speculation of course, but according to Orgel, not al little of proposed prebiotic processes is "...dependent on 'if pigs could fly' hypothetical chemistry..." The Implausibility of Metabolic Cycles on the Prebiotic Earth Leslie E. Orgel Citation:Orgel LE (2008) The Implausibility of Metabolic Cycles on the Prebiotic Earth. PLoS Biol 6(1): e18 Published: January 22, 2008 ====== Conclusions The demonstration of the existence of a complex, nonenzymatic metabolic cycle, such as the reverse citric acid, would be a major step in research on the origin of life, while demonstration of an evolving family of such cycles would transform the subject. In view of the importance of the topic, it is essential to subject metabolist proposals to the same kind of detailed examination and criticism that has rightly been applied to genetic theories [29-30]. In the case of these latter theories, an appraisal of their plausibility can be based on a substantial body of experimental work. In the case of the former, because little experimental work has been attempted, appraisal must be based on chemical plausibility. Almost all proposals of hypothetical metabolic cycles have recognized that each of the steps involved must occur rapidly enough for the cycle to be useful in the time available for its operation. It is always assumed that this condition is met, but in no case have persuasive supporting arguments been presented. Why should one believe that an ensemble of minerals that are capable of catalyzing each of the many steps of the reverse citric acid cycle was present anywhere on the primitive Earth [8], or that the cycle mysteriously organized itself topographically on a metal sulfide surface [6]? The lack of a supporting background in chemistry is even more evident in proposals that metabolic cycles can evolve to “life-like” complexity. The most serious challenge to proponents of metabolic cycle theories—the problems presented by the lack of specificity of most nonenzymatic catalysts—has, in general, not been appreciated. If it has, it has been ignored. Theories of the origin of life based on metabolic cycles cannot be justified by the inadequacy of competing theories: they must stand on their own. The situation with respect to chemical cycles unrelated to those involved in contemporary metabolism is different. At least one well-established autocatalytic cycle, the core of the formose reaction, is understood reasonably well [1,18] and, as discussed previously, there is experimental support for the existence of one or two other simple cycles [2,3]. This suggests that there may be more cycles to be discovered, and they could be relevant to the origin of life. The recognition of sequences of plausible reactions that could close a cycle is an essential first step toward the discovery of new cycles, but experimental proof that such cycles are stable against the challenge of side reactions is even more important. Proposals involving complex metabolisms that are stable even in the absence of informational polymers usually are linked to the context of hydrothermal synthesis in the deep sea vents or some equivalent environment. Such linkage, however, need not be an essential feature of these theories [31]. A metabolist theory based on the self-organization of the Calvin cycle, for example, would be a logical possibility, although not necessarily an attractive one. Conversely, a theory in which metal sulfide–catalyzed reactions provided some or all of the organic molecules needed for the formation of a primitive genetic system would have many attractive features. A number of prebiotic syntheses catalyzed by transition metal sulfides under hydrothermal conditions have already been reported [16,17], and this is now an active area of research. It is important to realize that recognition of the possible importance of prebiotic syntheses that could occur hydrothermally does not necessitate a belief in their ability to self-organize. The prebiotic syntheses that have been investigated experimentally almost always lead to the formation of complex mixtures. Proposed polymer replication schemes are unlikely to succeed except with reasonably pure input monomers. No solution of the origin-of-life problem will be possible until the gap between the two kinds of chemistry is closed. Simplification of product mixtures through the self-organization of organic reaction sequences, whether cyclic or not, would help enormously, as would the discovery of very simple replicating polymers. However, solutions offered by supporters of geneticist or metabolist scenarios that are dependent on “if pigs could fly” hypothetical chemistry are unlikely to help.benkeshet_{December 6, 2008
December
12
Dec
6
06
2008
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT}

Probably what we need is to divide "supernatural" into two categories. The first would be spiritual, incorporating God, Satan, angels, demons, heaven, hell, etc. For the second there have been two suggestions: Artificial and Elemental. Regardless of what you call it, I think this second category is really what this post and thread is all about. Is there an artificial/elemental mind? If so, could it be responsible for organic life? Next, was it responsible for organic life? If the first question is answered affirmative, the second question certainly would be from what we know right now. The third question is not really in the realm of science, as that seminal event cannot be reproduced in the lab, so scientifically speaking it would be merely conjecture. Our real question is therefore does the immaterial but non-spiritual mind exist? This question is interesting to me and I'd like to see more thoughts on it. As I said before, Dembski has argued that information is non-material, but is obviously non-spiritual as well. Is the existence of information in the artificial/elemental realm enough basis to assume that mind is possible in that realm as well? Is it possible that mind came from non-mind? What is it about the mind that could make it both non-spiritual and non-material? Question for Rude and angryoldfatman: It seems to me that the Bible is basically agreeing with Plato about the tripartite nature of man. For instance, Matt. 22:37 where Jesus says the greatest commandment is to love God with "all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." Plato's divisions of man fit neatly into the biblical divisions. Plato's Desire is Jesus' Heart, Spirit corresponds to Soul and Reason to Mind. Am I wrong?tragicmishap_{December 6, 2008
December
12
Dec
6
06
2008
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT}

IDskeptic, Your post in comment 46 does NOT do what you said. IOW it does not demonstrate that the designer must be supernatural. Also, if you want to get technical, even the anti-ID position requires something beyond nature because natural processes cannot account for the origin of nature because natural processes only exist in nature. IOW people in glass houses should not be throwing stones.Joseph_{December 6, 2008
December
12
Dec
6
06
2008
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT}

Robos, Please see my post [46] as to why ID postulates the designer must be supernatural.IDskeptic_{December 5, 2008
December
12
Dec
5
05
2008
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT}

I believe DaveScot is right in what his question alludes to. I believe one can create a human using dirt from the earth. Literally dirt. When God created Adam it wasn't a magic trick, he said how he did it. As far as the universe.. well that's for this dimension. If we can figure out a way to step outside of this dimension and create something in another dimension then we can start to understand how the universe was designed.robos_{December 5, 2008
December
12
Dec
5
05
2008
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT}

G Puccio, Grazie! I should have said, “We already have massive evidence that living things effect causes in a way that there is no evidence whatsoever that chance and necessity or any kind of mechanism can.” In other words, there is no evidence for Darwinism, and nobody has the foggiest idea of how this circuit, that relay, this pulley, and that set of gears can produce a conscious, freewilled, design producing mechanism.Rude_{December 3, 2008
December
12
Dec
3
03
2008
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT}

Rude: "Besides, I’m uncomfortable with the natural-supernatural distinction—maybe in theology that’s necessary—but when we’re dealing with the mind we’re dealing with something in nature that’s real. Therefore I prefer invoking an elemental component, a primitive, which is really no different than invoking the Higgs boson in particle physics. We already have massive evidence that living things effect causes in a way that there is no evidence whatsoever that chance and necessity can." You succeeded in concentrating in a single elegant paragraph many of my favorite points. Thank you.gpuccio_{December 3, 2008
December
12
Dec
3
03
2008
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT}

Rib Czynski: OK, you’re comfortable with compatibilism and I’m not compatible with it. Can that issue ever be solved?
2. Why suggest an immaterial soul/mind/spirit/whatever solely to explain consciousness when a more parsimonious tentative explanation is that consciousness is physically based in a way we do not yet understand?
Why? I’ll admit my prejudice: I hate nihilism. But I’ll boast too: I really do want the truth—not just self deceiving feel goodism. More to the point—your “more parsimonious tentative explanation” isn’t really an explanation at all—so why call it that? It’s a vague suspicion, maybe the ardent hope of a materialist. Whatever it doesn’t even come close to an explanation.
3. Even if you tentatively adopt a form of dualism in order to explain consciousness, you’re still faced with the evidence of causal closure in the physical world. That leaves the soul/mind/spirit/whatever causally impotent, which contradicts the typical view of the s/m/s/w.
If I must accept either the causal closure thesis or the reality of the mind, give me the latter. Besides, I’m uncomfortable with the natural-supernatural distinction—maybe in theology that’s necessary—but when we’re dealing with the mind we’re dealing with something in nature that’s real. Therefore I prefer invoking an elemental component, a primitive, which is really no different than invoking the Higgs boson in particle physics. We already have massive evidence that living things effect causes in a way that there is no evidence whatsoever that chance and necessity can.Rude_{December 3, 2008
December
12
Dec
3
03
2008
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT}

Rude writes:
So have at it: explain consciousness and freewill! And then poohpooh its elementarity.
I'm a compatibilist, so I don't see any problem reconciling free will with a physically-based mind, even if it is deterministic. A few comments/questions on consciousness: 1. Explaining consciousness is a problem for both materialists and dualists. 2. Why suggest an immaterial soul/mind/spirit/whatever solely to explain consciousness when a more parsimonious tentative explanation is that consciousness is physically based in a way we do not yet understand? 3. Even if you tentatively adopt a form of dualism in order to explain consciousness, you're still faced with the evidence of causal closure in the physical world. That leaves the soul/mind/spirit/whatever causally impotent, which contradicts the typical view of the s/m/s/w.ribczynski_{December 3, 2008
December
12
Dec
3
03
2008
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT}

#69, you seem to be arguing with someone in your head and not in this thread. I've never claimed the soul is immortal. That's a Platonic idea, not a Biblical one. Your position is becoming murkier with every comment you make. Let me help you by recalling your original claim that I questioned (my emphasis):
God is the ultimate engineer and has crafted a biological machine that can contain intelligence, character, and will (which is really just a result of intelligence) in a 3 lb. “computer.” The “mind” and the “soul” are unnecessary and certainly cannot be supported from neither science nor the Bible [...]
First off, you equate the mind and the soul. Fair enough. Then you imply exactly what materialists tell us, that the mind/soul is merely an emergent property of accumulated brain cells and states. According this rationale, when the brain dies, the mind/soul dies. And since the brain is body organ, when the body dies, the brain dies. So when the body dies, the mind/soul dies. A=B, B=C, A=C. Logic. I demonstrated that the Bible disagrees with your claim. Matthew 10:28 plainly separates the idea of the body (of which the brain is a part) from the soul/mind, saying that the body can be destroyed but the soul left intact. So your original claim is wrong.
Here’s some handy information for you to peruse.
Thanks for the link, even though you didn't point me to the specific subject we're discussing. I skimmed it and agree with what little of it I had time to read. Here's one for you, this time specifically (and comprehensively) addressing the subject matter at hand.
However, as you point to Sheldrake, I’ll point to Uri Geller’s early works where he claimed to have psychic powers. Apparently he has recently retracted that claim.
Hey that's great. Uri Geller and Rupert Sheldrake have as much in common as James Randi and Richard Dawkins - in both cases, one is a drop-out stage magician and the other is a biologist. The last time I checked, Geller wasn't asking anyone else to replicate his work, nor was he daring to detail the methodology used in his experiments. While Sheldrake may have an incorrect hypothesis about the mechanics that produce the results he observes, that does not invalidate his work. Only more work can do that, not some dishonest comparisons to a con artist.angryoldfatman_{December 3, 2008
December
12
Dec
3
03
2008
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

wonderer asked:
If humanity someday assembles life from scratch, would that be proof of materialism or intelligent design?
It would be a great start to see what is required. IOW we would see how much agency involvement was required and how much was plain ole endo and exothermic reactions. Then the goal may be to keep slicing off the steps requiring agency involvement by figuring out how those reactions can acount for them also. And if it ever gets to a point in which endo and exothermic reactions can take over from just after the start- the start being just putting the raw chemicals in a mixture- then that would be a blow to ID (that is depending on how rigged that start was). One problem I see with the anti-ID origin of life is the need for oxygen. It is one of the four required elements- along with carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen. However the Earth's primitive atmosphere, it is said, has to be reducing- without free oxygen- because oxygen would mess up the OoL (oxidation issues).Joseph_{December 3, 2008
December
12
Dec
3
03
2008
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT}

1- If one wants to then one can also say that natural processes cannot be responsible for the origin of nature because natural processes only exist IN nature. Therefore even the anti-ID position requires something beyond nature, ie the super or un-natural. Also the only explanation the anti-ID postion has for the laws that goivern nature is "They just are( the way they arte)" S Hawking in "A Briefer History of Time" 2- We don't have to know who/ what designed the designers of Stonhenge (for example) to a) determine it was designed and b) investigate it in that light. 3- The word would be ARTIFICIAL (or some variation thereof), not "un-natural" or "supernatural" pertaining to ID. 4- The DESIGN exists in the physical world and as such is open to investigation. 5- Experience tells us that it matters to any investigation whether or not that which is being investigated arose via agency involvement (artifact) or nature, operating freely.Joseph_{December 3, 2008
December
12
Dec
3
03
2008
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT}

Rib Czynski: “Why invoke the supernatural as a default position?” You really wanna know why? Well, whether we call it “the supernatural” or, as one suggested, “elementarity”, it’s what we do when there is no other explanation. Physicists don’t just issue a promisory note that chance and necessity will someday explain the electron. No, they invoke it as elemental. And so it is with the soul. Until the chance worshippers (as they’re identified by one eminent individual) come up with a mechanistic theory that explains it, it’s elemental. So have at it: explain consciousness and freewill! And then poohpooh its elementarity.Rude_{December 3, 2008
December
12
Dec
3
03
2008
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT}

George Tasker wrote:
Until then I’ll take it that the supernatural comes into play where the spark of life is necessary to get the machinery of life going.
George, Why invoke the supernatural as a default position? That seems pretty unparsimonious, like my proposal of a liver spirit.ribczynski_{December 3, 2008
December
12
Dec
3
03
2008
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT}

In the end, if ID holds that undirected natural causes alone are not sufficient to have generated life, it would seem to follow that a non-natural, or extra-natural cause or component is required. Anybody know a good synonym for “non-natural,” “exceeding the natural” or perhaps “greater than merely natural”?SteveB_{December 3, 2008
December
12
Dec
3
03
2008
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT}

I think, too, something needs to be said for the word 'supernatural.' I've never been fond of it; it's a vague, imprecise term that I've discovered can be used in nefariously in an argument. I view personal agency (intelligence acting upon the world) as 'supernatural' insofar as the term signifies non-deterministic regularities in line with what we in the ID community call 'specifications.' Of course, dig deep enough and you're bound to hit something 'supernatural.' Physical science is just the surface.crandaddy_{December 2, 2008
December
12
Dec
2
02
2008
11:15 PM
11
11
15
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply