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

Barry, I think we are talking past each other. You said, "What I want to know is what aspect of organic life that we know about requires a god-like entity to pull it off." I think my posts speak specifically to that request as do the posts on intelligence. It has been cogently argued that brain chemistry, to some extent, is controlled by something super natural. I think the "god-like" requirement is something that was imposed on the discussion by you.chapman55k_{December 1, 2008
December
12
Dec
1
01
2008
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

tragicmishap: "Barry, we are saying that intelligence itself may be a supernatural intervention. I don’t think that’s missing the point." How is the operation of human intelligence so as to manipulate the environment a supernatural intervention? Go back to my homebuilder example. Is building a house a supernatural act? If not, how is it different, in principle, form assembling all the components of a living organism in a lab once the technology is mature enough to allow that?Barry Arrington_{December 1, 2008
December
12
Dec
1
01
2008
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT}

darkell :"The main problem is this: if we were designed who designed our designer? And their designer, and theirs?" Is anyone willing to take this old, beat up, useless nonsense argument to task? For the nth time, yet again, ad infinitum, ad nauseum? To help this poor soul understand the futility of such? ;-) (hint: A non sequitur lurks in the reasoning of both Mill and Dawkins. If one can explain Y in terms of X, even though X has no explanation, it hardly follows that we have not explained Y.) Ok, go here Dark and PLEASE read till you understand http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1147Borne_{December 1, 2008
December
12
Dec
1
01
2008
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT}

Barry, we are saying that intelligence itself may be a supernatural intervention. I don't think that's missing the point. Dave, these are the questions you asked in your post: "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?" The answer, from many ID proponents that I've read, is "none". Many of us believe that a supernatural intelligence was involved, but from a strictly ID standpoint we always stress that supernatural intelligence is not necessary as far as we can see right now.tragicmishap_{December 1, 2008
December
12
Dec
1
01
2008
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT}

tragicmishap Every ID proponent who is convinced that God, given they believe God is supernatural, designed life on earth is a reference. What I want to know is what aspect of organic life that we know about requires a god-like entity to pull it off. Darkell Given that you skipped right past my question about the designer of life on earth without answering it I'll take that as a tacit admission that organic life on this planet doesn't appear to require a supernatural agency. In other words, a material agency operating within the known laws of nature could have done it and you admit that. If you want to play the infinite regression game of who designed the material designer then I get to play the infinite regression game of where the material in the material designer came from. Sooner or later we both hit a point where there's a logical requirement for a first cause which neither of us can answer. I explicitely conceded that the creation of the whole material universe seems to require a supernatural agency but that's true regardless of whether life on earth is the result of design or accident. In any event, in the case of life on earth, we actually have physical objects (living things on this planet) we can examine in detail through methological naturalism (the scientific method) and by that means establish minimal characteristics of the designer of it. We have no physical evidence to examine, at least not yet, to assign characteristics of designers further upstream nor can we even say whether there are any designers at all further upstream as it may be true that the designer of life on earth is the designer of all of nature.DaveScot_{December 1, 2008
December
12
Dec
1
01
2008
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

Another thing that matter & energy alone cannot account for is information itself. Where did it come from? And another thing is logical absolutes. How do we account for their existence without an absolute mind? Logic is not a function of matter & energy but of the conceptual and cannot exist without mind. Rocks, for example, are not "logical", they don't conceptualize using the absolute principles of logic. Reason requires logic, therefore mind. Atheism cannot account for logical absolutes. Only the postulation of a super mind can. Therefore there has (or had) to be an absolute mind not dependent on matter & energy.Borne_{December 1, 2008
December
12
Dec
1
01
2008
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

chapman55k and tragicmishap, you are missing the point. The issue is not whether the mind is natural or supernatural or whether there is free will or not. The issue is much much more simple and involves human manipulation of the environment through technology. Consider a house builder. He manipulates the environment by obtaining the materials to build the house, consulting the drawings and then building the structure. No one suggests that building a house is a supernatural act. The point of Dave’s post is that the creation of life by an intelligent agent (including humans when our technology matures sufficiently) is not, in principle, different from the creation of the house by the builder. Neither requires supernatural intervention.Barry Arrington_{December 1, 2008
December
12
Dec
1
01
2008
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

That is a great point chapman. The mind, and possibly certain forms of intelligence itself, could very well be supernatural without being omnipotent and omniscient as the Christian God. In fact, a true materialist's logic forces him to reject that intelligence and even emotion actually exists, because intelligence by it's very nature must entail free will and therefore be supernatural in some sense. They are just specific brain states with purely naturalistic, mechanistic causes. http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/about_intelligence/ There are a lot of materialist philosophers who make this point, but I don't have any references on hand.tragicmishap_{December 1, 2008
December
12
Dec
1
01
2008
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT}

Hello Barry - "Is your mind able to violate the laws of physics or chemistry? That is Dave’s question." How and whether brain chemistry is controlled by the mind is the question that must be answered. If, in fact, we have free will, then I believe the mind qualifies. Egnor and O'Leary talk about this regularly.chapman55k_{December 1, 2008
December
12
Dec
1
01
2008
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT}

I actually haven't seen ID people say what you are saying they say, Dave. Could you please give references?tragicmishap_{December 1, 2008
December
12
Dec
1
01
2008
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

Darkell you missed the question. Stay on task.. DNA as specified information requires either incredible amounts of luck to just come together or it required someone to order the molecules in an informed way. The limitation of probablistic resources would lead one to the design hypothesis as being a better inference. I have always thought that the need for a very old planet was one that was driven by this probablistic resource problem. I forsee the 4.3 billion number being pushed back again because of this need.the wonderer_{December 1, 2008
December
12
Dec
1
01
2008
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT}

You all may want to take a look at this. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-turtle-27-nov27,0,3766573.story "The Missing Link"??PannenbergOmega_{December 1, 2008
December
12
Dec
1
01
2008
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT}

The main problem is this: if we were designed who designed our designer? And their designer, and theirs? Did, at some point, the ultimate designer evolve?darkell_{December 1, 2008
December
12
Dec
1
01
2008
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT}

chapman55k: Is your mind able to violate the laws of physics or chemistry? That is Dave's question. There is nothing, in principle, that prevents humans from creating a life form. Our technology is not there yet, but can there be any doubt that it is a matter of technology, not physical law? There is no physical law that prevents humans from manipulating their environment in what would be considered a completely nature way (i.e., no miracles) to create a life form. I take it that is Dave's point.Barry Arrington_{December 1, 2008
December
12
Dec
1
01
2008
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT}

The mind.chapman55k_{December 1, 2008
December
12
Dec
1
01
2008
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply