Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Why OOL won’t flatline

In response to this blog, I answer that it is true that all attempts at inventing life randomly have come up short, as have all attempts at creating life lawfully. The paradox is that neither chance nor order can explain what we observe. Yet this does not mean that OOL research is “flatlined”, for we are learning a great deal, even as we discover what doesn’t work–as Edison famously said.
Darwin undoubtedly believed in the fecundity of primordial ooze, yet 150 years of study have shown both the complexity and fragility of that polysaccharide glycopeptide. The biologist Jacques Monod may claim that his OOL research has led him to the Abyss of meaninglessness where a faith in Man’s existence was his only support, but today the Abyss is ever deeper and the supports are ever more divine.
It will be OOL research, I feel, that breaks down the barrier between Intelligent Design and Darwinism. For it is only at OOL that the Darwinist acknowledges the unscaleable odds and his incapacity to conquer them. And it is also only at OOL that the ID acknowledges his own inability to fathom the intelligence that brought this divine design into progressive existence. As I said, the two sides will meet when they both acknowledge their profound infirmity of thought and theology.
And that is why OOL research will never be flatlined.
The only thing that comes to mind, Alan, is the thread where rape was discussed. I gave examples of countries where rape is part of the norm. Barb
@ Barb I am recovering from a severe attack of man-flu so could be hallucinating but are there some outstanding comments I need to respond to from you? Alan Fox
BTW I wholeheartedly agree that OOL is a fascinating mystery! Alan Fox
I'm puzzled, Dr. Sheldon. There is no scientific explanation for the origin of life on Earth. We know it happened but we don(t know how, thought there is no shortage of theories. Darwinian evolution can only kick in when there is a ^population of self-sustaining self-replicators for it to design, not before. What has this got to do with Darwinism? (Whatever that might be) Alan Fox
The comments seem to suggest that the Darwinist's faith is misplaced, or perhaps verging on fideism. I think the same could be said about some aspects of ID. Once both sides use the same criteria, or at least, recognize the same pitfalls, then there is a real opportunity for dialogue here. In one sense, Bayesian hypothesis testing tries to take into account the "commitment" of the tester to his "priors". As we unpack those priors, we will find that often we ID people have made the same sort of errors that the Darwinists have--for example, in thinking that something is a foundational principle that must be accepted at all cost, when in fact, it is derivative, and derived improperly. That's what makes OOL so interesting to me. Robert Sheldon
For it is only at OOL that the Darwinist acknowledges the unscaleable odds and his incapacity to conquer them.
I think you underestimate the brobdingnagian faith Darwinists have in chance. As long as there is the bare possibility that life began by chance, Darwinists will postulate however many unseen universes-from-nothing it takes to deliver that needle from the haystack. William J Murray
Darwinists can argue that "just because we haven't found it, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist!" all they want; it's just an argument from ignorance. Stating that one will only look for a natural mechanism for OOL is simply materialistic philosophy masquerading as empirical science. The Mystery of Life's Origin from 1984 is well worth seeking out; it's a terrific book, but very technical. Barb
Wow. Interesting. The Darwinists will never stop arguing that the fact that a natural mechanism for OOL has not yet been discovered does not mean that it does not exist. The IDers need to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that a natural (i.e., non-intelligent) mechanism for the creation of life is impossible. Mapou

Leave a Reply