Intelligent Design Origin Of Life Panpsychism

Why the origin of life is not reducible to physics

Spread the love

Just look what the hopeful researchers have to say in order to claim that. They are not able to get away from the need for design:

Yesterday, we critiqued a proposal by Eugene V. Koonin and three colleagues who presented an expanded theory of evolution as “multilevel learning.” (See, “Evolution Is Not Like Physics.”) The proposal commits the fallacy of equating the properties of biological “laws of evolution” with those of physics, and borders on vitalism, which undermines their goal of naturalizing evolution. The proposal was published in two papers in PNAS last month. This time, we look at the second paper that takes their proposal to the special case of the origin of life. Their attempt to incorporate thermodynamics into a highly negentropic process is sure to provoke interest…

Perceptive readers will want to know how they deal with several well-known issues: (1) probability, (2) entropy increase, and (3) harmful byproducts. The authors have already presented their view of the universe as a “neural network” in which natural selection operates at multiple levels, not just in biology. The only neural networks that any human has observed coming into existence were designed by a mind. How, then, can physical nature learn things?

Evolution News, “Origin of Life Is Not Reducible to Physics” at Evolution News and Science Today (February 24, 2022)

The paper, by Vanchurin, Wolf, Koonin, and Katsnelson, is open access.

The vitalistic tendencies in this proposal become evident where they claim that nonliving entities are able to predict, train, and compete. They are further evident when the environment can select them according to specific criteria. How do Koonin and his colleagues know this happens? Just look around: there are atoms, stars, and brains that survived the competition by natural selection. Their existence confirms the theory. This is like the anthropic principle supporter who says, “If the universe weren’t this way, we wouldn’t be here to talk about it.”

Evolution News, “Origin of Life Is Not Reducible to Physics” at Evolution News and Science Today (February 24, 2022)

“[N]onliving entities are able to predict, train, and compete”? Well, this is — of course — a form of panpsychism, which would be fine if they would just admit it. Then we could have a reasonable discussion.

Naturalism, as such, appears to be dead, killed by its own inability to cope with the need for intelligence, however derived, in the creation of life and the universe.

2 Replies to “Why the origin of life is not reducible to physics

  1. 1
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Koonin and colleagues:

    Nevertheless, the origin of life appears to be an expected outcome of learning subject to the relevant constraints, such as the presence of the required chemicals in sufficient concentrations.

    Saying it is an expected outcome is fraudulent.

    Such constraints would make life a rare phenomenon but likely far from unique on the scale of the universe.

    It was rare the first time but now that we know the constraints, it should be easy to duplicate in the lab.

    The universe is sometimes claimed to be fine-tuned for the existence of life.

    Really? Who makes that claim? 🙂

    What we posit here is that the universe is self-tuned for life emergence.

    You’re saying that the universe tested certain results and then sorted out the successes from failures, returning to the experiment with new variables to test – and executed a learning process that optimized results over time. The goal was to “self-tune” in order for life to emerge — all without purpose or intention.


    Koonin’s colleagues never get around to solving the extreme improbabilities for getting the simplest building blocks of life by chance. They never discuss harmful cross-reactions, which are certain to occur due to known chemical laws. And they wave the entropy problem away by inserting magic variables that they define as systems that “adjust their values to minimize entropy.” These systems also magically possess memories! How do they know that? Well, neural networks have them, and life has them. Genes must have evolved to be the carriers of long-term memory. After all, we’re here, aren’t we?

    Right – they’re claiming that the extreme improbabilities are overcome by statistical fine-tuning which gets rid of entropy and retains the successful chemical outcomes – just like natural selection. All through a mindless process. They can’t even do a computer simulation of that since all learning processes require intelligent design.

  2. 2
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    It’s impressive how much mind contortion do scientists to squeeze a watermelon under the door :

Leave a Reply