Moshe Averick in USA Today on the confusion around origin of life

_{Denyse O'Leary

July 10, 2017

Origin Of Life}

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

Image result Rabbi Moshe Maverick, author of Nonsense of a High Order, at USA Today:

Why are researchers having such difficulties discovering a naturalistic origin of life? “Certainly,” says Koonin, “this is not due to a lack of experimental and theoretical effort, but to the extraordinary intrinsic difficulty and complexity of the problem. A succession of exceedingly unlikely steps is essential for the origin of life…. These make the final outcome seem almost like a miracle.”

In other words, discovering how unguided naturalistic forces could assemble a living cell–a molecular machine that is more sophisticated and functionally complex than anything human technology ever has produced–is a problem of nightmarish proportions.More.

Because naturalism cannot consider intelligence as a feature of the universe, it’s one of those nightmares that will just keep coming back. The quest is to find out how something that could not possibly have just happened somehow just happened anyway.

Meanwhile, the evidence mounts that no other solution is possible but few dare factor it in.

See also: What we know and don’t know about the origin of life

How naturalism rots science from the head down

and

Rabbi Moshe Averick challenges physicist Paul Davies on origin of life

Comments

Seversky at 2: In determining where to look for a solution, a good plan is to begin by ruling out what can't possibly happen, rather than wasting resources on it. Especially don't waste resources simply out of a sense of duty to the ideology that it must have happened that way. Where are we then? We study the system as if it were designed, to learn as much as we can of how and why it works the way it does. Along the way, we can learn a lot about evolution - why things work this way and not that way. We will then have a much clearer picture, though possibly with less static from the Darwin gallery.News_{July 11, 2017
July
07
Jul
11
11
2017
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT}

RVB8, Dionisio has a point, there is a growing list of discussion issues where you charged in, making various confident manner claims. Then, on closer examination and raising other sides to the story, poof, off to the next thread. There is a pattern of -- selective hyperskepticism, too often -- a seemingly starry-eyed scientism [where this view that Science monopolises serious knowledge is a philosophical claim and so undermines itself], and one of -- refusal to deal with the point that every worldview faces significant difficulties and needs to stand in its own right i/l/o factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory power. All, needing to be informed by first principles of right reason. KF PS: In response to your comments targetting me, here is Plato's warning, which you would do well to heed:
Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,350+ ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . . [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-
[ --> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by "winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . " cf a video on Plato's parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]
These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,
[ --> Evolutionary materialism -- having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT -- leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for "OUGHT" is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in "spin") . . . ]
and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ --> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ --> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush -- as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [--> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].
kairosfocus_{July 11, 2017
July
07
Jul
11
11
2017
04:13 AM
4
04
13
AM
PDT}

Dionisio, another link to 'uncommondescent', really? Honestly, you must broaden your reading to include, science sites, universities, laboratories, and NASA, and the evil UN. (They do great science.) You have no credibility if you are a one stop shopper here at UD. So, I and my comrades, (that would be the science community, as opposed to your comrades in the theocracy), are on the losing side of the debate are we? Interesting; for the losing side it feels incredibly lively and full of activity; your side, at Biologos, how is their research into proving that we must stop research at the 'flagellum', as God has forbidden further investigation? Seems to be infertile avenue to pursue research; stop when things look really complicated! But then why the frenzied activity in our labs, universities, and think tanks, the never ending pursuit of knowledge, and the quest for answers? Equally, why is your side of the debate so barren, resorting to sound bites, coffee table books, and opinion books; I point to the egregious Wells and his silly books, that garner no serious attention outside the design community.rvb8_{July 10, 2017
July
07
Jul
10
10
2017
10:16 PM
10
10
16
PM
PDT}

rvb8: Why did you quit this discussion? https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/our-physics-color-commentator-has-published-a-novel/#comment-635445Dionisio_{July 10, 2017
July
07
Jul
10
10
2017
10:04 PM
10
10
04
PM
PDT}

Truth Will Set You Free @1:
Excellent post. Posts like this always make me think of rvb8 who, according to his own words, keeps coming to this site expecting to see “the penny drop,” i.e. to see UD posters finally realizing the error of their ways in challenging Darwinian evolution and numerous other a/mat philosophies. In fact, the opposite of what rvb8 expects is happening.
Yes, that seems to be the case. They ain't seen nothin' yet. The most fascinating discoveries are still ahead. rvb8 and his party comrades are on the losing side of this debate, but they don't realize it. Poor things. Check this out: https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/our-physics-color-commentator-has-published-a-novel/#comment-635445Dionisio_{July 10, 2017
July
07
Jul
10
10
2017
09:56 PM
9
09
56
PM
PDT}

You must understand atheism, scepticism of religious claims, and plain non-belief in miracles or the super natural is not a modern phenomenon. No doubt someone can correct me, but in Psalms, or Proverbs, it is written that, 'the fool in his heart says there is no God.' Now that tells me one thing, and only one thing, that atheists were known to exist even in Old Testsament times. Despite what Kairos may insinuate, atheism was a known and respected point of view in ancient Greece; I point to the great Democritus, and probably Epicurus. So the author, a Jewish cleric, says he is mystified that silly atheists won't give up their pursuit of the unknowable. Yeah, forgive us for being curious! What a boring party pooper. It is precisely because it is such a difficult conumdrum (origins of life), that scientists pursue it. As each unbridgable divide, is bridged, as each milestone is reached the good Rabbai and his woefully, willfully,, ignorant, head burying, allies are pushed into ever diminishing corners like; 'They'll never solve the basic building blocks of life'; sorry solved. 'The semi permiable cell membrane cannot be reproduced'; sorry, reproduced. Of course these lazy intellectuals do have their ultimate fall back position when a cell is actually recreated in the laboratory and that is; 'See, it was deigned in the lab, therefore, God!' The search for life in the universe is moving along swimmingly, as more and more candidate planets are investigated. Life in the lab? Why not? If God could design such a poor planet and waste so much space on ice, sand, and salt water, surely humans can do just as poorly?rvb8_{July 10, 2017
July
07
Jul
10
10
2017
09:49 PM
9
09
49
PM
PDT}

es58 @3: That's a valid point. Thanks.Dionisio_{July 10, 2017
July
07
Jul
10
10
2017
09:45 PM
9
09
45
PM
PDT}

Seversky, Did you miss this? @48: https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/john-sanford-darwin-a-figurehead-not-a-scientist/#comment-635239 @64-68: https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/john-sanford-darwin-a-figurehead-not-a-scientist/#comment-635316Dionisio_{July 10, 2017
July
07
Jul
10
10
2017
09:41 PM
9
09
41
PM
PDT}

If you’re referring to an Intelligent Designer or Creator how does that actually tell us anything about how it was done? I don't know but it might tell us how it wasn't done, by a series of random event events.es58_{July 10, 2017
July
07
Jul
10
10
2017
09:13 PM
9
09
13
PM
PDT}

Because naturalism cannot consider intelligence as a feature of the universe, it’s one of those nightmares that will just keep coming back. The quest is to find out how something that could not possibly have just happened somehow just happened anyway.
I'm not sure what you mean by intelligence being a feature of the Universe. We know there's intelligent life (sort of) because we're here. If you're referring to an Intelligent Designer or Creator how does that actually tell us anything about how it was done?Seversky_{July 10, 2017
July
07
Jul
10
10
2017
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT}

Excellent post. Posts like this always make me think of rvb8 who, according to his own words, keeps coming to this site expecting to see "the penny drop," i.e. to see UD posters finally realizing the error of their ways in challenging Darwinian evolution and numerous other a/mat philosophies. In fact, the opposite of what rvb8 expects is happening.Truth Will Set You Free_{July 10, 2017
July
07
Jul
10
10
2017
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply