Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

What would Louis Pasteur have said about today’s origin of life dead end?


In “The Role of Creation in Science: The Real Story, a Breath of Fresh Air” (Evolution News & Views, July 2, 2011), science historian Michael Flannery remarks on Jonathan Bartlett’s “The Doctrine of Creation and the Making of Modern Biology,”

In a recent article at the Classical Conversations web site, Jonathan Bartlett authored an interesting commentary on creation as a concept for and catalyst to scientific inquiry and advance with “The Doctrine of Creation and the Making of Modern Biology.” Given the persistent claim by so-called “defenders” of quality science education such as Eugenie Scott, Paul Hanle, and others that only natural processes functioning via unbroken natural laws in nonpurposeful ways counts as science and that anything else is a “science stopper,” everyone–especially those least likely to do so–would do well to take page from Bartlett’s page of history.

Jonathan Bartlett is quite right, of course; science owes much more to teleology and creation than materialism, randomness, and chance. This is not to suggest that stochastic processes don’t occur in the natural world, but as a prompt to scientific inquiry it has been notably lacking as a motivational force in history. In fact, definitive evidence for wholly materialistic explanations for complex features of nature is simply not there. As an example, consider Louis Pasteur (1822-1895). He surely struck a blow against abiogenesis when he demonstrated that life begets life, and yet the enthusiasts for abiogenic explanations for the origin of life persist despite all evidence to the contrary. This seems close to Einstein’s definition of insanity–“doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”

But, given their definitions, do they have a choice?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

"The light that burns twice as bright, burns half as long. And you have burned so very, very brightly, Roy." http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Blade_Runner Mung
"Why can’t we shine now?" Maybe we're shining so brightly that everyone is wearing shades? Ilion
Why can't we shine now? City on a hill. Light of the world. etc http://www.gospeltruth.net/1840OE/400812_christians_light.htm Mung
From the cellular communication through light article:
This light is ultra-weak, is emitted by many organisms, including humans, and is conventionally described as biophoton emission
When I read that, I immediately thought of Matt 13:43
Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father.
I used to think this was metaphor, but more and more I started thinking that it could be literal, and after reading about biophoton emission (other than lightning bugs & deep sea creatures), I am fully persuaded that in the resurrection, the righteous, with their new and improved hardware, will in fact shine forth as the sun. Thanks for the heads up, BA. M. Holcumbrink
What would Louis Pasteur have said about today’s origin of life dead end?,,, Probably,, "I told you so, why didn't you listen to me???" :) Moreover I'm fairly certain, Louis Pasteur, being the devout Christian he was, would have been overjoyed to see the handiwork of God so clearly reflected in the sheer artistry and complexity that typifies 'simple' life; Molecular Biology Animations - Demo Reel http://www.metacafe.com/w/5915291/ Ben Stein - EXPELLED - The Staggering Complexity Of The Cell - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4227700 Mitochondria - Molecular Machine - Powerhouse Of The Cell - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5510941/ Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4050681 Map Of Major Metabolic Pathways In A Cell - Diagram http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/img/assets/4202/MetabolicPathways_6_17_04_.pdf Systems biology: Untangling the protein web - July 2009 Excerpt: Vidal thinks that technological improvements — especially in nanotechnology, to generate more data, and microscopy, to explore interaction inside cells, along with increased computer power — are required to push systems biology forward. "Combine all this and you can start to think that maybe some of the information flow can be captured," he says. But when it comes to figuring out the best way to explore information flow in cells, Tyers jokes that it is like comparing different degrees of infinity. "The interesting point coming out of all these studies is how complex these systems are — the different feedback loops and how they cross-regulate each other and adapt to perturbations are only just becoming apparent," he says. "The simple pathway models are a gross oversimplification of what is actually happening." http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7253/full/460415a.html Cellular Communication through Light Excerpt: As there were significant differences when separating the populations with glass or quartz, it is suggested that the cell populations use two (or more) frequencies for cellular information transfer, which influences at least energy uptake, cell division rate and growth correlation. Altogether the study strongly supports a cellular communication system, which is different from a molecule-receptor-based system and hints that photon-triggering is a fine tuning principle in cell chemistry. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005086 etc.. etc.. etc.. bornagain77

Leave a Reply