The Magical Mystery of Life = Creationism

[Dirty Name]

While I agree that evolution is more than a mere "theory," it utterly fails to explain the very existence of life in the first place.

Once I get past the huge hurdle that "matter" simply existed throughout infinity, I'm face to face with the "Big Bang Theory" that says our entire universe was once compressed into a super dense, tiny speck smaller than the head of a pin - and this tiny speck suddenly exploded into planets and whatnot, similar to a kernel of popcorn...never mind the fact that the "Big Bang Theory" sounds suspiciously like Genesis 1:1.

Mmmkay. So let's say we accept that. We still have yet another major hurdle to leap: life coming into existence all by itself, with no outside influences other than seismic, elemental and weather forces.

So now what is required is that over the next billion or so years, various elements floated about as flotsam and jetsam, too and fro, until all of a sudden a few key chemicals came into contact with one another and combined in such a way - perhaps with the help of an electrical discharge or something - and a microscopic living organism is produced. And that this organism then began multiplying and evolving and growing until viola! It becomes a single-cell animal, a paramecium. Then, this paramecium evolves into a more advanced, multi-celled creature, until the point at which these life forms become "intelligent." And then, they evolve further until fish becomes reptile, reptile becomes mammal, mammal becomes monkey, and monkey becomes man.

I guess my point is that it seems a bit more of a stretch to me than just believing in God.

Here's the real kicker - we're expected to believe all this happened in the natural world, yet man, with his powerful computers, Harvard education, cutting-edge science, knowledge of chemistry, electricity, and biology STILL can't create life in a controlled laboratory setting:

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/...ngLifeina.html

FYI, the article is 9 years old, at the time, he'd been at it for 10 years... in 2001, he stated that "...synthesising life was not yet a foreseeable reality..." and so the clock keeps ticking. It's been almost 20 years now, and still no "life."

[RickSp]

LOL. Evolution, a mere "theory" - just like gravity. As you are or should be aware, the word "theory" has a different meaning in science, than in common usage. A theory in science is a hypothesis that is capable of being proven by repeatable empirical tests.

The creationist's focus on random processes is misplaced. Very little in the universe ais really random. Processes may not be predictable, yet they are not necessarily random. There is nothing unreasonable in that the universe in general, and living organisms in particular are complex and varied. Complexity follows from natural characteristics. Nothing more or less.

Personally I am amazed by the simplicity of the natural world. In the late 1660s Newton could predict the motion of the planets with remarkable accuracy, using only simple calculus. His laws of motion are wonderously simple and almost elegant.

There need be no conflict with religion, unless the religous insist on attacking science. Galileo was humbled by the Inquisition for daring to argue that the earth circled the sun. Now it seems ridiculous. I am sure the current attack on science by the creationists will appear equally silly in time.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Dirty Name So now what is required is that over the next billion or so years, various elements floated about as flotsam and jetsam, too and fro, until all of a sudden a few key chemicals came into contact with one another and combined in such a way - perhaps with the help of an electrical discharge or something - and a microscopic living organism is produced. And that this organism then began multiplying and evolving and growing until viola! It becomes a single-cell animal, a paramecium. Then, this paramecium evolves into a more advanced, multi-celled creature, until the point at which these life forms become "intelligent." And then, they evolve further until fish becomes reptile, reptile becomes mammal, mammal becomes monkey, and monkey becomes man.

I guess you'd be surprised at what can happen in 4.5 billion years. Humans have been around for about 200,000 years. Now multiply that by 22500 years. If the Earth's time since its existence was a clock starting at 12 a.m. and going all the way around to 12 a.m. again, modern day humans would be around 11:59:50. People just don't understand how much time has actually passed.

[5010]

If it took a lab the size of a planet hundreds of millions of years to form life, then why should we expect anything from a lab the size of a room given only 20 years?

[Starboy]

Quote by: Dirty Name I guess my point is that it seems a bit more of a stretch to me than just believing in God.

Do you know what the stretch is? That even you would not go to someone to take care of something that really matters that claimed to do it with hocus pocus. And yet you think that you are somehow being reasonable in thinking that hocus explanations of reality are better than natural ones.

Starboy

[xyzer]

Your right dirtyname! None of these psuedo Darwinists can answer the question of how it began?
The evolutionary process is a provable scientific theory! We can agree to that! But it should not be used to question non scientific theories about creation, particularly when it doesn't answer the logical question of what started it all. Was it random mixing of molecules? If so where did the molecules come from? And so on infinitum.

When put to the task these doubters retreat to criticisms about religion which has nothing to do with the question! Religion becomes the strawman used to justify what is unknown and has yet to be proved scientifically?

[RickSp]

Quote by: xyzer Your right dirtyname! None of these psuedo Darwinists can answer the question of how it began? The evolutionary process is a provable scientific theory! We can agree to that! But it should not be used to question non scientific theories about creation, particularly when it doesn't answer the logical question of what started it all. Was it random mixing of molecules? If so where did the molecules come from? And so on infinitum. When put to the task these doubters retreat to criticisms about religion which has nothing to do with the question! Religion becomes the strawman used to justify what is unknown and has yet to be proved scientifically?

If you are going to continue in this silly vein you should at least stop ranting about Darwinists when addressing cosmology. Except in creationist tracks you will be hard pressed to find a Darwinist these days and cosmology was never Darwin's field.

You seem to be awfully confused. You refer to "what is unknown and yet to be proven scientifically." What do you mean by that? Science never has all the answers. It is the study of the unknown. There is always much left to be proven. That is the nature of science.

Right now in Pennsylvania school boards are requiring science teachers to teach ideas that even you admit are not science. How is religion a strawman in Pennsylvania? It is being taught as science, which is completely wrong.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: xyzer Your right dirtyname! None of these psuedo Darwinists can answer the question of how it began? The evolutionary process is a provable scientific theory! We can agree to that! But it should not be used to question non scientific theories about creation, particularly when it doesn't answer the logical question of what started it all. Was it random mixing of molecules? If so where did the molecules come from? And so on infinitum. When put to the task these doubters retreat to criticisms about religion which has nothing to do with the question! Religion becomes the strawman used to justify what is unknown and has yet to be proved scientifically?

Hmm...how it began? And what does Creation say? That God "always existed" and never began?" Well, does the universe have to be created in the first place then? Couldn't it just have always existed? I believe in creationism ALMOST just as much as the big bang, since both involve something to be created (or always existing). Yet the big bang, has the evidence of red shift, that the universe is expanding and was at one time extremely tiny to begin with.

[xyzer]

You seem to be awfully confused. You refer to "what is unknown and yet to be proven scientifically." What do you mean by that? Science never has all the answers. It is the study of the unknown. There is always much left to be proven. That is the nature of science.

Hey Rick, your coming around. You admit science never has all the answers. I thought you were the one who was confused.
Now I know you are rational enough to admit that some theories do not havescientifically provable answers ! If they do not are they to be discarded? Are they to be forbidden in academe? I think not!

I was taught that education was designed to broaden the mind and open it to several points of view. Allow people to think! Sure kids should be exposed to the theory of evolution in science classes..but whats wrong with exposing them to theories that have not been scientifically proved? Isn't that the way we pique the curiosity of those who might seek solutions?

[Sonart]

Quote by: xyzer Your right dirtyname! None of these psuedo Darwinists can answer the question of how it began?

Because it happened billions of years ago and we simply don't know.

That doesn't mean it isn't knowable. Should we presume that everything we don't yet know is therefore caused by spooks?

Quote by: xyzer Now I know you are rational enough to admit that some theories do not havescientifically provable answers ! If they do not are they to be discarded? Are they to be forbidden in academe? I think not!

Try putting on your thinking cap for a second. The history of mankind is a massive history of things we once didn't know. For eons man didn't know why the sun rose and set -- whoever wrote Genesis certainly didn't -- what the moon was, what the stars were, why the tides rose and fell, what caused illness. So what did man do??? Credit the supernatural, the 'Gods' must be responsible. But then, slowly, over thousands of years, we've been discovering all those things, haven't we.

So why on earth would you presume that other yet unanswered questions don't also have perfectly rational, discoverable answers?

.

[Starboy]

Quote by: xyzer ..but whats wrong with exposing them to theories that have not been scientifically proved? Isn't that the way we pique the curiosity of those who might seek solutions?

I have no problem with comparative religion classes. I would like to see that, but when little Johnny comes home talking about Vishnu I am sure momma will cross herself and get on the phone with the school board immediately. Fact is the Christians are only interested in an "open mind" as long as it is their take on reality. They pay lip service to curiosity but they are not honestly curious at all.

Starboy

[RickSp]

Quote by: xyzer Hey Rick, your coming around. You admit science never has all the answers. I thought you were the one who was confused.

If it had all the answers it wouldn't be science. Duh. The only thing that claims to have all the answers is religion. See the connection here? Teaching religion in a science class is wrong. It is an attack on my kid's education.

Quote by: xyzer Now I know you are rational enough to admit that some theories do not havescientifically provable answers ! If they do not are they to be discarded? Are they to be forbidden in academe? I think not! I was taught that education was designed to broaden the mind and open it to several points of view. Allow people to think! Sure kids should be exposed to the theory of evolution in science classes..but whats wrong with exposing them to theories that have not been scientifically proved? Isn't that the way we pique the curiosity of those who might seek solutions?

OK, you still need to work on your vocabulary. At the risk of repeating myself - the word theory has a different meaning in science than in common parlance. A theory in science is a hypothesis that is capable of being proven by repeatable empirical tests.

So no, no kid should be taught religion impersonating as science as an "alternative theory." It is no theory. Teaching science that contradicts the scientific method, makes about as much sense as teaching 2+2 = 5 as an "alternative theory" in math class or that Atlantis should be taught as "alternative geography".

If you want to teach religion in a comparative religions class, fine. If you want to teach an unproven hypothesis in science class, thats fine too, but ID doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis, because it is not, and will never be, proveable.

And if you claim that science class is the place to teach the unscientific, would you support teaching the Eqyptian creation myths as a "alternative theory"? Teaching them that Atum rose from the swirling waters of Nu, parting the waters making way for Ra the Sun God? It is exactly as scientific as ID.

[xyzer]

Teaching religion in a science class is wrong. It is an attack on my kid's education.

I think I'm begining to see whats motivating you Rick! You are hung up on the dangers of religion. You try to redefine a simple theory which is not scientifically proved as containing a religious theme. A teacher should not mention the intelligent design theory because it is not scientific! Baloney. The fact that something more than random chance started the universe is 'verbotten' because it might be construed as religious and taint the scientific endeavors of humankind. Balderdash!
An extrmely narrow view.

Education is something broader than that. It should cover whats provable as well as what isn't. We are still looking for answere in how it all began. Different approaches to problem solving are well known in many elements of society.

If it had all the answers it wouldn't be science

Brilliant observation.. now explain it? What would it be?
If we didn't have an answer for an unknown should we not address it? Should we not mention it? Should we relegate it to the religious pile of unsolved mysteries?I keep asking you that and it doesn't seem to come through to you. duh?

[xyzer]

By the way Rick your explanation of a theory is very narrow..."An explanation whose status is still conjectural"(Websters) "A guess or conjecture"(Websters)" There are more..and not one fitting your narrow definition?
You suggested I better work on my vocabulary now it is revealed that yours is more limited than mine?

[Jack]

Brilliant observation.. now explain it? What would it be?

It was already mentioned. Religion thinks it has all the answers. Science isn't afraid to admit a lack of knowledge regarding certain things.
I notice no theist has addressed the question of other creation stories. Do we teach them all, or just yours? Cultures that predate christianity have their own take on creation. I'd say they deserve to be taught right along with ID.
Other ID supporters have said that we could teach ID without having to concern ourselves with the identity of the designer. That's intellictually dishonest. Knowing the source of an action, behavior, principle, whatever is important in examining the results. How can anyone properly examine a design while ignoring who the designer is? That's like studying art appreciation but never mentioning who the artists were.

[Jack]

You're incorrect, xyzer. Different disciplines use terms differently, with equal validity. Science uses the term "theory" in a unique way. If you want to discuss a scientific theory, you have to use the definition of theory that science does.

[Starboy]

Quote by: xyzer Brilliant observation.. now explain it? What would it be? If we didn't have an answer for an unknown should we not address it? Should we not mention it? Should we relegate it to the religious pile of unsolved mysteries?I keep asking you that and it doesn't seem to come through to you. duh?

xyzer, here is the basic problem:

1) There is a universe.
2) We want to explain it.
3) There are many competing and conflicting explainations.
4) What criterion will we use to prefer one explanation over another?
5) When we have chosen an explanation should we stick with it?

Here is how religion answers those questions:

4) What criterion will we use to perfer one explanation over another?

None. We give you the explanation. It is the "truth".

5) When we have chosen an explanation should we stick with it?

Yes. See 4)

Here is how science answers those questions:

4) What criterion will we use to prefer one explanation over another?

The preferable explanation should be explained with constructs that can either be directly or indirectly observed. The preferable explanation should predict as much of what we have observe as possible. The preferable explanation should lead to the discovery of new phenomena - [This one is the ball buster]. The preferable explanation should be consistent with other preferred explanations. All of this should be done with as much honesty as the participants can muster.

5) When we have chosen an explanation should we stick with it?

The answer is we should stick with it as long as it remains the best explanation for accounting for and predicting nature. If an explanation comes along that does a better job then the new one will be preferred over the old. This will continue for as long as better explanations can be found.

There is a profound difference between the religious and the scientific approach to explaining the universe. But that aside, the fact that religion has completely sucked at predicting anything not previously known as compared to science which has made just incredible breathtaking predictions and literally opened up an entire universe to our observation, well when it comes to explaining the universe, science rules and religion just plain sucks.

Which is why of course that the religious have taken to cloaking the religious idea of a creator in pseudo scientific jargon called Intelligent Design. But it is just the watchmaker argument, all the same, the religious have already lost the fight. In their heart of hearts they know that science is the best way to explain the universe. Otherwise why adopt the jargon of science? Why not stick to holy books, spells and angels?

Starboy

[Dirty Name]

LOL. Evolution, a mere "theory" - just like gravity.

Surely you understand that evolution as an explanation for the origin of life is just a theory. Is it your theory that life evolved from chemicals without divine intervention?

[Dirty Name]

nd yet you think that you are somehow being reasonable in thinking that hocus explanations of reality are better than natural ones.

What's really funny is that you don't think your own version is "hocus pocus." But what do you call a process that science still cannot explain? It's the exact same thing, genius.

[Jack]

Is it your theory that life evolved from chemicals without divine intervention?

However life began, I have no reason to suppose it involved supernatural elements. If the supernatural were ever required to initiate life, those same supernatural processes would still be in practice today. Or is there some supernatural process going on every time an egg is fertilized?