Origin of Life: Another Great Challenge to Darwinism

[chatfsh]

As I stated previously, too many people are under the false impression that evolution not only provides a partial answer to the origin of the species, but that it also provides an answer to the origin of life itself. However, since no one here seems to be laboring under that misconception, I am satisfied that it is a non-issue for this audience and will therefore modify the name of the topic accordingly to allow for further discussion on origin of life theories.

To SandChigger - If ghastly fiction keeps the fans happy and the royalty checks coming in, then I say, "Long live the ghastly fiction!" 8)

[SandChigger]

Now, I shall run before war breaks out and I am required to rip out SandChigger's still-beating heart on an altar with my bare hands.

Ooh, Woofsy! With your bare hands? Upon me?! INSIDE me?! (Watch out, Dante, he's about to put the kink back in kinKAY and push you out of the picture entirely!)

Unfortunately it appears you missed that thread wherein Khan declared to all the world that I am lacking in that better (batter? butter? beating!) part! ;)

To SandChigger - If ghastly fiction keeps the fans happy and the royalty checks coming in, then I say, "Long live the ghastly fiction!" 8)

Well, as we have learned from those recent steaming piles with "DUNE" on their covers, there's no crap so stinky some flies won't gather. And while I really do hope you are deriving some financial recompense for the effort (allowing you to recoup some of the expenses of self-publishing), if you were really making all that much from ole Crausin & Van Laven, wouldn't you be working on the sequel instead of wasting time here witnessin' to da heathen gameboys? :)

[SandChigger]

Well, this is probably going to get out of hand again. (sigh)

Not to worry, not to worry. ;)

Additionally, I do not believe that absolute scientific materialism is a satisfactory explanation for all phenomena we may encounter throughout the universe, simply because it assumes, by definition, that all things can be tested or observed in material terms.

Actually, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that true Science assumes as its province all things that can be tested or observed in material terms, and that it has nothing to say about that which cannot be approached in that way?

[SandChigger]

Just to save space in the board database, here are links to relevant rebuttals to some of the crap spewed in this thread.

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html">Probability of Abiogenesis</a>

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010_2.html">Origin of the first cells</a>

Are there any links to actual explanations of the scientific processes by which Intelligent Design claims that life arose? Since life (that means us'ns, y'all!) exists in a physical universe, there must eventually be some statement of the mechanisms by which events or phenomena or objects in "Boojum space" interact with matter and energy in our universe, at least on this side of the Great Divide.

Or am I missing something besides a heart? :)

[Wolf]

Actually, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that true Science assumes as its province all things that can be tested or observed in material terms, and that it has nothing to say about that which cannot be approached in that way?

I think that's actually a good question. So, what you're saying is, inherent to the definition of science is the notion that all things that can be tested or observed materially fall under the umbrella of potential scrutiny by the scientific method? Thereby obviating as redundant the need to differentiate between things that are materially observable and things that are not, and the relative scientific validity of observations thereof--further argument, I think, that the provinces of religion/metaphysics and science ought to be separate in many respects.

Also, you, uh, want this back? I was expecting a harsher response and may have jumped the gun, you see.

[MrFlibble]

Just to save space in the board database, here are links to relevant rebuttals to some of the crap spewed in this thread.

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html">Probability of Abiogenesis</a>

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010_2.html">Origin of the first cells</a>

Nice source, thanks for the links :)

[chatfsh]

Just to save space in the board database, here are links to relevant rebuttals to some of the crap spewed in this thread.

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html">Probability of Abiogenesis</a>

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010_2.html">Origin of the first cells</a>

I was hoping that someone would get around to posting a link like this

[Dunenewt]

Sumerians Look On In Confusion As Christian God Creates World

[SandChigger]

Dean H. Kenyon is Professor Emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University and <b>well-known creationist and intelligent design proponent</b>. He is also the author of <i>Of Pandas and People</i>, a controversial book on intelligent design.

Dean Kenyon, a biologist from San Francisco State University, <b>fled town</b> after watching the demolition of four of the state's witnesses on day 1 of the second week. And Henry Voss, a computer scientist from California, was rapidly withdrawn at the last minute when, in pretrial deposition, he too began to expound on things satanic and demonical.

In October 1992, Kenyon was told by the chair of the SFSU Biology Department to stop teaching creationism in introductory biology courses. This led to talks with what became <b>the Discovery Institute</b>, including Stephen C. Meyer, Phillip E. Johnson, William Dembski, and Michael Behe. Kenyon was eventually reinstated to teach, and he claimed his colleagues' objections rest on a positivist view of what constitutes legitimate science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_H._Kenyon

Sniff, sniff. Anyone smell bias?

Seriously, Ms Wheeee!, you go right on ahead and flog it a good one, girl. After reading Dante & Dragoon Knight's hilarious take on things yesterday, I have almost no interest in "trying" (snort) further, but who knows, maybe later I'll change my mind as conditions change. Hmmm, let's calculate them odds... :D

(Edit: I also see there was a serious response from Wolf above, that I'll get back to later this morning!)

[chatfsh]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_H._Kenyon

Sniff, sniff. Anyone smell bias?

Not a valid argument, unless you want to imply that Richard Dawkins' comments are also invalid due to his materialistic worldview.

Seriously, Ms Wheeee!, you go right on ahead and flog it a good one, girl. After reading Dante & Dragoon Knight's hilarious take on things yesterday, I have almost no interest in "trying" (snort) further, but who knows, maybe later I'll change my mind as conditions change. Hmmm, let's calculate them odds... :D

If you do not wish to discuss the various origin of life theories, despite it being a fascinating topic, that

[SandChigger]

Well dayum, who coulda foretold that probability function tweaked out at 1.0?!

(The Boojum could have? Oh, right!)

Not a valid argument, unless you want to imply that Richard Dawkins' comments are also invalid due to his materialistic worldview.

WhereTF did I indicate that was an "argument"? I was merely pointing out, among other details, Kenyon's affiliation with the august Discovery Institute.

You really should try to get over this obsession with Dawkins, though. (I can't recall ever having seen a pic of him; is he that great a catch?) I for one don't give a flying fook about him or his pronouncements, so sure, let's ignore him. :)

If you do not wish to discuss the various origin of life theories, despite it being a fascinating topic, that

[SandChigger]

Sumerians Look On In Confusion As Christian God Creates World

According to the cuneiform tablets, Sumerians found God's most puzzling act to be the creation from dust of the first two human beings.

"These two people made in his image do not know how to communicate, lack skills in both mathematics and farming, and have the intellectual capacity of an infant," one Sumerian philosopher wrote. "They must be the creation of a complete idiot."

Stuff like this is going to make burning in Hell a real pleasure. :D

[Dragoon Knight]

For your reference, SandChigger. :P

[Dunenewt]

Argh, that's VERY scary!

[SandChigger]

(Not seeing anything there. A one-pixel pic?  ???)

Was working on this:

I think that's actually a good question. So, what you're saying is, inherent to the definition of science is the notion that all things that can be tested or observed materially fall under the umbrella of potential scrutiny by the scientific method? Thereby obviating as redundant the need to differentiate between things that are materially observable and things that are not, and the relative scientific validity of observations thereof--further argument, I think, that the provinces of religion/metaphysics and science ought to be separate in many respects.

I think what I meant was just to make explicit the point that, whatever steaming clods may flow forth from the faces & fingers of individual practitioners (like Hwi's honey Dawkins), Science itself really has nothing to say about the supernatural, nor any way of even approaching it, unless (or until?) someone comes forward with evidence of some physical/material manifestation that absolutely cannot be explained in any other way.

Until then, I completely agree that religion and science should be kept separate; that not everyone else does is the whole source of this ID nonsense. Until the ID people explain in scientific terms how a supernatural/non-material "Designer" can influence a material universe, I see no reason to regard ID as a serious scientific theory.

(Also, thanks, but I figure I can do without the heart back ... damned thing's probably glopped full of gunk from a lifetime of excess anyway! :P )

[Dunenewt]

I agree with you here.  Its the whole 'God of the gaps' thing - if we can't logically explain a phenomena, then it was God's work...

[Dragoon Knight]

SandChigger, try here, here or here instead. :)

[Dunenewt]

Please, no more of that!  It is far too scary!

[SandChigger]

Ah, cheers, DK, much better! So that's what he looks like, eh? SMOKin! :P

Well ... since Herself can't be bothered answering an actual question (I assume she can find no approved explanations to quote ... or maybe she's now rewriting?), I went and found my own:

Dembski

[chatfsh]

My humble apologies, SandChigger. I wish that I could devote every evening to these discussions, but unfortunately my attention was required elsewhere yesterday evening, so I'm just now seeing your latest post.  I will be available this evening to try and answer the questions that I can.  I've got to go to work  right now, but there will be more to come this evening.

[MrFlibble]

For your reference, SandChigger. :P

Heh, at least I know now what (who?) he looks like... :D

Hey, it occurred to me that the same way Darwinism is challenged by the question of the origin of life, Lingustics is challenged by the question of the origin of language! Oh noes! Only Nikolai Marr with his Japhetidology stands to face this ultimate challenge! :O

[Wolf]

I think what I meant was just to make explicit the point that, whatever steaming clods may flow forth from the faces & fingers of individual practitioners (like Hwi's honey Dawkins), Science itself really has nothing to say about the supernatural, nor any way of even approaching it, unless (or until?) someone comes forward with evidence of some physical/material manifestation that absolutely cannot be explained in any other way.

Until then, I completely agree that religion and science should be kept separate; that not everyone else does is the whole source of this ID nonsense. Until the ID people explain in scientific terms how a supernatural/non-material "Designer" can influence a material universe, I see no reason to regard ID as a serious scientific theory.

I think I more or less agree, and my first instinct would be to paraphrase some of the things said earlier by various folks on the forum. One is that, science does not propose to make any judgments on the metaphysical realm, because by definition it cannot: science is only concerned with evaluating that which it can test in objective or material terms. The other is that, science and religion are really after different things, they have different aims, and of course, they have completely different methodology. When I frame the debate in that way, it appears to me that it would be wholly unreasonable to employ one in the undermining of the other. Science, or more accurately the scientific method, seeks to explain material phenomena through theory and experimentation such that phenomena can generally be predicted. Religion, on the other hand, seeks to develop a multitude of theories that seek to explain or understand the metaphysical and post-physical realms. Naturally, there's no way to test this--not even with suicide, since you can't exactly report back to the rest of the team what you discovered on the other side--and I don't think religion is concerned with testing it in any case: religion is concerned with theory, faith and doctrine. How can the statements of one invalidate the other? On whose terms?

Really, it reminds me of a great problem in American law: because of the federal system, it's possible for questions of state law to appear in higher federal courts. However, since the Constitution specifically states that the state legislatures are the only entities with the right to make state law, what's a federal court to do? Does it evaluate the state claim based on federal precedents and procedures, or should the federal court engage in the odd and dubious practice of "replicating" what a state court "would do?" An interesting question. Of course, this isn't perfectly analogous to the current situation: American courts have (more or less) figured this problem out, religion and science... probably shouldn't have a problem in the first place. If you'll allow me to pull a Hwi: it would be more like attempting to evaluate one universe's natural laws in the context of another's. I find it relatively easy to believe in both natural selection, evolution, and the governing of our universe by natural laws whilst simultaneously (no joke!) believing in an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and benevolent, but not necessarily personal or anthropomorphic God. But hey! I'm not the first. I think

did it first. Oh, and Darwin. Oh, and probably a fair number of brilliant thinkers before them.

[Dunenewt]

Heh, at least I know now what (who?) he looks like... :D

Hey, it occurred to me that the same way Darwinism is challenged by the question of the origin of life, Lingustics is challenged by the question of the origin of language! Oh noes! Only Nikolai Marr with his Japhetidology stands to face this ultimate challenge! :O

In the news last week there was some news about the origin of languages.  Apparently some ground breaking evidence has been uncovered regarding monkeys...

[chatfsh]

The reason that I have not linked any on-line sources is because I haven

[SandChigger]

Hey, it occurred to me that the same way Darwinism is challenged by the question of the origin of life, Lingustics is challenged by the question of the origin of language! Oh noes! Only Nikolai Marr with his Japhetidology stands to face this ultimate challenge! :O

Jesus wept. I did like this bit, though:

<b>"...a theory that was promoted and supported for ideological rather than scientific reasons...."</b>

Gee, what does <b>that</b> sound like?

Anyway, doesn't everyone know that LingoGOD Chomsky has declared the human language capacity (as embodied in the Language Acquisition Device and "language organ" in the brain) to be the result of a saltation?  ::) (I personally prefer pepperations, myself. Have to watch the ole BP, doncha know!)

In the news last week there was some news about the origin of languages.  Apparently some ground breaking evidence has been uncovered regarding monkeys...

You refer to this, I assume? http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/12/monkey-talk/

Boom boom krak-oo wack-oo! ... Interesting. They're on the same "narrow nose" parvorder branch of the Primate tree as we are. There's more to language than just syntax (don't say that around LingoGOD, though, or he'll go crazier!), but if their "rudimentary syntax" turns out to be a real form of proto-language, it's probably more a case of convergent evolution, no?

Kinda like all them there eyes floating around out there?  :O