There's been a theory floating around since I was a kid--always considered wildly speculative but still within the bounds of real science and not pseudoscience--that comets may cause microorganisms to spread throughout the universe. A comet bearing microorganisms might have hit Earth and started life here, and a comet hitting the Earth might splash enough microorganisms back into space to spread life to other solar systems.
Yes, most such organisms would be burnt up of course, but the theory goes that enough could survive to make the theory plausible.
Interestingly, legitimate research is still being done on this hypothesis.
While I hate to open this can of worms, this particular theory is something that creationists--the smart ones, I mean, and yes there are smart ones--like to point out: to this date there is still no clearly understood theory for the origin of life. Several of you are about to argue with me on this, but before you do I'm going to repeat that I am more or less an atheist, and I'm merely relaying a fact to you, not a matter of opinion. No one is denying the existence of evolution here.
The problem is that there is still no theory, really no strong hypothesis, on what it takes to make a chemical soup suddenly form into such an infinitely complex thing as a single-celled organism. That doesn't mean there is no such process, of course, but creationists like to invoke God for their explanation. The comet theory is another. There are surprisingly few others, really, although they're out there.
Anyway, it was interesting to see that the comet hypothesis is still out there, although it still begs the ultimate question.
The comet theory does not explain how life began. It merely claims that life came to Earth from somewhere else.
The "chemical soup" theory states that you had stuff lying around, and then life just, you know, BEGAN.
It posits that conditions elsewhere in the universe would be more conducive to the creation of microbiotic life, actually.
The problem is that there is still no theory, really no strong hypothesis, on what it takes to make a chemical soup suddenly form into such an infinitely complex thing as a single-celled organism. That doesn't mean there is no such process, of course, but creationists like to invoke God for their explanation.
Scientists searching around for a theory which fits with the facts and the constantly evolving scientific concensus vs. We Believe The Bible.
No valid comparison.
(I don't think that's what you were suggesting though...)
Learn something more about creationists and you'll also learn that very few of them are so simple-minded as to say "we believe in the Bible" and merely end the discussion there.
I've known some very intelligent, broad-minded creationists, most of them Christians but some of them not. The picture of the raving lunatic preacherman from Inherit the Wind is nothing but a slobbering stereotype. Indeed, it wasn't even an accurate portrayal of the actual historic events it describes.
Anti-creationist hysteria has, in my view, done a lot of damage to the reputation of science in much of the country.
The idea that life could survive a very long trip through deep space is pretty far fetched. Space is a very hostile environment.
As a previous commenter has noted, this only explains how life gets spread around, not how it starts.
The Creation model gets stronger all the time. Take a look at www.reasons.org for a more diverse point of view.
I've known some very intelligent, broad-minded creationists, most of them Christians but some of them not.
I'm sure you have. The intelligence, broad-mindedness, or religious affiliation of a select group of creationists has no bearing whatsoever on the credibility of creationism itself.
It is possible to attack an idea, Dean, without attacking the people promulgating that idea.
Anti-creationist hysteria has, in my view, done a lot of damage to the reputation of science in much of the country.
Creationist hysteria has, in my view, done a lot of damage to the reputation of relion in much of the country.
Stupid argument, you see - who's going to defend hysteria? I'm assuming you're not accusing me of practicing or defending hysteria, right? Tell me what you mean by hysteria and I might be able to address how widespread it is and perhaps if it actually damages the reputation of science.
I heard of a theory that encompasses the origin of life. Perhaps the theory I am talking about doesn't fit the argument you're considering.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/12/021204080856.htm
http://www.nature.com/nsu/021202/021202-3.html
The above addresses have articles that explain the idea. The first one is also from ScienceDaily.
Although, I should note that I wasn't aware of any substantial non-chritian creationism movement - my working definition was that creationism, in America anyway, is a Christian thing. It doesn't affect the science vs. religion debate, though.
Although, I should note that I wasn't aware of any substantial non-chritian creationism movement - my working definition was that creationism, in America anyway, is a Christian thing. It doesn't affect the science vs. religion debate, though.
By simply stating that the belief in a creative force is automatically to be equated with "I believe in the Bible" (vs. what? "I don't believe in the Bible?") you're automatically drawing the argument toward the side of the fearful--and you're certainly stereotyping, regardless.
That sort of stereotyping, not to mention ramming things down people's throats by using the courts as a cudgel, has created a hostility toward science in this country that I believe to be quite devastating.
Yes, you're correct, so far as a recognizable "movement" is concerned, organized groups go, most are Christian.
Most creationists are not affiliated with such groups, but I would think that a majority would still likely be Christian since we are a majority Christian nation. [shrug] I'm not one, and I have no fear of these people--at all--and, as I've said, the kneejerk fear of so many of them creates far more problems than it solves so far as I can see.
A shame, really. It's not necessary, it really isn't.
You're correct, Dean. 'creative force' would be more approriate. Having a healthy disregard for people who want to chang biology textbooks, though, is not knee-jerk fear. Would you consider them to be 'rammming' their beliefs down peoples' throats using the courts? Is that what people are doing when they insist that science, not religion, is taught in the science class?
MaxM seems to insist that the conflict between Evolutionism and Creationism is really just a conflict between science and religion, implying that the only true scientific evidence is on the side of evolution. Actually, I find the science behind evolution to be incredibly weak.
What I find EXTREMELY objectionable is teaching children in school the lie that evolution is a scientific certainty when actual scientific evidence is far from being conclusive or consistant. Its as objectionable as teaching children that 2+2=5.
When you get down to brass tacks, evolution is a theory. Nothing more. ONLY A THEORY. At one time, it was a theory that the Earth was flat. Theories are merely guesses and suppositions dressed-up with confidence.
Sigh....
Allison, it is a conflict between science and religion. The preponderance of scientific theory says that evolution is a fact. Its mainstream scientific concensus and has been for some time. Of course there are loose ends and the theory isn't 'complete', but it the status of evolutionary theory in mainstream science is not in question.
When you get down to brass tacks, evolution is a theory. Nothing more. ONLY A THEORY.
It also happens to be the best one we've got.
Seems to me creationists mainly dislike the idea of an old Earth. This is NOT evolution. Evolution, the change of life forms over a long period of time, is a simple obvious idea based on the assumption that all those geologists telling us that various fossils are from millions of years ago, are in fact telling the truth. You got a problem with that, then take care of all those geologists. Don't pick on all the poor biologists. Of course, after you take care of all the geologists, you have to do something about quite a few physicists. So the idea of an old Earth is not "just a theory". It's a result of a good deal of seperate scientific endeavors.
Now natural selection, THAT'S a theory (an explanation of what has caused evolution), impossible to prove or disprove. Again, this is not the reason people believe in an old Earth. If evolution were driven by God's decisions, it still means the Earth is really old.
Some people object to people being related to monkeys. I have no idea why. I mean obviously when you compare animals, humans are similar to monkeys. Why is "similar" OK, and "related" objectionable?
However, people who get really upset if some student isn't being taught evolution (they wouldn't mind so much if the student wasn't actually listening in class, it's the teaching that counts, but I digress) are being obnoxious worrywarts. The only biology I learned in school was about blood circulation, and I now I have an MA in Biology. 90% (my estimate) of biologists do not do anything related to macroevolution, which naturally has no uses outside biology. Heaven knows there are other things that students could be taught. SO WHY IS THIS SO IMPORTANT?
I think it's just a matter of certain people making sure they still control the country.
OK, I've finished ranting:)
The 'best theory we've got' does not axiomatically make it 'fact', Max M.
Can you accept that logic of the scientific method?
Granted, 'theory' is a heck of a lot stronger than most who don't understand the scientific method make it, but while it's a big step from 'hypothesis' to 'theory', it's an even bigger one from 'theory' to 'law'.
It's not called the Law of Evolution yet. Don't give it the ABSOLUTE certitude of Law without that, please.
Just like people always misunderstand Occam. The simplest explanation is most likely correct. It is not always correct, and often people start by throwing away the simplest explanation just because it doesn't fit their assumptions about the world.
If you assume that creationism (or a creative force) is axiomatically not a possible answer, you assume the most simple explanation is evolution, even though it requires a far more complex set of answers.
On the other side, there are times where the 'simplest' answer is not the most correct. Instead of 'the gods' being why lightning struck a person, we now know the more complex explanation of electrical potentials and so forth are the correct one.
Too, evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive. Evolution attempts to answer 'how', and does not yet have all the answers.
Creation answers 'why', and 'who', and doesn't necessarily have all the answers.
If you assume that creationism (or a creative force) is axiomatically not a possible answer, you assume the most simple explanation is evolution, even though it requires a far more complex set of answers.
You're confusing science and belief. Creationism as I understand it is not deism. That is, creationists say that 'God' makes or has made material interventions in our reality. Supernatural intervention is a theory, but it is not a scientific theory. There is a body of evidence and a theoretical underpinning behind evolution. Creationist have to satisfy themselves with the argument that nobody has proved its an impossibility. Calling them both 'theory' only works if you're not using the scientific meaning of the word.
If you're a non-christian who believes in a 'creative force' with no material or measurable input into our universe, then the theory of evolution shouldn't be a challenge to your belief system. Sometime I've veered that direction, more out of desire for solace than anything else - and as something that can never be more or less than 'belief'.
Just what is Creationism? Max M is correct. Creationism as used today does not refer to the deistic ideas of Thomas Jefferson. Creationism involves specific ideas, such as the idea of a young earth and that such things as the Grand Canyon were created by the Flood.
It tries to prove that the Biblical account in Genesis, as they see it, is completely factual, that the non-believer should reach the same result by reason that they achieved by faith. They are entitled to try to do so.
However, this is Theological Apologetics, not science for the purpose of reaching scientific conclusions. Any scientific theory which is a means to prove some pre-conceived beliefs, rather than beginning with demostratively proven premises, does not deserve the title of cientific theory.
These problems would end if people looked to religion and its sacred texts and rites to guide their lives in their duties towards their God or gods, their neighbors, and themselves, not as scientific textbooks, political science guides, or crystal balls.
One other point. Can "the ultimate question" be proven? Do we reach a point beyond which is pure hypothesis? Should that be the answer for now? We can show up to this point what happened, but beyond we do not know now?
One could say that there had to be some First Cause, but that is not biology. That is in a separate field, as is the question of whether the universe began at a specific time or was eternally existing. A Medieval philosopher, Thomas Aquinas, was of the opinion that one could not show one way or the other.
A few questions left unfinished. Some people insist on definitive answers to everything. Sometimes that is not possible. People should allow each discipline to be run by its own rules, not that of another field of study.
One thing I have always been amazed at is that there is a belief that God had to create the world "new." I have no idea why this theory is so well entrenched, but, Biblically speaking God created Adam as a man, not a child or even "at conception." God, as defined, must be able to so create a world with a "back story." And so a 6,000 yr old earth does not necessarily conflict with the theory of evolution, additionally, the term day is never defined as a literal 24 hour earth day. For all we know, it could be relative to the point at the center of the universe.
Actually Libertarian and MaxM, Creationism is a much more broad label than you are applying it as. There are certainly creationists that hold the views and beliefs you describe, but there are many more who do not. I often see the creationism label placed on almost anyone who believes in intelligent design of any sort.
I, for example, am a Christian and therefore believe the universe was created by God. It is clear that species on earth evolve and that God established many processes in nature that allow it to adapt change and grow. So there is no conflict with the provable parts of evolution. I strongly suspect that macro evolution (across species) has also occurred, though there evidence for it is much less certain and I'm not sold on the idea, still it seems likely. This does not conflict with the idea that God created the universe, and therefore life.
Some creationists, like the ones you describe, create such a conflict by attempting to hold to a specific view what method God used to create life, and I agree that they are being un-scientific.
On the other hand some evolutionists create a conflict by rejecting the idea that the universe was created simply based on the fact that they see a method that may not require a creator.
Both are making invalid assumptions. Evolution does not explain how life began, it explains how life varied and changed. We still have no idea how life can form, though some scientists are doing experiments to try and determine that. So far the best that can be done is the creation of a few of the basic building blocks for life, and that is even with the attempt to create the situation, not the random probability.
The comet theory expands their ability to explain the creation of life without a creator, because it opens up the possibility of life being created in more ideal conditions than on earth. It may turn out that life could not have spontaneously appeared on earth, yet with ideas such as the comet theory that will not prove that there is a creator.
Discussing the creation of life or of the universe always falls into believe and not into science, because our scientific understanding in not nearly far enough to explain it. You either believe there is a process that can occur naturally (or at least spontaneously) which will cause life to exist (and that we will someday discover), or you believe that life was created by another being.
Dean writes:
"Anti-creationist hysteria has, in my view, done a lot of damage to the reputation of science in much of the country."
I'm with Max in questioning what actually constitutes "hysteria". There are many scientists -- Christians among them -- who would dismiss the claims of creationists because the findings of creationists don't really work within the strictures of the Scientific Method. While Evolution is merely a theory, I'm comfortable with it in the framework of the Scientific method, since theories have a way of being shattered when new information comes into play. "New information" cannot consist of religious dogma. There is no scientific test that can be applied to the question, "Is or is not the Bible the true Word of God?" Whether intentional or not, I think that creationism tends to undermine the apple of science with the orange of faith.
Again, many scientists are Christians. They have many different ways of reconciling their faith with their scientific calling. The most abstract (and useful) method of reconciliation is to say, "Even if we're all the product of a Big Bang, followed by billions of years of star formation, galaxy formation, planet formation and planetary cooling, followed by billions of subsequent years during which the Primordial Soup reached the proper temperature and consistency, followed by hundreds of millions of years during which a particular model of life (based on DNA and chromosomal replication) developed, followed by a couple million years of sentient life, God got the ball rolling."
Scientists aren't consciously trying to undermine or invalidate religion. Most of them are religious. They're merely trying to look at the world, form hypotheses, and see what works in terms of describing the universe.
And perhaps someday we'll see evidence of God beyond what our hearts tell us, and the evidence will hold up under peer scrutiny. And then perhaps skeptics and atheists like myself will have to look at the evidence and change our own hypotheses.
Scientists will be the first people to tell you that scientific discovery and technological advances cannot create values, only options. Religion and philosophy are the tools we use to decide what to do with all of our scientific stuff. I believe that religions undermine their very purpose by attempting to assert control over scientific discovery, when their proper realm is that of morality. Science, as Oppenheimer taught us, is amoral.
Evolution is a set of statements that does a pretty good job of explaining the world as we see it. Creationism is another set of statements that does a pretty good job explaining the world as we see it. Neither can be absolutely proven, yet the proponents of evolution insist that it is a superior theory because it is scientific at least as often as they insist that it simply explains things better, which would be a rational reason for preferring one theory over another.
The funny part is that when they do that, they're exhibiting the very religious fervor that they find so incredibly disgusting in others.
Maybe I misunderstand creationism, then, because everything I've read seems to refer back to the Bible as the standard for intelligent design. And I think you're really projecting onto scientists re: the whole disgusting religious fervor thing. I've met quite a few, and as I said earlier, most of them are religious. They aren't disgusted by creationism -- they just aren't of the opinion that creationism is consistent with the scientific method.
Evolution specifically excludes a creator. It says that the physical world is purely the result of random events and billions of years. Creationism is compatible with an old earth.
However, if the evolutionists are correct and there really is no God, then moral codes cease to have any meaning. Right and wrong become purely what we define them to be. We cannot point to Saddam and say he is an evil man. We can only say that we define him as an evil man.
The subject, Deb, is, remember, science. In discussing Geology, the purpose is to discover such things as the ages of these rocks or that of the Earth or other matters within the realm of Geology.
Proofs for the existence of God, whether Anselm or Aquinas or Descartes, are in the realm of Philosophy. Proving one interpretation of the Genesis story to be factually correct is Theology, specifically Apologetics.
One of those referred to as a "set of statements" is theological. How does one "prove" one way or another that God revealed these claims? The other can be proven one way or the other with sufficient time.
There are some making wild speculations about earlier times we have absolutely no knowledge of at all simply because the idea of a Creator somehow is the "slippery slope" to Bible thumping. Science must reach its conclusions by its own standard reguardless of any interpretations one might give to Holy Writ.
Biology and Geology are ends in of themselves, not means to other ends, whether to justify one's view of the Bible or to disprove Christianity. Though there are some who would, of course, disagree, I am as much a Christian as anyone else you find in the pews every single Sunday.
My understanding of the age of the earth and the various time periods in went through are Geological statements. The idea of a First Cause, a Creator, an Uncaused Cause, is a philosophical proposition. My acceptance of a Messiah and His Holy Writ are theological. All three are three different fields of study, each with its own unique areas of coverage, and each having its own premises, propositions, and rules.
There is a tendency of many, on either side of issues, to turn science into a branch of theology. This is out of distrust of humans to reach rational conclusions on their own without someone telling them what conclusion they are to reach.
Just saying geology can't disprove something doesn't answer the question of whether or not geology is the right subject to decide the issue.
Max,
Perhaps, right and wrong and morality would be self imposed. Thus, a person would do or not do a thing because it was not the loving thing to do.
Morality does not have to be imposed upon from some higher authority to be valid.
From reading the link to Dean's post, the article uses the term "containing micro-organisms" which I am understanding to mean very tiny bits of matter. This matter would have then had to grow and develop over time or as those who believe in Creation Myths, would have evolved in some other fashion.
Nevertheless, why couldn't the result--us humans--be a combinations of theories? Why does it always have to be this or that? We might need to broaden the scope of our thinking in order to understand what really happened.
In hindsight it often turns out to be this way. Not mine, not yours, but a combination.
Libertarian:
Thank you for your intelligent comments. Thank you from the bottom of my Liberal Protestant heart!
In fact, I'm pleased to see this thread developing in a constructive direction, with intelligent remarks from most of the people who have taken part.
I'll just toss into the mix a quote from Augustine's Confessions, in Book 12 where he's discussing the meaning and interpretation of the opening lines of Genesis:
Yes, that's Augustine, and not some modern-day semiotician. ;-) (Though Augustine looms large in the historical lineage of semiotics— long story for another time.) Much of Books 11-13 of the Confessions are worth reading, for their (theological and philosophical) bearing on this same issue.
Actually, Ted, Evolution does not answer the question of a Creator. If someone tries to use it to do so, he is using science to prove a theological proposition. Evolution, which I accept, takes one back so far, and that is all. I am most certainly not an atheist. I merely understand the limited scope of both Geology and Theology, and try not to demand answers of either that they cannot give.
I, for example, am a Christian and therefore believe the universe was created by God.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is compatible with belief in Deism, is it not - which is basicly what John Kusch said; big bang, planet formation, priordial soup etc
I strongly suspect that macro evolution (across species) has also occurred, though there evidence for it is much less certain and I'm not sold on the idea, still it seems likely.
I'm not familiar with this idea. Does it posit the existance of a supernatural being? If it does, then it is not a scientific argument - it is not scientific because there is no evidence of a supernatural being. Just because the current body of scientific knowledge fails to explain a phenonemom, it doesn't ugrade the 'negative proof' argument from a belief system to a scientific therory. It is does not become a scientific theory.
On the other hand some evolutionists create a conflict by rejecting the idea that the universe was created simply based on the fact that they see a method that may not require a creator.
They reject it upon the same basis that there is insufficient scientific evidence for a creator. In fact, there is none. The burden of proof is upon those who do the proving.
It may turn out that life could not have spontaneously appeared on earth, yet with ideas such as the comet theory that will not prove that there is a creator.
If every possible rationale the best brains in the world could come up with could not come up with a remotely sensible theory about the origination of life, that would not be proof that there is a creator. Negative proof is simly not part of the scientific method.
You either believe there is a process that can occur naturally (or at least spontaneously) which will cause life to exist (and that we will someday discover), or you believe that life was created by another being.
Your belief is a personal choice and I'm not trying to denegrate it... but - the former if it occurs will fit neatly into everything else we know, and short of proof of a supernatural being, the latter will not.
I have a lot of sympathy for the deist proposition though - why do you need God to intrude in this reality to believe in Him, if you believe He created it?
Deb:
The funny part is that when they do that, they're exhibiting the very religious fervor that they find so incredibly disgusting in others.
That's scientific fervor - you may not find it appealing, but its a different thing to religious fervor.
However, if the evolutionists are correct and there really is no God, then moral codes cease to have any meaning. Right and wrong become purely what we define them to be.
We do that already. God defines right and wrong, but we define God. Why not just cut out the middleman and define right and wrong directly? It seems to me that doing it that way would be a lot simpler for everyone.
However, if the evolutionists are correct and there really is no God, then moral codes cease to have any meaning.
Right, so since I don't believe in a creator, I am unable to form my own moral framework, its only legitimate if I can tag on a claim of transcendance of some sort to it, or I'm doomed to nihilism?
I'm come across this line of argument before and its pretty gosh-darn annoying!
Ah, Ted, but evolution does not specifically exclude a creator. Many people (both scientists and non-scientists) would say "As far as Evolution is concerned, per se, it is unimportant whether there is a creator or not. Even if you believe in a Big Bang origin to the universe, who is to say that God did not create the Big Bang?"
The conflicts reside mainly with two groups, one of which has been well addressed in these comments and the other not so well. The former I refer to as the "Creation Myth as Literal History" group, who believe in a young Earth, and that all species descend from survivors of the Great Flood (and, incidentally, either believe that paleontology is fake, or that all fossils were created during the flood), and that only minor adaptations can come about as a result of evolutionary change. The latter I call the "Avoid God at any Cost" group, who ramrod the idea that Evolution is the Be All and End All of life down people's throats.
Between these two groups are more moderate thinkers who say "Ok, we can be religious at the same time as scientific, and believe that God is unprovable, and that the historical process of the life of the universe is not dependent on whether God does, in fact, exist or not.
We agree, MaxM, much, I must first state that. The question of a Creator is NOT a scientific question in the sense of it being a biological or geological question. Such fields CANNOT and SHOULD NOT ATTEMPT to get themselves tied up in such disputes.
Empirical sciences take us back so far. At one point, we have no information. There are plenty of speculation, but that is all. The question of first causes and the like are philosophical questions, not empirical scientific ones. The empirical sciences are agnostic.
Life may have began inside of a rock (iron sulphide cells) but some of these posts could have come from underneath one.
Evolution: various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.
Evolution does nothing to answer how life got started.
God and morality have as much to do with each other as Pinocchio and honesty.
There is no combination of theories. If you have two, take what you like from both, and develop a third (and prove it) then you have one theory (holds true) and two that don't (unproven).
Ok, that was relatively meaningless but I feel better.
John,
I am not speaking of the scientists themselves, but rather of their more shrill supporters. Maybe it's just my personal exhaustion with dealing with too many folks who have issues with Christianity, but I've run across more than one supporter of evolutionary theory whose argument amounts to: "smart people know that science is right, dumb people believe in God (or the Bible)." Not much of an argument. I view them the same way I view religious fundamentalists of any stripe. It just seemed to me there was a bit of delicious irony there. I don't understand why the two views are completely incompatible, myself.
Libertarian,
Perhaps it is apples and oranges. I'm going to wander off and think for a while about whether any of these folks are even having the right argument with each other.
MaxM,
Would you do me the kindness of clarifying your distinction?
Well... scienctific fervor would denote absolute dedication to rationality based upon scientific principles and the belief that opinion the contrary is heretical... and religious fervor would be people who rely on religious dogma alone for their world view and denounce as heretical the people who believe otherwise. I guess...
The question of a Creator is NOT a scientific question..
You've got a point; I'm more or less thinking about the voice booming from the sky telling sinners to repent, sudden eruptions of volcanoes etc when I talk about 'proof' of a supernatural being. IOW something that is never going to happen, as far as I'm concerned.
How is it possible to have a meaningful debate here when none of you even appear to understand what the word "theory" means? A "theory" is not speculation and a "law" is not proven.
Sheesh, do some reading people. The fact is that the people who peddle creationism are ignorant at best and wilful liars at worst. There is not a single creationist assertion that is correct. Period.
This is not hyperbole. All you have to do is check out http://www.talkorigins.org to see.
How did a thread about how life arrived on earth become a thread about the relative merits of creationism and evolution?
Anyways, this is old hat for me...my mother wrote a universe model in the 1970's in which she came to the conclusion that the human species if the fuiting body on a global-scale algae plant.
As a non-Christian and non-believer (which means I only think, not believe), I accept no religious myths as truth.
Evolution is not just a theory, because it is based on observable, measurable and generalizable fact. In other words, experiment and evidence, not dogma and faith.
But Mark Noonan is correct. This discussion is supposed to be focused on the possibility that microorganisms from Earth could have been carried off into space by eruptions during cataclysmic events caused by large objects from space striking this planet during its formative ages, and thus possibly falling onto other planetary bodies in our galaxy.
But whether or not that all happened as hypothesized is very much a stretch.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Ted writes:
"Evolution specifically excludes a creator. It says that the physical world is purely the result of random events and billions of years."
Not so. While the conclusions Evolution and Big Bang theory (which are two separate theories and should be treated as such) are currently drawing, based on hours and hours of observation and testing, would seem to contradict a literal interpretation of the Bible, they do not exclude a creator. In fact, there are two big gaping holes where a creator could be: The moment before the Big Bang, and the formation of the first strand of DNA. Scientists suspect that there was a moment that catalyzed the Big Bang, and they suspect there was a moment that catalyzed the first DNA strand, but they don't know what those catalysts are. It could be God. The jury's still out. In fact, in science the jury is *always* out. There is no last word according to the scientific method.
Ted also writes:
"Creationism is compatible with an old earth."
Only certain versions of creationism. I've read creationist tracts that insist upon a 10,000 or 100,000 year-old earth. While creationism (or at the very least an Intelligent Designer) can be fit into current evolutionary and Big Bang theories, the reverse is not such a tight fit.
IF, God is all powerful, then there can be no limit to his ability, why must God create according to the way men build. God transcends our understanding. To say God must start and build a creation that appears new denies God's power and likely his omnipotence. If there is to be room for faith and doubt, God's creation probably should not appear as though it come from nowhere 6,000 years ago. IF God is omnipotent than God also knows how his creation would act.
Surely the fact that most aliens in science fiction movies and TV shows are so close to human in size and shape is strong evidence for the panspermia hypothesis.
I find Evolution to be a rather silly theory.
I also think that many of its supporters are essentially religiously motivated.
And a great deal of its supporters are terrible at logic. I've read talk about "Life" wanting to evolve, and other such stuff that is rather simplistic mysticism.
But just because many of its supporters want to define God out of existence so they can do whatever they want (see Aldous Huxley on why he became an athiest), and others are muddle-headed mystics does not mean that the theory is incorrect. We cannot judge a theory on its supporters, at least not entirely.
Although some criticism is merited.
Sorry, gotta cut off the rant, the toddler just woke up.
Tadeusz
Seriously, though, the arguments for creation/intelligent design vs. evolution that I've seen boil down to the statement, "I can't imagine how it could have happened otherwise."
It's much easier for me to accept the idea that life arose as an emergent property of matter, given the right conditions, than that the universe burst into being out of nothing and for no reason. The ancient Greeks had an answer: the reason is a First Cause, a Prime Mover, about which nothing can be known directly.
Ted:
"The idea that life could survive a very long trip through deep space is pretty far fetched. Space is a very hostile environment."
True, but we seem to be learning about organisms that can survive and metabolize in environments we used to think were lifeless, at least here on Earth. Look at that cool new kingdom, Archaea, that can live on heat vents (in the ocean, not in your house...though maybe there, too) and in deep-freezes and stuff. If very simple organisms were dormant while traveling through space, I don't know that the idea that they could revive once on Earth is all that far-fetched.
Well Dean, if microorganisms hit the earth and caused life to form, I well imagine they could spread out onto the galaxy and cause life on other planets that would make sense.
I do belive there is life on other planets and those planets that have life could have been there before earth. Way out there could very well be many many planets with life. Everday scientist are exploring space and it absolutely fascinates me. Microorganisms I belive are surely flying out there but we don't know, nobody knows. I love these kind of thoughts. I've always enjoyed reading different view points.
I'm behind in my reading, but Daniel Dennett mentions Graham Cairns-Smith's work Genetic Takeover, in which he proposes that fine clays provided the scaffolding, in their silicate structures, for the continuing random attachments of fragments of proteins and RNA, which led, over jillions of iterations, to DNA. (And you can bet he explains it better.)
Clay. As Dennett says -- just what the Bible ordered.
Allison needs to read Darwin's Dangerous Idea.