Unlocking the Mystery of Life, where does ID fit in?

[centristgrandpa]

We’ve all had questions about evolutionary theory, “look at the incredible diversity and complexity of life, and inevitably the question arises, what brought all of this into existence? Was it simply chance and necessity, undirected natural forces? Or, is there something else going on? Is there a purpose, a plan, a design, and a design due to an intelligent cause? I think that is the fundamental question.” These are some of the important questions being asked throughout the science community. Why the Creationists are trying to blur this scientific line is beyond me. While evolution and religion are not incompatible, many creationists consider evolution and creationism to be incompatible. Since many creationists believe literally in the biblical account, which means that the earth is only a few thousand years old, it is incompatible to believe scientific evidence that shows the earth to be billions of years old. I hold true to the belief that life occur by way of an extraordinary chance encounter, an abstract miracle that blended most matter into a spontaneous array, from this, the process of natural order. Any thoughts?

[stopbush]

1. You are conflating evolutionary theory with cosmology.

The beginning - the Big Bang - isn't a subject that evolutionary theory seeks to understand or explain.

[centristgrandpa]

5. no to your question

The sequence at the modular level mirrors the cosmos. It’s not to say that the two are the same but the processes have an interesting parallel, almost paradoxical.

[stopbush]

29. No, that's quite wrong.

If I didn't know better, I'd think you were attempting to set up a false premise upon which to base an argument. Asserting that there are parallels doesn't make it so. Perhaps you see it as such, but that's an oversimplification that stretches science beyond the limits of factual discussion.

[centristgrandpa]

maybe, maybe not...

When one observers the macrobiotic world thru the microscope and then observers the universe with a telescope, wouldn't you agree that the two are quite similar in ways of interaction and processes. I understand that the two are uniquely different because of size and material, but in an abstract way they are akin. I must assert that it's an "oversimplification" as you say, but these comparisons have been used by scientist.

[stopbush]

34. No, I don't find them at all similar in interaction and process.

What scientist has made such comparisons? I'd like to read what they have to say. Maybe they'll convince me.

[centristgrandpa]

37. dot to dot...

The late Dr. Carl Sagan spoke of this subject during one of his episodes on the Cosmos. I remember it well when he spoke with elegance and passion about the interlocking connection between us and the universe.

[stopbush]

40. That has nothing to do with evolution.

The simple fact is that since everything started with the Big Bang, our origins can be traced back to that incident. The material our bodies are made out of is literally stardust (as Sagan noted), as the elements were created in stars and during the Big Bang. That is the connection. He did not say that there is a connection between cosmological and evolutionary processes that could be called a mirror.

[centristgrandpa]

41. i somewhat disagree...

It memory serves me well, didn't Dr. Carl Sagan say "the carbon base molecules of our bodies are akin to the carbon structure that is the building block of our universe". So the relationship in an abstract way is valid. The series Cosmos was his masterpiece work and legacy.

[Johonny]

36. I agree

evolution theory does not explain the origin of life. Abiogenesis is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter.

[centristgrandpa]

43. i disagree partly

I'm somewhat confused by this word (inanimate), no matter how one defines the study of life, in my opinion; life could not have started from an inanimate state, can't. However i do agree with your statement "evolution theory does not explain the origins of life." rather, it is about the adaptation process.

Definition: Inanimate
Inanimate
Adjective
1. (linguistics) belonging to the class of nouns denoting nonliving things; "the word `car' is inanimate".

2. Not endowed with life; "the inorganic world is inanimate"; "inanimate objects"; "dead stones".

3. Appearing dead; not breathing or having no perceptible pulse; "an inanimate body"; "pulse less and dead".

[Warpy]

2. They already know that duplicating the conditions on early Earth

results in the rapid development of all the nucleic acids and their arrangement into proteins. The beginning seems to be a matter of simple chemistry and the fact that planetary processes themselves produce the stuff of life.

Going beyond that is pure speculation whether or not one wants to involve a conscious designer in the process.

[centristgrandpa]

7. speculation

(my quote)Why the Creationists are trying to blur this scientific line is beyond me. I personally do not accept the ID solution, but to your other question, one could conclude that simple chemistry is quite complex.

[Warpy]

10. The creationists have adopted a position that the bible

was written by their deity and therefore must be literally true.

That's why they've twisted themselves into silly knots, trying to squash the billions of years this planet has been building into six days, even though in the beginning there was obviously no such thing as a day.

It's their near idolatry of the book, itself, that is the foundation of all their problems.

[centristgrandpa]

15. twisted

Their mentally is quite perplexing, beyond naive. This might be a stretch, and i say this with respect; i can't fathom the thought of giving credit to any deity, none.

[Aragorn]

27. Actually

it is more basic than that as you might agree. It is the ritualistic superstitious beliefs which are displaced on to a "sacred artifact" There is no dispute that said artifact was first organized and spread centuries ago. And few would dispute the low level of scientific knowledge centuries ago, not the high level of magical thinking then either. So...
Did the Bible evolve or was it created? :)

[centristgrandpa]

30. might agree...

What an interesting perspective. Judging history, it seems to me that the bible was created by way of stories told and evolve into what it is today. What is also amazing about this "sacred artifact" is the fact that there is no physical evidence to prove it's worth. Having said this, I'm not surprise by those who hold onto the superstitious belief it offers. I do not subscribe to to the notion that somewhere somehow there is a superior deity that guides all. For those who believe, hopeful is an understatement.

[scubadude]

54. Yes, simple chemistry is quite complex, but is life complex?

There are groups of scientists right now working with self evolving proteins in the lab. They have yet to call them life and perhaps they never will, but these proteins do exhibit some of the requirements for it. If it turns out these "chemicals" continue to evolve, eventually creating ways of sustaining themselves, who is to say whether they are alive or not? I bet the creationists won't. Will you? Will I? Hmmmm. I don't know.

To your point though at it's heart creationism is a cover for fundamentalism, which is a cover for ignorance and intolerance in my book. They are trying to use creationism as a wedge for the masses between science and religion. I believe they think that the explanations of natural phenomenon that science provides takes away from the mystery of creation. They have their ignorance at stake, and will protect it by all means.

The ironic part is the belief that God crated man in his image. If that were true wouldn't it be manifest that we would eventually raise ourselves up in that image?

Scuba

[KGodel]

3. It's easy

These are some of the important questions being asked throughout the science community.

No they're not. Those are pseudo-questions posed by IDiots.

Trying to separate IDiots from creationists is ridiculous. ID fits in to the butthole of creationism. Quite neatly.

[centristgrandpa]

9. pseudo-questions posed by idiots.

Regardless of one's opinion, i wrote question from both sides and firmly sided with evolutionist, not creationism, to think otherwise is wishful thinking. I thought your (IDiots) was well placed.

[KGodel]

18. It's not a question of opinion

Opinions are about whether the soup was too salty or the movie was boring.

The questions you pose: "what brought all of this into existence? Was it simply chance and necessity, undirected natural forces? Or, is there something else going on? Is there a purpose, a plan, a design, and a design due to an intelligent cause? I think that is the fundamental question." are the questions of IDiots.

The first is not addressed by evolution. See abiogenesis. The second is incoherent. The answer to the third is "apparently not". The answer to the fourth is "see question three".

That you think these are all one question is perhaps revealing. There are many sites that deal with these and similar questions. You won't find much dissent among those who study this sort of thing seriously. The only dissent is from the IDiots. They are confused, mistaken, and stupid. Don't be one.

[centristgrandpa]

21. close encounter..

This subject is double edged. i address this debate with questions from the ID side follow by an unmistakable personal opinion "I hold true to the belief that life occur by way of an extraordinary chance encounter, an abstract miracle that blended most matter into a spontaneous array, from this, the process of natural order." it's pretty clear where i stand, no mention of intelligent design.

[KGodel]

24. Uhh, OK.

I hold true to the belief that life occur by way of an extraordinary chance encounter, an abstract miracle that blended most matter into a spontaneous array, from this, the process of natural order.

Spontaneous array? Whatever.

There are actual scientists who study this this stuff. You might want to check them out.

[centristgrandpa]

25. one for the uhh...

How would you describe this incredible process?

[KGodel]

35. What incredible process?

Assuming you are referring to whatever led to life on Earth, It happened, so it must be credible.

I assume you're asking whether I'd describe this as the magical result of intervention by some supernatural agency, or the result of physical regularities that can be summed up as physical laws.

The latter.

[centristgrandpa]

38. No supernatural agency...

quote: "or the result of physical regularities that can be summed up as physical laws." I concur with you, the latter has evidence beyond doubt but would you agree that before "natures' physical laws" came to order, chaotic arrangement at the molecular level must have been present before the big bang?

[FiveGoodMen]

39. "chaotic arrangement at the molecular level must have been present before the big bang"

You figure there were molecules before the big bang?

[centristgrandpa]

42. not sure...

If i had this answer, i would be doing the next Cosmos series. The paradox is double edge, the randomness order of this universe is perplexing at any level when you include dark matter, black holes and all the other varieties of space matter. To be honest, I can't fathom any idea about the beginning, only the post bang theory with reservation.

[lapfog_1]

4. "what brought all of this into existence? "

Trial and error. millions of years of trial and error (often with resets in the middle).

Error is de-selection by the environmental conditions presented to the variant. Variants are caused by genetic mutation.
(This is all middle school science and is a fact, not theory)

It simply happens on a time scale that people are uncomfortable with and can't really comprehend.

[centristgrandpa]

16. uncomfortably numb

People are so afraid of science because it requires hard evidence. on the others side of the line, a book is all you need, every answer is in this book (bible), what a cop out.

[MUAD_DIB]

6. ID doesn't really fit it. It's fundie junk theory, containing no relevant data,

to back up an unprovable claim.

Fundies don't believe that the world is 4.5 billion years old so how do you convince them about evolution...or that it is naturallly occuring?

[centristgrandpa]

11. them fundies

I hate the idea that the religious side is trying to infiltrate the scientific community with trash like evidence. To your question, you can't

[PetrusMonsFormicarum]

8. I'm with you.

Firstly, WELCOME Centristgrandpa!

I also do not understand why creationists didn't simply say that evolution was a mechanism of God's creation, God's way of showing us that things change, and giving us the tools to fully explore evolution (among other sciences). You raise the point of literal acceptance of the Bible, which is probably the most significant stumbling block preventing reconciliation of the faith on one side and the logic on the other. Problem is: the Bible was written by men, not God. And since it was first written, it has been slanted, rewritten, censored, and refabricated. The basic moral code of the Bible hasn't changed, which is perhaps one of its strongest points as a document, even though that moral code is basically a treatise on altruism and common sense among even the flimsiest of societies that wish to grow and prosper.

It's the "selective sight" that proponents of creaintelligent designtionism practice that is the ultimate collapse of their argument. "Evolution is just a theory!" they proclaim, failing to mention that the theory has not been significantly challenged for 200 years (that's also 200 years of hard evidence for natural selection). The Theory of Gravity is also just a theory, but you don't see the creationists attempting to replace that. Why? Gravity is not a life science, a study intimately tied to our own lives and well-being as evolution is. "Theory" implies that it's a guess (albeit an educated one), and that is as it should be: science, like life, is not static. As perception grows, a theory may be refined, re-defined, or even summarily rejected. Proponents of creaintelligent designtionism
would have their "theory" (using quotes because they have failed to define their own hypothesis) be an end-all, even though it is based on the concept of some unseen being magically cooking up the heavens and the earth and everything in them in a couple of days.

That said, I'll go ahead and state my own beliefs: I do not believe in a fundamental creator. Rather, I believe that consciousness has evolved to give the universe a way to stand back and observe itself. Think about it: the universe is a monstrously huge place, and has had (according to recent studies backed up by hard data) almost 14 billion years to evolve. And here we are, humble naked apes, the production of that much time and space. Mind-blowing, yes. A miracle? We shouldn't flatter ourselves.

[centristgrandpa]

13. naked apes, i'm not talking about rush

PetrusMonsFormicarum, thanks for welcome, appreciate the warm thought. When i refer to the "miracle" it's really about the wholesome appreciation of living and the amazing complexity of all life. As you stated; mind-blowing underscores the hallmark of this debate. Them religious nuts want to blur the lines that have kept them at bay for hundreds of years, it seem to have intensified during the bush years.

[baldguy]

12. ID is the bastard child of RW American politics & "Christian" fundamentalism.

It has no place in science - and nothing to do with the teachings of Rabbi Yeshua Ben Yosef of the Galilee

[centristgrandpa]

14. bastard children

I could not agree more baldguy, it's a small wonder why those who push ID are so clueless.

[bananas]

17. "But the Krell forgot one thing! Monsters, John! Monsters from the ID!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbidden_Planet">

Seriously, when you say, "Why the Creationists are trying to blur this scientific line is beyond me",
you're really asking a question about human psychology.

Beliefs are hard to give up. A lot of chemists and physicists don't believe quantum mechanics. They use it, but they think there's something seriously wrong with it, because it violates their beliefs about causality.

[sakabatou]

19. ID doesn't answer a damned thing.

They turn Yahweh into the "God if the gaps."

[centristgrandpa]

22. id

Could not agree more...

[steven johnson]

20. Intelligent Design is the Creationists' Code Word for Christian Fundamentalism

[centristgrandpa]

23. mumbo code

They must believe god is everywhere, something i do not agree with.

[Orsino]

26. ID is a non-explanation...

...that has not a shred of evidence to support it.

We don't yet know enough about how life can begin to prove that only intelligence can create it. The "irreducible complexity" often referred to has never been demonstrated mathematically.

[Aragorn]

28. if you run out of fingers

and toes...uhh...God's will.

[centristgrandpa]

33. shoe-less

Those who believe in GOD, believe, but there is no room for faith based idea's in the scientific community, none.

[centristgrandpa]

31. no support

Orsino said; (The "irreducible complexity" often referred to has never been demonstrated mathematically.) That is the ID's weakness, they inject faith based idea's into a scientific pool of evidence while claiming there is no other course, something i totally Disagree with. Here is a sample of the ideology they use; (DEAN KENYON WAS AN EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGIST WHO NO LONGER THOUGHT THAT CHEMISTRY, ALONE, COULD ACCOUNT FOR THE ORIGIN OF LIFE ON EARTH.)

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our second quarter 2009 fund drive.
Donate and you'll be automatically entered into our daily contest.
New prizes daily!



No purchase or donation necessary. Void where prohibited. Click here for more information.

[and-justice-for-all]

44. ID has not place and it fits only in sunday school....

Science and religion are not at all compatible.

[centristgrandpa]

45. blur margins, i concur...

To believe there is a partnership between science and religion is truly naive...Faith base conclusion in a Scientific inquiry is asinine...intelligent design without empirical data is wishful thinking. (Source quote) “As an aside, but on a related issue, the scientific community has, by and large, chosen to turn their backs on ID. Not because it isn't true science (which it clearly isn't), but because they feel that if they enter into debate with the Myopic and Politically motivated Pseudo-Intellectuals pushing it, they will give credibility to ID and the associated ideas (like irreducible complexity) that it offers. This is a mistake by scientists. Proponents of ID need to be "reeled back in" and "schooled" in what Real Science is and what it shows so conclusively about the history of the earth and the life on it. You are reading the first installment of the lesson. Here's one voice saying that ID is theory. A good theory. But it is no more supportable by science than the idea that intelligent aliens with advanced technology were the ones who animated mud on earth to start life. And, as it is just another hanging thought from the perspective of what can be proved by scientific method, it is Philosophy. It belongs in a philosophy class. Oh, and because it was so clearly demonstrated that ID Cannot Uncouple itself from its Theological beginnings, that philosophy class will have to be held somewhere other than in a public school.”:shrug:

[and-justice-for-all]

48. "intelligent design without empirical data is wishful thinking" YES SIR!! nt

[Posteritatis]

46. Evolution, cosmology, and abiogenesis are unrelated subjects (nt)

[centristgrandpa]

47. E and C = life...

Based on Dr. Carl Sagan Cosmos series, the evolutionary process and cosmology share a unique partnership, our carbon based bodies are akin to the basic carbon building structure that is inherent in our universe. You can't separate the two...

[and-justice-for-all]

49. That is not quite correct....

What makes life possible comes from 'out there'. There was a recent scan of open space for molecular materials like proteins and other things, the scan did reveal those basic building blocks in space.

So without those materials coming from space and mixing together here, there would be no evolution and no life. Knowing that those materials are out there, EVERY planet has the potential to formulate life of some sort. It all depends on the environment which they are being mixed, the combinations are practically endless.

[Posteritatis]

50. Sure, but there's a massive chronology fail going on in this thread

Claiming that evolution is flawed because it doesn't explain biogenesis is like saying baking is flawed because it doesn't explain the existence of plants. It isn't even a straw man, since there's neither connection nor even the possibility of a connection in that direction.

[and-justice-for-all]

51. Evolution does not explain HOW life got started or from where..

it never has and was never part of the Theory. Evolution just explains why life IS...

But as it stands, the majority of research indicates that the building blocks for life, came from space. until more evidence is discovered, that is the current winning hypothesis and when life is discovered on another world, I think it will be the solid concert.

[Posteritatis]

52. Evolution doesn't even explain that

It's exclusively concerned with what life does after it's around and living. How life came about is not relevant to evolutionary theory itself. Anyone who tries to work cosmology or abiogenesis or whatever else into a discussion of evolution is only demonstrating their ignorance.

[centristgrandpa]

53. to be or not to be...

This is what Dr. Carl Sagan stated in the series Cosmos; The basic building block of our universe, the Carbon molecule is akin to our carbon based body, in his opinion this relationship is undeniable, his conclusion "we are collectively bonded to our universe."

[and-justice-for-all]

55. Indeed...nt