Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The problem in the context of the OP is two-fold. I have never heard a scientist proclaim they "know" how life got started. There are hypotheses, a few theories (emphasis on the lower case 't'), and some other ideas floating around as to how life got started. In fact, in many circles, once we reach the level of saying "What was the first 'life'?" we have to actually define what we mean by 'life.' Most people feel that 'life' must mean the first biological cell but I'm not so sure that is what we're looking for. The RNA-World Theory provides some excellent hypotheses about self-replicating RNA as indicated by this paper, for example.
But, there are several things that must be pointed out about the Intelligent Design movement and their "scientists." In 2001, the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School Board trial exposed the Intelligent Design movement as nothing more than a pseudonym for "Creationism" - as in Young Earth Creationism. There were hundreds of thousands of documents exposing this such as to the point where forever more when we hear the words "Intelligent Design" we should take it as being synonymous with "Creationism."
Not only did this trial expose the Intelligent Design movement for what it was, it also brought to justice the shear un-scientific manner in which the ID "scientists" pursued their answers. In fact, of the twelve scientists asked to come to the trial, only three showed up. One of them almost found himself in contempt of court and on the borderline of committing perjury for lying to support his cause. PBS NOVA did an excellent report on the trial, what happened, and what it consisted of if you don't believe me. The court transcripts are also available here if people feel I'm being biased.
The fact of the matter is that the Intelligent Design community has spawned from the Creationist woodwork and their intent is to see literal biblical Christianity pushed into the school systems. I present The Wedge Document for more evidence of that.
Taking all of that into consideration, we already know what the Intelligent Design community's exploration into the origins of life are - God did it - and I don't mean to say that in order to sound snarky or rude. There is absolutely no scientific merit to be gained from that and it cuts off any and all investigative procedure when we say that "God did it" because we revert to supernaturalism. Science is the investigation of the natural world and its processes. When we resort to "God did it," we eliminate any and all possibility of answering these questions in a scientific manner. That's precisely what ID "scientists" want to have happen so they can progress from there in putting forth a literal Biblical version of Creationism to be taught in our schools.
How on Earth do we give a scientific explanation of a supernatural event? The only way to do so would be to explain the natural events and processes with which the natural world interacted. If such a thing as "supernatural" exists - which is contradictory in itself, we cannot interact with it, relate to it, or explain it because any attempt to do so would rely on scientific explanations dealing with the "natural" world. Thus, to say that Intelligent Design is a viable method of explaining first life is to not only discredit the scientific method but also presumes supernatural exists (again, a misnomer) and must therefore not require an explanation in and of itself. It's a philosophical fallacy and simply not worthy of giving attention to.
This is the movie that got me thinking about this. It had a recent release, and I'm sure hardly anyone saw it.
It went into detail about Intelligent design, and the scientists backing it. Notice I didn't put quotation marks around the scientist name, because there are actual scientists who do back alternative evolution theories.
Many of the main scientists that Stein interviewed that are behind ID, believe that Evolution happened. As I said in my OP, we know that small changes happen to species overtime. All of that "mountain of evidence" as the previous poster speaks of, support that.
However, Evolution doesn't explain the origins of life. It explains the different life forms we have, and the large numbers of different life forms on Earth, but it never once explains how everything got started.
Evolutionary scientists, like Richard Dawkins, believe that evolution answers all the questions. It doesn't, far from answering all the questions. They seem to be doing the same that many accuse the creationists of doing, saying its there way, and no other way.
ID scientists are prohibited from addressing their colleagues in large forums on Universities, because the scientific community doesn't allow them to. Thats just wrong. I'm not saying that Intelligent designers are right about their hypothesis, but banning them because they have no evidence is asinine. Their hypothesis is just as good as many of the Evolutionary scientists I saw, and have heard before.
When asked Dawkins, arguably the face of the evolution movement, how he believed that the first life occurred on Earth, he will tell you something about Alien seeding, or primordial soup.
The fact is, scientists have tried to replicate the exact same conditions we believe that life sprung from. They weren't successful.
So we have two major choices
1. Life started from an alien seeding.
This leads to more questions. How did their life begin? If it was brought by a comet to our planet by accident, how did that life begin?
Life had to begin somewhere first, without seeding.
or,
2. A designer did it.
Both of the answers are kind of hard to fathom, if you ask me. Neither side "knows" how life occurred.
So again, evolutionary scientists should express their theory, but not give a definitive answer, as Evolution is far from that answer. Religious folks shouldn't discount evolution, because it doesn't disprove God.
Until we can answer the question, "How did life begin" God will never be discounted.
In reality, both theories, "God dun it" or "Aliens dun it" are both equally feasible, aren't they?
This is the movie that got me thinking about this. It had a recent release, and I'm sure hardly anyone saw it.
It went into detail about Intelligent design, and the scientists backing it. Notice I didn't put quotation marks around the scientist name, because there are actual scientists who do back alternative evolution theories.
Many of the main scientists that Stein interviewed that are behind ID, believe that Evolution happened. As I said in my OP, we know that small changes happen to species overtime. All of that "mountain of evidence" as the previous poster speaks of, support that.
However, Evolution doesn't explain the origins of life. It explains the different life forms we have, and the large numbers of different life forms on Earth, but it never once explains how everything got started.
Evolutionary scientists, like Richard Dawkins, believe that evolution answers all the questions. It doesn't, far from answering all the questions. They seem to be doing the same that many accuse the creationists of doing, saying its there way, and no other way.
ID scientists are prohibited from addressing their colleagues in large forums on Universities, because the scientific community doesn't allow them to. Thats just wrong. I'm not saying that Intelligent designers are right about their hypothesis, but banning them because they have no evidence is asinine. Their hypothesis is just as good as many of the Evolutionary scientists I saw, and have heard before.
When asked Dawkins, arguably the face of the evolution movement, how he believed that the first life occurred on Earth, he will tell you something about Alien seeding, or primordial soup.
The fact is, scientists have tried to replicate the exact same conditions we believe that life sprung from. They weren't successful.
So we have two major choices
1. Life started from an alien seeding.
This leads to more questions. How did their life begin? If it was brought by a comet to our planet by accident, how did that life begin?
Life had to begin somewhere first, without seeding.
or,
2. A designer did it.
Both of the answers are kind of hard to fathom, if you ask me. Neither side "knows" how life occurred.
So again, evolutionary scientists should express their theory, but not give a definitive answer, as Evolution is far from that answer. Religious folks shouldn't discount evolution, because it doesn't disprove God.
Until we can answer the question, "How did life begin" God will never be discounted.
In reality, both theories, "God dun it" or "Aliens dun it" are both equally feasible, aren't they?
First and foremost, you should really read Richard Dawkins' book "The Blind Watchmaker" or "The Ancestor's Tale" as he explains several very good hypotheses as to how life may have originated. Though they're not the focus of either of those books, he dedicates several very informative chapters to those ideas.
Second... Richard Dawkins has made it quite public as to the circumstances upon which he gave his answer. Upon being interviewed for Expelled, he did not know what the documentary was about, he was simply told it had to do with evolution and intelligent design. He was then asked to give an example of any way he could imagine there having been a designer to start the "first life" on this planet. He has publicly avowed that he reached far and deep to come up with his "alien hypothesis" so as to satiate the question.
Third... It seems like not a lot of thought by most people has been put into the idea of why evolutionary principles (selection, survival, etc...) could not have also given rise to the first life. Part of my point about the RNA-world Theory that I pointed out in my initial response was that in the presence of a catalyst, scientists have developed a rather full fledged method in which RNA will "procreate." While it is very important to note the distinction between using a catalyst and "self-catalysis," (the paper does not cover self-catalysis), it should give us the idea that it is quite possible that DNA originated from lesser replicators (Dawkins uses the idea of clay crystals in his book "The Blind Watchmaker" as an example).
Fourth... Everything we seem to know about the universe and its formation indicates an evolutionary process of sorts. Even the explanations of galaxies, the periodic tables, etc... all revolve around the process of nuclear synthesis (sometimes called nucleosynthesis) in the same kind of evolutionary format. Why should we find one thing (the origin of life) in the midst of the entire evolutionary process of the universe only to say "Here is where God intervened!"?
Fifth... The movie Expelled was put forth by advocates of the Intelligent Design/Creationist community. They have lost any and all credibility as being either honest or scientific. I fully expect them to twist and contort their viewpoints in a manner that completely distorts evolution's point of view to the point of being something akin to "racist."
Sixth... The very opening scene of Expelled should have been enough to clue people in to the idea of what the documentary was trying to get across. The absurd notion that evolution led to Hitler's persecution of the Jews is about as ridiculous as it gets. While God is mentioned numerous times in Mein Kampf, the words Darwin, evolution, or any reference to the scientific theory are simply not found.
The Intelligent Design community has not only been dishonest in what they are trying to get across but they have blown their credibility to such an extent in which they should be ignored. What they beg for is to give the same amount of credibility to the study of abiogenesis as those who scientifically support evolution.
Fine. Give them their shot and while you're at it... Find one scientifically oriented paper they've ever even tried to contribute to the cause. You won't find any because they are not in the business of trying to perform science. They are in the business of trying to subvert it to make money and lie for Jesus.
I think another aspect that is worth mentioning is that our society, or perhaps our species by nature, tends to think in the binary and assume mutual exclusivity. A given philosophical branch claims to be 'opening their minds' and becoming 'free thinkers,' yet at the same time, they tend to close their minds to any 'free thinking' outside of their hypothesis, assumptions, or conclusions. It's the same mentality played out over and over and over throughout history. It used to be religion. Now it's science. Two hundred years from now it will be something different. Everyone thinks they know everything. At this point it happens to be an arrogant scientific community that stubbornly refuses to even give a nod to the idea that not everything in our universe is observable by us, not everything in this universe is known, and that science's track record is not exactly spotless.
That's the main reason I'm in total agreement with your original answer of 'I don't know.' Seems to me a bit more in tune with the scientific method to not exclude ideas that cannot be proven one way or the other. When I see a clearly laid out statement with irrefutable proof... well that's when I trust science. I trust it no farther than that. Blind faith in science (which quite often is really politicized pseudo-science anyway) is just as foolish as blind faith in a religion or anything else that cannot be verified. Belief, unprovable hypothesis (no matter how stylish they are today), and fact are not the same.
While God is mentioned numerous times in Mein Kampf, the words Darwin, evolution, or any reference to the scientific theory are simply not found.
Why is it that this God-n-Hitler-team-mates reference keeps coming up? Weren't you just talking about logical fallacies? Don't you see the fallacy here in your implication in both the case that God does exist and the case that God does not exist?
This is the exact same sort of reasoning: I go out and shoot someone. The police catch me. They asked me if I had any accomplices. I tell them Martians made me do it. If there is no such thing as a Martian, then obviously a Martian cannot be responsible. But even if there were Martians, do my words associate them with my act? Are they guilty simply because I mentioned their name or I wrote their name in my biography?
If God (assuming existence) came down and said, "Oh sure, I told Hitler to kill all the Jews," then your implication would hold water. Otherwise, your line of reasoning on that particular point is erroneous either way and just as ridiculous as implying that evolution played a part in what Hitler did.
And that is beside the fact that if we assume no God and that evolution is truth, then by the fact of evolution's very existence, it would have a greater mathematical probability of influencing Hitler's treatment of the Jews than would an entity that doesn't exist, would it not? It's quite impossible for a non-existent being to be responsible for anything. Why not blame the tooth fairy?
Why is it that this God-n-Hitler-team-mates reference keeps coming up? Weren't you just talking about logical fallacies? Don't you see the fallacy here in your implication in both the case that God does exist and the case that God does not exist?
This is the exact same sort of reasoning: I go out and shoot someone. The police catch me. They asked me if I had any accomplices. I tell them Martians made me do it. If there is no such thing as a Martian, then obviously a Martian cannot be responsible. But even if there were Martians, do my words associate them with my act? Are they guilty simply because I mentioned their name or I wrote their name in my biography?
If God (assuming existence) came down and said, "Oh sure, I told Hitler to kill all the Jews," then your implication would hold water. Otherwise, your line of reasoning on that particular point is erroneous either way and just as ridiculous as implying that evolution played a part in what Hitler did.
And that is beside the fact that if we assume no God and that evolution is truth, then by the fact of evolution's very existence, it would have a greater mathematical probability of influencing Hitler's treatment of the Jews than would an entity that doesn't exist, would it not? It's quite impossible for a non-existent being to be responsible for anything. Why not blame the tooth fairy?
What I was referring to was that in the documentary, the very opening scene injects the notion that Darwinism was responsible for the mass genocides of millions of people including the Jews under Hitler, the Soviets under Stalin, etc... In essence, it lays claim that evolution provides a "logical pathway" for people to justify the mass murder of people. One really has to see the opening scene to get a picture of the very unsubtle way in which this is done, by the way.
However, it doesn't stop there. It is a common argument (if we should call it that) of the Creationist/Intelligent Design community that not only does teaching evolution lead to things like genocide but that school shootings, teen pregnancy, drug use, etc... can or should be attributed to the teaching of evolution in schools. This is well evidenced by the way the Creation Museum in Kentucky has an entire room devoted to presenting this idea; as well as numerous websites affiliated with the Creationists/Intelligent Design proponents that also offer this same sort of absurdity.
Thus, it comes as no surprise to see such a horrendous lie come at the very beginning of a movie that tries to give Intelligent Design some sort of credibility. It is part of their modus operandi.
My point was that if we were to take Hitler, for example, he did not use the idea of evolution upon writing Mein Kampf so as to get his point across. Indeed, there is absolutely no mention of evolution, Darwin, or anything of the sort in his manifesto. What there are, in fact, are numerous references to God and the Bible. To continue on with my point, in the beginning of this post I said that Intelligent Design proponents blamed the idea of evolution for putting forth the "logical pathway" in which people such as Hitler, Stalin, etc... operated. In fact, the smattering of religious references used by Hitler (and in Stalin's case he was seen as a sort of demi-god as most czars were heads of the church and seen as such in Russia at the time) were the very things that provided the "logical pathway" for people to go along with their inhumane ideas.
It's not that God doesn't exist therefore he cannot be responsible for Hitler's influence of people. I don't happen to believe that God exists. However, that does not insinuate that the idea of God has not or will not provide someone with what they perceive as a "logical pathway" to perform acts of atrocious measures. We can take the example of a 9/11 hijacker. I presume to think you are not a Muslim but I would be willing to bet you would attribute the hijackers' motive and actions to their religious beliefs despite the fact that you don't believe in Allah. It is the ideas and concepts of what we are talking about that is being attributed the blame - not whether the factual happening or existence of such a thing is real or not.
In essence, my line of reasoning holds. To blame evolution for the mass genocide of millions of people does nothing to the credibility of whether or not it's actually a solid, scientific fact. Even if it led to such atrocities being performed, it would no more negate the science of evolution than would Hiroshima and Nagasaki negate atomic theory or E=MC2. The ID community prefers to throw the idea that evolution causes evil things to happen; they do this to slander the science - not disprove it and that's the very first statement they chose to make in their documentary. But, if they must reside on that point, what does that have to say about the inordinate numbers of people murdered in the name of religion and God?
If you watch the movie, you can see that Hitler used Darwinism as an excuse to do some of the horrible things he did. Don't feel bad though, Hitler used Christianity to the same ends as well.
Thats what Stein was getting at. I didn't see the very beginning of the movie, I actually tuned in about 10 minutes into it. I could pick up some serious "religious" overtones throughout a lot of it.
However, just because a movie has a lot of wrong assumptions, doesn't mean its completely wrong.
Heres what it boils down to. Some folks think that they have all the answers. They bring up unsubstantiated claims to bolster their position. Some scientists attack "intelligent design" as a religious backed scientific movement. However, there are some scientists who actually want to study that branch, and major evolutionary scientists don't support that.
If your argument is good, then it will stand on its own. It won't need anyone to prop it up. I'm pretty sure that life didn't begin in the way we assume it did. It probably came out of left field.
The RNA mutation that you speak of is a good idea, however, its just one hypothesis. There isn't anymore evidence to support that as there is a creator, or a alien seeding, or any other hypothesis as of now.
I think life began on this planet as complex molecules developed the chemical ability to replicate themselves in an otherwise abiotic environment. This is a result of chemistry, opportunity and time. I understand the evolution is the process used to select the next generation of survivors. I am certain the some mystical entity called, for lack of a better term, God, did not have anything to do with this chemical process.
I believe both Intelligent Design and Creationism are intellectual concepts created to provide a sense of importance to people unable to accept the idea that the cosmos is utterly indifferent to their existence. Some people absolutely must believe they are a special creation of the mystical and not just another creature amongst trillions of creatures.
My own belief is I am special to a few of my friends and the rest of the human population, let alone the universe, does not know or care if I exist. I care about my friends and am indifferent to the rest.
"I don't know" is the literal conclusion of Atheism, so I'm not sure what you mean. It sounds like you're really arguing for more conversational humility or something?
BRRRRRRR!! Sorry, wrong answer.
"I don't know" is the answer that an agnostic would give. It is intellectually honest.
"I know that xxxx doesn't exist; didn't happen; isn't going to bother me..." is the answer that an atheist would give. It is intellectually dis-honest.
Atheists pretend to know about everything in the world. As a Chinese learner of English here would say "How can?"
I think life began on this planet as complex molecules developed the chemical ability to replicate themselves in an otherwise abiotic environment. This is a result of chemistry, opportunity and time. I understand the evolution is the process used to select the next generation of survivors. I am certain the some mystical entity called, for lack of a better term, God, did not have anything to do with this chemical process.
I believe both Intelligent Design and Creationism are intellectual concepts created to provide a sense of importance to people unable to accept the idea that the cosmos is utterly indifferent to their existence. Some people absolutely must believe they are a special creation of the mystical and not just another creature amongst trillions of creatures.
My own belief is I am special to a few of my friends and the rest of the human population, let alone the universe, does not know or care if I exist. I care about my friends and am indifferent to the rest.
I agree with your statement that we (our species) are not nearly as important or all-knowing as we think we are. However, parts of the scientific community is just as self-important as is various religious factions. Look at climate change scientists. They (in general) believe we are so powerful and important that we should stop the cycling of the climate--something that has been happening as far back as our scientific methods can detect. To top it off, they are so self-important that they think we SHOULD stop it and that we even have the power to stop it (please note, I'm NOT saying humans don't affect the climate--I'm saying what we do is adjunct to what nature does all by its lonesome). There are hudreds of other areas where science oversteps its usefulness and actually starts resembling the very religions it 'discredits.' So, no, science is no stranger to arrogance.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
