On Tue, 23 Apr 1996 12:50:47 -0400 you wrotee:
>BH>Welcome back from Singapore, Stephen. I hope you had a great vacation.
Thanks. We did. Too short, though!
BH>...why do you even hypothesize what you would do "If scientists
>prove that life can originate spontaneously, without even human
>intervention, from non-living chemicals"? Let's lay the human
>intervention part aside.
SJ>No. That is the *essential* part of my argument. I would have no
>problem if science using pre-existing human intelligent design,
>synthesised a self-replicating molecule from non-living chemicals.
>That would be evidence for creation by intelligent design, not
>naturalistic evolution:
>
>"...What should our judgment if some day a scientist actually makes
>a living cell or something akin to an amoeba?...If man can think
>God's thoughts after Him, why is it incredible that man can do some
>of God's works after Him?....." (Ramm B., 1955, p183)
BH>Okay. I actually believe we're making some progress here. I had
>one objection to your proposed action (becoming an atheist or a
>pantheist) should it be shown that life arises spontaneously, now I
>have two. My first objection was that it would be extremely
>difficult, if not totally impossible to show that any apparently
>spontaneous origination of life was _not_ under the control of God.
Agreed. It is impossible to prove any universal negative. But just
think what it means if life can be synthesised spontaneously withoiut
any human intervention. It would become the equivalent of growing
wheat in cotton wool and water that happens in primary school science
classes. I am having a parallel private debate with a Reflectorite on
this same subject. Here is what I wrote to him:
"Think of it. In any school science lab the first experiment in
biology would be to put some chemicals in a beaker and when the
students reurn the next day, a self-replicating molecule has grown all
by itself. A student from a Christian home might say `But God created
the laws which caused the chemicals to spontaneously generate life'.
The teacher would simply say that God wasn't necessary."
While theists with a strong faith (including me) might be able to
rationalise it, the effect would be devastating on our "weaker
brothers" (1Cor 8:11), and children.
BH>My second objection is probability related: I agree that if it
>could be shown that life develops spontaneously from a variety of
>natural precursors, under conditions which are easily achievable, so
>that new life is emerging all the time, then it would be difficult to
>maintain the belief that only God makes life. But that doesn't
>happen. All the postulated scenarios for abiogenesis appeal to
>special conditions. The emergence of life, if it happens (or
>happened) is very rare -- so rare it could be called miraculous. So
>even if it could be shown that it happened, I wouldn't be ready to
>tell the Holy Spirit to take a hike (as a Calvinist I couldn't,
>anyway, but that's beside the point)
Agreed. If "special conditions" have to be arranged by human
intelligent design, then that is (like artificial selection), an
argument for *creation* not naturalistic evolution:
"The scientific materialists are bending all their efforts to
demonstrate that, if a reaction leading up to life can take place now,
in laboratory reaction vessels, without supernatural aid, then proof
positive has been effectively delivered that no supernatural agency
was needed to produce life at the beginning, at archebiopoesis. Thus
any synthetic, laboratory production of life in the laboratory, under
what are presumed to be conditions resembling those on the earth when
life arose for the first time, is heralded in many circles as driving
the last nail in God's and the supernaturalist's coffins. Who needs
God and the supernaturalist position if life on the earth can be
effectively accounted for without either?" (Wilder-Smith, A.E., "The
Creation of Life: A Cybernetic Approach to Evolution", T.W.F.T.
Publishers: Costa Mesa CA, 1988, pp.xix-xx)
BH>I stand by my previous closing point:
>
>BH>To prove that life can originate spontaneously without creative
>acts of God, and can survive without His oversight, would require the
>identification and elimination of every means God could possibly use
>to create and oversee. That is not within the scope of science.
Agreed. But my emphasis was on the *practical* real-world effect.
Denton pointed out that the effect of Darwin's theory on Christianity
was "catastrophic":
"As far as Christianity was concerned, the advent of the theory of
evolution and the elimination of traditional teleological thinking was
catastrophic. The suggestion that life and man are the result of
chance is incompatible with the biblical assertion of their being the
direct result of intelligent creative activity. Despite the attempt
by liberal theology to disguise the point, the fact is that no
biblically derived religion can really be compromised with the
fundamental assertion of Darwinian theory. Chance and design are
antithetical concepts, and the decline in religious belief can
probably be attributed more to the propagation and advocacy by the
intellectual and scientific community of the Darwinian version of
evolution than to any other single factor." (Denton M., "Evolution:
A Theory in Crisis", Burnett Books: London, 1985, p66)
And there is the intellectual honesty aspect. I believe in
supernatural creation because it seems to me that it is the only
intellectually honest position, not just because it cannot be
disproved. If naturalism really was going from strength to strength in
explaining life, the universe and everything, then the only
intellectually honest position is to admit that naturalism is true and
theism false, as Johnson points out:
"The problem, very briefly stated, is this: if employing MN is the
only way to reach true conclusions about the history of the universe,
and if the attempt to provide a naturalistic history of the universe
has continually gone from success to success, and if even theists
concede that trying to do science on theistic premises always leads
nowhere or into error (the embarrassing "God of the gaps"), then the
likely explanation for this state of affairs is that naturalism is
true and theism is false." (Johnson P.E., "Reason in the Balance",
InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove Ill., 1995, p211)
Johnson adds:
"Persons who are sufficiently motivated to do so can find ways to
resist the easy pathway from MN to atheism, agnosticism or deism. For
example, perhaps God actively directs the evolutionary process but
(for some inscrutable reason) does so in a way that is empirically
imperceptible. No one can disprove that sort of possibility, but not
many people regard it as intellectually impressive either. That they
seem to rely on "faith"-in the sense of belief without evidence-is why
theists are a marginalized minority in the academic world and always
on the defensive. Usually they protect their reputation for good
judgment by restricting their theism to private life and assuming for
professional purposes a position that is indistinguishable from
naturalism." (Johnson, 1995, p211)
BH>As one who regards God as a Person who can relate to me as a
>Person, I'm not excited about making Him the subject of scientific
>investigation anyway.
I don't think He would be all that "excited" about it either! :-) But
that is not the point. The point is that if the naturalist can
spontaneously generate a self-replicating molecule in vitro from the
ordinary laws of chemistry and physics, without what Thaxton et. al.
call "the illegitimate role of the investigator" (Thaxton, et. al.,
1992, p185), then God is not necessary for life - one could simply
claim that the natural laws that generated life were eternal.
Of course one could still believe that a God was behind it all, but
that god could just as easily be the God of the deist or pantheist.
The God of the theist would be just one among many plausible gods and
a not even the most plausible one at that. In that case men who
believed in a deistic or even a pantheistic god would not be "without
excuse" (Rom 1:20).
I therefore make this Popperian risky prediction that the naturalist
will *never* *ever* be able to make a self-replicating molecule
(really a molecular *system*) in vitro, by simple chemical and
physical laws and the inherent properties of matter, without the
crucial role of human intelligent design.
God bless.
Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------