Syndicate
User login
Navigation
Creation Myths
Yes... I'm back into the writings of Richard Morris. If you've followed my blog posts, you'll know that I love his writings. To say that I respect the late Mr. Morris would be a huge understatement.
This week, it's "The Evolutionists: The Struggle for Darwin's Soul" (Freeman, 2001). This posts isn't necessarily about evolution, though I added it as a category since this is an associated subject and the blog is fueled by reading on such. This post, as usual, is about the Naturalistic philosophy being paraded as science.
I just finished "Darwin on Trial" by Philip Johnson (review forthcoming). I wasn't as impressed by the book as I'd expected to be, to be honest. But Johnson made some great points about naturalism and its assumptions. His basic argument is that naturalism assumes its own end result, and then interprets evidence accordingly. In other words, Darwinian (or neoDarwinian) evolution must be true since it is the only palatable naturalistic explanation.
We see this brazenly in "The Evolutionists..." We are provided with a creation myth, though it is fairly incomplete in this telling, since it can't account for the Uncaused Cause that modern science points to. It can only account for the materials used by Chance to assemble the life it seeks to explain. It can only pick up on one of the later "days" in this "Creation Week." As opposed to "In the beginning, God..." it can only start, "A long, long time ago, Chance..."
We are told of a planet that formed from space-dust and was bombarded repeatedly, building up so much heat that the surface was molten. About 3.8 billion years ago, this planet cooled enough to solidify, at which time water was released from its core. Remember that 3.8 billion year time frame.
Then we are told:
It is not known exactly how life began. Several plausible schemes have been suggested. However, we can't travel back 3.5 billion years in time to see which idea is correct. But it is probably safe to assume that some kind of chemical evolution preceded the creation of life. Under the proper conditions, systems of very complex organic chemicals will form. At some point, one such system of chemicals must have evolved into the first living cell. [p. 25]
It must have. It must have. Despite the fact that guided scientific efforts have failed to repeat it. Despite the fact that the environment necessary to produce this simple life would have destroyed it as soon as it evolved. Despite the fact that Chance is now robbed of its infinite time to do the job. (The Earth was molten 3.8 billion years ago. 3.5 billion years ago, life appeared.)
Morris was frank about this time frame, though he explained it away in the next paragraph with a brush of his pen and the blatant use of flawed inductive logic.
Since the Earth's surface was too hot to support life until around 3.8 billion years ago, the first living organisms must have come into existence fairly quickly. Those first organisms may not have any descendants today. It is conceivable that life was wiped out several times, only to evolve anew. [p. 25, emphasis mine]
So, not only did life evolve by chance without this vast expanse of time to work with, it may have done so several times over. The proverbial monkeys not only reproduced Shakespeare, but also Twain and several Little Richard songs.
My point is the "must haves". Life must have evolved, because that is the only explanation allowed into the naturalistic Creation Myths. They've done nothing more than rename a miracle and call Chance the miracle worker.
Blessings...
custom-pager custom-pager-1 custom-pager-blog
Technorati Tags:
I think you may be reading a bit much into this...
I haven't seen the text you're quoting from, so I'm just taking a stab at this. I read the "must have" language as saying, effectively, "this is the way things must have happened, IF our assumptions are correct." He's not saying this is definitely what happened.
On the other hand, you're making definitive statements, such as:
Despite the fact that the environment necessary to produce this simple life would have destroyed it as soon as it evolved.
"Would have" is just as strong as "must have," but I don't see an alternate reading of your statement. Morris seems to openly admit ignorance about the early environment and the structure of early life, yet you can make definitive statments about both?
As for the time frame, 300 million years is nothing to sneeze at. Assuming the conditions were favorable for life formation (note the first word of this sentence!), it's plausible to imagine that it could have happened more than once in that vast span of time. I'm not saying it DID happen, because there are other equally plausible explanations that fit the limited amount of evidence we currently have.
I'll loan you the book..
...as soon as I finish it.
The context of the quote is very much not an "if", since the book's main purpose is an explanation of the arguments between evolutionists. The book's purpose is to explain to lay-people that the question is not "if naturalistic evolution happened", but "how it happened". The "if" is a given. The context and total of matetrial also removes the discussion from any equivocation of "evolution". It is not speaking to micro-evolution, or changes within species that is observed. It is speaking to the grand theory of evolution that life sprang from non-life, natural descent, etc...
This book is an extension of the evolutionists' argument that "evolution" is as proven as a round earth, or the orbit of the moon.
Also, I hope that you will notice my statement that you quoted is in the context of "if"-- in the context of the naturalistic explanation of abiogenesis. "If" the process of abiogenesis would have happened, then the environment would have killed the product of the process. And, it is framed within the backdrop of experimental data.
The experiments that try to reproduce the supposed spontaneous generation of complex compounds that precede the supposed spontaneous generation of life show the problems inherent in the abiogenesis theory. For instance, the energy necessary for production of these compounds also destroys them upon creation. That's why the constructed artificial "environments" to facilitate the creation must include unnatural "traps" that seperate and collect the compounds before innihilation by the energy source that created them.
Secondly, the atmospheric conditions we find on Earth would have oxidized the compounds. A methane-rich, oxygen-deprived atmosphere is nothing more than another must-have explanation.
Further, the ocean that would nurture the burgeoning life would have had to be below 25* C (and preferrably below 0* C)-- too low to be found on an earth that is just beginning to cool after existing as a molten mass.
These are just a few of the many problems with abiogenesis but enough, I hope, to point out where my definitive statements originate. These are problems that the majority of scientists know about, and those who believe in spontaneous abiogenesis believe it in spite of these definitive problems. I venture that their belief is based on the fact that abiogenesis "must have" happened because life exists, just as my original blog post spoke to.
Welcome back.
I always enjoy your input.
No real argument from me here, just a contrary perspective
It is not speaking to micro-evolution, or changes within species that is observed. It is speaking to the grand theory of evolution that life sprang from non-life, natural descent, etc...
Call me a nit-picker, but I have to point out a couple of things here. First, "micro-evolution" is a term dreamed up by creationists. Scientists don't make a distinction between "micro" and "macro". It's difficult enough to define a species barrier (since they're not clear-cut), much less classify processes that cross over (and actually create!) those artificial constructs.
Second, evolution says nothing about life springing from non-life. In fact, it says quite the opposite--all life is related. Abiogenesis is completely different, even if some of the concepts are shared between the two.
With that out of the way, it sounds to me like this is a book written for popular consumption, in laymen's terms (relative to academic literature). The purpose is likely not to PROVE the theories, but to present the current accepted understanding. It's really an understood prerequisite that science is always changing, becoming more accurate, and correcting previous errors. If the author had included all the "if", "but", "assuming" qualifications the text would lose a great deal of accessibility.
Your confidence about the conditions on the early earth is unfounded. Sure, the experiments to date show that there are problems with the various models. That's WHY we experiment! Maybe the conditions are different from what we suspect, or maybe we can't accurately model the processes on a small scale.
You point out the failures of the individual experiments and draw the conclusion that the hypothesised event never happened. The researchers use those failures to tell them how it couldn't have happened, so they can refine the possible ways it MIGHT have happened.
These are problems that the majority of scientists know about, and those who believe in spontaneous abiogenesis believe it in spite of these definitive problems. I venture that their belief is based on the fact that abiogenesis "must have" happened because life exists, just as my original blog post spoke to.
It's not so much "belief" as it is "acceptance." For them, it's the most credible explanation to date. The jury is still WAY out on this one, but evidence is slowly coming in. Let's see where it takes us...
The perspective is most welcomed
Call me a nit-picker, but I have to point out a couple of things here. First, "micro-evolution" is a term dreamed up by creationists. Scientists don't make a distinction between "micro" and "macro". It's difficult enough to define a species barrier (since they're not clear-cut), much less classify processes that cross over (and actually create!) those artificial constructs.
I would have to disagree, since all observable evidence indicates that micro-evolution is change within bounds. The fact that finch beaks vary in size dependent on environment, as do moth colors (i.e. go from larger to smaller and back, darker, lighter and back) indicate that the "evolution" that is observed is within set bounds.
Second, evolution says nothing about life springing from non-life. In fact, it says quite the opposite--all life is related. Abiogenesis is completely different, even if some of the concepts are shared between the two.
Which is obviously why it is described in a book on Evolution, as a support of evolution.
Your confidence about the conditions on the early earth is unfounded. Sure, the experiments to date show that there are problems with the various models. That's WHY we experiment! Maybe the conditions are different from what we suspect, or maybe we can't accurately model the processes on a small scale.
You are inferring too much as to where my confidence lies. I was merely speaking within the framework of the models presented. I was not making assertions as to the truth or untruth of the models. The current models for abiogenesis spell out exactly what I spoke to. They were not of my making.
You point out the failures of the individual experiments and draw the conclusion that the hypothesised event never happened.
You're again inferring too much, this time why I am skeptical of abiogenesis. You and I don't seem to share the same sneeze concerning time (remember the proverbial monkeys?), the power of Chance (as compared to guided and intelligent failed efforts), established science (biogenesis)...
That's cool. These are minor disagreements about a couple of sentences of my post. The meat is in the rest, and thus...
The researchers use those failures to tell them how it couldn't have happened, so they can refine the possible ways it MIGHT have happened.
And then describe to the uninformed public that it MUST have happened, all for the sake of accessibility.
Not sure this is going anywhere productive
I would have to disagree, since all observable evidence indicates that micro-evolution is change within bounds.
I had a chuckle at that one. Have you really seen ALL the observable evidence? Speciation is real and has been observed:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#speciations
I was merely speaking within the framework of the models presented.
But you didn't make that distinction in the original text. You made the same mistake Morris did.
You and I don't seem to share the same sneeze concerning time (remember the proverbial monkeys?)
Have you tried to conceive what 300 million years is like? How many human generations is that? How many times greater is that span of time than the time since the Great Pyramids were built? Also, the monkeys at typwriters analogy is tired. Do the monkeys get rewarded when they get one word right? A partial sentence?
And then describe to the uninformed public that it MUST have happened, all for the sake of accessibility.
Is that any different from you telling the "uninformed public" that it COULDN"T have happened?
Do any of our evolution debates go anywhere productive? :)
I had a chuckle at that one. Have you really seen ALL the observable evidence? Speciation is real and has been observed:
This after admitting that the demarkation of speciation is not well understood? You and I aren't alone. In the very book my post is discussing, Morris defines speciation as demarked by an inability to reproduce. Then a few pages later he defines Neanderthals as a seprate species from erectus. Then he says that no one knows if they were killed off by erectus or blended into erectus by breeding.
I admit it is a confusing subject for all involved. I also stand by the comment that all observation indicates that genetic change is within limits. Especially since that is a far cry from claiming speciation hasn't occurred.
But you didn't make that distinction in the original text. You made the same mistake Morris did.
Really? You didn't catch the title of the blog? The fact that the entire context is a description of that creation myth (model)? The fact that I said "would" have, as opposed to "did"? "Would have", as in, under their model, it "would have"...
I thought the entire context was an exercise in that distinction. My bad.
Have you tried to conceive what 300 million years is like? How many human generations is that? How many times greater is that span of time than the time since the Great Pyramids were built? Also, the monkeys at typwriters analogy is tired. Do the monkeys get rewarded when they get one word right? A partial sentence?
Yes. I have. And I've tried to conceive of small numbers. And monkeys. And airplane parts, and tornados, and 747s. And chance. You see, astronomical numbers make little difference when you are talking about this sort of thing. In our varied discussions here, you have been firm and careful to distinguish between "chance" and natural selection. I'm quite sure because you realize the same thing I do. Chance is a non-entity. With no powers.
But in this discussion, you don't have natural selection to do the dirty work. You have time, and you have chance. Period.
Now, no matter how much time you give chance, you are still left with only chance to do what observed, directed intelligence has been incapable of, and do it potentially several times over.
And, pray tell me, what is rewarding chance for getting a particular molecule in the right place? Or forming a protein? or an enzyme? Or the double-helix? Are you implying that natural selection preexisted proteins, DNA, RNA, cells? Are you implying that it was at work before replication? before mutation? Wow... It is a much more powerful Force than I had even been told...
Is that any different from you telling the "uninformed public" that it COULDN"T have happened?
Wasn't aware that's what I had done. I thought I had pointed out the parallels between abiogenisis and the accusations of religious "myths", and used observed scientific results to support the probability that it wouldn't have happened under the framework offered. I don't remember using the word, "couldn't".
Still think you're reading too much into a single word
I also stand by the comment that all observation indicates that genetic change is within limits. Especially since that is a far cry from claiming speciation hasn't occurred.
Hmmm... your comment about "within limits" was a direct reply to my statement about the false division of "micro" and "macro" evolution. What are your limits, if not the species boundary? Is it the ever-changing "kind" boundary? If you are going to claim that there are very hard limits to the power of evolution, you'd better be prepared to produce the evidence and show exactly where those boundaries are.
Really? You didn't catch the title of the blog? The fact that the entire context is a description of that creation myth (model)?
And you didn't catch the title of the book that prompted this post? Did you not assimilate that Morris' context was the various competing hypotheses within evolutionary theory? It's right there on page two, fer cryin' out loud! My point stands.
And airplane parts, and tornados, and 747s.
Please don't bring that old canard up. It's really beneath you. Anyone who thinks that is analogous to the way evolution (and these hypotheses of abiogenesis) works is only displaying a profound lack of understanding of the most basic concepts.
But in this discussion, you don't have natural selection to do the dirty work. You have time, and you have chance. Period.
Au contraire! Natural selection is a tricky bugger. Some sort of duplication (not neccessarily replication) is all that's required for it to kick in. If you have a "soup" of various molecules, and for some reason one specific type tends to not dissolve as fast as the others, maybe even moreso in the presense of other like molecules, and there's some mehanism for producing more of these molecules, pretty soon that soup will be full of 'em. You see, it's not just chance at work here.
And, pray tell me, what is rewarding chance for getting a particular molecule in the right place? Or forming a protein? or an enzyme? Or the double-helix? Are you implying that natural selection preexisted proteins, DNA, RNA, cells? Are you implying that it was at work before replication? before mutation?
Ooops! Your preconceived notions are showing! You seem to think that natural selection is some magical force that takes effect only when life is there. Some protiens will be better suited to an environment than others. Enzymes cause things to happen. What if they catalyze a reaction that leads to a chain of events that produces more of the same enzymes? Can natural selection not operate here?
I thought I had pointed out the parallels between abiogenisis and the accusations of religious "myths", and used observed scientific results to support the probability that it wouldn't have happened under the framework offered.
The religious myths aren't subjected to much open scrutiny, so that parallel is short lived. All you're doing is pointing out the current questions/limitations/problems with abiogenesis hypotheses that scientists have already admitted to. If those problems didn't exist, they'd be well on their way to theoryhood. As I've pointed out before, this is how science works. If every scientist gave up on a hypothesis as soon as a problem was encountered, we'd still be mired in the superstitions of the dark ages.
I still think you're reading a bit much into Morris' "must have" while ignoring the contextual "it is not known", "probably safe to assume", "under the proper conditions", etc.
I'm aware of that
If you are going to claim that there are very hard limits to the power of evolution, you'd better be prepared to produce the evidence and show exactly where those boundaries are.
Why? Not even the evolutionists have establish those limits, as we have both commented on.
And you didn't catch the title of the book that prompted this post? Did you not assimilate that Morris' context was the various competing hypotheses within evolutionary theory? It's right there on page two, fer cryin' out loud! My point stands.
Except for the fact that evolution as described is dependent on the description of abiogenesis. As a matter of fact, the description of the model was done to set the platform for the overall evolution theory that the squabbles would take place in. The section of abiogenesis was described more as the beginning of evolution just as you describe it further down in your last post. You are contradicting yourself. At one point, you are saying that evolution is independent of abiogenesis, and in the next you are defending natural selection as a participant in abiogenesis. Please make up your mind.
Please don't bring that old canard up. It's really beneath you.
Thanks for the compliment.
Some sort of duplication (not neccessarily replication) is all that's required for it to kick in.
First things first... Get me the molecules first, brother. The problem here is that in a (soup) the size of the ocean, where all of the models place this "duplication", you'd need tons and tons and tons and tons (etc...) of these molecules for that to kick in. Or, maybe it's just chance working again in that in all of the millions?, billions? of gallons, you have all these closely neighbored duplicating molecules?
The religious myths aren't subjected to much open scrutiny
We obviously frequent different circles.
All you're doing is pointing out the current questions/limitations/problems with abiogenesis hypotheses that scientists have already admitted to
Correct.
If every scientist gave up on a hypothesis as soon as a problem was encountered, we'd still be mired in the superstitions of the dark ages.
I still think you're reading a bit much into Morris' "must have" while ignoring the contextual "it is not known", "probably safe to assume", "under the proper conditions", etc.
They are as welcome to their faith as I am to mine. And therein lies my point.
Why? Not even the
Why? Not even the evolutionists have establish those limits, as we have both commented on.
They're not claiming any specifc limits yet, because there's not enough evidence to do so. What they HAVE done is show sufficient evidence for the action of evolution. You accept some of it, but reject the rest. All you have to do is show why you would make such a distinction, and where the line might be drawn. If you're so certain the line exists, why would it be difficult to point it out?
evolution as described is dependent on the description of abiogenesis.
You are contradicting yourself. At one point, you are saying that evolution is independent of abiogenesis, and in the next you are defending natural selection as a participant in abiogenesis. Please make up your mind.
I claimed that some of the same processes at work in evolution would also affect abiogenesis, if it occurred. The reason I say they are independent is because we have very strong evidence the one occurred, and lots of rampant speculation about the other. The fields are certainly related, but not directly linked. If abiogenesis didn't occur, evolution still stands on its own merits.
The problem here is that in a (soup) the size of the ocean, where all of the models place this "duplication", you'd need tons and tons and tons and tons (etc...) of these molecules for that to kick in.
Have you really looked at the details of any contemporary model of abiogenesis? I don't think any of them presume a setting of the entire ocean. Some presume shallow pools, others are clustered around geothermal vents. Morris' descriptions might have been a bit too broad or outdated. Damning the models on the "tons and tons" requirement is something of a strawman.
They are as welcome to their faith as I am to mine. And therein lies my point.
You took umbrage with the "must have" and are calling it faith. If it weren't for the context, I might concede that. The "must" is saying that "in order for the model to be correct," not, "it IS this way because we believe it is." It's a fanciful trip into "what might have been" rather than an authoritative "what WAS". The latter is decidedly the realm of faith.
Since we have covered all of this already...
They're not claiming any specifc limits yet, because there's not enough evidence to do so. What they HAVE done is show sufficient evidence for the action of evolution. You accept some of it, but reject the rest. All you have to do is show why you would make such a distinction, and where the line might be drawn. If you're so certain the line exists, why would it be difficult to point it out?
And I don't see why you still can't fathom my answer, as I have given it several times since you've been on here. I have this tendency to restrict it to what is observed.
If abiogenesis didn't occur, evolution still stands on its own merits.
Not as defined in the text books-- you know, what with the hard-nosed naturalism.
Have you really looked at the details of any contemporary model of abiogenesis? I don't think any of them presume a setting of the entire ocean. Some presume shallow pools, others are clustered around geothermal vents. Morris' descriptions might have been a bit too broad or outdated. Damning the models on the "tons and tons" requirement is something of a strawman.
Yes I have. And the small-pool theories suffer from the environment needed. The geothermal vents are where?
You took umbrage with the "must have" and are calling it faith. If it weren't for the context, I might concede that. The "must" is saying that "in order for the model to be correct," not, "it IS this way because we believe it is." It's a fanciful trip into "what might have been" rather than an authoritative "what WAS". The latter is decidedly the realm of faith.
Uh... The context is smears against creationists. It's an either/or scenario. One or the other.
And the context is not an "if my model is correct". It is within the pages of the statement as fact of the formation of the earth. The statement as fact that the earth cooled. The statement as fact that volcanic eruptions released water. The statement as fact that... "almost as soon as they came into existence, the oceans were full of organic chemicals that were to be the building blocks of life."
This is the previous paragraph to what I quoted. I apologize if I didn't give enough context. Please also note that I did not build a straw man, but spoke to the theory presented in the work I am writing on and quoting.
Let's try to keep things in the context of the original discussion.