Image via WikipediaHere's another good quote from Dr. Shapiro's article in Scientific American:
In a form of molecular vitalism, some scientists have presumed that nature has an innate tendency to produce life's building blocks preferentially, rather than the hordes of other molecules that can also be derived from the rules of organic chemistry.Is presumption science? But, let's assume they are right -- and they are assuming this only because, otherwise, the odds of life appearing spontaneously in the time available become distantly improbable. Let's assume that nature is predisposed towards life rather than barren lifelessness. What does that tell us about the nature of nature?
Reading on, the air comes out of the vitalist's balloon:
A careful examination of the results of the analysis of several meteorites led the scientists who conducted the work to a different conclusion: inanimate nature has a bias toward the formation of molecules made of fewer rather than greater numbers of carbon atoms, and thus shows no partiality in favor of creating the building blocks of our kind of life. (When larger carbon-containing molecules are produced, they tend to be insoluble, hydrogen-poor substances that organic chemists call tars.) I have observed a similar pattern in the results of many spark discharge experiments.These two scenarios aptly illustrate the issues at stake in theistic evolution vs. intelligent design. In theistic evolution (or, evolutionary creation), God builds the potential for life into the fabric of the universe, and it works itself out (with God sustaining and directing nature as it goes). This fits the vitalism scenario posited by the scientists. Proponents of ID theory say that the odds indicate that nature by itself would not produce life and point to the active intervention of an intelligent agent.
7 comments:
I see you're still attempting to argue againts abiogenesis without understanding the mechanics or chemical processes that go to form organic molecules. Good job.
Wasn't me arguing -- was a darwinian scientist.
Glad that you do understand the processes and all mysteries are now known. Now, go replicate them in a lab.
Did you even read through that article. If you had, then you would take down blog post. You clearly just quote mined from it, assuming that it supported something you believed. One would think that any position, like Scientific American, that supports a position that is directly confrontational and discredits creation all together, that you would not assume the article you linked to would in fact support what you believe. However, I have clearly underestimated your intellectual facilities.
I keep losing the program here so let me get this straight.
Organic chemistry tends toward producing life's building blocks. Then logically earth would be producing a new form of life every few minutes right? We should be able to test that theory by finding uncommon DNA. After all a new life form wouldn't need to have the same DNA pattern over and over again.
Sure I read it. I realize it supports a darwinian view. But it also strongly critiques the RNA/pre-RNA view which, the author of the article asserts, about 2/3s of darwinists hold.
Let's stay friends and not insult each other. If you took offense at my jab, I apologize. I respect your opinions and views.
Joe -- neo-darwinists are stuck between randomness -- a rock -- and chemical/bio-chemical laws -- a hard place. Randomness just isn't working, but the more they lurch to the law side of the equation, the more they find themselves heading towards a universe-tuned/predisposed to life POV. A POV which shows the inadequacy of darwinism and supports theism.
Thanks for your support.
Where's Alex?
Post a Comment