I can simplify this treatise by saying that science says that it is impossible to create life simply from what we have here on earth. It’s impossible even with a higher power of functioning creature living here, namely humans, without prior life. Life as we know it would be impossible without a controlled environment such as earth. In other words, earth and all of its environmental factors, is not random, and can’t be random. The earth environment that was formed somehow, was finely turned to allow life. Further, what we know about random chance and science makes it impossible to create the circumstance that would make something like earth and its environment. It would have to be something greater than what we have on earth, what is scientifically discoverable on earth, to create something that is as finely tuned to allow life to survive and thrive on earth. In fact, the fantastic difficulty in forming an earth with the environment that life enjoys makes it also incredibly impossible that life exists like this outside of planet earth. What we see is an infinitely impossible circumstance that seems random, that allows life. This is a contradiction that we humans attempt to resolve somehow. At the same time, what we see is an incredibly cruel system in the universe that seems to not care about life at all.
Can you expand on that please? Science doesn’t “say”, but people do based on science. Who/what are you citing here? Thanks.
This other current discussion may also be relevant: The Meaning of Random
What I mean is scientific experimentation, lab results. Scientist can reproduce life and clone it, but have not been able to produce it from the start, or ex nihilo, out of nothing. Ex nihilo is a philosophical term, but also applies to where we are. The universe and how it got here or there is not the same as trying to get a jet to safely fly from New York City to Los Angeles. If you asked a jet airline pilot if they have figured out the physics, the calculus, the equations to allow the jet airline to fly safely, they would probably give you a blank stare, or just give you a confident yes. But ask them how the earth got here, ask them why the atmosphere has the right kind of molecules in the air to allow flight, and they will probably not know.
If we could, you’d just say that intelligence was required. Wouldn’t you?
If you mean that God is intelligent, then yes. But God, as in Jesus, as he claims, was more than intelligent. He was the foundation of knowledge. What did Jesus say about himself?Theologians describe it as omniscient omnipresent all knowing, present everywhere. It’s not that intelligence was required. I think it was that something that can’t be described by science alone was required.
That might be true. So true that science can’t even realize it to be true.
The debate here is different. Dr. @bjmiller is making the case that science can tell us that life required design by and intelligent designer (probably God). That seems to be a much harder case to make.
I guess I do not find that very meaningful, as there are any number of things that cannot be created ex nihilo: (ie: Scientists cannot bake a cake ex nihilo). We would never say we cannot bake a cake simply because we cannot create the ingredients from nothing.
I can simplify this treatise by saying that science says that it is impossible to create life simply from what we have here on earth.
The question I think, is not if life can be created, but is there a recipe to bake a cake with the ingredients found in our cupboard?
PS: “Middle Earth Creationist” is TOTALLY AWESOME!!!
Hi Dan. Thanks for your response. I guess the point I am making is that scientists never create anything out of nothing, and don’t experiment or do lab experiments from nothing, since there is something here, namely earth. The nothing is not the ingredients, it is the fact that nothing exists, as in you don’t exist, your address does not exist, the lab does not exist, nothing exists. The ingredients alone being missing is not out of nothing. There could be other cakes available at the bake shop, which you might dearly love. I do think your response is clever, however, I must us the J. R. R. Tolkein measurement for cleverness here. In that case, we may both fall short.
I don’t think it’s harder given that some believe God to be all powerful, all knowing, the creator of intelligence, design itself. I think of creation, intelligence and design as being subsets of God. There are the things that we see. God is more infinite and sees it all.
That is not the problem @LarryI.
The issue is whether science can tell us this in the language and limits of its abilities. The operative word here is “science”. Maybe God did create the first cell, and there is no good reason to doubt he did. I’m just not sure we can demonstrate that with science.
You are right. But that is not my issue, since I am not a scientist. I think that the benefit that I have is exactly that it does not have to be proved by science, probably because it can’t be proved by science. In an early post I think I stated that jet airlines can fly with confidence from passengers from point A to point B because it can be tested by science and experiment. But how can intelligence or any realm of God be tested? That’s both the problem and the solution. Where science ends, God begins.
That is what I’m saying is different between you and @bjmiller. You might have a totally valid position. Perhaps even God did create the first cell. However, @bjmiller is trying to make the case in science. I think there is more legitimacy to your position @LarryI.
500 years scientists weren’t able to reproduce lightning in the lab. Did that mean nature couldn’t produce lightning?
There is a reason scientists are hesitant to base conclusions only on negative evidence.
At least they had a working simulation.
Not sure I am following you here, but I will think on it. Perhaps I was being too clever, and should have merely asked, “What have I got in my pocket?”