The word abiogenesis in a scientific context makes no reference as to whether or not God was involved—just as photosynthesis makes no reference to whether or not God is involved in plants making food from light energy.
Abiogenesis simply refers to the natural processes by which life-began.
It sounds like that “sufficiency” which you are talking about is a philosophical or theological sufficiency. If instead you are saying that science has demonstrated that natural processes are insufficient to produce a living organism, where/how has that been demonstrated using the Scientific Method? Can you cite the peer-reviewed scientific literature where that insufficiency has been established? Or are you taking a philosophical/theological position?
Dan Eastwood, for example, has already granted that notion. Why do you dispute it? Are you a pantheist?
What do you make of Paul’s claims?
"So Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, ‘Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects. For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, ‘TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.’ Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you. The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things ; and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation,that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’ Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man. Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent,because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.’ ” - Acts 17:22-31 NASB
I have never seen @Dan_Eastwood claim that the Scientific Method has been applied to establish that natural processes are insufficient to produce abiogenesis. Can you post a citation for a post where Dan made that claim?
Someone, including plenty of scientists, may state that they believe that natural processes are insufficient explanations for abiogenesis—but that doesn’t make it a scientific claim. It would still be a philosophical or theological claim.
Because it is an invalid claim—unless you show me in the peer-reviewed literature from the science academy that the Scientific Method has led to that claim of insufficiency.
Are you being facetious to make a joke? It went over my head. I don’t know why you are asking that question. (In case you haven’t noticed my previous and recent statements on this, I am a born-again, evangelical Christ-follower.)
Even if we had a sciencific demonstration of abiogenesis in hand today, this has no bearing on the theological question. A few would claim that God isn’t necessary (no change there), but Creation by God would still not be excluded. @Guy_Coe The same choice exists no matter which way we turn this. That goalpost has not moved.
About abiogenesis? I granted abiogenesis is an open question. There are several competing theories with various strengths and weaknesses. There is little doubt that abiogenesis occurred, the open question is HOW.
As I already stated, the only alternative to abiogenesis is strict biogenesis—whereby one must maintain that biological life has always existed and, therefore, there was no time in the past when non-living materials came together to produce a living organism. Surely every theist and non-theist and every scientist and non-scientist can reject that kind of “biological life always existed” claim.
Mod note: I really prefer that we not go the direction of questioning the sincerity of other’s beliefs. I try to avoid moderating any discussion I am involved in, so this is only suggestion. If it becomes a problem I can call in another Mod.
There are those who want to claim that there is an inherent vitalism within nature itself (Carl Sagan even flirted with the idea), sort of like what @AllenWitmerMiller is introducing when he speaks of “the powers” in the other thread. So, no, not “biological life,” exactly, but “life” nevertheless. I’m still investigatory towards this.
Don’t bother claiming I’ve somehow misunderstood you, Allen. I’ll not be marginalized or piled upon.
That grants the notion I’m after; God is not, and cannot, be excluded. Why? Because the sufficiency of the evolutionary explanation has not been demonstrated.
No, I’m not introducing any sort of vitalism. If you find the statements like “the powers of molecular bonding” or “the powers of protein-folding” potentially misleading, I could easily replace them with different wording: “the capabilities of molecular bonding” or “the potentialities of protein-folding.” The English idioms involving “the power(s) of ____” does not require some sort of personal agency. Thus, we can speak of “the powers of photochemical technologies”, for example.
Thus, you are reading into my words ideas which aren’t there—just as you did when you claimed that Dan Eastwood had stated that science had established that natural processes were inherently insufficient to produce the first living organisms. (He later posted his clarification that he certainly did not make that claim.)
This is a common linguistic confusion brought about by the fact that the English language combines under a single word (“life”) what the Koine Greek of the Bible carefully distinguishes by means of several very different words. See my summary at:
…where I discussed just a few of the various words and distinctions the Bible uses when addressing this topic.
God is not biologically alive—so the BIOS in the word abiogenesis does not regard whether or not God was involved in the non-living materials which came together to form the first living organism. A “linguistic accident” whereby modern English (and not necessarily earlier versions of English) lumped together very different ideas and classifications under a single word: life. Even many people who speak modern languages today would be perplexed by your statement—unless someone explained to them how the underlying semantic domains operate in English.
Of course science could never exclude God. You’d have to have infinite, perfect knowledge to even begin to pretend to attempt that.
The suffiency argument is not marginal, because I am not denying evolution, as described procedurally, exists --just that it is sufficient to explain the forensic evidence of life and it’s history.
Remember the forest for the trees problem? God is not only giving input into the system, from beyond time, but actively managing whole ecosystems and habitats in the process.
Some want to conceive of God as having set up one pool shot, but that would make this a determinstic universe, not a moral one in which free choices are made and accountability for them part and parcel of living.
Molinism, or whatever-ism aside, this is a moral universe.
Hope you’re enjoying the discussion, otherwise don’t get frustrated with a different perspective. Viva la difference.
From a philosophical and theological perspective, I consider scientific explanations of abiogenesis not all there is to know about the origin of biological life. Of course, that shouldn’t be surprising because the Scientific Method doesn’t claim to answer all of the questions humans ask. Philosophy and theology are broader domains of academic investigation. Philosophers and theologians address questions which are outside the purview of science.
Yes, as a Christ-follower I believe that God played an essential role (philosophically essential role) in non-living materials forming the first biological life. Nevertheless, I would never claim that I can establish that affirmation by means of the Scientific Method.
(This is similar to my position on “ID Theory”. I certainly believe that God intelligently designed everything that we observe in the universe—but I’ve not yet seen anyone use the Scientific Method to make that assertion. That is why, thus far, I know of no valid “Intelligent Design Theory” which has ever been formally published with any reasonable rigor and which has survived peer-review within the science academy. However, I do wish them the best in that pursuit!)
The Hebrew terms behind “the powers” questions is, as @Philosurfer says, ambiguous. Heiser takes a spiritual view of this, in “divine councils,” and whatnot. Ralph Winters, for the U.S. Center for World Missions, was developing an apologetic concerning the idea that would grant “fallen angels” and “demons” the power to influence the material world in invasive or maligning ways --like the advent of biologically mutant bacteria that introduces disease. Others have merely politicized the notion. It would seem that @AllenWitmerMiller is exploring a meaning with regards to “creative influence upon” evolution. That these can be descibed as a kind of “vitalistic” notion of the material world, is clear to me, but perhaps not to the tastes of the various advocates.
As a matter of secondary causation, at best, I’m comfortable with remaining investigatory.
These former ideas are, indeed, “alive,” but not in the biological sense --at least not primarily.
Perhaps they could be applied to protozoa, for whom we would not normally grant conscious sentience, but which are alive.
In any case, God is sovereign over them all, and even, whenever or however He chooses, acts immanently within nature to restrain moral evil.
See the thread Brian Curry: Christ, Creation, and the Powers: Elements in a Christian Doctrine of Creation started by @Philosurfer and joined by @jongarvey for more on these questions. ERRATA : I mistakenly attributed the new thread to @AllenWitmerMiller , initially. Sorry!
I was not referring to “powers” in the Hebrew Bible. I was talking about the meaning in English, because that was the language of my statement which you misunderstood.
If you mean “the powers of natural processes” is a way to describe the capabilities of natural processes to build impressive structures, including living ones, then I’m fine with that. And even if I don’t frequently call evolution a “creative process”, evolutionary processes certainly create new things, so the word is not necessarily out of place.
I’m not certain that I understand you on this one.
I certainly do not embrace vitalism. For those who are not familiar with vitalism from philosophy courses, vitalism holds that there is some non-physical element in all biological life and/or that living things are governed by laws or principles different from those which govern non-living things.
Vitalism is not confined to living things, but ascribed to all of nature, including matter. The “vibratory energy” of atoms as orbited by electrons, and other such notions. I kid you not. I used it in a shorthand, non-technical sense, and illustrated what I meant by that. What term would suggest I use instead? I am open to your suggestions.
