> Has it occured to you that perhaps DNA itself
> evolved, and the relationship between RNA, DNA and
> proteins co-evolved? I doubt very much that DNA
> was the first agent of heredity.
> Here's another possibility: life is an immutable
> property of the universe. And another: the
> universe itself is evolving, and life is simply
> the next step.
Aine, I don't claim to have all the answers, but it's just too much of a stretch for me to have that much blind faith that the vast complexity of DNA is a product of random events that bucked the 2nd Law by inserting more energy and organization into the system. I'm having trouble reconciling the degree to which purely natural biological processes would allow entropy to take a back seat, especially if life is the "next step" in the "evolving universe". I'd like to hear more of what you're thinking regarding DNA precursors that still were able to sustain life.
And if life truly is the next step in the evolution of the universe, then we might expect more evidence of life out there that demonstrates that trend (the single data point of Earth can't be used to represent a statistical trend). I realize we've barely touched the surface of exploring that possibility, but we do not yet have evidence to support the notion that life is an immutable property of the universe. And if the Big Bang model is real, the universe appears to be in contraction mode which could arguably mean the universe is winding down ("in reversal"?) and not evolving further.
> It's passing the buck to claim (as IDers and
> creationists do) that life on Earth MUST have been
> created, but God is subject to special rules
> exempting him from that question, and wasn't
> designed or created. It's more special pleading,
> but passing the buck does apply.
It's not that I believe life "must have been" created, it's that I can't fathom that such complexity and defiance of entropy could be a random process that established itself by pure coincidence...or by a deity without requiring any scientific principles to account for the cause and effect. To me, it's akin to claiming that a chimp will eventually write perfect Shakespeare if left in a room with enough time, pencils, and paper.
What seems contradictory to me is that the ID camp is trying to apply scientific principles to the process while the God camp is happy to simply have faith without the hard work of explaining how it all actually happened. So yes, attributing it all to an unknown Godly miracle is indeed passing the buck in the sense that God is not subject to the same burden of proof that the ID camp is attempting to invoke to explain those processes that rely so much on negative entropy.
> > What rules apply to God? And if God
> > is "intelligent", where did that intelligence come
> > from? Is God getting smarter? Is God subject to
> > the laws of thermodynamics? Does God follow the
> > laws of statistics?
> Wouldn't we all love to know that. LOL In If he
> designed and created it, why wouldn't he be
> subject to it himself?
The contradiction of the God model in a nutshell.
> The problem with ID is that it doesn't set out any
> rules or parameters for their as yet nameless
> intelligent designer. Even magic has clearly
> delineated limitations.
That's news to me. What are the clearly delineated limitations of magic?
Requiring rules or parameters for the intelligent designer but not for God is a double standard.
> > If the laws of physics don't apply to God,
> > how do we account for God!
> And therein lies the rub!
And I'm not ignoring the dilemma of "who created the intelligent designer". I'm only trying to understand how such processes that we see all around us today could have been created. Sure, it's easy to just kick back and take the unfathomable complexity and organization of living systems and simply claim they appeared magically through divine intervention, but it's another thing to actually envision what that means in practical terms. Unless one believes Adam and Eve did simply suddenly appear one day, fully formed with all their organs and personality intact, and complete with their own portable ocean (blood) to supply them with proper nutrients and waste removal, and ready to self-maintain through procreative (with whom?!) and healing processes, then we need to account for how it all came about. I just think attributing it all to the magic hand of God is the lazy way out. I can't help but think that passing it all off to God is simply a ploy to relieve us from the hard work of understanding what actually happened.
I may be wrong and may eventually come around, but I don't see a way to that path any time soon. The process is too enormous with profound consequences to handwave it all to an unidentified deity without understanding what's entailed in that process.
And by the way, this is not about whether you or I "believe in God". It's about what specific aspects of the universe are attributed to God. The claim that God just decided to create it all one day is extremely defeatist, and I believe it cuts short the true beauty and richness of the universe.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03-Jan-18 14:23 by Origyptian.