The Origins of Life

[The Flying Tench]

That last reference is very interesting - if you scroll down you find a neat diagram that expresses succinctly the differences in types of "design" that I was trying to describe in an earlier post

 

A neat diagram indeed - but have you seen who invented it? Clarke!

 

Vagabond, your references are very interesting. I must say I'd understood the ID movement to be somewhat broader than it appears to be, though I'm not sure how meaningful it is to call it 'neo-creationism' since it clearly believes something very different from the creationists. It was the prosecution who claimed that ID and creationsim were the same in the website you gave, not the judge - though perhaps he said that in another article. I'm not really qualified to assess the arguments given against ID in your references. I'm surprised they're as weak as claimed if someone like Anthony Flew was influenced to give up his life-long atheism partly on account of them. I'll try and phone my scientific brother to see what his angle is on ID, out of interest - and your bad back argument which, as I've said, I feel the weight of.

 

Out of interest, are you familiar with the 'fine-tuning' arguments of big bang cosmology, and if so what do you make of them?

[Leon Roskilly]

When you reach your brain's limitations, Religion comes in handy, doesn't it Leon?

 

 

http://www.columbia.edu/~gm84/gibtable.html

 

Your reason and your passion are the rudder and the sails of your seafaring soul.

 

If either your sails or our rudder be broken, you can but toss and drift, or else be held at a standstill in mid-seas.

 

For reason, ruling alone, is a force confining; and passion, unattended, is a flame that burns to its own destruction.

 

Therefore let your soul exalt your reason to the height of passion; that it may sing;

 

And let it direct your passion with reason, that your passion may live through its own daily resurrection, and like the phoenix rise above its own ashes.

http://quakersfp.live.poptech.coop/qfp/chap1/1.02.html

 

As you learn from others, can you in turn give freely from what you have gained? While respecting the experiences and opinions of others, do not be afraid to say what you have found and what you value. Appreciate that doubt and questioning can also lead to spiritual growth and to a greater awareness of the Light that is in us all..........

 

.......... Each of us has a particular experience of God and each must find the way to be true to it. When words are strange or disturbing to you, try to sense where they come from and what has nourished the lives of others. Listen patiently and seek the truth which other people's opinions may contain for you. Avoid hurtful criticism and provocative language. Do not allow the strength of your convictions to betray you into making statements or allegations that are unfair or untrue. Think it possible that you may be mistaken.

 

 

 

Good Night

[Jim Roper]

And he who defines his conduct by ethics imprisons his song-bird in a cage.

[Steve Walker]

A neat diagram indeed - but have you seen who invented it? Clarke!

 

It reflected my own thoughts on the problem of evil for theism. The idea of a God who is omniscient, benevolent, sufficiently similar to ourselves for us to be created in His image yet who designs little beauties like the Ebola virus, the sea lamprey or the South American Screw Worm?

 

Out of interest, are you familiar with the 'fine-tuning' arguments of big bang cosmology, and if so what do you make of them?

 

If the fine tuning arguments are what I think they are (that life as we know it could not exist were any of the physical laws or constants slightly different), I think it's similar to the "divine ordination of Prince Charles" example; it's a post-hoc analysis. Life as we know it would not exist, but would life as we do not know it? Would such life be speculating on how they would not exist if... If not, and this is the only arrangement which can lead to life, then the fact that we exist indicates only that it happened; it does not need something to intend it to happen if this outcome is as good as all others.

[Ken Davison South Wales]

If the fine tuning arguments are what I think they are (that life as we know it could not exist were any of the physical laws or constants slightly different), I think it's similar to the "divine ordination of Prince Charles" example; it's a post-hoc analysis. Life as we know it would not exist, but would life as we do not know it? Would such life be speculating on how they would not exist if... If not, and this is the only arrangement which can lead to life, then the fact that we exist indicates only that it happened; it does not need something to intend it to happen if this outcome is as good as all others.

 

Ummm Yes I think Night Night

[Vagabond]

It's difficult really because it might or might not.

 

Gottim! Quick, the net.

 

 

Sorry to hear about your cat - the loss of a family pet can hit really hard. We don't keep them because of our frequent trips away, but several of our children do, and we visit often enough to get fond of their pets.

 

Remember your cat with affection, and get another one.

 

Always thought Schrodinger's cat was a somewhat tortuous way of making his point.

Edited February 3, 2006 by Vagabond

[Leon Roskilly]

Remember your cat with affection, and get another one.

 

We have one left, the (nearly) 20 year old son of the one that died.

 

He's missing her, they used to cuddle up together to sleep (which is most of the day now), feed together and lay in the sun together. Now he's after human comfort and reassurance much more, poor thing.

 

The cats grew up with our three children, who are now grown up and themselves mostly not around so much any more.

[Leon Roskilly]

We (the Medway AN Clique ........er, the Medway Mullet Group ) had it all cracked last night. Life the Universe, the beginning, where god came from etc.

 

Put don't ask me to explain any of it!

 

(Did I mention that the MMG meet in a pub on 1st Thursday of each month? !! )

 

If Cranfield had turned up, I'm sure that he would have been able to explain it all to the rest of you.

 

Maybe next month.

 

But then the capture of the year's first Medway mullet will be on our minds, bit hard to concentrate on anything else at that time of year.

 

(Unlike last night when it was grayling, cod, carp, pike, cod, barbel and perch (and bass) that dominated the fishing chat).

[Vagabond]

Out of interest, are you familiar with the 'fine-tuning' arguments of big bang cosmology, and if so what do you make of them?

 

In the 1970s at the age of 40, I changed career and took an MSc in oceanography at Southampton - stayed on as a research associate.

 

Got involved with waves - not just waterwaves but electro-magnetic ones - there were some pretty brilliant physicists there at the time, and I got drawn into working through Dirac's linkage of general relativity with quantum mechanics. Discussions in the senior common room often lasted until dawn! I could just about follow the mathematical arguments as they were put forward but it really hurt the brain!

 

What I learnt was that what seemed to make sense mathematically was very difficult to grasp in terms of conventional reasoning, and damn near impossible to explain in words.

 

I am aware of this fine-tuning thing, although I haven't been into the maths of it. I think that Steve Walker has a good point in suspecting it to be a post hoc analysis.

 

How can I put it? The original singularity had certain properties.

 

Given those properties, the hypothetical Big Bang and the resultant time and space was a unique solution. The physical constants - gravity, wavelengths, electrical charges on sub-atomic particles, etc etc. which we now observe are all part of that unique solution. The fact that it appears to have been a very unlikely event is irrelevant - if the Big Bang hypothesis is correct, then the unlikely event happened, Cogito, ergo sum, and all that.

 

If the singularity had been different, the unique solution would have been different. Something else may (or may not) have happened - there may (or may not) have been space and time but with different physical constants.

 

Its like saying if the Earl of Sandwich had been the Duke of Wellington and vice versa, then we would now wear Sandwich boots for fishing, and the lunch packed by our ever-lovings would consist of cheese and pickle wellingtons.

Edited February 3, 2006 by Vagabond

[Steve Burke]

A neat diagram indeed - but have you seen who invented it? Clarke!

 

Vagabond, your references are very interesting. I must say I'd understood the ID movement to be somewhat broader than it appears to be, though I'm not sure how meaningful it is to call it 'neo-creationism' since it clearly believes something very different from the creationists. It was the prosecution who claimed that ID and creationsim were the same in the website you gave, not the judge - though perhaps he said that in another article. I'm not really qualified to assess the arguments given against ID in your references. I'm surprised they're as weak as claimed if someone like Anthony Flew was influenced to give up his life-long atheism partly on account of them. I'll try and phone my scientific brother to see what his angle is on ID, out of interest - and your bad back argument which, as I've said, I feel the weight of.

 

 

John, I can't see that Clarke invented the diagram, just his 3rd law that states that to those who don't understand it advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

 

You added "unsure" smileys afterwards. Does that mean that you're not a fan of Arthur C. Clarke? Many know him of course for his brilliant science fiction (2001, a Space Odyssey; my favourite, The City and the Stars; Rendevous with Rama etc). What some are unaware of is that he was a leading futureologist, although (much to my regret) he's long since stopped writing such essays. Most of all he's an accomplished scientist - indeed it was Clarke who came up with the idea of telecommunications satellites as far back as 1945.

 

Many science fiction writers are/were qualified scientists. A good example was Isaac Asimov, who was a Professor of Biochemistry. Both he and Clarke explain complicated scientific concepts very clearly.

 

I see ID as an attempt by Christians to reconcile their beliefs with science. For that I applaud them. However ID doesn't stack up scientifically, which is why the vast majority of scientists still accept evolution.

 

Of course evolution doesn't deny the existence of a God, for who created the laws of the universe? Or are these down to pure chance? Are there parallel universes where different laws apply?

 

If so Creation is bigger than we think!

Edited February 3, 2006 by Steve Burke