This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://biologos.org/blogs/guest/creating-information-naturally-part-2-chance
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://biologos.org/blogs/guest/creating-information-naturally-part-2-chance
You are to be commended, Loren, on making a difficult subject (how information content can increase) clear enough so that even I can feel comfortable with it. I was in the group of graduate students at the U. of Chicago when Stanley Miller and his mentor, Urey, began their now famous experiments on abiotic physical chemistry. If I remember their discussions correctly, their initial approach put great emphasis on the evidence then available for the probable physical-chemical environment which must have prevailed then, but only later did they give much attention to the mathematical constraints on information content and its growth.
I have always been impressed at the intense dedication that the most gifted scientists have in pursuing their work. They sometimes express this as "wanting to know the Mind of God". Even a mediocre scientist like myself can understand that feeling. But I have been fortunate to have life experiences that prove to me that our Creator is not some deity, some wizard who, having wound up the Universe, just lets it run its course. I am so pleased to learn that the first rate scientists associated with BioLogos see that God’s Love matches the greatness of his Mind.
God bless,
Al Leo
1 Like
I have read the topic “How did life begin?” and was struck by the inconsistency found in there.
No one is able to provide a scientifically defensibly explanation for how life spontaneously sprung up from life-less materials via random chemical / physical processes.
Yet there is this very definitive statement at the end: “it is clear that life did emerge, and the first life forms were single-celled organisms that…”. The question that immediately arises, given the preceding statement, is How does anyone know in a scientifically defensible way or in actual FACT that life arrived here on earth as a single-celled organism, fully equipped with the ability to replicate ???
Now in this article the author goes on about how information can arise from random processes. The unfortunate thing is that he does not then go on to show how that random “information” from completely unguided, unintelligent random chemical events can lead to highly specified and ordered CODE and decoding mechanisms. What he needs to bridge is the gap between the random events and random assembly which he proposes to the level required for working INTELLIGENT systems. To put it in another way - how would his 20 year old program (created by an INTELLIGENT agent by the way, unlike the total lack of intelligence proposed for life to start) have “evolved” itself into the new windows 10 operating system - including the communications ability to form the internet resident cloud, all by itself with no other intelligence involved. That is the kind of level of progress we’re talking about between the lifeless inorganic material and the supposedly first living cell. That very same kind of information and intelligence chasm looms just as large for any further “evolution” from a single celled organism to the complex lifeforms we see today.
Outside of Genesis 1 in the bible, there just isn’t any plausible, coherent and logical explanation for the appearance and physical FORM of life here on earth. If one rejects that explanation in favour of the evolutionary paradigm - as Biologians do -, one will forever have deeeeeeeep faith in the abilities of secular scientists to come up with a suitable explanation. A faith that is utterly doomed to failure based on simple to understand physical, chemical and biological principles.
Most here, myself included, don’t reject the message of Genesis. The method may be evolution but the method is under the control of God.
The fossil and geologic records indicate that single-cell life was present on Earth prior to multi-cellular life.
We have corrected @Prode on this approximately 17,372 times. He continues to use this verbiage. I’m pretty sure trying to change this is a lost cause… but we still love him.
My response wasn’t for Prode’s benefit. It was for any new visitor that might think Prode’s comment was true.
1 Like
Good call!!
What proof do you offer that God actually used evolution? If one reads Genesis 1, it is quite clear that there is no time allowed for billions of years and hence there could not have been any evolution. Hence in order to hold on to evolution, one has to fly in the face of a very clear 6 day creation for everything. Hence, Biologians reject Genesis 1. That is plain and simple.
Friend, that is your interpretation of what you find there. There is another explanation and it comes from the one who actually created everything. So who has more say in that?
Besides which, given that it’s impossible for life to arise spontaneously from lifeless material all by itself, just where does that leave your single cellular organism? Exactly the same requirement for original life needs to be bridged by any darwinian evolutionary process - de novo creation of abstract entities via materialistic random processes. Just how does that happen?
Yes, sure, you’ve “corrected” me a billion times. However, the fact still remains. Genesis 1 states in no uncertain terms that creation occurred in a 6 day period. This of course blows any evolutionary ideas out of the water.
YET, you still prefer to cling to the long age paradigm. The only way you can do this is if you REJECT the clear reading of Genesis 1 - and Exodus 20:8-11. That much is just plain and simple logic. You cannot claim that Genesis 1 (and Exodus 20) is true whilst at the same time vehemently disputing it by claiming billions of years. There’s a straight-forward mutual exclusion that applies. Either, OR. Not both.
Right now, all the talk about the magical properties of random mutations and natural selection (a.k.a the methodology of darwinian evolution) is simply an obscure veil to hide behind.
What is needed is absolute clarity :: Just HOW does this process go about or HOW DID it go about creating new structures, new functions and new methods of communication, responses to signals and functional integration with existing parts? What are the exact steps that led from say a single cellular organism to a multi-cellular organism and then say to one with an exoskeleton or an endoskeleton?
How did random events lead to very precise information about the chemical and physical composition, the size and strength required for the functions to be performed and then for some control mechanism to actuate the new functions. How did random events generate the logic to interface that new structural functionality with the existing functions? In short - how is it possible for random, mindless processes to actually DESIGN highly specific new and useful parts?
This kind of information is suspiciously absent from all the raving about evolutionary development. So far no coherent and testable answer has been supplied by ANY evolutionary fan. Of course its quite simple as to why that is: It’s an impossible pipe dream.
If one reads Genesis 1 and ignores how it would have been understood by the people for which it was written then you get a literal 6 day creation. If you read it as it is meant to be understood then you get God is the author of all creation with no mention of how He did the creating.
No we don’t and you saying so repeatedly doesn’t make it so. We only reject YOUR human, fallible, non-inspired interpretation of Genesis.
2 Likes
As an aside, and to continue to fulfill my self-assigned mission amongst the unwashed masses…
BioLogos supporters, for the most part, do not assume “random events”, from the viewpoint of God knowing and planning each step.
So you must be making these discussion points for the benefit of a pro-evolution Atheist.
Friend, you are asking a different question than the one I responded to, which was:
“How does anyone know in a scientifically defensible way or in actual FACT that life arrived here on earth as a single-celled organism, fully equipped with the ability to replicate ???”
We don’t know how the first cells arrived here but it’s pretty clear the first ones were single-celled.
2 Likes
So I suppose YOUR interpretation is precise, correct and totally unapproachable?
By the way you do not seem to be addressing the FACT that it’s impossible for life to arise from dead materials all by itself via random chemical and physical processes? I suppose you just go with the flow?
Sorry, Mate, NO, I respectfully disagree with you on that last part. It’s only as clear as MUD that the first ones were single celled. For the simple reason that you have absolutely no idea how it started in the first place. That’s the whole point of my statements. So to repeat: because you do not know how life started - by your own admission, you also are left with absolutely no clue what form it took. That knowledge is only available to you if you put your trust in what is clearly stated in the bible. Otherwise you have to do what the atheists do - make wonderful assumptions that cannot be substantiated in real life.
Ahhhh, Mr Brooks, we meet again! How nice!
So you’re really saying here that God planned and was responsible for all the disease, pain, suffering and death in the first place? Am I correct in that understanding?
In that case, it sounds to me like Dawkins was correct in His characterization of God.
Unlike some folks, most of us ECers don’t pretend we understand things perfectly. We’re still learning.
We have, however, come across some helpful tools for understanding the original context of the text. (See, for example, John Walton’s scholarship.) These tools are not related to evolution in any way. They are based on discoveries about Ancient Near Eastern culture. However, they do help us to understand what the original audience would have understood from the text of Genesis. They’re worth considering, no matter what you end up thinking about evolution.
This is a common misunderstanding: abiogenesis and evolution are two completely separate things. Most of us here believe in the common relatedness of all living things, but we don’t really know how life came about in the first place. I mean, it’s clear that God did it. He willed it and it happened. What’s not clear is how exactly he did it.
Hope this clarifies a bit.
No, never said mine was any better than yours. Just pointing out exactly what we reject and it isn’t Genesis.
And exactly how did you come up with this FACT? With God all things are possible so why are you not addressing that FACT?
1 Like