What might be the spiritual origins of YEC?

One absolutely last thought, then I have to get back to my real life, I’m losing too much time…

To illustrate my underlying point from a different angle…

When people want to challenge the authority of Scripture, based on various recognized biblical difficulties, or challenges, or the like, I generally am happy to engage with such doubts, challenges, or skepticism, without suspecting that there is (necessarily). And I am happy to engage with a basic give-and-take on any particular difficulty raised. There are some that I readily grant have no obvious solution (exact time of day of the crucifixion, whether or not Jesus told the disciples to take a staff, etc.)

But there are other challenges, or claims of biblical errors or contradictions, that speak to me more about the mindset of the complainant than the Bible itself… Bart Ehrman is the prime example… I’ve written more extensively elsewhere, but in his book on the topic, his exhibit A, first example, and “textbook case” of a biblical contradiction was laughable… he had to do linguistic and hermeneutical contortions of the text just to invent a contradiction that really wasn’t there, and simultaneously had to gloss over rather obvious alternate (and straightforward) interpretations, and downright ignore explicit and incontrovertable counter-evidence.

Such an approach begins to look not like the objective search for the facts by a dispassionate scholar, but a desperate crusade to force evidence to fit predetermined conclusion. And the very need to resort to such tactics makes an observer like me seriously doubt the strength of the overall position.

That is essentially where I find myself when I examine so many defenses of evolution, especially when critiquing alternate theories as ID… the if the case was so clear, obvious, and straightforward, there would not be the need to resort to the kinds of exaggerations, assumptions, wishful thinking, ignoring of counterevidence, leaps in logic, or the like that I so routinely see.

And if YECs doubt the overall evolutionary approach for the same reasons, their belief in the alternate position as offered in their understanding of Scripture may well be to that extent strengthened. And to that extent I find a certain sympathy with their inclinations.

(That said, I cannot find myself comfortable with the scientific creationist or YEC position, sympathetic though I am, for essentially the same reason - their own habit of resorting to strained biblical interpretation, as well as exaggerations, ignoring of counterevidence, baseless assumptions, etc.).

1 Like

I’m sure it does seem to you a good start… and no disrespect intended, but this is exactly my point… it is simply wishful thinking.

there is also a bit of the equivocation fallacy… no one objects to the idea that “organic molecules” could be formed.

and “a huge variety of conditions”… this again is simply wishful thinking… surely, given all the variety of conditions, one of the must have been adequate to accomplish… again, with deepest respect and hoping not to sound combative, but this is wishful thinking, not “science”.

what condition is actually sufficient and required to form the requisite polypeptides or nucleotides… and was that condition present in the ocean? That would be a good “scientific” start.

but saying something like, surely, given so many opportunities, so much time, and so such a huge variety of conditions… is simply wishful thinking.

and finally, there is the unwarranted assumption, without any facts to so back it up, that given basic chemistry in 330,000,000 cubic miles of ocean, and millions of years, that the complex polypeptides and nucleotides needed for life would be near inevitable? this in an ocean wherein any organic molecules will be racemic? this in spite of the fact that we can’t replicate the process do the same in any controlled experiment, without massive intervention from the experimenters themselves?

The assumption that it is possible… have you actually done the math involved? do you know the difficulty in an unguided process even making a polypeptide or nucleotide, much less putting their components in the right order so that they actually function? how complex… i.e., how long, and specific, exactly, would an RNA chain or polypeptide need to be just to start the process of self-replication, and given that number, is there actually enough time or opportunities in the space and time you mentioned? or is this a “shoot from the hip” guess?

again, i don’t mean to be disrespectful… i once assumed the same, until i was actually challenged to seriously consider the math involved.

Respectfully, i think your thought process here demonstrates exactly the same kinds of fallacies, assumptions, wishful thinking, glossing, and ignoring or ignorance of genuine and legitimate challenges that i see all over the scientific literature all the time even when i read the most brilliant scientists in the field.

Respectfully we cannot follow you down that yeah but warren.

“No disrespect” and, " some of my best friends are". :smiley:

Thats quite the list you have of assumptions and assertions about
my intellectual integrity.
And about knowing more and thinking deeper than anyone who
is actually skilled in the art.
Going after their integrity too. Tsk.

Even if what I’ve said were incorrect, which it is not, it would not
be an “equivocation fallacy”. Maybe you mean strawman?
But its not that either.

Nobody knows how life started, or how to generate life.
Some feel that proves goddidit.

Nobody knew how to make heavier- than- air flying machines.
Some said it thus cannot be done.

Others looked to clues, like the fact that birds can fly, to kites.
Kind of like how spontaneously forming organic molecules
are possible clues.

Math has shown bumblebees cannot fly.

I pointed out simple basic facts. Youve offered none.

No matter how many pejorative adjectives you
string together, I am not the one doing wild speculation
or citing dubious “math”.

1 Like

I sincerely apologize if anything I said came across disrespectful or combative… and I certainly apologize if anything I said suggested to impute motives… but yes, I will insist on that on this one point, it is an equivocation, however unintentional. The term “organic molecules” is vague such that no one could deny your statement, but what you actually are trying to argue is far more specific than just “organic molecules.”

No one, objects to the idea that “all manner of organic molecules” can be created through various natural processes. This is not in dispute.

The debate is as to whether those specific highly complex molecules such as highly ordered, functional, homochiral, sequence-specific polypeptides and nucleotides could be created through such a process. Not whether “organic molecules” could be formed.

Discussing the controversial latter concept, while using the vague and uncontroversial language of the former, is unhelpful, and it is what I understand an equivocation to be, however unintentional. unless I misunderstand the concept or the definition of that fallacy, which is certainly possible?

Apology accepted. Except you then go on to double down.

The “equivocation” which again would be a strawman if it were a
fallacy. Too much assuming again on your part about the
scope of what I said.
I did assume everyone knows a something about naturally
occurring organic molecules, this is no place for someone clueless about that. I was offering a small counterpoint to the
“mat” problem for abio.

I even went on to speak of birds and flying machines,
which latter were not F 35 fighter- jets but a clue about
what might be. No equivocation there either.

We do know complex organic molecules self assemble.
There is no known barrier of " so far but no further".

It points to areas of actual research. If they run up against ID
then they do. Sure has not happened yet.

You did not address my observation assuming more competence in
the topic than anyone skilled in the art.

1 Like

Very well, please inform me, since I am regrettably ignorant of any such relevant examples (beyond the famous Miller experiment, of course)…. And if I have missed this it would indeed be fascinating to me:

Which complex organic molecules, specifically, do we know to self assemble in a prebiotic or otherwise nonbiological context, that would be of relevance to the question of abiogenesis?

1 Like

Careful definitions are important here. “can be achieved by natural processes” - the lab work did not involve any miraculous steps. The process can be achieved by following known physical laws. But the lab work did involve a fair amount of guidance by the researchers. The exact lab protocol is not a great match for what occurs out in nature. (Of course, nature is not looking at deadlines for publication; a similar process might happen rather more slowly in a prebiotic setting where promising molecules don’t have anything to eat them). Similarly, “science can only handle methodological naturalism” should be seen as a limit to what science can do, unable to tell us about other possibilities.

The original question of a Satanic role likewise needs defined. Jesus declared that Satan was the father of lies; in that sense, most young-earth claims qualify as Satanic. But, like Flip Wilson, we generally do not actually need Satan’s help to do wrong. Unlike the claims of some of the more fanciful young earth sources that Satan told evolution to antediluvian bad guys, young earth errors as a whole seem all too human. Satan, not being omnipotent nor omnipresent, presumably has worse things to do with his time than bother with misleading ordinary individuals.

The Miller-Urey experiment is but the first of myriad experiments that have tested possible prebiotic systems. Amino acids can join into simple proteins, nucleotides can join into simple polymers, etc. But I need to go set up lab.

2 Likes

I enjoy the old joke about a man who challenged God to a competition of making a human. He’d figured out abiogenesis. God agreed, and they met. The man got out a spade to start with his garden dirt, among other things. God said, “Not so fast. Make your own dirt.”

Not that the origins argument is the primary one for God’s existence. There a ton of other reasons. Thanks.

2 Likes

very much appreciate the thoughts… but i’m not sure the specific relevance? similarly, I could observe that the development of an iphone does not involve any miraculous steps… but no one says that this demonstrates that there is a very feasible way that an iphone could be produced “through natural processes”, no?.

sure, but none of these, (if we’re talking a prebiotic environment), will be homochiral, and thus biologically relevant, no? a nucleotide that is made of racemic building blocks will be essentially useless, unless i misunderstand?

False. You have absolutely no evidence of that.

Unlike those here who variously claim to know things
they cannot possibly know-“abio impossible!” “multiple
universes impossible!”, and, by extention, that they know
more than any scientist on earth, I am not claiming any of what
you seem to think.

I just pointed to simple well known facts as an indication of what
may be possible, and a direction for more research.

All that said, i won’t again respond to snark.

Or to anything else if you dont respond to the rest
post that you condensed to a phrase.

1 Like

Oh? Not even in your own body?

How about lab. Ever work in an organic lab?
They dont take atoms with tweezers and set them in place to
form molecules.

I already mentioned that.

Which one of you is a chemist?

Daniel,

I appreciate that you have done such a thorough examination and analysis of my review of “Signature of the Cell” in December, 2009. Although I don’t agree with your analysis, I think I understand how you have reached the conclusion that you have. I would like to communicate with you further, but I think I need to understand a little more about your own science background. From there, we would be able to discuss why I remain convinced of the points I made at that time. It’s not something I can do in a few paragraphs, especially when I think any conversation of this sort begins with an attempt to understand each other and where we are coming from. I’d like to request a private FaceTime, Skype, or Zoom call with you. I’d be willing to think along with you for an hour or more if it would interest you to follow up on this. If this is agreeable with you, perhaps you could send a private message to me and we’ll set up a time for a call.

Respectfully,
Darrel

3 Likes

Sir, very genuinely and sincerely appreciated. as noted i’ll discuss with you further via PM.

1 Like

What is meant by “can be achieved by natural processes”? If we mean “does not require miracles to happen”, then the experiment proved that. If we mean “has a fully known sequence of events by which it could happen in nature without intelligent intervention”, then the lab experiment did not prove that. [Note: by “intelligent intervention” I am referring to the sort of design implementation that most popular ID invokes, in contrast to God’s ordinary providence, which is continuous intelligent involvement but not intervention.]

Unlike the construction of an iphone, though, the formation of complex biological molecules is something that can occur with no intelligent intervention - the laws of chemistry apply. Various studies have found ways to produce non-racemic mixtures, and some of the amino acids reported from meteorites commonly show some degree of non-racemic proportions (e.g., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4919777/ ). Also, once you have molecules interacting, having one stereoisomer promotes asymmetry in the molecules that it interacts with - as chirality gets going, it would be self-reinforcing. You don’t need a pure homochiral sample to get started. Interaction with polarized light, with electromagnetic fields, or with some sort of template (such as certain minerals) are among the possible causes of a non-racemic proportion.

Complex organic molecules can self-assemble; the chemical steps are relatively simple. Getting specific useful complex organic molecules is the challenge, but getting some sort of complex organic molecule is easy. Complex inorganic molecules self-assemble as well, as a course in mineralogy will show.

3 Likes

very interesting and engaging, thanks for the information and clarifications.

i agree there is sometimes some unfortunate confusion regarding use of the word “natural” in these discussions… i can mean a) not supernatural, or b) not guided by intelligent agency. i do find it helpful to clarify the meaning in these discussions.

1 Like

Too good to be true! Augustine expressed my thoughts exactly. Which makes me wonder: you got a citation for that? Was that from an authorized edition, or something from the “dark web”? Is my internal desire for confirmation biasing my willingness to accept this passage as authentic and reliable? And IF it is authenticly from Augustine, how can we know he really meant it as we read it? Well, you can probably see what life in a pandemic of misinformation has done to me. ; )

1 Like

Brother, I think this might be progress for both of us But actually, I have been awake for 36 hours (night shift / stupidity), so I feel even more stupid than usual. I won’t try to frame an intelligent response, except to ask, where does your doubt come from? Have you really not seen it written, quoting our Lord Jesus Christ?

“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”