4 ms·

Just my own perspective: as one who believes God is responsible for the origin, complexity, and diversity of life, this article makes me chuckle. The theory of

Just my own perspective: as one who believes God is responsible for the origin, complexity, and diversity of life, this article makes me chuckle. The theory of evolution as an explanation of the origin of the major taxa of life really paints us into a corner from which it is difficult to wiggle out. In my opinion, the panspermia/alien origin hypothesis (and its persistence as an explanation in some respected circles) illustrates how strictly limiting ourselves to natural explanations leaves not just a "gap" in our ability to explain origins, but a massive gaping hole. (Also, the insistence on a distinction between "alien" and "divine" has no rational basis.)

maxerickson 8y ago
A few billion years is like, a pretty long time.
- oh_sigh 8y ago
  For you.
  - legostormtroopr 8y ago
    You’re a big guy
0xBA5ED 8y ago
"The theory of evolution as an explanation of the origin of the major taxa of life really paints us into a corner from which it is difficult to wiggle out." Sure, it's easy to avoid corners when you can place them arbitrarily, or even move them when they're inconvenient.
- TimTheTinker 8y ago
  > place them arbitrarily, or even move them when they're inconvenient. I know others have been accused of that; I endeavor to maintain integrity.
  - peteretep 8y ago
    This is ridiculous, and I'd also point out, despite my being atheist, that it's blasphemous. Monotheistic religions (almost all) believe in an omnipotent God. Omnipotent means that nothing binds the hand of God, at all. An omnipotent being can literally contrive any situation; they can change anything, from moment to moment, without leaving any traces whatsoever. They can change the very nature of logic itself without consequence. You are saying that you try to understand and talk about and reason about God inside of some kind of logical framework, where you can't just _deus ex machina_ your way out of any situation, but this explicitly binds the power of God. God and logic can't be combined, God and debate can't be combined, because both deny the omnipotent nature of God.
    - TimTheTinker 8y ago
      Speaking for Christianity, God's omnipotence does not mean he can violate his own nature. In fact, he is very limited in the sense that there are an infinite number of things that he cannot do because they are inconsistent with his nature -- his holiness, truth, love, and wisdom.
      - 0xBA5ED 8y ago
        This literally means that God is not "all powerful". And if there are things he is simply incapable of experiencing, this also means he is not "all knowing".
        TimTheTinker 8y ago
        Yes it does mean that. However, he is "all powerful" where it matters - to accomplish his own will, which is consistent with his character.
        0xBA5ED 8y ago
        If he is controlled by "his nature", then it isn't HIS will.
tree_of_item 8y ago
> The theory of evolution as an explanation of the origin of the major taxa of life really paints us into a corner from which it is difficult to wiggle out. I'm really not sure what you mean by this. > Also, the insistence on a distinction between "alien" and "divine" has no rational basis What?? You don't see a distinction between life on another planet and supernatural phenomena...?
- oh_sigh 8y ago
  To be fair, Bruno declared a distinction and was burned at the stake.
- TimTheTinker 8y ago
  > I'm really not sure what you mean by this. If you assume the major groups of life evolved from common ancestors, the fossil record doesn't offer a lot of help to fill in the early details (i.e. transitional types). Also, you have the problem of the origin of the first single-cell organism. > You don't see a distinction between life on another planet and supernatural phenomena...? My point is that insisting on it being an alien life form that seeded life on earth (as opposed to the God hypothesis) is kind of begging the question. Philosophically, what is the difference between an unknown alien life form and God as the origin of life, other than different starting assumptions?
  - mbfg 8y ago
    >> what is the difference between an unknown alien life form and God as the origin of life, other than different starting assumptions? for one, we do know that there _are_ life forms.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
caconym_ 8y ago
Science tries its best to discover the correct explanation for phenomena, and accepts gaps in knowledge as a natural consequence of the ongoing nature of its pursuit of the truth. You are welcome to believe what you want, but you must understand that accepting faith-based explanations with zero supporting evidence is a fundamentally different sort of thing. Of course you think you have the answers, and that people still grubbing around looking for their own are short-sighted dummies, if you're willing to accept answers that somebody simply made up out of thin air. > Also, the insistence on a distinction between "alien" and "divine" has no rational basis. How do you figure that? They seem quite different to me, given the properties that are usually ascribed to hypothetical divine beings.
- TimTheTinker 8y ago
  I'm not arguing with the scientific method, or the power of looking for natural explanations through experimentation. It's just that examining evidence related to past events can only go so far in explaining their cause. If you assume natural causes all the way back, you will inevitably reach the limit of a natural chain of events. If the origin of life isn't a big enough question, perhaps the origin of the big bang is -- how does anyone go there without stepping into the metaphysical? > How do you figure that? They seem quite different to me, given the properties that are usually ascribed to hypothetical divine beings. My point is that on the surface, philosophically speaking, there's no difference between the two explanations beyond their starting assumptions. > zero evidence Not at all. Everything that exists constitutes evidence for him in one way or another. (It’s late. Can provide more details tomorrow if you’re interested.)
  - caconym_ 8y ago
    > It's just that examining evidence related to past events can only go so far in explaining their cause. If you assume natural causes all the way back, you will inevitably reach the limit of a natural chain of events. If the origin of life isn't a big enough question, perhaps the origin of the big bang is -- how does anyone go there without stepping into the metaphysical? Why speculate in the absence of real knowledge? Maybe some questions simply cannot be answered? Maybe some answers are simply beyond our reach for now? Faced with these gaps, If I'm going to get metaphysical, I'd sooner reach inwards than outwards. > My point is that on the surface, philosophically speaking, there's no difference between the two explanations beyond their starting assumptions. Pretty vague, and I disagree in any case, I think—there seems to be a great difference between the two. One is based on phenomena we have directly observed (comets, life on Earth, etc.), and the other is not. > Not at all. Everything that exists constitutes evidence for him in one way or another. (It’s late. Can provide more details tomorrow if you’re interested.) If you presuppose that "He" exists and work backwards from there, sure. Otherwise no, I don't think so. Willing to read more, if you write it.
jryan49 8y ago
> limiting ourselves to natural explanations So you mean looking into supernatural explanations? How does that fill any of the holes? It's by definition out of the realm of explanation... Also, saying that "God did it" has about as much content as panspermia ("somewhere else made it").
mbfg 8y ago
Evolution doesn't make any claims about the origin of life, only how it evolves over time, and how speciation occurs. You want to rail against abiogenesis i suppose, because a magic being with fairy dust outside of time and space is more likely.
khazhoux 8y ago
You're right. It's not nearly as clean a solution as "God did everything, QED"
- TimTheTinker 8y ago
  I’m not saying “God is the origin” removes all the unknowns or difficulties, or is sufficient to explain every detail. Quite the opposite: it adds another dimension of unknowns and mystery, because it allows “why?” to be a meaningful question (speaking of ultimate meaning/purpose, beyond natural preconditions and mechanisms) in scientific inquiry, in addition to “what”, “how”, etc.
  - khazhoux 8y ago
    It doesn't really add many unknowns or mystery. It's quite simple: "God created everything". Now you're left with only one unknown, "who/what/how created God?" But the answer to that can't be a "who" or you have the problem of a Super-God, which (by convention) is disallowed. So instead, people say "God is eternal both into the past and into the future" and neatly tie up any possible question. God always was and always will be and he created everything -- a clean solution where if you accept the premise of God, then any and all follow-on questions just point back to the premise.
    - TimTheTinker 8y ago
      > Now you're left with only one unknown That doesn't make any sense to me. "God created everything" is nearly content-less even if you assume it. If you stop there, you're left with nearly zero understanding of how the world/nature/universe works. Inquiry of all sorts (scientific included) is still indispensable for discovering content about the world. > "who/what/how created God?" The only way to know anything about the Christian God, at least, is to look at what he’s done and what he says about himself - again a line of inquiry involving discovery, questions, deductions. > a clean solution where if you accept the premise of God, then any and all follow-on questions just point back to the premise. Agreed, it does tie it up neatly. But again, assuming the Christian God, we have no ability to know anything about him unless he chooses to reveal it (him being an infinite being). And assuming everything that begins to exist has a cause, there must be something that did not begin to exist -- which must then be defined as having no beginning. You might be familiar with logical systems if you're a developer. At the most basic levels, where everything is bootstrapped, a lot of self-references are often involved.

maxerickson 8y ago

A few billion years is like, a pretty long time.

oh_sigh 8y ago
For you.
- legostormtroopr 8y ago
  You’re a big guy

0xBA5ED 8y ago

"The theory of evolution as an explanation of the origin of the major taxa of life really paints us into a corner from which it is difficult to wiggle out." Sure, it's easy to avoid corners when you can place them arbitrarily, or even move them when they're inconvenient.

TimTheTinker 8y ago
> place them arbitrarily, or even move them when they're inconvenient. I know others have been accused of that; I endeavor to maintain integrity.
- peteretep 8y ago
  This is ridiculous, and I'd also point out, despite my being atheist, that it's blasphemous. Monotheistic religions (almost all) believe in an omnipotent God. Omnipotent means that nothing binds the hand of God, at all. An omnipotent being can literally contrive any situation; they can change anything, from moment to moment, without leaving any traces whatsoever. They can change the very nature of logic itself without consequence. You are saying that you try to understand and talk about and reason about God inside of some kind of logical framework, where you can't just _deus ex machina_ your way out of any situation, but this explicitly binds the power of God. God and logic can't be combined, God and debate can't be combined, because both deny the omnipotent nature of God.
  - TimTheTinker 8y ago
    Speaking for Christianity, God's omnipotence does not mean he can violate his own nature. In fact, he is very limited in the sense that there are an infinite number of things that he cannot do because they are inconsistent with his nature -- his holiness, truth, love, and wisdom.
    - 0xBA5ED 8y ago
      This literally means that God is not "all powerful". And if there are things he is simply incapable of experiencing, this also means he is not "all knowing".
      - TimTheTinker 8y ago
        Yes it does mean that. However, he is "all powerful" where it matters - to accomplish his own will, which is consistent with his character.
        0xBA5ED 8y ago
        If he is controlled by "his nature", then it isn't HIS will.

tree_of_item 8y ago

> The theory of evolution as an explanation of the origin of the major taxa of life really paints us into a corner from which it is difficult to wiggle out. I'm really not sure what you mean by this. > Also, the insistence on a distinction between "alien" and "divine" has no rational basis What?? You don't see a distinction between life on another planet and supernatural phenomena...?

oh_sigh 8y ago
To be fair, Bruno declared a distinction and was burned at the stake.
TimTheTinker 8y ago
> I'm really not sure what you mean by this. If you assume the major groups of life evolved from common ancestors, the fossil record doesn't offer a lot of help to fill in the early details (i.e. transitional types). Also, you have the problem of the origin of the first single-cell organism. > You don't see a distinction between life on another planet and supernatural phenomena...? My point is that insisting on it being an alien life form that seeded life on earth (as opposed to the God hypothesis) is kind of begging the question. Philosophically, what is the difference between an unknown alien life form and God as the origin of life, other than different starting assumptions?
- mbfg 8y ago
  >> what is the difference between an unknown alien life form and God as the origin of life, other than different starting assumptions? for one, we do know that there _are_ life forms.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

caconym_ 8y ago

Science tries its best to discover the correct explanation for phenomena, and accepts gaps in knowledge as a natural consequence of the ongoing nature of its pursuit of the truth. You are welcome to believe what you want, but you must understand that accepting faith-based explanations with zero supporting evidence is a fundamentally different sort of thing. Of course you think you have the answers, and that people still grubbing around looking for their own are short-sighted dummies, if you're willing to accept answers that somebody simply made up out of thin air. > Also, the insistence on a distinction between "alien" and "divine" has no rational basis. How do you figure that? They seem quite different to me, given the properties that are usually ascribed to hypothetical divine beings.

TimTheTinker 8y ago
I'm not arguing with the scientific method, or the power of looking for natural explanations through experimentation. It's just that examining evidence related to past events can only go so far in explaining their cause. If you assume natural causes all the way back, you will inevitably reach the limit of a natural chain of events. If the origin of life isn't a big enough question, perhaps the origin of the big bang is -- how does anyone go there without stepping into the metaphysical? > How do you figure that? They seem quite different to me, given the properties that are usually ascribed to hypothetical divine beings. My point is that on the surface, philosophically speaking, there's no difference between the two explanations beyond their starting assumptions. > zero evidence Not at all. Everything that exists constitutes evidence for him in one way or another. (It’s late. Can provide more details tomorrow if you’re interested.)
- caconym_ 8y ago
  > It's just that examining evidence related to past events can only go so far in explaining their cause. If you assume natural causes all the way back, you will inevitably reach the limit of a natural chain of events. If the origin of life isn't a big enough question, perhaps the origin of the big bang is -- how does anyone go there without stepping into the metaphysical? Why speculate in the absence of real knowledge? Maybe some questions simply cannot be answered? Maybe some answers are simply beyond our reach for now? Faced with these gaps, If I'm going to get metaphysical, I'd sooner reach inwards than outwards. > My point is that on the surface, philosophically speaking, there's no difference between the two explanations beyond their starting assumptions. Pretty vague, and I disagree in any case, I think—there seems to be a great difference between the two. One is based on phenomena we have directly observed (comets, life on Earth, etc.), and the other is not. > Not at all. Everything that exists constitutes evidence for him in one way or another. (It’s late. Can provide more details tomorrow if you’re interested.) If you presuppose that "He" exists and work backwards from there, sure. Otherwise no, I don't think so. Willing to read more, if you write it.

jryan49 8y ago

> limiting ourselves to natural explanations So you mean looking into supernatural explanations? How does that fill any of the holes? It's by definition out of the realm of explanation... Also, saying that "God did it" has about as much content as panspermia ("somewhere else made it").

mbfg 8y ago

Evolution doesn't make any claims about the origin of life, only how it evolves over time, and how speciation occurs. You want to rail against abiogenesis i suppose, because a magic being with fairy dust outside of time and space is more likely.

khazhoux 8y ago

You're right. It's not nearly as clean a solution as "God did everything, QED"

TimTheTinker 8y ago
I’m not saying “God is the origin” removes all the unknowns or difficulties, or is sufficient to explain every detail. Quite the opposite: it adds another dimension of unknowns and mystery, because it allows “why?” to be a meaningful question (speaking of ultimate meaning/purpose, beyond natural preconditions and mechanisms) in scientific inquiry, in addition to “what”, “how”, etc.
- khazhoux 8y ago
  It doesn't really add many unknowns or mystery. It's quite simple: "God created everything". Now you're left with only one unknown, "who/what/how created God?" But the answer to that can't be a "who" or you have the problem of a Super-God, which (by convention) is disallowed. So instead, people say "God is eternal both into the past and into the future" and neatly tie up any possible question. God always was and always will be and he created everything -- a clean solution where if you accept the premise of God, then any and all follow-on questions just point back to the premise.
  - TimTheTinker 8y ago
    > Now you're left with only one unknown That doesn't make any sense to me. "God created everything" is nearly content-less even if you assume it. If you stop there, you're left with nearly zero understanding of how the world/nature/universe works. Inquiry of all sorts (scientific included) is still indispensable for discovering content about the world. > "who/what/how created God?" The only way to know anything about the Christian God, at least, is to look at what he’s done and what he says about himself - again a line of inquiry involving discovery, questions, deductions. > a clean solution where if you accept the premise of God, then any and all follow-on questions just point back to the premise. Agreed, it does tie it up neatly. But again, assuming the Christian God, we have no ability to know anything about him unless he chooses to reveal it (him being an infinite being). And assuming everything that begins to exist has a cause, there must be something that did not begin to exist -- which must then be defined as having no beginning. You might be familiar with logical systems if you're a developer. At the most basic levels, where everything is bootstrapped, a lot of self-references are often involved.