DiscussMormonism.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/science/14rna.html?hp

I guess it's the fine-tuning argument or nothing, now.

JohnStuartMill wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/science/14rna.html?hp

I guess it's the fine-tuning argument or nothing, now.

Thanks for the link. Fascinating stuff.

The author, John D. Sutherland, a chemist at the University of Manchester, likened his work to a crossword puzzle in which doing the first clues makes the others easier. “Whether we’ve done one across is an open question,” he said. “Our worry is that it may not be right.”

Sounds like the scientist isn't nearly as optimistic as the journalist who wrote that piece. Scientists are right to worry, especially given the history of exagerrated hype preceding other claims of ground-breaking work in abiogenesis *cough* Miller *cough*. There appears to already be scientists who dsagree with these conclusions; mentioned on page two of that article. The thing hasn't even been published yet, so let's see how it plays itself out after the scientific community becomes more aware of it.

I fail to see how this is supposed to be bad news for creationists.

The miracle seems now to have been explained. In the article in Nature, Dr. Sutherland and his colleagues Matthew W. Powner and Béatrice Gerland report that they have taken the same starting chemicals used by others but have caused them to react in a different order and in different combinations than in previous experiments. they discovered their recipe, which is far from intuitive, after 10 years of working through every possible combination of starting chemicals.

If my last name was Powner, I would SO become a doctor, too.

Paging Dr. Powner :D

It's bad news because any time there's even a merely plausible naturalistic explanation for a phenomenon, creationists' stated justification for positing the supernatural does not obtain. There's no need to invoke Thor to explain lightning, because we understand it pretty well. If abiogenesis becomes more than a complete mystery, then God will get squeezed out of that area, too. Inquiry is anathema to Gods-of-the-gaps.

Kevin Graham wrote:I fail to see how this is supposed to be bad news for creationists.

JSM wrote:It's bad news because any time there's even a merely plausible naturalistic explanation for a phenomenon, creationists' stated justification for positing the supernatural does not obtain.

Nah, I agree with Kevin. Natural selection is pretty plausible to explain species diversity, but they don't care for it. Creationists are immune to data and do not appreciate what a plausible mechanism does to their stance. To them, if they didn't see it happen with their own eyes then it's "just a theory" thunk up by a bitter atheist.

Sure, that's what creationists will end up doing. I'm just saying that their best argument (which was already pretty bad, for philosophical reasons) is completely undercut by this kind of discovery.

Kevin Graham wrote:

The author, John D. Sutherland, a chemist at the University of Manchester, likened his work to a crossword puzzle in which doing the first clues makes the others easier. “Whether we’ve done one across is an open question,” he said. “Our worry is that it may not be right.”

Sounds like the scientist isn't nearly as optimistic as the journalist who wrote that piece. Scientists are right to worry, especially given the history of exagerrated hype preceding other claims of ground-breaking work in abiogenesis *cough* Miller *cough*. There appears to already be scientists who dsagree with these conclusions; mentioned on page two of that article. The thing hasn't even been published yet, so let's see how it plays itself out after the scientific community becomes more aware of it.

I fail to see how this is supposed to be bad news for creationists.

It's getting published in Nature tomorrow. I don't think it gets any more prestigious than that.

The only objection mentioned in the article was also rebutted in the article.

It's bad news because any time there's even a merely plausible naturalistic explanation for a phenomenon, creationists' stated justification for positing the supernatural does not obtain.

Nonsense. This sounds exactly like the LDS apologetc argument for "plausibility" with regards to the missing papyrus and a multiplicity of other apologetic issues. As long as they can continue to imagine some plausible scenario, then this means all crtical arguments "do not obtain"? There is a distinct different between plausible and probable. I just found it funny that this journalst declares with bombastic certitude, what this scientist was wise enough to say might very well be wrong.

There's no need to invoke Thor to explain lightning, because we understand it pretty well.

Who invoked Thor? Certainly not I.

I accept all that science has shown to be true, as do most theists today. The problem you have, as a militant atheist (someone who gets pissed off at the prospect that his neighbor believes in God and is belligerent in trying to prove him wrong) is that most scientists continue to believe in God, because there is no necessary conflict with theism and science.

If abiogenesis becomes more than a complete mystery, then God will get squeezed out of that area, too. Inquiry is anathema to Gods-of-the-gaps.

As opposed to naturalism of the gaps? Oh wait, that can't be because the assumption is that everything can be explained naturally. Right? An assumption unproved, just taken for granted because it is naturalistic. Your faith in naturalism is far greater and blinder, than any faith I have in theistic relgion.

Nah, I agree with Kevin. Natural selection is pretty plausible to explain species diversity, but they don't care for it. Creationists are immune to data and do not appreciate what a plausible mechanism does to their stance. To them, if they didn't see it happen with their own eyes then it's "just a theory" thunk up by a bitter atheist

This is why I always try to make the distinction between theism and creatonism. The vast majority of theists have no problems with evolution.

Kevin Graham wrote:

It's bad news because any time there's even a merely plausible naturalistic explanation for a phenomenon, creationists' stated justification for positing the supernatural does not obtain.

Nonsense. This sounds exactly like the LDS apologetc argument for "plausibility" with regards to the missing papyrus and a multiplicity of other apologetic issues. As long as they can continue to imagine some plausible scenario, then this means all crtical arguments "do not obtain"? There is a distinct different between plausible and probable. I just found it funny that this journalst declares with bombastic certitude, what this scientist was wise enough to say might very well be wrong.

You're completely missing the point. (You do this so often that you should change your name to "Completely Missing the Point.) The whole argument for Intelligent Design/fine-tuning relies on there being no possible materialistic explanation for a phenomenon. (Arguments against Mormonism do not need to meet this standard.) As such, finding a plausible mechanism defeats the argument.

There's no need to invoke Thor to explain lightning, because we understand it pretty well.

Who invoked Thor? Certainly not I.

Well, I'm surprised that you haven't, given your predilection for invoking supernatural agents to explain other phenomena that don't require it.

I accept all that science has shown to be true, as do most theists today. The problem you have, as a militant atheist (someone who gets pissed off at the prospect that his neighbor believes in God and is belligerent in trying to prove him wrong) is that most scientists continue to believe in God, because there is no necessary conflict with theism and science.

I don't have a problem with theists. I have a problem with crappy arguments. That's why I can't stand Intelligent Design morons, and that's why you're on the receiving end of a lot of my ire.

If abiogenesis becomes more than a complete mystery, then God will get squeezed out of that area, too. Inquiry is anathema to Gods-of-the-gaps.

As opposed to naturalism of the gaps? Oh wait, that can't be because the assumpton is that everything can be explaned naturally. Right? An assumption unproved, just taken for granted because it is naturalistic. Your faith in naturalism is far greater and blinder, than any faith I have in theistic relgion.

Naturalism of the gaps is extraordinarily well-supported, Kevin. We've looked under millions of rocks, found naturalism under each one, and God under none.

Nah, I agree with Kevin. Natural selection is pretty plausible to explain species diversity, but they don't care for it. Creationists are immune to data and do not appreciate what a plausible mechanism does to their stance. To them, if they didn't see it happen with their own eyes then it's "just a theory" thunk up by a bitter atheist

This is why I always try to make the distinction between theism and creatonism. The vast majority of theists have no problems with evolution.

Then what's your problem?