Bad News for Creationists: Plausible Abiogenesis Path Found

[_Kevin Graham]

Here's the difference between you and EA and me: you equate us with people who had a hand in the murder of millions of people, even though we have done no such thing

That's bonafide horsecrap. I've never "equated" you with murderers.

we equate you with people who have argued that the lack of a naturalistic explanation for something implies that God exists, which you have done dozens of times. See the difference?

And that's bonafide pigeoncrap. I have never made such an argument and it gets boring trying to convince you on what the argument is. You guys are just too content to tearing down straw men,.

Huck, see why it is pointless to argue with them? It doesn't matter what position you hold, they're gong to make one up for you anyway. They don't seem to understand that this technique says nothing about our position, and everything about theirs.

[_huckelberry]

Hi Kevin, "I don't get it" I have no reason to take your comments as hostile. I have approached the question from a slightly different angle. It seems to be not connecting very well. John proposes I am totally unaware of the substance of the thread. Sethbag suggests I may believe in God for no reason whatsoever even though my post contains an argument for Gods existence closely related to the ontological one of Anselm (not exactly I suppose) I misspelled harmonious revealing a hurried statement, but invisible?

I have spent enough years as an atheist believing there was no possiblity of my falling into religous belief that I am not much inclined to think an argument can be won on the matter. To be frank I am enough of a calvinist to think people believe when God calls them. I am not at all a docrinaire Calvinst so I do not think that has to be the whole picture.(at least at face value) I do believe people believe in God as a result of encounter with God.

I might be more concerned that EA suggests that faith breaks the will to explore objective cause effect historical relationships. I do not think it should. I also am disturbed by forms of faith that do break down that will to learn and increase understanding.

I think EA is correct in saying that God did it is not a valid answer to any question about how things work. On the other hand one can say that God is the answer to the question, what is the ground of all thngs existence. Now is that ground personal as in traditional theism?

[_JohnStuartMill]

Here's the difference between you and EA and me: you equate us with people who had a hand in the murder of millions of people, even though we have done no such thing

That's bonafide horsecrap. I've never "equated" you with murderers.

You pointed to Stalin and Pol Pot as exemplars of atheism, which they are not.

we equate you with people who have argued that the lack of a naturalistic explanation for something implies that God exists, which you have done dozens of times. See the difference?

And that's bonafide pigeoncrap. I have never made such an argument and it gets boring trying to convince you on what the argument is. You guys are just too content to tearing down straw men,.

You've never said that

There are clear indications that the symmetries of the universe point to a purpose and that is to promote the existence of human life. This is consistent with virtually all theistic belief systems. This in and of itself screams intelligent design. And when I say intelligent design, I mean to say there are indications that the universe was not an accident and the laws therein were tweaked by something intelligent.

or that

we cannot see God, but his/her/its existence conveniently explains a lot about the beauty in the world we live in; things science has not been able to explain. It is truly difficult for some people to sit and wonder at the amazing world we live in and not conclude it was by intelligent design.

or that

It defies logic to say it was an accident or that we won the cosmological jackpot. To that extent, I know a God exists.

????

[_Paracelsus]

This proves that God is a beer drinker.

According to the picture, he is a carpenter (we know he is) who is bespeaking ten beer, one for himself and the others to his employees.
It is a common case.

You know, bandsaw is a ruinous device.

[_EAllusion]

I've called Kevin a creationist because he has endorsed numerous arguments that were and are the heart of creationist argumentation, all the way down to the specific rhetorical examples. I don't even know if Kevin fully appreciates that when he goes on about Hoyle and abiogenesis, he might as well be reading a creationist pamphlet from 1983. Chances are he is in a sense. He must appreciate that he is at times flat quoting creationist works, as I've caught him doing that on more than one occasion. He also has defended the work of specific creationist leaders. He has compared his own reasoning to that of others who have gone on the record as endorsing creationist arguments.

Since a major Supreme Court defeat in the 1980's, there has been a gradual distancing from the the term "creationist" by many creationists or people who would've been called creationists at that time. Instead, the term "intelligent design" was opted for as led by Charles Thaxton. This simply involved relabeling creationist arguments intelligent design arguments without changing much of anything beyond the label. All ID arguments are either completely intact in the creationist literature or prefigured there. However, even as "intelligent design" is suffering its own court defeats and getting a shoddy reputation that term is starting to get distanced from. Happily, Kevin still dabbles in that one.

I called Kevin a bigot because he makes bigoted generalizations about atheists all the time. Here it involved touching on his tendency to attribute some undesirable characteristics to Dawkins then generalize whatever he thinks of Dawkins to all atheists, even when that is wildly inappropriate. Kevin has routinely irrationally described atheists as having nasty traits as a category.

[Guest]

I might be more concerned that EA suggests that faith breaks the will to explore objective cause effect historical relationships. I do not think it should. I also am disturbed by forms of faith that do break down that will to learn and increase understanding.

Hmm. I don't recall saying anything like that in this thread. I have said in the past that resorting to and accepting "God did it" as an explanation does hinder people attempting to find other, more legitimate, explanations for phenomena. When you begin to accept such an explanation, which doesn't differ in substance from "it's magic," any other explanation would never get a serious chance to be considered and developed, since it is unnecessary given that God is already "explaining" the issue. Faith in God, however, does not require one to become satisfied with God explaining any particular phenomena.

More specific to what John said, the only reason a plausible abiogenesis path is a problem for any theists is that some theists reason that abiogenesis uncaused by some ultimate intelligence is not possible. Therefore the mere existence of life indicates an ultimate intelligence. You usually here this argument expressed by lay people in the form of a rhetorical question like, "So you think life just randomly happened?" (Well, no, physical chemistry isn't random.) Merely showing how it could be done, even if you have no evidence it was done that way, helps illustrate why that reasoning is bunk. There are other versions of that abiogenesis argument that fail for related, but not identical reasons, though.

I don't think all theists resort to a biological design argument to justify their faith. I do think it is one of most popular ways people think their faith is justified. I think most people are arriving at their faith through apathetic acceptance of cultural teachings. To the extent people think about why their religious views are justified, I think things like design arguments, cosmological arguments, etc. are the intuitive way a large % of religious people reach to. An appeal to miracles via superstitious interpretations of coincidental events, which you likely also would regard as the ghetto of reasoning, tend to make up the other extremely popular route. You're more of a rare breed Huck. You have to accept that before moving on in the discussion.

[_EAllusion]

Incidentally, I'd define creationism proper as the position that there is a preponderance of scientific evidence to show that life or some aspect of it was created (designed) by a creator (designer).

A clever person might try to get out of the term by denying they are making a scientific case. For those people, I'd point out that I'm really shooting for a claim that one is making a sound posteriori argument. If you deny the term "scientific" to an argument that is structured with pretense to science, that's just a rhetorical game as far as this attempt at a definition is concerned.

We don't need to reach to this technical point when we are dealing with someone offering arguments that have a clear, traceable lineage to the creationist movement.

Again, I'd recommend Ronald Numbers work "The Creationists" as the definitive history of creationism in the US.

[_JohnStuartMill]

Oh man, I'm chomping at the bit to participate in the lashing that Droopy's getting in his atheism thread on the other board. Unfortunately, I've been banned, and I'm not willing to do the Kevin Graham stunt of registering as "acerola" to join the fun.

[_JohnStuartMill]

Incidentally, I'd define creationism proper as the position that there is a preponderance of scientific evidence to show that life or some aspect of it was created (designed) by a creator (designer).

Historically, though, this term has been used to denote people who believe that the Earth was created in more or less its present form. Under this definition, people who believe in "divinely-guided" evolution are not creationists. I can sort of see how Kevin would take offense at being lumped in with the people who deny the scientific fact of any kind of evolution, but ultimately, I agree that it's not improper to call him a creationist given the similarity of his arguments and their ultimate conclusions to the standard creationist line.

[_Sethbag]

I'm not sure you get it Huck. If we ever generalize with the word "atheists" then EA is quck to call us bigots. However, they're free to tear down strawmen and tell us we should be afraid, as all "creationists" are one in the same. Even if we say we aren't worried about this silly "plausibility". We're probably just lying to keep from having to deal with our own fears. You're never going to win with militant atheists.

Come on, Kevin. Can you dispute that there are a great many Christian and other believers out there who fear that the theory of evolution, and other scientific or naturalistic explanations of various aspects of our natural history, undermine the need for belief in God? These people are all over the place. Nobody's saying that all believers fall into this camp, but it's not a trivial camp by any stretch of the imagination - it's huge.