jtm@syteka.UUCP (Jim McCrae) (04/18/85)
Open question here. Everyone can have a shot at it. Leif de HP's
sci-fi case for creationism opened with the assertion that
the evolution paradigm demands that life arise from non-life.
Now I've never seen this anywhere and I've scarfed down more
than my share of text on evolution. In fact, I don't recall that
theorists discussing evolution even touch the subject of life
versus rocks except as personal opinion footnotes. If anyone has
any strong feelings, or better yet references, on this I'd
appreciate seeing them. Myself, I find the notion of life
separated from non-life to be a reflection of the conscious
being's conclusion that consciousness appears to disappear
at the time of death, so it must go to the non-life state.
Following, anyone? In other words, us humanoids have made up
"life" as an anthropomorphism describing how we are distinct
from the rocks and water et al, when there is in fact no
evidence that the lack of functional organization in a rock
precludes it from membership in the club of things that
have "life".
If I'm wrong about this and evolution does accept as a premise
that life emerged from non-living stuff, then someone please
straighten me out. (Is non-life dead? Or UNDEAD!!!? Aaaoooooo!!)
Jim McCrae / Sytek / Mountain View CA {hplabs,decvax}!sytek!jtm
The opinions expressed are true and sytek backs me 100%.js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (04/23/85)
> Open question here. Everyone can have a shot at it. Leif de HP's > sci-fi case for creationism opened with the assertion that > the evolution paradigm demands that life arise from non-life. > Now I've never seen this anywhere and I've scarfed down more > than my share of text on evolution. In fact, I don't recall that > theorists discussing evolution even touch the subject of life > versus rocks except as personal opinion footnotes. > > If I'm wrong about this and evolution does accept as a premise > that life emerged from non-living stuff, then someone please > straighten me out. (Is non-life dead? Or UNDEAD!!!? Aaaoooooo!!) > > Jim McCrae / Sytek / Mountain View CA {hplabs,decvax}!sytek!jtm You're not wrong. The theory of evolution applies to how speciation occurs, not to how life arose origionally. Whether life arose from nonlife or was planted by aliens or was zapped into being by some all-powerful godlike being is immaterial to the theory of evolution. However, the theory of creation addresses both the origin of life and the origin of species, and since most creationists see evolution as diametrically opposed to evolution, many creationists think that the theory of evolution would be somehow deficient if failed to address both issues as well. (actually, the creationists' theory doesn't really address the issue of the origin of life, they just say that gawd created it, and fervently ignore anyone boorish enough to ask who created gawd.) Creationists also like to tie the idea of (life <= nonlife) to evolution since there is comparatively little evidence for this idea (unless you count the fact that we exist) and that makes it much easier to snipe away at than at evolution itself. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "But if we took out the bones, it wouldn't be crunchy, now, would it?"
beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (beth d. christy) (04/25/85)
> Open question here. Everyone can have a shot at it. Leif de HP's > sci-fi case for creationism opened with the assertion that > the evolution paradigm demands that life arise from non-life. > Now I've never seen this anywhere and I've scarfed down more > than my share of text on evolution. In fact, I don't recall that > theorists discussing evolution even touch the subject of life > versus rocks except as personal opinion footnotes. > > If I'm wrong about this and evolution does accept as a premise > that life emerged from non-living stuff, then someone please > straighten me out. (Is non-life dead? Or UNDEAD!!!? Aaaoooooo!!) > > Jim McCrae / Sytek / Mountain View CA {hplabs,decvax}!sytek!jtm I believe it's the case that even creationists believe that life on earth came from non-life. The issue is *how* it did it. Did non-living things rearrange themselves randomly until they were able to get up and go to the refrigerator during commercial breaks? Or did some really unique form of life rearrange the non-living stuff into living stuff? (The fact that something "living" was involved in this latter scenario is not saying that life "came from" life - the raw materials used were still not living.) Creationists don't usually deal with the issue of where that really unique form of life came from, and when they do they usually make wierd faces and say something like it "always existed". But they do seem to believe that life on earth came from non-life, especially if they buy the Genesis account of God creating Adam from dust (and, of course, the old dust-to-dust stuff). Comments? --JB (not Elizabeth, not Beth Ann, not Mary Beth...Just Beth)
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/28/85)
> --JB (not Elizabeth, not Beth Ann, not Mary Beth...Just Beth) > Creationists don't usually deal with the issue of > where that really unique form of life came from, and when they do they > usually make wierd faces and say something like it "always existed". But > they do seem to believe that life on earth came from non-life, especially if > they buy the Genesis account of God creating Adam from dust (and, of course, > the old dust-to-dust stuff). > > Comments? Sure. Evolutionists claim that they do not have to account for the origin of the matter from which life arose. Why then should creationists have to account for the origin of the creator from which life arose? -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "There are two sides to every argument, until you take one." |
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (04/29/85)
> Evolutionists claim that they do not have to account for the origin > of the matter from which life arose. Why then should creationists have > to account for the origin of the creator from which life arose? Scientists notice that they are unable to either observe events before the "big bang" or to project currently held notions of physical law beyond that event. They therefore hold that science cannot (at the present time) make any statement about what came before, or why it happened. Creationists hold that events that occured before and during the appearance of life on this earth are forever beyond the reach of science. They hold that the mechanism of that appearance is beyond the understanding of man. the first view is science, the other is destructive of science.
hua@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (04/30/85)
___________________________________________________________________________ > From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) > > > --JB (not Elizabeth, not Beth Ann, not Mary Beth...Just Beth) > > Creationists don't usually deal with the issue of > > where that really unique form of life came from, and when they do they > > usually make wierd faces and say something like it "always existed". But > > they do seem to believe that life on earth came from non-life, especially > > if they buy the Genesis account of God creating Adam from dust (and, of > > course, the old dust-to-dust stuff). > > > > Comments? First, a comment on the original, which Paul does not deal with. The biggest difference is the responsibility for the emergence of life forms as we know them. Is it an act of God? Or did it "just happen"? There is not problem in terms of a literal origin of life forms. The real difficulty lies in the forces that caused the tranformation. > Sure. > > Evolutionists claim that they do not have to account for the origin > of the matter from which life arose. Why then should creationists have > to account for the origin of the creator from which life arose? Second, on Paul's comment: Really? Who said so? Actually, don't waste your time answering that because I know of several who did. >From my perspective, evolution is simply a grandiose label for the natural flow of things. If you want to categorize and subdivide nature into, say, living and non-living, some reasonable question might be: "Where did the living come from?" or "Where did the non-living come from?" From a lot of analysis and research, some people have proposed answers to these questions. From a scientific perspective, the answer is that the living originally came from the non-living, as shown by the fossil record via some extrapolations. (Obviously, I am by no means saying that the fossil record is complete.) There is some development of form. From a religious perspective, a sample proposition might be the literal story of Genesis, which says that life forms were created at some instants of time by a supernatural life form. If you want to categorize something else, like languages, you might ask the same of languages. In which case, evolution is an answer again. Certain languages changed with time. Another answer is the Tower of Babel story (did I get that name right?). Now, a good question for the non-living part of nature subdivision would be: "Where did it all come from?" Again, the answer given by the Bible is that God made it all. Ultimately, science must assume that it was there since the Big Bang, which was the source of the matter that occupy the current version of the universe. No one can prove that ... yet. Biological evolution does not deal with this idea. However, evolution as a whole does cover EVERYTHING. It must cover everything as it does deal with the origin of everything.(*) Some net readers have limited the discussion to biological evolution, going on the assumption that that is the main topic at hand. (*) Note that when I said "origin", I meant the states that the universe transgressed to get to its current state. At the moment, it is difficult to image the states at or before Big Bang, so that is considered the the- oretical "beginning" ... for now. ___________________________________________________________________________ Live long and prosper. Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (04/30/85)
> > Evolutionists claim that they do not have to account for the origin > of the matter from which life arose. Why then should creationists have > to account for the origin of the creator from which life arose? > -- > Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- You don't. But then we don't have to account for the origin of life either, o.k.? I'll promise to ask where god came from *less* often than creationists ask us where life came from. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "Did you ever wonder ... why you're supposed to drive on a parkway and park on a driveway?"
ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (04/30/85)
Paul DuBois says: > Evolutionists claim that they do not have to account for the origin > of the matter from which life arose. Why then should creationists have > to account for the origin of the creator from which life arose? Answer: If you claim that a creator must exist because life could not have arisen by itself, you must explain why your hypothetical creator could have been self-generated and life could not.
beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (beth d. christy) (05/01/85)
> From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois), Message-ID: <993@uwmacc.UUCP> >> --JB (not Elizabeth, not Beth Ann, not Mary Beth...Just Beth) >> Creationists don't usually deal with the issue of >> where that really unique form of life came from, and when they do they >> usually make wierd faces and say something like it "always existed". But >> they do seem to believe that life on earth came from non-life, especially >> if they buy the Genesis account of God creating Adam from dust (and, of >> course, the old dust-to-dust stuff). >> >> Comments? > > Sure. > > Evolutionists claim that they do not have to account for the origin > of the matter from which life arose. Why then should creationists have > to account for the origin of the creator from which life arose? I wasn't saying that "creationists have to account for the origin of the creator". I was merely distinguishing the origin of the life of the *creator* from the origin of life *on earth*. The original posting was an attempt to state succinctly my interpretation of creationist beliefs regarding the origin of life *on earth*, and I wanted to make sure I didn't imply that (I thought that) creationists believed the same thing about the origin of the creator. (Saying that creationists believe that the *creator* arose from non-life would *really* have caused a fury - since it's almost undoubtedly not true.) Sorry I was unclear there. -- --JB (not Elizabeth, not Beth Ann, not Mary Beth...Just Beth)
hua@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (05/02/85)
___________________________________________________________________ > From: jtm@syteka.UUCP (Jim McCrae) > > Open question here. Everyone can have a shot at it. Leif de HP's > sci-fi case for creationism opened with the assertion that the > evolution paradigm demands that life arise from non-life. Now > I've never seen this anywhere and I've scarfed down more than my > share of text on evolution. In fact, I don't recall that theor- > ists discussing evolution even touch the subject of life versus > rocks except as personal opinion footnotes. If anyone has any > strong feelings, or better yet references, on this I'd appreciate > seeing them. Myself, I find the notion of life separated from > non-life to be a reflection of the conscious being's conclusion > that consciousness appears to disappear at the time of death, so > it must go to the non-life state. Following, anyone? In other > words, us humanoids have made up "life" as an anthropomorphism > describing how we are distinct from the rocks and water et al, > when there is in fact no evidence that the lack of functional or- > ganization in a rock precludes it from membership in the club of > things that have "life". There is, for the sake of biology and stuff, a definition of what "life" is. You will notice, however, that if someone invents a new machine that can take raw materials and convert it into brand new replicas of its own parts, can install it properly to replace or to expand, can reproduce itself via new parts, etc., it is a life form according to the definition. It only differs in that it is metallic rather than organic. But that is not significant. Ultimately, the creationists will want humans to be separated from the rest of the organisms of nature because of pride, faith, or whatever. I recall an organic-chemist-turned-preacher that said that molecules are dead; they have no life in them; there must be some life-giving force to "start them up". Thus the one more requirement that creationists want is the spirit. Since this is something that is, by definition, beyond the scope of science, it must be discarded. Therefore, in the eyes of science, there is no clear-cut definition of life, ex- cept through high-level criteria. I guess creationists are probably offended by the fact that they are, in some sense, on the same level as molecules. > If I'm wrong about this and evolution does accept as a premise > that life emerged from non-living stuff, then someone please > straighten me out. (Is non-life dead? Or UNDEAD!!!? Aaaoooooo!!) You are right, sort of. Evolution postulates that life forms came from non-living entities. But it is not as crisp a transition as is indicated by your words. It is far more accurate to say that life form characteristics developed in non-living entities. ___________________________________________________________________ Live long and prosper. Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (05/03/85)
In article <3674@alice.UUCP> ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) writes: >Paul DuBois says: > >> Evolutionists claim that they do not have to account for the origin >> of the matter from which life arose. Why then should creationists have >> to account for the origin of the creator from which life arose? > >Answer: If you claim that a creator must exist because life could >not have arisen by itself, you must explain why your hypothetical >creator could have been self-generated and life could not. The existence of a creator is not a scientific issue. Creation science is the scientific evidence for a creation, not a creator. Evolution is an alternative which claims that life arose from matter. This is still in the realm of science. Therefore, it is the evolutionists responsibility to explain the origin of this matter. If he cannot, it becomes open to speculation. The theory then becomes religious or philosophical in nature. Science does not have the burden to explain religious or philosophical issues. Maybe this is why evolutionists calim that they do not have to account for the origin of matter! Dan @There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact! Mark Twain
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (05/05/85)
> Creation science > is the scientific evidence for a creation, not a creator. Even if we accept that one can scientifically discuss a creation without talking about the creator, there is no creation science. Why? because there is no evidence for a creation. It has been well demonstrated here that the only thing the creationists have is outdated theology and outdated philosophy. No science at all.
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (05/07/85)
In article <1514@hao.UUCP> ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) writes: >> Creation science >> is the scientific evidence for a creation, not a creator. > >Even if we accept that one can scientifically discuss a creation >without talking about the creator, there is no creation science. >Why? because there is no evidence for a creation. >It has been well demonstrated here that the only thing the creationists >have is outdated theology and outdated philosophy. No science at all. It has been demonstrated that Evolution science is nothing but contradictions! ============================================================================== Scientific Dialogue??? Punctuationist: Evolution could not have occured gradually. There is no evidence for it. Stasis is the norm. Gradualist: Preposterous! Evolution must have occurred gradually. With all the latest genetic discoveries we are sure to find PROOF! Punctuationist: Gradualism is out. NO EVIDENCE!! Gradualist: Punctuationism is ridiculous. Hopeful monsters are a myth! Creationist: I agree with both of your last comments! Gradualist and Punctuationist: Shut up! What an unscientific statement! Creationist: At least I'm consistent!
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (05/08/85)
In article <308@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) writes: > Punctuationist: Gradualism is out. NO EVIDENCE!! > > Gradualist: Punctuationism is ridiculous. Hopeful monsters are a myth! > > Creationist: I agree with both of your last comments! > > Gradualist and Punctuationist: Shut up! What an unscientific statement! > > Creationist: At least I'm consistent! Tsk, tsk. Such a gross oversimplification. If I was foolish enough to use this form of argument, I'd say "protestant, catholic, at least I'm consistent in rejecting them." The point is, that it is not the position that one takes which makes one scientific or not: it is the reasoning and procedure used in arriving at and supporting that position. Creationism is driven by the scenario set by the Bible. If the truth lies outside of that scenario, creationists are restricted from finding it by their dogmas. Evolutionary theory is driven by the evidence of the history of life and the earth. Scenarios are proposed based on that evidence. Numerous scenarios have already been considered, accepted, rejected, and modified. Gradualism and punctuationalism are not contradictory: both scenarios may have taken place in the evolution of different lineages. The question is how important is each? The purpose of the debate is to focus attention on the evidence, to force both sides to marshall their best, to provide direction for new research gathering new evidence. Like many another scientific debate, the resulting conclusion or synthesis will probably incorporate both, as there is some evidence for each. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
lmc@denelcor.UUCP (Lyle McElhaney) (05/09/85)
> Punctuationist: Evolution could not have occured gradually. There is no > evidence for it. Stasis is the norm. > Gradualist: Preposterous! Evolution must have occurred gradually. With > all the latest genetic discoveries we are sure to find PROOF! > Punctuationist: Gradualism is out. NO EVIDENCE!! > Gradualist: Punctuationism is ridiculous. Hopeful monsters are a myth! > Creationist: I agree with both of your last comments! I think that does just about cover the arguments for creationism. What further can be said? -- Lyle McElhaney {hao, stcvax, brl-bmd, nbires, csu-cs} !denelcor!lmc