Welcome back from Singapore, Stephen. I hope you had a great vacation.
I wrote
>BH>why do you even hypothesize
>>what you would do "If scientists prove that life can originate
>>spontaneously, without even human intervention, from non-living
>>chemicals"? Let's lay the human intervention part aside.
>
>No. That is the *essential* part of my argument. I would have no
>problem if science using pre-existing human intelligent design,
>synthesised a self-replicating molecule from non-living chemicals.
>That would be evidence for creation by intelligent design, not
>naturalistic evolution:
>
>"But supposing that life could originate in the laboratory already
>hinted in the Miller-Urey experiment? What should our judgment if
>some day a scientist actually makes a living cell or something akin to
>an amoeba?...If man can think God's thoughts after Him, why is it
>incredible that man can do some of God's works after Him? Further,
>because man with a vast chemical equipment and an equally vast body of
>chemical data at his disposal can synthesize complex chemicals, it
>does not mean that Nature with only chance as its guide and creator
>can make life and foster it into complex creatures over the millions
>of years." (Ramm B. "The Christian View of Science and Scripture",
>Paternoster: London, 1955, p183)
Okay. I actually believe we're making some progress here. I had one
objection to your proposed action (becoming an atheist or a pantheist)
should it be shown that life arises spontaneously, now I have two. My
first objection was that it would be extremely difficult, if not totally
impossible to show that any apparently spontaneous origination of life was
_not_ under the control of God.
My second objection is probability related: I agree that if it could be
shown that life develops spontaneously from a variety of natural
precursors, under conditions which are easily achievable, so that new life
is emerging all the time, then it would be difficult to maintain the belief
that only God makes life. But that doesn't happen. All the postulated
scenarios for abiogenesis appeal to special conditions. The emergence of
life, if it happens (or happened) is very rare -- so rare it could be
called miraculous. So even if it could be shown that it happened, I
wouldn't be ready to tell the Holy Spirit to take a hike (as a Calvinist I
couldn't, anyway, but that's beside the point)
>
I stand by my previous closing point:
>BH>To prove that life can originate spontaneously without creative
>>acts of God, and can survive without His oversight, would require the
>>identification and elimination of every means God could possibly use
>>to create and oversee. That is not within the scope of science.
As one who regards God as a Person who can relate to me as a Person, I'm
not excited about making Him the subject of scientific investigation
anyway.
Bill Hamilton | Chassis & Vehicle Systems
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)
hamilton@gmr.com (office) | whamilto@mich.com (home)