| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 27 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 38:12:59 |
| Calls: | 631 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
22 files (29,767K bytes) |
| Messages: | 173,683 |
Thoughts on these review excerpts? Anyone read the book?
Rau's six categories: "Naturalistic Evolution (NE), Nonteleological Evolution (NTE), Planned Evolution (PE), Directed Evolution (DE), Old-
Earth Creation (OEC), and Young-Earth Creation (YEC). A chart in the
second chapter and extensive charts at the back of the book help sort
out the different models in a visual fashion."
"Rau points out that each position is ultimately based on rCLdifferent philosophical presuppositions that are outside the realm of sciencerCY (p. 176). The most important of these presuppositions, in RaurCOs view, is the definition of science itself. For example, a definition of science that refuses to acknowledge the possibility of the existence of or
interaction with a supernatural realm cuts off any inquiry or
explanations that refer to the supernatural. It automatically excludes
any evidence or inference that would point to an intelligent agent as a cause for the origin of life. Those who presuppose this definition of science approach questions about the origin of life looking exclusively
for natural causes. Similar blind spots are caused by presuppositions of those holding other positions."
"Given a priori presuppositions, people holding different views
regarding origins look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions. Or they ignore evidence that doesnrCOt support their
viewpoint, while touting evidence that does. Personally, I agree with
Rau that none of the models has a complete model with adequate
explanations for all of the evidence."
https://cathyduffyreviews.com/homeschool-reviews-core-curricula/science/ creation-science-intelligent-design/mapping-the-origins-debate#
Thoughts on these review excerpts? Anyone read the book?
Rau's six categories: "Naturalistic Evolution (NE), Nonteleological >Evolution (NTE), Planned Evolution (PE), Directed Evolution (DE),
Old-Earth Creation (OEC), and Young-Earth Creation (YEC). A chart in the >second chapter and extensive charts at the back of the book help sort
out the different models in a visual fashion."
"Rau points out that each position is ultimately based on rCLdifferent >philosophical presuppositions that are outside the realm of sciencerCY (p. >176). The most important of these presuppositions, in RaurCOs view, is the >definition of science itself. For example, a definition of science that >refuses to acknowledge the possibility of the existence of or
interaction with a supernatural realm cuts off any inquiry or
explanations that refer to the supernatural.
Thoughts on these review excerpts? Anyone read the book?
Rau's six categories: "Naturalistic Evolution (NE), Nonteleological Evolution (NTE), Planned Evolution (PE), Directed Evolution (DE),
Old-Earth Creation (OEC), and Young-Earth Creation (YEC). A chart in the second chapter and extensive charts at the back of the book help sort
out the different models in a visual fashion."
"Rau points out that each position is ultimately based on rCLdifferent philosophical presuppositions that are outside the realm of sciencerCY (p. 176). The most important of these presuppositions, in RaurCOs view, is the definition of science itself. For example, a definition of science that refuses to acknowledge the possibility of the existence of or
interaction with a supernatural realm cuts off any inquiry or
explanations that refer to the supernatural. It automatically excludes
any evidence or inference that would point to an intelligent agent as a cause for the origin of life. Those who presuppose this definition of science approach questions about the origin of life looking exclusively
for natural causes. Similar blind spots are caused by presuppositions of those holding other positions."
"Given a priori presuppositions, people holding different views
regarding origins look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions. Or they ignore evidence that doesnrCOt support their
viewpoint, while touting evidence that does.
Personally, I agree with
Rau that none of the models has a complete model with adequate
explanations for all of the evidence."
https://cathyduffyreviews.com/homeschool-reviews-core-curricula/science/creation-science-intelligent-design/mapping-the-origins-debate#
On 9/4/25 12:17 AM, MarkE wrote:
Thoughts on these review excerpts? Anyone read the book?
Rau's six categories: "Naturalistic Evolution (NE), Nonteleological
Evolution (NTE), Planned Evolution (PE), Directed Evolution (DE), Old-
Earth Creation (OEC), and Young-Earth Creation (YEC). A chart in the
second chapter and extensive charts at the back of the book help sort
out the different models in a visual fashion."
"Rau points out that each position is ultimately based on rCLdifferent
philosophical presuppositions that are outside the realm of
sciencerCY (p. 176). The most important of these presuppositions, in
RaurCOs view, is the definition of science itself. For example, a
definition of science that refuses to acknowledge the possibility of
the existence of or interaction with a supernatural realm cuts off any
inquiry or explanations that refer to the supernatural. It
automatically excludes any evidence or inference that would point to
an intelligent agent as a cause for the origin of life. Those who
presuppose this definition of science approach questions about the
origin of life looking exclusively for natural causes. Similar blind
spots are caused by presuppositions of those holding other positions."
This is a form of "both-sides-ism". The suppositions of the different
groups are not comparable, and this quote misunderstands the nature of science.
Science can't deal with the supernatural because it's so ill-defined as
to allow for no testable hypotheses. The definition of "supernatural"
might as well be "that which cannot be studied by science". No evidence
is excluded, but what evidence could there be of the supernatural? How
would you distinguish a supernatural event from a natural event of
unknown causes? This is especially true if the hypothesis is of an omnipotent being, since anything could be made to look like anything
else, and a common way to deal with evidence is to appeal to divine inscrutability.
How, specifically, would you look for a supernatural cause of the origin
of life? What evidence could there be?
"Given a priori presuppositions, people holding different views
regarding origins look at the same evidence and come to different
conclusions. Or they ignore evidence that doesnrCOt support their
viewpoint, while touting evidence that does.
That's true for OEC and YEC, since they are required to ignore almost
every feature of the world, and the evidence they imagine supports their views is in face imaginary. Not sure what you think the evidence for PE
or DE would be.
Personally, I agree with Rau that none of the models has a complete
model with adequate explanations for all of the evidence."
Nor would we expect to have such a model. If we did, science would be
done. We would know everything.
https://cathyduffyreviews.com/homeschool-reviews-core-curricula/
science/creation-science-intelligent-design/mapping-the-origins-debate#
On 5/09/2025 3:56 am, John Harshman wrote:Do you recognize that your individual judgment about the origin of
On 9/4/25 12:17 AM, MarkE wrote:
Thoughts on these review excerpts? Anyone read the book?
Rau's six categories: "Naturalistic Evolution (NE), Nonteleological
Evolution (NTE), Planned Evolution (PE), Directed Evolution (DE), Old-
Earth Creation (OEC), and Young-Earth Creation (YEC). A chart in the
second chapter and extensive charts at the back of the book help sort
out the different models in a visual fashion."
"Rau points out that each position is ultimately based on rCLdifferent
philosophical presuppositions that are outside the realm of
sciencerCY (p. 176). The most important of these presuppositions, in
RaurCOs view, is the definition of science itself. For example, a
definition of science that refuses to acknowledge the possibility of
the existence of or interaction with a supernatural realm cuts off any
inquiry or explanations that refer to the supernatural. It
automatically excludes any evidence or inference that would point to
an intelligent agent as a cause for the origin of life. Those who
presuppose this definition of science approach questions about the
origin of life looking exclusively for natural causes. Similar blind
spots are caused by presuppositions of those holding other positions."
This is a form of "both-sides-ism". The suppositions of the different
groups are not comparable, and this quote misunderstands the nature of
science.
Science can't deal with the supernatural because it's so ill-defined as
to allow for no testable hypotheses. The definition of "supernatural"
might as well be "that which cannot be studied by science". No evidence
is excluded, but what evidence could there be of the supernatural? How
would you distinguish a supernatural event from a natural event of
unknown causes? This is especially true if the hypothesis is of an
omnipotent being, since anything could be made to look like anything
else, and a common way to deal with evidence is to appeal to divine
inscrutability.
How, specifically, would you look for a supernatural cause of the origin
of life? What evidence could there be?
It seems to come down to causality, probability, and individual
judgement, regardless of what one believes:
* Where natural causality adequately explains something, then there is--
no warrant from scientific evidence to consider supernatural involvement.
In this case, one may still consider supernatural involvement, but that >would only be on the basis of other epistemologies (e.g. theology, >philosophy) and personal convictions (e.g. religious faith). An example
of this position would be Rau's category of Planned Evolution (PE).
* Where natural causality does not adequately explain something, then
there is warrant from scientific evidence to consider supernatural >involvement.
Obviously, this raises the question of what constitutes an adequate >explanation. As I've suggested here previously, I suggest something like >this, using origin of life as an example:
If, after 100 or 1000 years of concerted research into naturalistic >explanations for OoL, a general scientific consensus emerged that all
known hypotheses were inadequate (i.e., something like what James Tour
is presently claiming), what then? To be clear, I'm not asserting this
is the case, but asking if it were so, what then?
A reasonable, rational response would be to conclude that consideration
of a supernatural cause is then warranted on the basis of scientific >evidence. The search for a viable natural cause may continue in
parallel. This is only ever a provisional conclusion, given that a
negative cannot be proven.
To indefinitely refuse to consider a supernatural cause (note: consider,
not concede) indicates a presupposed exclusion of the supernatural,
which is an unjustifiably truncated assumption of reality.
Of course, the threshold for this is an individual decision.
What could science itself tell us about this supernatural cause?
In one sense, nothing - it is by definition restricted to the natural >domain. Further investigation would be in the realms of theology and >"special revelation", philosophy etc. On the other hand, I infer from
what I know of the universe and from life things like design,
intelligence, powerful agency; also abstract things like love, beauty, >morality. So "natural theology" may identify attributes of a
supernatural agent.
What position would you/do you take?
------
An observed phenomenon could conceivably breach the causality threshold
to a such a degree as to give some individuals full conviction of >supernatural involvement. Biblical miracles served that purpose (not
arguing for their veracity here, just using them to illustrate the >principle). For example:
Immediately he made the disciples get into the boat and go before him to
the other side, while he dismissed the crowds. And after he had
dismissed the crowds, he went up on the mountain by himself to pray.
When evening came, he was there alone, but the boat by this time was a
long way from the land, beaten by the waves, for the wind was against
them. And in the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking on
the sea. But when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were >terrified, and said, rCLIt is a ghost!rCY and they cried out in fear. But >immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying, rCLTake heart; it is I. Do not be >afraid.rCY
And Peter answered him, rCLLord, if it is you, command me to come to you
on the water.rCY He said, rCLCome.rCY So Peter got out of the boat and walked >on the water and came to Jesus. But when he saw the wind, he was afraid,
and beginning to sink he cried out, rCLLord, save me.rCY Jesus immediately >reached out his hand and took hold of him, saying to him, rCLO you of
little faith, why did you doubt?rCY And when they got into the boat, the >wind ceased. And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, rCLTruly you are >the Son of God.rCY
(Matthew 14:22-33)
"Given a priori presuppositions, people holding different views
regarding origins look at the same evidence and come to different
conclusions. Or they ignore evidence that doesnrCOt support their
viewpoint, while touting evidence that does.
That's true for OEC and YEC, since they are required to ignore almost
every feature of the world, and the evidence they imagine supports their
views is in face imaginary. Not sure what you think the evidence for PE
or DE would be.
Personally, I agree with Rau that none of the models has a complete
model with adequate explanations for all of the evidence."
Nor would we expect to have such a model. If we did, science would be
done. We would know everything.
https://cathyduffyreviews.com/homeschool-reviews-core-curricula/
science/creation-science-intelligent-design/mapping-the-origins-debate#
On 5/09/2025 3:56 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/4/25 12:17 AM, MarkE wrote:
Thoughts on these review excerpts? Anyone read the book?
Rau's six categories: "Naturalistic Evolution (NE), Nonteleological
Evolution (NTE), Planned Evolution (PE), Directed Evolution (DE),
Old- Earth Creation (OEC), and Young-Earth Creation (YEC). A chart in
the second chapter and extensive charts at the back of the book help
sort out the different models in a visual fashion."
"Rau points out that each position is ultimately based on rCLdifferent
philosophical presuppositions that are outside the realm of
sciencerCY (p. 176). The most important of these presuppositions, in
RaurCOs view, is the definition of science itself. For example, a
definition of science that refuses to acknowledge the possibility of
the existence of or interaction with a supernatural realm cuts off
any inquiry or explanations that refer to the supernatural. It
automatically excludes any evidence or inference that would point to
an intelligent agent as a cause for the origin of life. Those who
presuppose this definition of science approach questions about the
origin of life looking exclusively for natural causes. Similar blind
spots are caused by presuppositions of those holding other positions."
This is a form of "both-sides-ism". The suppositions of the different
groups are not comparable, and this quote misunderstands the nature of
science.
Science can't deal with the supernatural because it's so ill-defined
as to allow for no testable hypotheses. The definition of
"supernatural" might as well be "that which cannot be studied by
science". No evidence is excluded, but what evidence could there be of
the supernatural? How would you distinguish a supernatural event from
a natural event of unknown causes? This is especially true if the
hypothesis is of an omnipotent being, since anything could be made to
look like anything else, and a common way to deal with evidence is to
appeal to divine inscrutability.
How, specifically, would you look for a supernatural cause of the
origin of life? What evidence could there be?
It seems to come down to causality, probability, and individual
judgement, regardless of what one believes:
* Where natural causality adequately explains something, then there is
no warrant from scientific evidence to consider supernatural involvement.
In this case, one may still consider supernatural involvement, but that would only be on the basis of other epistemologies (e.g. theology, philosophy) and personal convictions (e.g. religious faith). An example
of this position would be Rau's category of Planned Evolution (PE).
* Where natural causality does not adequately explain something, then
there is warrant from scientific evidence to consider supernatural involvement.
Obviously, this raises the question of what constitutes an adequate explanation. As I've suggested here previously, I suggest something like this, using origin of life as an example:
If, after 100 or 1000 years of concerted research into naturalistic explanations for OoL, a general scientific consensus emerged that all
known hypotheses were inadequate (i.e., something like what James Tour
is presently claiming), what then? To be clear, I'm not asserting this
is the case, but asking if it were so, what then?
A reasonable, rational response would be to conclude that consideration
of a supernatural cause is then warranted on the basis of scientific evidence. The search for a viable natural cause may continue in
parallel. This is only ever a provisional conclusion, given that a
negative cannot be proven.
To indefinitely refuse to consider a supernatural cause (note: consider,
not concede) indicates a presupposed exclusion of the supernatural,
which is an unjustifiably truncated assumption of reality.
Of course, the threshold for this is an individual decision.
What could science itself tell us about this supernatural cause?
In one sense, nothing - it is by definition restricted to the natural domain. Further investigation would be in the realms of theology and "special revelation", philosophy etc. On the other hand, I infer from
what I know of the universe and from life things like design,
intelligence, powerful agency; also abstract things like love, beauty, morality. So "natural theology" may identify attributes of a
supernatural agent.
What position would you/do you take?
------
An observed phenomenon could conceivably breach the causality threshold
to a such a degree as to give some individuals full conviction of supernatural involvement. Biblical miracles served that purpose (not
arguing for their veracity here, just using them to illustrate the principle). For example:
Immediately he made the disciples get into the boat and go before him to
the other side, while he dismissed the crowds. And after he had
dismissed the crowds, he went up on the mountain by himself to pray.
When evening came, he was there alone, but the boat by this time was a
long way from the land, beaten by the waves, for the wind was against
them. And in the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking on
the sea. But when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were terrified, and said, rCLIt is a ghost!rCY and they cried out in fear. But immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying, rCLTake heart; it is I. Do not be afraid.rCY
And Peter answered him, rCLLord, if it is you, command me to come to you
on the water.rCY He said, rCLCome.rCY So Peter got out of the boat and walked
on the water and came to Jesus. But when he saw the wind, he was afraid,
and beginning to sink he cried out, rCLLord, save me.rCY Jesus immediately reached out his hand and took hold of him, saying to him, rCLO you of
little faith, why did you doubt?rCY And when they got into the boat, the wind ceased. And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, rCLTruly you are the Son of God.rCY
(Matthew 14:22-33)
"Given a priori presuppositions, people holding different views
regarding origins look at the same evidence and come to different
conclusions. Or they ignore evidence that doesnrCOt support their
viewpoint, while touting evidence that does.
That's true for OEC and YEC, since they are required to ignore almost
every feature of the world, and the evidence they imagine supports
their views is in face imaginary. Not sure what you think the evidence
for PE or DE would be.
Personally, I agree with Rau that none of the models has a complete
model with adequate explanations for all of the evidence."
Nor would we expect to have such a model. If we did, science would be
done. We would know everything.
https://cathyduffyreviews.com/homeschool-reviews-core-curricula/
science/creation-science-intelligent-design/mapping-the-origins-debate#
On 5/09/2025 3:56 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/4/25 12:17 AM, MarkE wrote:
Thoughts on these review excerpts? Anyone read the book?
Rau's six categories: "Naturalistic Evolution (NE), Nonteleological
Evolution (NTE), Planned Evolution (PE), Directed Evolution (DE),
Old- Earth Creation (OEC), and Young-Earth Creation (YEC). A chart in
the second chapter and extensive charts at the back of the book help
sort out the different models in a visual fashion."
"Rau points out that each position is ultimately based on rCLdifferent
philosophical presuppositions that are outside the realm of sciencerCY
(p. 176). The most important of these presuppositions, in RaurCOs view, >>> is the definition of science itself. For example, a definition of
science that refuses to acknowledge the possibility of the existence
of or interaction with a supernatural realm cuts off any inquiry or
explanations that refer to the supernatural. It automatically
excludes any evidence or inference that would point to an intelligent
agent as a cause for the origin of life. Those who presuppose this
definition of science approach questions about the origin of life
looking exclusively for natural causes. Similar blind spots are
caused by presuppositions of those holding other positions."
This is a form of "both-sides-ism". The suppositions of the different
groups are not comparable, and this quote misunderstands the nature of
science.
Science can't deal with the supernatural because it's so ill-defined
as to allow for no testable hypotheses. The definition of
"supernatural" might as well be "that which cannot be studied by
science". No evidence is excluded, but what evidence could there be of
the supernatural? How would you distinguish a supernatural event from
a natural event of unknown causes? This is especially true if the
hypothesis is of an omnipotent being, since anything could be made to
look like anything else, and a common way to deal with evidence is to
appeal to divine inscrutability.
How, specifically, would you look for a supernatural cause of the
origin of life? What evidence could there be?
It seems to come down to causality, probability, and individual
judgement, regardless of what one believes:
* Where natural causality adequately explains something, then there is
no warrant from scientific evidence to consider supernatural involvement.
In this case, one may still consider supernatural involvement, but that would only be on the basis of other epistemologies (e.g. theology, philosophy) and personal convictions (e.g. religious faith). An example
of this position would be Rau's category of Planned Evolution (PE).
* Where natural causality does not adequately explain something, then
there is warrant from scientific evidence to consider supernatural involvement.
Obviously, this raises the question of what constitutes an adequate explanation. As I've suggested here previously, I suggest something like this, using origin of life as an example:
If, after 100 or 1000 years of concerted research into naturalistic explanations for OoL, a general scientific consensus emerged that all
known hypotheses were inadequate (i.e., something like what James Tour
is presently claiming), what then? To be clear, I'm not asserting this
is the case, but asking if it were so, what then?
A reasonable, rational response would be to conclude that consideration
of a supernatural cause is then warranted on the basis of scientific evidence. The search for a viable natural cause may continue in
parallel. This is only ever a provisional conclusion, given that a
negative cannot be proven.
To indefinitely refuse to consider a supernatural cause (note: consider,
not concede) indicates a presupposed exclusion of the supernatural,
which is an unjustifiably truncated assumption of reality.
Of course, the threshold for this is an individual decision.
What could science itself tell us about this supernatural cause?
In one sense, nothing - it is by definition restricted to the natural domain.
Further investigation would be in the realms of theology and
"special revelation", philosophy etc. On the other hand, I infer from
what I know of the universe and from life things like design,
intelligence, powerful agency; also abstract things like love, beauty, morality. So "natural theology" may identify attributes of a
supernatural agent.
What position would you/do you take?
An observed phenomenon could conceivably breach the causality threshold
to a such a degree as to give some individuals full conviction of supernatural involvement.
Biblical miracles served that purpose (not
arguing for their veracity here, just using them to illustrate the principle). For example:
Immediately he made the disciples get into the boat and go before him to
the other side, while he dismissed the crowds. And after he had
dismissed the crowds, he went up on the mountain by himself to pray.
When evening came, he was there alone, but the boat by this time was a
long way from the land, beaten by the waves, for the wind was against
them. And in the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking on
the sea. But when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were terrified, and said, rCLIt is a ghost!rCY and they cried out in fear. But immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying, rCLTake heart; it is I. Do not be afraid.rCY
And Peter answered him, rCLLord, if it is you, command me to come to you
on the water.rCY He said, rCLCome.rCY So Peter got out of the boat and walked
on the water and came to Jesus. But when he saw the wind, he was afraid,
and beginning to sink he cried out, rCLLord, save me.rCY Jesus immediately reached out his hand and took hold of him, saying to him, rCLO you of
little faith, why did you doubt?rCY And when they got into the boat, the wind ceased. And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, rCLTruly you are the Son of God.rCY
(Matthew 14:22-33)
"Given a priori presuppositions, people holding different views
regarding origins look at the same evidence and come to different
conclusions. Or they ignore evidence that doesnrCOt support their
viewpoint, while touting evidence that does.
That's true for OEC and YEC, since they are required to ignore almost
every feature of the world, and the evidence they imagine supports
their views is in face imaginary. Not sure what you think the evidence
for PE or DE would be.
Personally, I agree with Rau that none of the models has a complete
model with adequate explanations for all of the evidence."
Nor would we expect to have such a model. If we did, science would be
done. We would know everything.
https://cathyduffyreviews.com/homeschool-reviews-core-curricula/
science/creation-science-intelligent-design/mapping-the-origins-debate#
On 9/4/25 5:28 PM, MarkE wrote:his line of reasoning has no merit.
On 5/09/2025 3:56 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/4/25 12:17 AM, MarkE wrote:
Thoughts on these review excerpts? Anyone read the book?
Rau's six categories: "Naturalistic Evolution (NE), Nonteleological
Evolution (NTE), Planned Evolution (PE), Directed Evolution (DE),
Old- Earth Creation (OEC), and Young-Earth Creation (YEC). A chart in >>>> the second chapter and extensive charts at the back of the book help
sort out the different models in a visual fashion."
"Rau points out that each position is ultimately based on rCLdifferent >>>> philosophical presuppositions that are outside the realm of sciencerCY >>>> (p. 176). The most important of these presuppositions, in RaurCOs view, >>>> is the definition of science itself. For example, a definition of
science that refuses to acknowledge the possibility of the existence
of or interaction with a supernatural realm cuts off any inquiry or
explanations that refer to the supernatural. It automatically
excludes any evidence or inference that would point to an intelligent >>>> agent as a cause for the origin of life. Those who presuppose this
definition of science approach questions about the origin of life
looking exclusively for natural causes. Similar blind spots are
caused by presuppositions of those holding other positions."
This is a form of "both-sides-ism". The suppositions of the different
groups are not comparable, and this quote misunderstands the nature of
science.
Science can't deal with the supernatural because it's so ill-defined
as to allow for no testable hypotheses. The definition of
"supernatural" might as well be "that which cannot be studied by
science". No evidence is excluded, but what evidence could there be of
the supernatural? How would you distinguish a supernatural event from
a natural event of unknown causes? This is especially true if the
hypothesis is of an omnipotent being, since anything could be made to
look like anything else, and a common way to deal with evidence is to
appeal to divine inscrutability.
How, specifically, would you look for a supernatural cause of the
origin of life? What evidence could there be?
It seems to come down to causality, probability, and individual
judgement, regardless of what one believes:
* Where natural causality adequately explains something, then there is
no warrant from scientific evidence to consider supernatural involvement.
In this case, one may still consider supernatural involvement, but that
would only be on the basis of other epistemologies (e.g. theology,
philosophy) and personal convictions (e.g. religious faith). An example
of this position would be Rau's category of Planned Evolution (PE).
* Where natural causality does not adequately explain something, then
there is warrant from scientific evidence to consider supernatural
involvement.
No, there is not. That's the old "god of the gaps" argument. Just
because you don't understand something is no reason to believe it's due
to supernatural causes, especially if it's complex. Why not natural
causes you don't know about or don't know how to apply?
Obviously, this raises the question of what constitutes an adequate
explanation. As I've suggested here previously, I suggest something like
this, using origin of life as an example:
If, after 100 or 1000 years of concerted research into naturalistic
explanations for OoL, a general scientific consensus emerged that all
known hypotheses were inadequate (i.e., something like what James Tour
is presently claiming), what then? To be clear, I'm not asserting this
is the case, but asking if it were so, what then?
Time to come up with other hypotheses. But why supernatural ones? And
what does "supernatural" even mean to you? Again, it's too vague to base >predictions or hypotheses on, and thus impossible to do science with.
A reasonable, rational response would be to conclude that consideration
of a supernatural cause is then warranted on the basis of scientific
evidence. The search for a viable natural cause may continue in
parallel. This is only ever a provisional conclusion, given that a
negative cannot be proven.
Once again, how would you study a supernatural cause?
To indefinitely refuse to consider a supernatural cause (note: consider,
not concede) indicates a presupposed exclusion of the supernatural,
which is an unjustifiably truncated assumption of reality.
Once more, what supernatural cause? What would a supernatural cause look >like? How would we recognize it?
Of course, the threshold for this is an individual decision.
What could science itself tell us about this supernatural cause?
In one sense, nothing - it is by definition restricted to the natural
domain.
Not by definition. Entirely for practical reasons, because the
supernatural is characterized by a lack of discernible properties.
There's nothing for science to grab onto.
Further investigation would be in the realms of theology and
"special revelation", philosophy etc. On the other hand, I infer from
what I know of the universe and from life things like design,
intelligence, powerful agency; also abstract things like love, beauty,
morality. So "natural theology" may identify attributes of a
supernatural agent.
How can you identify attributes of a supernatural agent without first >establishing that such an agent exists?
What position would you/do you take?
My position is that science is our only way of gathering reliable
knowledge of the universe. Theology, revelation, philosophy, etc. don't
do it.
An observed phenomenon could conceivably breach the causality threshold
to a such a degree as to give some individuals full conviction of
supernatural involvement.
Don't forget that a sufficiently advanced technology is
indistinguishable from magic. If you see something that's physically >impossible, as far as you know, it's either a miracle or you were wrong >about what's possible. How would you tell the difference?
Biblical miracles served that purpose (not
arguing for their veracity here, just using them to illustrate the
principle). For example:
Immediately he made the disciples get into the boat and go before him to
the other side, while he dismissed the crowds. And after he had
dismissed the crowds, he went up on the mountain by himself to pray.
When evening came, he was there alone, but the boat by this time was a
long way from the land, beaten by the waves, for the wind was against
them. And in the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking on
the sea. But when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were
terrified, and said, rCLIt is a ghost!rCY and they cried out in fear. But >> immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying, rCLTake heart; it is I. Do not be >> afraid.rCY
And Peter answered him, rCLLord, if it is you, command me to come to you
on the water.rCY He said, rCLCome.rCY So Peter got out of the boat and walked
on the water and came to Jesus. But when he saw the wind, he was afraid,
and beginning to sink he cried out, rCLLord, save me.rCY Jesus immediately >> reached out his hand and took hold of him, saying to him, rCLO you of
little faith, why did you doubt?rCY And when they got into the boat, the
wind ceased. And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, rCLTruly you are >> the Son of God.rCY
(Matthew 14:22-33)
So many problems with that story, from a theological perspective alone,
but no need to go into them here. But what does a cheap magic trick tell
you about God?
"Given a priori presuppositions, people holding different views
regarding origins look at the same evidence and come to different
conclusions. Or they ignore evidence that doesnrCOt support their
viewpoint, while touting evidence that does.
That's true for OEC and YEC, since they are required to ignore almost
every feature of the world, and the evidence they imagine supports
their views is in face imaginary. Not sure what you think the evidence
for PE or DE would be.
Personally, I agree with Rau that none of the models has a complete
model with adequate explanations for all of the evidence."
Nor would we expect to have such a model. If we did, science would be
done. We would know everything.
https://cathyduffyreviews.com/homeschool-reviews-core-curricula/
science/creation-science-intelligent-design/mapping-the-origins-debate# MarkE continues to argue that hypotheses using supernatural causes are equivalent to hypotheses using natural causes. That he can't/won't identify/define what are supernatural causes suggests he knows that
On 9/4/25 5:28 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 5/09/2025 3:56 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/4/25 12:17 AM, MarkE wrote:
Thoughts on these review excerpts? Anyone read the book?
Rau's six categories: "Naturalistic Evolution (NE), Nonteleological
Evolution (NTE), Planned Evolution (PE), Directed Evolution (DE),
Old- Earth Creation (OEC), and Young-Earth Creation (YEC). A chart
in the second chapter and extensive charts at the back of the book
help sort out the different models in a visual fashion."
"Rau points out that each position is ultimately based on rCLdifferent >>>> philosophical presuppositions that are outside the realm of
sciencerCY (p. 176). The most important of these presuppositions, in
RaurCOs view, is the definition of science itself. For example, a
definition of science that refuses to acknowledge the possibility of
the existence of or interaction with a supernatural realm cuts off
any inquiry or explanations that refer to the supernatural. It
automatically excludes any evidence or inference that would point to
an intelligent agent as a cause for the origin of life. Those who
presuppose this definition of science approach questions about the
origin of life looking exclusively for natural causes. Similar blind
spots are caused by presuppositions of those holding other positions."
This is a form of "both-sides-ism". The suppositions of the different
groups are not comparable, and this quote misunderstands the nature
of science.
Science can't deal with the supernatural because it's so ill-defined
as to allow for no testable hypotheses. The definition of
"supernatural" might as well be "that which cannot be studied by
science". No evidence is excluded, but what evidence could there be
of the supernatural? How would you distinguish a supernatural event
from a natural event of unknown causes? This is especially true if
the hypothesis is of an omnipotent being, since anything could be
made to look like anything else, and a common way to deal with
evidence is to appeal to divine inscrutability.
How, specifically, would you look for a supernatural cause of the
origin of life? What evidence could there be?
It seems to come down to causality, probability, and individual
judgement, regardless of what one believes:
* Where natural causality adequately explains something, then there is
no warrant from scientific evidence to consider supernatural involvement.
In this case, one may still consider supernatural involvement, but
that would only be on the basis of other epistemologies (e.g.
theology, philosophy) and personal convictions (e.g. religious faith).
An example of this position would be Rau's category of Planned
Evolution (PE).
* Where natural causality does not adequately explain something, then
there is warrant from scientific evidence to consider supernatural
involvement.
No, there is not. That's the old "god of the gaps" argument. Just
because you don't understand something is no reason to believe it's due
to supernatural causes, especially if it's complex. Why not natural
causes you don't know about or don't know how to apply?
Obviously, this raises the question of what constitutes an adequate
explanation. As I've suggested here previously, I suggest something
like this, using origin of life as an example:
If, after 100 or 1000 years of concerted research into naturalistic
explanations for OoL, a general scientific consensus emerged that all
known hypotheses were inadequate (i.e., something like what James Tour
is presently claiming), what then? To be clear, I'm not asserting this
is the case, but asking if it were so, what then?
Time to come up with other hypotheses. But why supernatural ones? And
what does "supernatural" even mean to you? Again, it's too vague to base predictions or hypotheses on, and thus impossible to do science with.
A reasonable, rational response would be to conclude that
consideration of a supernatural cause is then warranted on the basis
of scientific evidence. The search for a viable natural cause may
continue in parallel. This is only ever a provisional conclusion,
given that a negative cannot be proven.
Once again, how would you study a supernatural cause?
To indefinitely refuse to consider a supernatural cause (note:
consider, not concede) indicates a presupposed exclusion of the
supernatural, which is an unjustifiably truncated assumption of reality.
Once more, what supernatural cause? What would a supernatural cause look like? How would we recognize it?
Of course, the threshold for this is an individual decision.
What could science itself tell us about this supernatural cause?
In one sense, nothing - it is by definition restricted to the natural
domain.
Not by definition. Entirely for practical reasons, because the
supernatural is characterized by a lack of discernible properties.
There's nothing for science to grab onto.
Further investigation would be in the realms of theology and "special
revelation", philosophy etc. On the other hand, I infer from what I
know of the universe and from life things like design, intelligence,
powerful agency; also abstract things like love, beauty, morality. So
"natural theology" may identify attributes of a supernatural agent.
How can you identify attributes of a supernatural agent without first establishing that such an agent exists?
What position would you/do you take?
My position is that science is our only way of gathering reliable
knowledge of the universe. Theology, revelation, philosophy, etc. don't
do it.
An observed phenomenon could conceivably breach the causality
threshold to a such a degree as to give some individuals full
conviction of supernatural involvement.
Don't forget that a sufficiently advanced technology is
indistinguishable from magic. If you see something that's physically impossible, as far as you know, it's either a miracle or you were wrong about what's possible. How would you tell the difference?
Biblical miracles served that purpose (not arguing for their veracity
here, just using them to illustrate the principle). For example:
Immediately he made the disciples get into the boat and go before him
to the other side, while he dismissed the crowds. And after he had
dismissed the crowds, he went up on the mountain by himself to pray.
When evening came, he was there alone, but the boat by this time was a
long way from the land, beaten by the waves, for the wind was against
them. And in the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking on
the sea. But when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were
terrified, and said, rCLIt is a ghost!rCY and they cried out in fear. But >> immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying, rCLTake heart; it is I. Do not
be afraid.rCY
And Peter answered him, rCLLord, if it is you, command me to come to you
on the water.rCY He said, rCLCome.rCY So Peter got out of the boat and
walked on the water and came to Jesus. But when he saw the wind, he
was afraid, and beginning to sink he cried out, rCLLord, save me.rCY Jesus >> immediately reached out his hand and took hold of him, saying to him,
rCLO you of little faith, why did you doubt?rCY And when they got into the >> boat, the wind ceased. And those in the boat worshiped him, saying,
rCLTruly you are the Son of God.rCY
(Matthew 14:22-33)
So many problems with that story, from a theological perspective alone,
but no need to go into them here. But what does a cheap magic trick tell
you about God?
"Given a priori presuppositions, people holding different views
regarding origins look at the same evidence and come to different
conclusions. Or they ignore evidence that doesnrCOt support their
viewpoint, while touting evidence that does.
That's true for OEC and YEC, since they are required to ignore almost
every feature of the world, and the evidence they imagine supports
their views is in face imaginary. Not sure what you think the
evidence for PE or DE would be.
Personally, I agree with Rau that none of the models has a complete
model with adequate explanations for all of the evidence."
Nor would we expect to have such a model. If we did, science would be
done. We would know everything.
https://cathyduffyreviews.com/homeschool-reviews-core-curricula/
science/creation-science-intelligent-design/mapping-the-origins-debate# >>>>
On 6/09/2025 7:37 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/4/25 5:28 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 5/09/2025 3:56 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/4/25 12:17 AM, MarkE wrote:
Thoughts on these review excerpts? Anyone read the book?
Rau's six categories: "Naturalistic Evolution (NE), Nonteleological >>>>> Evolution (NTE), Planned Evolution (PE), Directed Evolution (DE),
Old- Earth Creation (OEC), and Young-Earth Creation (YEC). A chart
in the second chapter and extensive charts at the back of the book
help sort out the different models in a visual fashion."
"Rau points out that each position is ultimately based on
rCLdifferent philosophical presuppositions that are outside the realm >>>>> of sciencerCY (p. 176). The most important of these presuppositions, >>>>> in RaurCOs view, is the definition of science itself. For example, a >>>>> definition of science that refuses to acknowledge the possibility
of the existence of or interaction with a supernatural realm cuts
off any inquiry or explanations that refer to the supernatural. It
automatically excludes any evidence or inference that would point
to an intelligent agent as a cause for the origin of life. Those
who presuppose this definition of science approach questions about
the origin of life looking exclusively for natural causes. Similar
blind spots are caused by presuppositions of those holding other
positions."
This is a form of "both-sides-ism". The suppositions of the
different groups are not comparable, and this quote misunderstands
the nature of science.
Science can't deal with the supernatural because it's so ill-defined
as to allow for no testable hypotheses. The definition of
"supernatural" might as well be "that which cannot be studied by
science". No evidence is excluded, but what evidence could there be
of the supernatural? How would you distinguish a supernatural event
from a natural event of unknown causes? This is especially true if
the hypothesis is of an omnipotent being, since anything could be
made to look like anything else, and a common way to deal with
evidence is to appeal to divine inscrutability.
How, specifically, would you look for a supernatural cause of the
origin of life? What evidence could there be?
It seems to come down to causality, probability, and individual
judgement, regardless of what one believes:
* Where natural causality adequately explains something, then there
is no warrant from scientific evidence to consider supernatural
involvement.
In this case, one may still consider supernatural involvement, but
that would only be on the basis of other epistemologies (e.g.
theology, philosophy) and personal convictions (e.g. religious
faith). An example of this position would be Rau's category of
Planned Evolution (PE).
* Where natural causality does not adequately explain something, then
there is warrant from scientific evidence to consider supernatural
involvement.
No, there is not. That's the old "god of the gaps" argument. Just
because you don't understand something is no reason to believe it's
due to supernatural causes, especially if it's complex. Why not
natural causes you don't know about or don't know how to apply?
Obviously, this raises the question of what constitutes an adequate
explanation. As I've suggested here previously, I suggest something
like this, using origin of life as an example:
If, after 100 or 1000 years of concerted research into naturalistic
explanations for OoL, a general scientific consensus emerged that all
known hypotheses were inadequate (i.e., something like what James
Tour is presently claiming), what then? To be clear, I'm not
asserting this is the case, but asking if it were so, what then?
Time to come up with other hypotheses. But why supernatural ones? And
what does "supernatural" even mean to you? Again, it's too vague to
base predictions or hypotheses on, and thus impossible to do science
with.
A reasonable, rational response would be to conclude that
consideration of a supernatural cause is then warranted on the basis
of scientific evidence. The search for a viable natural cause may
continue in parallel. This is only ever a provisional conclusion,
given that a negative cannot be proven.
Once again, how would you study a supernatural cause?
To indefinitely refuse to consider a supernatural cause (note:
consider, not concede) indicates a presupposed exclusion of the
supernatural, which is an unjustifiably truncated assumption of reality.
Once more, what supernatural cause? What would a supernatural cause
look like? How would we recognize it?
Of course, the threshold for this is an individual decision.
What could science itself tell us about this supernatural cause?
In one sense, nothing - it is by definition restricted to the natural
domain.
Not by definition. Entirely for practical reasons, because the
supernatural is characterized by a lack of discernible properties.
There's nothing for science to grab onto.
Further investigation would be in the realms of theology and "special
revelation", philosophy etc. On the other hand, I infer from what I
know of the universe and from life things like design, intelligence,
powerful agency; also abstract things like love, beauty, morality. So
"natural theology" may identify attributes of a supernatural agent.
How can you identify attributes of a supernatural agent without first
establishing that such an agent exists?
What position would you/do you take?
My position is that science is our only way of gathering reliable
knowledge of the universe. Theology, revelation, philosophy, etc.
don't do it.
An observed phenomenon could conceivably breach the causality
threshold to a such a degree as to give some individuals full
conviction of supernatural involvement.
Don't forget that a sufficiently advanced technology is
indistinguishable from magic. If you see something that's physically
impossible, as far as you know, it's either a miracle or you were
wrong about what's possible. How would you tell the difference?
I started addressing each of your responses individually, but decided
that a consolidated statement might be more coherent and constructive.
I think that what we are really debating is epistemology.
The Wikipedia article on this, for example, points to a philosophical
rabbit hole. In any case, science (empiricism) occupies a unique
position, insofar as the scientific method provides a means of testing, refining and accumulating knowledge of the physical world, utilising falsifiability and reproducibility to provide a capacity for self-correction.
And it does this rather well. Indeed, our modern technological society
is built on science, among other things. Science rightly enjoys
prominence in the epistemological framework.
Given that, two avenues of discussion come to mind:
1. The legitimacy of other epistemological categories (including
religion), and their relationship to science.
2. The double-edged nature of science itself.
What do I mean by that? Science relies on cause and effect. In fact, I wonder if one-a definition of "natural" might be that which is subject to causality (quantum acausality notwithstanding).
What if science itself identifies non-causal phenomena? Now, if I
understand correctly, you are saying this can never happen; rather, what
may appear to be non-causal can only be categorised as "currently unexplained naturally".
This is the nub of the issue I think. You seem to have upfront excluded epistemologies apart from science (as good as it is).
This provides a
jusfication to leave it at "currently unexplained naturally" rather than considering supernatural explanation, because you assume that there is
no other legitimate means of acquiring knowledge, and the best we can do
is park it in the science baskets of "to do" or "too hard" (which takes
us back to 1 above).
This brings me back to my "1000 years" thought exercise. If that
scenario did play out, it would be an instance of science providing
evidence of non-causality. That's the other sharp edge - evidence from science giving reason to consider explanations beyond the reach of science.
Of course, even at that point you may say, so what, science is the only valid epistemology, therefore whatever your "supernatural" may be, we
have no way of knowing anything about it. Nothing to see here folks. But
to adopt this position would be itself an act of faith.
To take different tack: maybe there is a God, and maybe that God created
the world and us, and maybe this has consequences that have profound personal implications. To exclude consideration of this possibility
because of the limits of the scientific method would be to misapply
science; especially so if science was loudly pointing us to the non-causal.
Biblical miracles served that purpose (not arguing for their veracity
here, just using them to illustrate the principle). For example:
Immediately he made the disciples get into the boat and go before him
to the other side, while he dismissed the crowds. And after he had
dismissed the crowds, he went up on the mountain by himself to pray.
When evening came, he was there alone, but the boat by this time was
a long way from the land, beaten by the waves, for the wind was
against them. And in the fourth watch of the night he came to them,
walking on the sea. But when the disciples saw him walking on the
sea, they were terrified, and said, rCLIt is a ghost!rCY and they cried >>> out in fear. But immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying, rCLTake
heart; it is I. Do not be afraid.rCY
And Peter answered him, rCLLord, if it is you, command me to come to
you on the water.rCY He said, rCLCome.rCY So Peter got out of the boat and >>> walked on the water and came to Jesus. But when he saw the wind, he
was afraid, and beginning to sink he cried out, rCLLord, save me.rCY
Jesus immediately reached out his hand and took hold of him, saying
to him, rCLO you of little faith, why did you doubt?rCY And when they got >>> into the boat, the wind ceased. And those in the boat worshiped him,
saying, rCLTruly you are the Son of God.rCY
(Matthew 14:22-33)
So many problems with that story, from a theological perspective
alone, but no need to go into them here. But what does a cheap magic
trick tell you about God?
"Given a priori presuppositions, people holding different views
regarding origins look at the same evidence and come to different
conclusions. Or they ignore evidence that doesnrCOt support their
viewpoint, while touting evidence that does.
That's true for OEC and YEC, since they are required to ignore
almost every feature of the world, and the evidence they imagine
supports their views is in face imaginary. Not sure what you think
the evidence for PE or DE would be.
Personally, I agree with Rau that none of the models has a complete >>>>> model with adequate explanations for all of the evidence."
Nor would we expect to have such a model. If we did, science would
be done. We would know everything.
https://cathyduffyreviews.com/homeschool-reviews-core-curricula/
science/creation-science-intelligent-design/mapping-the-origins-debate# >>>>>
On 6/09/2025 7:37 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/4/25 5:28 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 5/09/2025 3:56 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/4/25 12:17 AM, MarkE wrote:
Thoughts on these review excerpts? Anyone read the book?
Rau's six categories: "Naturalistic Evolution (NE), Nonteleological >>>>> Evolution (NTE), Planned Evolution (PE), Directed Evolution (DE),
Old- Earth Creation (OEC), and Young-Earth Creation (YEC). A chart
in the second chapter and extensive charts at the back of the book
help sort out the different models in a visual fashion."
"Rau points out that each position is ultimately based on
rCLdifferent philosophical presuppositions that are outside the realm >>>>> of sciencerCY (p. 176). The most important of these presuppositions, >>>>> in RaurCOs view, is the definition of science itself. For example, a >>>>> definition of science that refuses to acknowledge the possibility
of the existence of or interaction with a supernatural realm cuts
off any inquiry or explanations that refer to the supernatural. It
automatically excludes any evidence or inference that would point
to an intelligent agent as a cause for the origin of life. Those
who presuppose this definition of science approach questions about
the origin of life looking exclusively for natural causes. Similar
blind spots are caused by presuppositions of those holding other
positions."
This is a form of "both-sides-ism". The suppositions of the
different groups are not comparable, and this quote misunderstands
the nature of science.
Science can't deal with the supernatural because it's so ill-defined
as to allow for no testable hypotheses. The definition of
"supernatural" might as well be "that which cannot be studied by
science". No evidence is excluded, but what evidence could there be
of the supernatural? How would you distinguish a supernatural event
from a natural event of unknown causes? This is especially true if
the hypothesis is of an omnipotent being, since anything could be
made to look like anything else, and a common way to deal with
evidence is to appeal to divine inscrutability.
How, specifically, would you look for a supernatural cause of the
origin of life? What evidence could there be?
It seems to come down to causality, probability, and individual
judgement, regardless of what one believes:
* Where natural causality adequately explains something, then there
is no warrant from scientific evidence to consider supernatural
involvement.
In this case, one may still consider supernatural involvement, but
that would only be on the basis of other epistemologies (e.g.
theology, philosophy) and personal convictions (e.g. religious
faith). An example of this position would be Rau's category of
Planned Evolution (PE).
* Where natural causality does not adequately explain something, then
there is warrant from scientific evidence to consider supernatural
involvement.
No, there is not. That's the old "god of the gaps" argument. Just
because you don't understand something is no reason to believe it's
due to supernatural causes, especially if it's complex. Why not
natural causes you don't know about or don't know how to apply?
Obviously, this raises the question of what constitutes an adequate
explanation. As I've suggested here previously, I suggest something
like this, using origin of life as an example:
If, after 100 or 1000 years of concerted research into naturalistic
explanations for OoL, a general scientific consensus emerged that all
known hypotheses were inadequate (i.e., something like what James
Tour is presently claiming), what then? To be clear, I'm not
asserting this is the case, but asking if it were so, what then?
Time to come up with other hypotheses. But why supernatural ones? And
what does "supernatural" even mean to you? Again, it's too vague to
base predictions or hypotheses on, and thus impossible to do science
with.
A reasonable, rational response would be to conclude that
consideration of a supernatural cause is then warranted on the basis
of scientific evidence. The search for a viable natural cause may
continue in parallel. This is only ever a provisional conclusion,
given that a negative cannot be proven.
Once again, how would you study a supernatural cause?
To indefinitely refuse to consider a supernatural cause (note:
consider, not concede) indicates a presupposed exclusion of the
supernatural, which is an unjustifiably truncated assumption of reality.
Once more, what supernatural cause? What would a supernatural cause
look like? How would we recognize it?
Of course, the threshold for this is an individual decision.
What could science itself tell us about this supernatural cause?
In one sense, nothing - it is by definition restricted to the natural
domain.
Not by definition. Entirely for practical reasons, because the
supernatural is characterized by a lack of discernible properties.
There's nothing for science to grab onto.
Further investigation would be in the realms of theology and "special
revelation", philosophy etc. On the other hand, I infer from what I
know of the universe and from life things like design, intelligence,
powerful agency; also abstract things like love, beauty, morality. So
"natural theology" may identify attributes of a supernatural agent.
How can you identify attributes of a supernatural agent without first
establishing that such an agent exists?
What position would you/do you take?
My position is that science is our only way of gathering reliable
knowledge of the universe. Theology, revelation, philosophy, etc.
don't do it.
An observed phenomenon could conceivably breach the causality
threshold to a such a degree as to give some individuals full
conviction of supernatural involvement.
Don't forget that a sufficiently advanced technology is
indistinguishable from magic. If you see something that's physically
impossible, as far as you know, it's either a miracle or you were
wrong about what's possible. How would you tell the difference?
I started addressing each of your responses individually, but decided
that a consolidated statement might be more coherent and constructive.
I think that what we are really debating is epistemology.
The Wikipedia article on this, for example, points to a philosophical
rabbit hole. In any case, science (empiricism) occupies a unique
position, insofar as the scientific method provides a means of testing, refining and accumulating knowledge of the physical world, utilising falsifiability and reproducibility to provide a capacity for self-correction.
And it does this rather well. Indeed, our modern technological society
is built on science, among other things. Science rightly enjoys
prominence in the epistemological framework.
Given that, two avenues of discussion come to mind:
1. The legitimacy of other epistemological categories (including
religion), and their relationship to science.
2. The double-edged nature of science itself.
What do I mean by that? Science relies on cause and effect. In fact, I wonder if one-a definition of "natural" might be that which is subject to causality (quantum acausality notwithstanding).
What if science itself identifies non-causal phenomena? Now, if I
understand correctly, you are saying this can never happen; rather, what
may appear to be non-causal can only be categorised as "currently unexplained naturally".
This is the nub of the issue I think. You seem to have upfront excluded epistemologies apart from science (as good as it is). This provides a jusfication to leave it at "currently unexplained naturally" rather than considering supernatural explanation, because you assume that there is
no other legitimate means of acquiring knowledge, and the best we can do
is park it in the science baskets of "to do" or "too hard" (which takes
us back to 1 above).
This brings me back to my "1000 years" thought exercise. If that
scenario did play out, it would be an instance of science providing
evidence of non-causality. That's the other sharp edge - evidence from science giving reason to consider explanations beyond the reach of science.
Of course, even at that point you may say, so what, science is the only valid epistemology, therefore whatever your "supernatural" may be, we
have no way of knowing anything about it. Nothing to see here folks. But
to adopt this position would be itself an act of faith.
To take different tack: maybe there is a God, and maybe that God created
the world and us, and maybe this has consequences that have profound personal implications. To exclude consideration of this possibility
because of the limits of the scientific method would be to misapply
science; especially so if science was loudly pointing us to the non-causal.
Biblical miracles served that purpose (not arguing for their veracity
here, just using them to illustrate the principle). For example:
Immediately he made the disciples get into the boat and go before him
to the other side, while he dismissed the crowds. And after he had
dismissed the crowds, he went up on the mountain by himself to pray.
When evening came, he was there alone, but the boat by this time was
a long way from the land, beaten by the waves, for the wind was
against them. And in the fourth watch of the night he came to them,
walking on the sea. But when the disciples saw him walking on the
sea, they were terrified, and said, rCLIt is a ghost!rCY and they cried >>> out in fear. But immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying, rCLTake
heart; it is I. Do not be afraid.rCY
And Peter answered him, rCLLord, if it is you, command me to come to
you on the water.rCY He said, rCLCome.rCY So Peter got out of the boat and >>> walked on the water and came to Jesus. But when he saw the wind, he
was afraid, and beginning to sink he cried out, rCLLord, save me.rCY
Jesus immediately reached out his hand and took hold of him, saying
to him, rCLO you of little faith, why did you doubt?rCY And when they got >>> into the boat, the wind ceased. And those in the boat worshiped him,
saying, rCLTruly you are the Son of God.rCY
(Matthew 14:22-33)
So many problems with that story, from a theological perspective
alone, but no need to go into them here. But what does a cheap magic
trick tell you about God?
"Given a priori presuppositions, people holding different views
regarding origins look at the same evidence and come to different
conclusions. Or they ignore evidence that doesnrCOt support their
viewpoint, while touting evidence that does.
That's true for OEC and YEC, since they are required to ignore
almost every feature of the world, and the evidence they imagine
supports their views is in face imaginary. Not sure what you think
the evidence for PE or DE would be.
Personally, I agree with Rau that none of the models has a complete >>>>> model with adequate explanations for all of the evidence."
Nor would we expect to have such a model. If we did, science would
be done. We would know everything.
https://cathyduffyreviews.com/homeschool-reviews-core-curricula/
science/creation-science-intelligent-design/mapping-the-origins-debate# >>>>>
This brings me back to my "1000 years" thought exercise. If that
scenario did play out, it would be an instance of science providing
evidence of non-causality. That's the other sharp edge - evidence from
science giving reason to consider explanations beyond the reach of
science.
Perhaps you could rephrase that? It sounds like gobbledygook.
But we really don't need to wait a thousand years. We can start with one simple question: what has religion produced in the last 2000 years, as
far as tangible results about the OOL? We've got a few books that
describe magic poofing. We've got a bunch of fables, like those
featuring Coyote. We've got the Dreamtime of Australian Aboriginal
people. And at least a few hundred others. None of these seem to be any
more reliable than the rest. Why hasn't religion settled on one, or at
least a few similar hypotheses? Just because science has been doing
other stuff should not have held theologians back from working on this.
But I digress. This discussion is a reasonably careful attempt to define* epistemological
and delineate epidemiological categories and their application.
Thoughtful opposing contributions welcome. However, statements like
"sounds like gobbledygook", "magic poofing", and "a bunch of fables" are standard TO fare and a lazy category error.
On 7/09/2025 12:28 pm, Chris Thompson wrote:
This brings me back to my "1000 years" thought exercise. If that
scenario did play out, it would be an instance of science providing
evidence of non-causality. That's the other sharp edge - evidence
from science giving reason to consider explanations beyond the reach
of science.
Perhaps you could rephrase that? It sounds like gobbledygook.
But we really don't need to wait a thousand years. We can start with
one simple question: what has religion produced in the last 2000
years, as far as tangible results about the OOL? We've got a few books
that describe magic poofing. We've got a bunch of fables, like those
featuring Coyote. We've got the Dreamtime of Australian Aboriginal
people. And at least a few hundred others. None of these seem to be
any more reliable than the rest. Why hasn't religion settled on one,
or at least a few similar hypotheses? Just because science has been
doing other stuff should not have held theologians back from working
on this.
I agree that we don't need to wait 1000 years, that's an overly
conservative number for the exercise. OOL research is already
progressively revealing inadequacies in naturalistic explanations of
even a protocell*.
But I digress. This discussion is a reasonably careful attempt to define
and delineate epidemiological categories and their application.
Thoughtful opposing contributions welcome. However, statements like
"sounds like gobbledygook", "magic poofing", and "a bunch of fables" are standard TO fare and a lazy category error.
I believe you can do better.
-------
* For example:
1. The thread here "New" "ideas" on origin of life: "The study finds liferCOs origin faces severe mathematical challenges".
2. Deeper OOL paradoxes only partially acknowledged, e.g. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11084-014-9379-0
3. Or this (https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/HMw_ZoXIIOc/m/nb1u4MD6AAAJ):
This talk is from 2015, though David Deamer's book "Assembling Life"
that is based on this was published in 2019. Note Bruce Damer's call for
a new approach to OoL, and note the uncanny alignment with Tour, Bains,
Long Story Short, etc:
4:29 rCL[OoL research has] been mainly focused on individual solution chemistry experiments where they want to show polymerization over here,
or they want to show metabolism over here, and Dave and I believe that
it's time for the field to go from incremental progress to substantial progress. So, these are the four points we've come up with to make substantial progress in the origin of life, and the first one is to
employ something called system chemistry, having sufficient complexity
so instead of one experiment say about proteins, now you have an
experiment about the encapsulation of proteins for example, and informational molecules built from nucleotides in an environment that
would say be like an analog of the early Earth, build a complex
experiment. Something we're calling sufficient complexity, and all of
these experiments have to move the reactions away from equilibrium. And
what do we mean by that? Well, in in your high school chemistry
experiments, something starts foaming something changes color and then
the experiment winds down and stops. Well, life didn't get started that
way. Life got started by a continuous run-up of complexity and building
upon in a sense nature as a ratchet. So we have to figure out how to
build experiments that move will move away from equilibriumrCarCY
6:31 rCLYou can't sit in a laboratory just using glassware. You have to go to the field. You have to go to hot springs, you have to go to [rCa]
Iceland and come check and sit down and see what the natural environment
is like, rather than being in the ethereal world of pure reactants and things like thatrCarCY
On 9/7/25 12:51 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 7/09/2025 12:28 pm, Chris Thompson wrote:
This brings me back to my "1000 years" thought exercise. If that
scenario did play out, it would be an instance of science providing
evidence of non-causality. That's the other sharp edge - evidence
from science giving reason to consider explanations beyond the reach
of science.
Perhaps you could rephrase that? It sounds like gobbledygook.
But we really don't need to wait a thousand years. We can start with
one simple question: what has religion produced in the last 2000
years, as far as tangible results about the OOL? We've got a few
books that describe magic poofing. We've got a bunch of fables, like
those featuring Coyote. We've got the Dreamtime of Australian
Aboriginal people. And at least a few hundred others. None of these
seem to be any more reliable than the rest. Why hasn't religion
settled on one, or at least a few similar hypotheses? Just because
science has been doing other stuff should not have held theologians
back from working on this.
I agree that we don't need to wait 1000 years, that's an overly
conservative number for the exercise. OOL research is already
progressively revealing inadequacies in naturalistic explanations of
even a protocell*.
But I digress. This discussion is a reasonably careful attempt to
define and delineate epidemiological categories and their application.
Thoughtful opposing contributions welcome. However, statements like
"sounds like gobbledygook", "magic poofing", and "a bunch of fables"
are standard TO fare and a lazy category error.
I believe you can do better.
I believe, unfortunately, that *you* can't. You ignored the point
entirely. What has religion come up with as an explanation for the
origin of life in the last several thousand years? If it is indeed a
"way of knowing" on par with science, there should be something you
could point to. What is it?
-------
* For example:
1. The thread here "New" "ideas" on origin of life: "The study finds
liferCOs origin faces severe mathematical challenges".
2. Deeper OOL paradoxes only partially acknowledged, e.g. https://
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11084-014-9379-0
3. Or this (https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/HMw_ZoXIIOc/m/
nb1u4MD6AAAJ):
This talk is from 2015, though David Deamer's book "Assembling Life"
that is based on this was published in 2019. Note Bruce Damer's call
for a new approach to OoL, and note the uncanny alignment with Tour,
Bains, Long Story Short, etc:
4:29 rCL[OoL research has] been mainly focused on individual solution
chemistry experiments where they want to show polymerization over
here, or they want to show metabolism over here, and Dave and I
believe that it's time for the field to go from incremental progress
to substantial progress. So, these are the four points we've come up
with to make substantial progress in the origin of life, and the first
one is to employ something called system chemistry, having sufficient
complexity so instead of one experiment say about proteins, now you
have an experiment about the encapsulation of proteins for example,
and informational molecules built from nucleotides in an environment
that would say be like an analog of the early Earth, build a complex
experiment. Something we're calling sufficient complexity, and all of
these experiments have to move the reactions away from equilibrium.
And what do we mean by that? Well, in in your high school chemistry
experiments, something starts foaming something changes color and then
the experiment winds down and stops. Well, life didn't get started
that way. Life got started by a continuous run-up of complexity and
building upon in a sense nature as a ratchet. So we have to figure out
how to build experiments that move will move away from equilibriumrCarCY
6:31 rCLYou can't sit in a laboratory just using glassware. You have to
go to the field. You have to go to hot springs, you have to go to [rCa]
Iceland and come check and sit down and see what the natural
environment is like, rather than being in the ethereal world of pure
reactants and things like thatrCarCY
On 7/09/2025 11:25 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/7/25 12:51 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 7/09/2025 12:28 pm, Chris Thompson wrote:
This brings me back to my "1000 years" thought exercise. If that
scenario did play out, it would be an instance of science providing >>>>> evidence of non-causality. That's the other sharp edge - evidence
from science giving reason to consider explanations beyond the
reach of science.
Perhaps you could rephrase that? It sounds like gobbledygook.
But we really don't need to wait a thousand years. We can start with
one simple question: what has religion produced in the last 2000
years, as far as tangible results about the OOL? We've got a few
books that describe magic poofing. We've got a bunch of fables, like
those featuring Coyote. We've got the Dreamtime of Australian
Aboriginal people. And at least a few hundred others. None of these
seem to be any more reliable than the rest. Why hasn't religion
settled on one, or at least a few similar hypotheses? Just because
science has been doing other stuff should not have held theologians
back from working on this.
I agree that we don't need to wait 1000 years, that's an overly
conservative number for the exercise. OOL research is already
progressively revealing inadequacies in naturalistic explanations of
even a protocell*.
But I digress. This discussion is a reasonably careful attempt to
define and delineate epidemiological categories and their
application. Thoughtful opposing contributions welcome. However,
statements like "sounds like gobbledygook", "magic poofing", and "a
bunch of fables" are standard TO fare and a lazy category error.
I believe you can do better.
I believe, unfortunately, that *you* can't. You ignored the point
entirely. What has religion come up with as an explanation for the
origin of life in the last several thousand years? If it is indeed a
"way of knowing" on par with science, there should be something you
could point to. What is it?
The epistemological categories are intrinsically different, such that demanding the category of religion (say) provide anything resembling a scientific explanation of OOL is to commit a category error.
Science provides 'how' knowledge within its domain. Religion is not
expected to provide the how of life, rather the who and why.
To be clear, I'm not anti-science. Moreover, the world religions contain mutually exclusive claims, which makes 'religion' as an alternative
source of knowledge problematic.
I'm willing to have a discussion in good faith, including highlighting
the challenges and limitations of my own position.
Are you?
-------
* For example:
1. The thread here "New" "ideas" on origin of life: "The study finds
liferCOs origin faces severe mathematical challenges".
2. Deeper OOL paradoxes only partially acknowledged, e.g. https://
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11084-014-9379-0
3. Or this (https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/HMw_ZoXIIOc/m/
nb1u4MD6AAAJ):
This talk is from 2015, though David Deamer's book "Assembling Life"
that is based on this was published in 2019. Note Bruce Damer's call
for a new approach to OoL, and note the uncanny alignment with Tour,
Bains, Long Story Short, etc:
4:29 rCL[OoL research has] been mainly focused on individual solution
chemistry experiments where they want to show polymerization over
here, or they want to show metabolism over here, and Dave and I
believe that it's time for the field to go from incremental progress
to substantial progress. So, these are the four points we've come up
with to make substantial progress in the origin of life, and the
first one is to employ something called system chemistry, having
sufficient complexity so instead of one experiment say about
proteins, now you have an experiment about the encapsulation of
proteins for example, and informational molecules built from
nucleotides in an environment that would say be like an analog of the
early Earth, build a complex experiment. Something we're calling
sufficient complexity, and all of these experiments have to move the
reactions away from equilibrium. And what do we mean by that? Well,
in in your high school chemistry experiments, something starts
foaming something changes color and then the experiment winds down
and stops. Well, life didn't get started that way. Life got started
by a continuous run-up of complexity and building upon in a sense
nature as a ratchet. So we have to figure out how to build
experiments that move will move away from equilibriumrCarCY
6:31 rCLYou can't sit in a laboratory just using glassware. You have to >>> go to the field. You have to go to hot springs, you have to go to [rCa] >>> Iceland and come check and sit down and see what the natural
environment is like, rather than being in the ethereal world of pure
reactants and things like thatrCarCY
On 9/7/25 12:51 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 7/09/2025 12:28 pm, Chris Thompson wrote:
This brings me back to my "1000 years" thought exercise. If that
scenario did play out, it would be an instance of science providing
evidence of non-causality. That's the other sharp edge - evidence
from science giving reason to consider explanations beyond the reach
of science.
Perhaps you could rephrase that? It sounds like gobbledygook.
But we really don't need to wait a thousand years. We can start with
one simple question: what has religion produced in the last 2000
years, as far as tangible results about the OOL? We've got a few
books that describe magic poofing. We've got a bunch of fables, like
those featuring Coyote. We've got the Dreamtime of Australian
Aboriginal people. And at least a few hundred others. None of these
seem to be any more reliable than the rest. Why hasn't religion
settled on one, or at least a few similar hypotheses? Just because
science has been doing other stuff should not have held theologians
back from working on this.
I agree that we don't need to wait 1000 years, that's an overly
conservative number for the exercise. OOL research is already
progressively revealing inadequacies in naturalistic explanations of
even a protocell*.
But I digress. This discussion is a reasonably careful attempt to
define and delineate epidemiological categories and their application.
Thoughtful opposing contributions welcome. However, statements like
"sounds like gobbledygook", "magic poofing", and "a bunch of fables"
are standard TO fare and a lazy category error.
I believe you can do better.
I believe, unfortunately, that *you* can't. You ignored the point
entirely. What has religion come up with as an explanation for the
origin of life in the last several thousand years? If it is indeed a
"way of knowing" on par with science, there should be something you
could point to. What is it?
-------
* For example:
1. The thread here "New" "ideas" on origin of life: "The study finds
liferCOs origin faces severe mathematical challenges".
2. Deeper OOL paradoxes only partially acknowledged, e.g. https://
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11084-014-9379-0
3. Or this (https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/HMw_ZoXIIOc/m/
nb1u4MD6AAAJ):
This talk is from 2015, though David Deamer's book "Assembling Life"
that is based on this was published in 2019. Note Bruce Damer's call
for a new approach to OoL, and note the uncanny alignment with Tour,
Bains, Long Story Short, etc:
4:29 rCL[OoL research has] been mainly focused on individual solution
chemistry experiments where they want to show polymerization over
here, or they want to show metabolism over here, and Dave and I
believe that it's time for the field to go from incremental progress
to substantial progress. So, these are the four points we've come up
with to make substantial progress in the origin of life, and the first
one is to employ something called system chemistry, having sufficient
complexity so instead of one experiment say about proteins, now you
have an experiment about the encapsulation of proteins for example,
and informational molecules built from nucleotides in an environment
that would say be like an analog of the early Earth, build a complex
experiment. Something we're calling sufficient complexity, and all of
these experiments have to move the reactions away from equilibrium.
And what do we mean by that? Well, in in your high school chemistry
experiments, something starts foaming something changes color and then
the experiment winds down and stops. Well, life didn't get started
that way. Life got started by a continuous run-up of complexity and
building upon in a sense nature as a ratchet. So we have to figure out
how to build experiments that move will move away from equilibriumrCarCY
6:31 rCLYou can't sit in a laboratory just using glassware. You have to
go to the field. You have to go to hot springs, you have to go to [rCa]
Iceland and come check and sit down and see what the natural
environment is like, rather than being in the ethereal world of pure
reactants and things like thatrCarCY
On 9/7/25 6:58 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 7/09/2025 11:25 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/7/25 12:51 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 7/09/2025 12:28 pm, Chris Thompson wrote:
This brings me back to my "1000 years" thought exercise. If that
scenario did play out, it would be an instance of science
providing evidence of non-causality. That's the other sharp edge - >>>>>> evidence from science giving reason to consider explanations
beyond the reach of science.
Perhaps you could rephrase that? It sounds like gobbledygook.
But we really don't need to wait a thousand years. We can start
with one simple question: what has religion produced in the last
2000 years, as far as tangible results about the OOL? We've got a
few books that describe magic poofing. We've got a bunch of fables, >>>>> like those featuring Coyote. We've got the Dreamtime of Australian
Aboriginal people. And at least a few hundred others. None of these >>>>> seem to be any more reliable than the rest. Why hasn't religion
settled on one, or at least a few similar hypotheses? Just because
science has been doing other stuff should not have held theologians >>>>> back from working on this.
I agree that we don't need to wait 1000 years, that's an overly
conservative number for the exercise. OOL research is already
progressively revealing inadequacies in naturalistic explanations of
even a protocell*.
But I digress. This discussion is a reasonably careful attempt to
define and delineate epidemiological categories and their
application. Thoughtful opposing contributions welcome. However,
statements like "sounds like gobbledygook", "magic poofing", and "a
bunch of fables" are standard TO fare and a lazy category error.
I believe you can do better.
I believe, unfortunately, that *you* can't. You ignored the point
entirely. What has religion come up with as an explanation for the
origin of life in the last several thousand years? If it is indeed a
"way of knowing" on par with science, there should be something you
could point to. What is it?
The epistemological categories are intrinsically different, such that
demanding the category of religion (say) provide anything resembling a
scientific explanation of OOL is to commit a category error.
Science provides 'how' knowledge within its domain. Religion is not
expected to provide the how of life, rather the who and why.
How does religion supply the who and why? How do we determine whether
the claim can be believed?
And I will note that this is the first time you've separated "what" from "who" and "why". The research you've been trying to find an alternative
to is all about "what", but now you disclaim that entire field of
inquiry, by whatever method.
To be clear, I'm not anti-science. Moreover, the world religions
contain mutually exclusive claims, which makes 'religion' as an
alternative source of knowledge problematic.
I'm willing to have a discussion in good faith, including highlighting
the challenges and limitations of my own position.
Are you?
Sure. Again I ask, if there are other "ways of knowing", what are they,
and how do we assess whether their results are true?
-------
* For example:
1. The thread here "New" "ideas" on origin of life: "The study finds
liferCOs origin faces severe mathematical challenges".
2. Deeper OOL paradoxes only partially acknowledged, e.g. https://
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11084-014-9379-0
3. Or this (https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/HMw_ZoXIIOc/
m/ nb1u4MD6AAAJ):
This talk is from 2015, though David Deamer's book "Assembling Life"
that is based on this was published in 2019. Note Bruce Damer's call
for a new approach to OoL, and note the uncanny alignment with Tour,
Bains, Long Story Short, etc:
4:29 rCL[OoL research has] been mainly focused on individual solution >>>> chemistry experiments where they want to show polymerization over
here, or they want to show metabolism over here, and Dave and I
believe that it's time for the field to go from incremental progress
to substantial progress. So, these are the four points we've come up
with to make substantial progress in the origin of life, and the
first one is to employ something called system chemistry, having
sufficient complexity so instead of one experiment say about
proteins, now you have an experiment about the encapsulation of
proteins for example, and informational molecules built from
nucleotides in an environment that would say be like an analog of
the early Earth, build a complex experiment. Something we're calling
sufficient complexity, and all of these experiments have to move the
reactions away from equilibrium. And what do we mean by that? Well,
in in your high school chemistry experiments, something starts
foaming something changes color and then the experiment winds down
and stops. Well, life didn't get started that way. Life got started
by a continuous run-up of complexity and building upon in a sense
nature as a ratchet. So we have to figure out how to build
experiments that move will move away from equilibriumrCarCY
6:31 rCLYou can't sit in a laboratory just using glassware. You have
to go to the field. You have to go to hot springs, you have to go to
[rCa] Iceland and come check and sit down and see what the natural
environment is like, rather than being in the ethereal world of pure
reactants and things like thatrCarCY
[big snip]
What if science itself identifies non-causal phenomena? Now, if I
understand correctly, you are saying this can never happen; rather, what
may appear to be non-causal can only be categorised as "currently unexplained naturally".
This is the nub of the issue I think. You seem to have upfront excluded epistemologies apart from science (as good as it is). This provides a jusfication to leave it at "currently unexplained naturally" rather than considering supernatural explanation, because you assume that there is
no other legitimate means of acquiring knowledge, and the best we can do
is park it in the science baskets of "to do" or "too hard" (which takes
us back to 1 above).
On 7/09/2025 11:25 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/7/25 12:51 AM, MarkE wrote:
[...]
I believe you can do better.
I believe, unfortunately, that *you* can't. You ignored the point
entirely. What has religion come up with as an explanation for the
origin of life in the last several thousand years? If it is indeed a
"way of knowing" on par with science, there should be something you
could point to. What is it?
The epistemological categories are intrinsically different, such that demanding the category of religion (say) provide anything resembling a scientific explanation of OOL is to commit a category error.
Science provides 'how' knowledge within its domain. Religion is not
expected to provide the how of life, rather the who and why.
On 8/09/2025 7:02 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/7/25 6:58 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 7/09/2025 11:25 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/7/25 12:51 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 7/09/2025 12:28 pm, Chris Thompson wrote:
This brings me back to my "1000 years" thought exercise. If that >>>>>>> scenario did play out, it would be an instance of science
providing evidence of non-causality. That's the other sharp edge >>>>>>> - evidence from science giving reason to consider explanations
beyond the reach of science.
Perhaps you could rephrase that? It sounds like gobbledygook.
But we really don't need to wait a thousand years. We can start
with one simple question: what has religion produced in the last
2000 years, as far as tangible results about the OOL? We've got a >>>>>> few books that describe magic poofing. We've got a bunch of
fables, like those featuring Coyote. We've got the Dreamtime of
Australian Aboriginal people. And at least a few hundred others.
None of these seem to be any more reliable than the rest. Why
hasn't religion settled on one, or at least a few similar
hypotheses? Just because science has been doing other stuff should >>>>>> not have held theologians back from working on this.
I agree that we don't need to wait 1000 years, that's an overly
conservative number for the exercise. OOL research is already
progressively revealing inadequacies in naturalistic explanations
of even a protocell*.
But I digress. This discussion is a reasonably careful attempt to
define and delineate epidemiological categories and their
application. Thoughtful opposing contributions welcome. However,
statements like "sounds like gobbledygook", "magic poofing", and "a >>>>> bunch of fables" are standard TO fare and a lazy category error.
I believe you can do better.
I believe, unfortunately, that *you* can't. You ignored the point
entirely. What has religion come up with as an explanation for the
origin of life in the last several thousand years? If it is indeed a
"way of knowing" on par with science, there should be something you
could point to. What is it?
The epistemological categories are intrinsically different, such that
demanding the category of religion (say) provide anything resembling
a scientific explanation of OOL is to commit a category error.
Science provides 'how' knowledge within its domain. Religion is not
expected to provide the how of life, rather the who and why.
How does religion supply the who and why? How do we determine whether
the claim can be believed?
See my end comment.
And I will note that this is the first time you've separated "what"
from "who" and "why". The research you've been trying to find an
alternative to is all about "what", but now you disclaim that entire
field of inquiry, by whatever method.
I'm simply making explicit what I think is generally understood. No-one
is demanding the Bible (or any other religious text) provide a journal article detailing how God created life, nor is anyone expecting science
to answer metaphysical 'why' questions of meaning and purpose.
To be clear, I'm not anti-science. Moreover, the world religions
contain mutually exclusive claims, which makes 'religion' as an
alternative source of knowledge problematic.
I'm willing to have a discussion in good faith, including
highlighting the challenges and limitations of my own position.
Are you?
Sure. Again I ask, if there are other "ways of knowing", what are
they, and how do we assess whether their results are true?
As previously touched on, religion's "ways of knowing" (primarily revelation/faith and existentialism/phenomenology) are generally not comparable with those of science (primarily empiricism and rationalism).
That's not to say that rationalism, for example, is excluded in relation
to knowledge via religion. For example, with Christianity,
circumstantial evidence for the resurrection includes the transformation
of the disciples from fearful individuals to bold martyrs, the empty
tomb, the rapid growth and spread of Christianity, and the unchanged character and unwavering commitment of the earliest followers, even when facing suffering and death. Circumstantial evidence can used to make rational inferences, e.g. for a verdict in a court of law.
All the same, as I've acknowledged, assessing the mutually exclusive
truth claims of different religions is problematic and personal. I'm not claiming otherwise.
I should say too that my own faith does not depend on science, though I
do take science seriously.
All of which takes us back to my original proposal: if my "1000 years" scenario eventuates, then rationally that adds impetus to consider supernatural explanations, even with the challenges mentioned. You may
still declare your own unwillingness to consider the supernatural, even
with the the most compelling "1000 years" scenario imaginable, and may justify that by claiming that such explanations are not knowable. I
would respond that, at some point, a refusal to at least explore would betray an a priori commitment to materialism in the face of scientific evidence. And you may disagree, and there we would reach a stalemate.
Okay, we know where we stand. The best we can do then is stick to
discussing science and make our own choices as to where that may lead.
As for the "1000 years" of OOL, thankfully there's no need to wait, it's already here, the examples below being just a small sample...
-------
* For example:
1. The thread here "New" "ideas" on origin of life: "The study
finds liferCOs origin faces severe mathematical challenges".
2. Deeper OOL paradoxes only partially acknowledged, e.g. https://
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11084-014-9379-0
3. Or this (https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/HMw_ZoXIIOc/ >>>>> m/ nb1u4MD6AAAJ):
This talk is from 2015, though David Deamer's book "Assembling
Life" that is based on this was published in 2019. Note Bruce
Damer's call for a new approach to OoL, and note the uncanny
alignment with Tour, Bains, Long Story Short, etc:
4:29 rCL[OoL research has] been mainly focused on individual solution >>>>> chemistry experiments where they want to show polymerization over
here, or they want to show metabolism over here, and Dave and I
believe that it's time for the field to go from incremental
progress to substantial progress. So, these are the four points
we've come up with to make substantial progress in the origin of
life, and the first one is to employ something called system
chemistry, having sufficient complexity so instead of one
experiment say about proteins, now you have an experiment about the >>>>> encapsulation of proteins for example, and informational molecules
built from nucleotides in an environment that would say be like an
analog of the early Earth, build a complex experiment. Something
we're calling sufficient complexity, and all of these experiments
have to move the reactions away from equilibrium. And what do we
mean by that? Well, in in your high school chemistry experiments,
something starts foaming something changes color and then the
experiment winds down and stops. Well, life didn't get started that >>>>> way. Life got started by a continuous run-up of complexity and
building upon in a sense nature as a ratchet. So we have to figure
out how to build experiments that move will move away from
equilibriumrCarCY
6:31 rCLYou can't sit in a laboratory just using glassware. You have >>>>> to go to the field. You have to go to hot springs, you have to go
to [rCa] Iceland and come check and sit down and see what the natural >>>>> environment is like, rather than being in the ethereal world of
pure reactants and things like thatrCarCY
On 9/6/25 7:23 AM, MarkE wrote:
[big snip]
What if science itself identifies non-causal phenomena? Now, if I
understand correctly, you are saying this can never happen; rather,
what may appear to be non-causal can only be categorised as "currently
unexplained naturally".
This is the nub of the issue I think. You seem to have upfront
excluded epistemologies apart from science (as good as it is). This
provides a jusfication to leave it at "currently unexplained
naturally" rather than considering supernatural explanation, because
you assume that there is no other legitimate means of acquiring
knowledge, and the best we can do is park it in the science baskets of
"to do" or "too hard" (which takes us back to 1 above).
Okay, for sake of argument, let us suppose you have identified something
as non-causal, or even unambiguously supernatural.
Then what?
From a scientific standpoint, you're at a dead end. The main strength
of science is that it lets us make predictions, but you can't do that
with supernatural. Science also typically opens up further areas for investigation, but here, instead, you're closing them.
Theology isn't helped, either. "Supernatural" does not tell you anything about the supernatural "cause" either. (In fact, per our premise, there
was no cause.) Even if you take a leap of faith and say "God did it,"
you (or maybe everyone else besides you) are left with the question,
which god?
As far as I can see, there are two reasons why someone might want supernatural explanations. The first is that they might be popular for
the same reason that postmodernism was popular: you get to make up
bullshit, free from all constraints, that a few other people might even
find impressive. The second is that hostile foreign powers might
encourage it as a way to sabotage a nation's economy and power.
On 9/8/25 12:35 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 8/09/2025 7:02 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/7/25 6:58 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 7/09/2025 11:25 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/7/25 12:51 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 7/09/2025 12:28 pm, Chris Thompson wrote:
This brings me back to my "1000 years" thought exercise. If that >>>>>>>> scenario did play out, it would be an instance of science
providing evidence of non-causality. That's the other sharp edge >>>>>>>> - evidence from science giving reason to consider explanations >>>>>>>> beyond the reach of science.
Perhaps you could rephrase that? It sounds like gobbledygook.
But we really don't need to wait a thousand years. We can start >>>>>>> with one simple question: what has religion produced in the last >>>>>>> 2000 years, as far as tangible results about the OOL? We've got a >>>>>>> few books that describe magic poofing. We've got a bunch of
fables, like those featuring Coyote. We've got the Dreamtime of >>>>>>> Australian Aboriginal people. And at least a few hundred others. >>>>>>> None of these seem to be any more reliable than the rest. Why
hasn't religion settled on one, or at least a few similar
hypotheses? Just because science has been doing other stuff
should not have held theologians back from working on this.
I agree that we don't need to wait 1000 years, that's an overly
conservative number for the exercise. OOL research is already
progressively revealing inadequacies in naturalistic explanations >>>>>> of even a protocell*.
But I digress. This discussion is a reasonably careful attempt to >>>>>> define and delineate epidemiological categories and their
application. Thoughtful opposing contributions welcome. However,
statements like "sounds like gobbledygook", "magic poofing", and
"a bunch of fables" are standard TO fare and a lazy category error. >>>>>>
I believe you can do better.
I believe, unfortunately, that *you* can't. You ignored the point
entirely. What has religion come up with as an explanation for the
origin of life in the last several thousand years? If it is indeed
a "way of knowing" on par with science, there should be something
you could point to. What is it?
The epistemological categories are intrinsically different, such
that demanding the category of religion (say) provide anything
resembling a scientific explanation of OOL is to commit a category
error.
Science provides 'how' knowledge within its domain. Religion is not
expected to provide the how of life, rather the who and why.
How does religion supply the who and why? How do we determine whether
the claim can be believed?
See my end comment.
And I will note that this is the first time you've separated "what"
from "who" and "why". The research you've been trying to find an
alternative to is all about "what", but now you disclaim that entire
field of inquiry, by whatever method.
I'm simply making explicit what I think is generally understood. No-
one is demanding the Bible (or any other religious text) provide a
journal article detailing how God created life, nor is anyone
expecting science to answer metaphysical 'why' questions of meaning
and purpose.
Excellent. Then why are you here claiming that religion can help us find
the origin of life and the course of evolution?
To be clear, I'm not anti-science. Moreover, the world religions
contain mutually exclusive claims, which makes 'religion' as an
alternative source of knowledge problematic.
I'm willing to have a discussion in good faith, including
highlighting the challenges and limitations of my own position.
Are you?
Sure. Again I ask, if there are other "ways of knowing", what are
they, and how do we assess whether their results are true?
As previously touched on, religion's "ways of knowing" (primarily
revelation/faith and existentialism/phenomenology) are generally not
comparable with those of science (primarily empiricism and rationalism).
And when you say "not comparable" you mean that we have only personal preference to use in determining whether to believe their claims.
That's not to say that rationalism, for example, is excluded in
relation to knowledge via religion. For example, with Christianity,
circumstantial evidence for the resurrection includes the
transformation of the disciples from fearful individuals to bold
martyrs, the empty tomb, the rapid growth and spread of Christianity,
and the unchanged character and unwavering commitment of the earliest
followers, even when facing suffering and death. Circumstantial
evidence can used to make rational inferences, e.g. for a verdict in a
court of law.
All the same, as I've acknowledged, assessing the mutually exclusive
truth claims of different religions is problematic and personal. I'm
not claiming otherwise.
I should say too that my own faith does not depend on science, though
I do take science seriously.
All of which takes us back to my original proposal: if my "1000 years"
scenario eventuates, then rationally that adds impetus to consider
supernatural explanations, even with the challenges mentioned. You may
still declare your own unwillingness to consider the supernatural,
even with the the most compelling "1000 years" scenario imaginable,
and may justify that by claiming that such explanations are not
knowable. I would respond that, at some point, a refusal to at least
explore would betray an a priori commitment to materialism in the face
of scientific evidence. And you may disagree, and there we would reach
a stalemate.
Once more I ask how we would consider supernatural explanations. This is
the heart of your problem.
Okay, we know where we stand. The best we can do then is stick to
discussing science and make our own choices as to where that may lead.
As for the "1000 years" of OOL, thankfully there's no need to wait,
it's already here, the examples below being just a small sample...
I have no idea what you think "the examples below" are supposed to mean.
-------
* For example:
1. The thread here "New" "ideas" on origin of life: "The study
finds liferCOs origin faces severe mathematical challenges".
2. Deeper OOL paradoxes only partially acknowledged, e.g. https:// >>>>>> link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11084-014-9379-0
3. Or this (https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/
HMw_ZoXIIOc/ m/ nb1u4MD6AAAJ):
This talk is from 2015, though David Deamer's book "Assembling
Life" that is based on this was published in 2019. Note Bruce
Damer's call for a new approach to OoL, and note the uncanny
alignment with Tour, Bains, Long Story Short, etc:
4:29 rCL[OoL research has] been mainly focused on individual
solution chemistry experiments where they want to show
polymerization over here, or they want to show metabolism over
here, and Dave and I believe that it's time for the field to go
from incremental progress to substantial progress. So, these are
the four points we've come up with to make substantial progress in >>>>>> the origin of life, and the first one is to employ something
called system chemistry, having sufficient complexity so instead
of one experiment say about proteins, now you have an experiment
about the encapsulation of proteins for example, and informational >>>>>> molecules built from nucleotides in an environment that would say >>>>>> be like an analog of the early Earth, build a complex experiment. >>>>>> Something we're calling sufficient complexity, and all of these
experiments have to move the reactions away from equilibrium. And >>>>>> what do we mean by that? Well, in in your high school chemistry
experiments, something starts foaming something changes color and >>>>>> then the experiment winds down and stops. Well, life didn't get
started that way. Life got started by a continuous run-up of
complexity and building upon in a sense nature as a ratchet. So we >>>>>> have to figure out how to build experiments that move will move
away from equilibriumrCarCY
6:31 rCLYou can't sit in a laboratory just using glassware. You have >>>>>> to go to the field. You have to go to hot springs, you have to go >>>>>> to [rCa] Iceland and come check and sit down and see what the
natural environment is like, rather than being in the ethereal
world of pure reactants and things like thatrCarCY
On 9/6/25 7:23 AM, MarkE wrote:
[big snip]
What if science itself identifies non-causal phenomena? Now, if I
understand correctly, you are saying this can never happen; rather,
what may appear to be non-causal can only be categorised as "currently
unexplained naturally".
This is the nub of the issue I think. You seem to have upfront
excluded epistemologies apart from science (as good as it is). This
provides a jusfication to leave it at "currently unexplained
naturally" rather than considering supernatural explanation, because
you assume that there is no other legitimate means of acquiring
knowledge, and the best we can do is park it in the science baskets of
"to do" or "too hard" (which takes us back to 1 above).
Okay, for sake of argument, let us suppose you have identified something
as non-causal, or even unambiguously supernatural.
Then what?
From a scientific standpoint, you're at a dead end. The main strength
of science is that it lets us make predictions, but you can't do that
with supernatural. Science also typically opens up further areas for investigation, but here, instead, you're closing them.
Theology isn't helped, either. "Supernatural" does not tell you anything about the supernatural "cause" either. (In fact, per our premise, there
was no cause.) Even if you take a leap of faith and say "God did it,"
you (or maybe everyone else besides you) are left with the question,
which god?
As far as I can see, there are two reasons why someone might want supernatural explanations. The first is that they might be popular for
the same reason that postmodernism was popular: you get to make up
bullshit, free from all constraints, that a few other people might even
find impressive. The second is that hostile foreign powers might
encourage it as a way to sabotage a nation's economy and power.
On 9/09/2025 5:45 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/8/25 12:35 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 8/09/2025 7:02 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/7/25 6:58 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 7/09/2025 11:25 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/7/25 12:51 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 7/09/2025 12:28 pm, Chris Thompson wrote:
This brings me back to my "1000 years" thought exercise. If >>>>>>>>> that scenario did play out, it would be an instance of science >>>>>>>>> providing evidence of non-causality. That's the other sharp >>>>>>>>> edge - evidence from science giving reason to consider
explanations beyond the reach of science.
Perhaps you could rephrase that? It sounds like gobbledygook.
But we really don't need to wait a thousand years. We can start >>>>>>>> with one simple question: what has religion produced in the last >>>>>>>> 2000 years, as far as tangible results about the OOL? We've got >>>>>>>> a few books that describe magic poofing. We've got a bunch of >>>>>>>> fables, like those featuring Coyote. We've got the Dreamtime of >>>>>>>> Australian Aboriginal people. And at least a few hundred others. >>>>>>>> None of these seem to be any more reliable than the rest. Why >>>>>>>> hasn't religion settled on one, or at least a few similar
hypotheses? Just because science has been doing other stuff
should not have held theologians back from working on this.
I agree that we don't need to wait 1000 years, that's an overly >>>>>>> conservative number for the exercise. OOL research is already
progressively revealing inadequacies in naturalistic explanations >>>>>>> of even a protocell*.
But I digress. This discussion is a reasonably careful attempt to >>>>>>> define and delineate epidemiological categories and their
application. Thoughtful opposing contributions welcome. However, >>>>>>> statements like "sounds like gobbledygook", "magic poofing", and >>>>>>> "a bunch of fables" are standard TO fare and a lazy category error. >>>>>>>
I believe you can do better.
I believe, unfortunately, that *you* can't. You ignored the point >>>>>> entirely. What has religion come up with as an explanation for the >>>>>> origin of life in the last several thousand years? If it is indeed >>>>>> a "way of knowing" on par with science, there should be something >>>>>> you could point to. What is it?
The epistemological categories are intrinsically different, such
that demanding the category of religion (say) provide anything
resembling a scientific explanation of OOL is to commit a category
error.
Science provides 'how' knowledge within its domain. Religion is not >>>>> expected to provide the how of life, rather the who and why.
How does religion supply the who and why? How do we determine
whether the claim can be believed?
See my end comment.
And I will note that this is the first time you've separated "what"
from "who" and "why". The research you've been trying to find an
alternative to is all about "what", but now you disclaim that entire
field of inquiry, by whatever method.
I'm simply making explicit what I think is generally understood. No-
one is demanding the Bible (or any other religious text) provide a
journal article detailing how God created life, nor is anyone
expecting science to answer metaphysical 'why' questions of meaning
and purpose.
Excellent. Then why are you here claiming that religion can help us
find the origin of life and the course of evolution?
To be clear, I'm not anti-science. Moreover, the world religions
contain mutually exclusive claims, which makes 'religion' as an
alternative source of knowledge problematic.
I'm willing to have a discussion in good faith, including
highlighting the challenges and limitations of my own position.
Are you?
Sure. Again I ask, if there are other "ways of knowing", what are
they, and how do we assess whether their results are true?
As previously touched on, religion's "ways of knowing" (primarily
revelation/faith and existentialism/phenomenology) are generally not
comparable with those of science (primarily empiricism and rationalism).
And when you say "not comparable" you mean that we have only personal
preference to use in determining whether to believe their claims.
That's not to say that rationalism, for example, is excluded in
relation to knowledge via religion. For example, with Christianity,
circumstantial evidence for the resurrection includes the
transformation of the disciples from fearful individuals to bold
martyrs, the empty tomb, the rapid growth and spread of Christianity,
and the unchanged character and unwavering commitment of the earliest
followers, even when facing suffering and death. Circumstantial
evidence can used to make rational inferences, e.g. for a verdict in
a court of law.
All the same, as I've acknowledged, assessing the mutually exclusive
truth claims of different religions is problematic and personal. I'm
not claiming otherwise.
I should say too that my own faith does not depend on science, though
I do take science seriously.
All of which takes us back to my original proposal: if my "1000
years" scenario eventuates, then rationally that adds impetus to
consider supernatural explanations, even with the challenges
mentioned. You may still declare your own unwillingness to consider
the supernatural, even with the the most compelling "1000 years"
scenario imaginable, and may justify that by claiming that such
explanations are not knowable. I would respond that, at some point, a
refusal to at least explore would betray an a priori commitment to
materialism in the face of scientific evidence. And you may disagree,
and there we would reach a stalemate.
Once more I ask how we would consider supernatural explanations. This
is the heart of your problem.
Something like this:
"Assessing the truth claims of world religionsrCoespecially since many
make mutually exclusive claimsrCorequires a careful, multi-layered
approach. Here are several angles you could use, depending on whether
you prioritize philosophy, history, or lived experience:
1. Philosophical Coherence
Internal consistency: Does the religionrCOs worldview avoid contradictions within its own teachings? For example, does its concept of God,
morality, or human purpose hold together logically?
External explanatory power: Does the worldview make sense of the world
we observerCothings like the existence of consciousness, morality, order
in nature, and human longing for meaning?
2. Historical Credibility
Origins and development: Are the religionrCOs founding events historically verifiable or plausible? For example, the historical resurrection claim
in Christianity, the compilation of the QurrCOan in Islam, or the
verifiable life of Siddhartha Gautama in Buddhism.
Transmission reliability: How well preserved are the original texts and traditions? Do we have strong textual evidence or is it mostly late, fragmented, or contradictory?
Miracle claims: These are often central to veracity. Assess whether they have corroborating witnesses, early testimony, or whether they look more like legendary accretions.
3. Moral and Existential Fruitfulness
Practical impact: Does following the religion produce consistent moral transformation in adherents? Not just in isolated saints, but across
broad communities.
Human needs: Does the religion adequately address deep existential questionsrCosuch as the problem of suffering, the need for forgiveness, or the quest for ultimate meaning?
4. Comparative Exclusivity
Since religions make mutually exclusive claims (e.g., monotheism vs. polytheism, reincarnation vs. resurrection, salvation by grace vs. by works):
One strategy is critical elimination: examine contradictory claims and
see which stand up better to scrutiny.
Another is to explore whether partial truth is possible (religions may contain overlapping moral or metaphysical truths even if not all are
wholly correct).
Some adopt a pluralist stance (all religions are different paths to the
same reality), but this itself is a truth claim that often contradicts
what religions themselves say.
5. Personal and Experiential Dimensions
While harder to evaluate objectively, many believers appeal to lived religious experience (answered prayer, transformative encounters,
mystical insight).
One can test these experiences against external reality: are they consistent, verifiable, and not easily reducible to psychological or cultural explanation?
6. Methodological Guardrails
Beware confirmation bias: People often judge religions by the one they
were raised in or by isolated negative experiences with others.
Use historical method: Treat religious claims with the same standards yourCOd use for other ancient historical claims (documents, archaeology, multiple attestation).
Balance head and heart: Purely intellectual tests might miss the lived
power of faith, while purely experiential tests might ignore contradictions."
Okay, we know where we stand. The best we can do then is stick to
discussing science and make our own choices as to where that may lead.
As for the "1000 years" of OOL, thankfully there's no need to wait,
it's already here, the examples below being just a small sample...
I have no idea what you think "the examples below" are supposed to mean.
Really, no idea?
On 8/09/2025 7:02 am, John Harshman wrote:On the one hand, you admit that supernatural explanations and
On 9/7/25 6:58 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 7/09/2025 11:25 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/7/25 12:51 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 7/09/2025 12:28 pm, Chris Thompson wrote:
This brings me back to my "1000 years" thought exercise. If that >>>>>>> scenario did play out, it would be an instance of science
providing evidence of non-causality. That's the other sharp edge - >>>>>>> evidence from science giving reason to consider explanations
beyond the reach of science.
Perhaps you could rephrase that? It sounds like gobbledygook.
But we really don't need to wait a thousand years. We can start
with one simple question: what has religion produced in the last
2000 years, as far as tangible results about the OOL? We've got a >>>>>> few books that describe magic poofing. We've got a bunch of fables, >>>>>> like those featuring Coyote. We've got the Dreamtime of Australian >>>>>> Aboriginal people. And at least a few hundred others. None of these >>>>>> seem to be any more reliable than the rest. Why hasn't religion
settled on one, or at least a few similar hypotheses? Just because >>>>>> science has been doing other stuff should not have held theologians >>>>>> back from working on this.
I agree that we don't need to wait 1000 years, that's an overly
conservative number for the exercise. OOL research is already
progressively revealing inadequacies in naturalistic explanations of >>>>> even a protocell*.
But I digress. This discussion is a reasonably careful attempt to
define and delineate epidemiological categories and their
application. Thoughtful opposing contributions welcome. However,
statements like "sounds like gobbledygook", "magic poofing", and "a >>>>> bunch of fables" are standard TO fare and a lazy category error.
I believe you can do better.
I believe, unfortunately, that *you* can't. You ignored the point
entirely. What has religion come up with as an explanation for the
origin of life in the last several thousand years? If it is indeed a
"way of knowing" on par with science, there should be something you
could point to. What is it?
The epistemological categories are intrinsically different, such that
demanding the category of religion (say) provide anything resembling a
scientific explanation of OOL is to commit a category error.
Science provides 'how' knowledge within its domain. Religion is not
expected to provide the how of life, rather the who and why.
How does religion supply the who and why? How do we determine whether
the claim can be believed?
See my end comment.
And I will note that this is the first time you've separated "what" from
"who" and "why". The research you've been trying to find an alternative
to is all about "what", but now you disclaim that entire field of
inquiry, by whatever method.
I'm simply making explicit what I think is generally understood. No-one
is demanding the Bible (or any other religious text) provide a journal >article detailing how God created life, nor is anyone expecting science
to answer metaphysical 'why' questions of meaning and purpose.
To be clear, I'm not anti-science. Moreover, the world religions
contain mutually exclusive claims, which makes 'religion' as an
alternative source of knowledge problematic.
I'm willing to have a discussion in good faith, including highlighting
the challenges and limitations of my own position.
Are you?
Sure. Again I ask, if there are other "ways of knowing", what are they,
and how do we assess whether their results are true?
As previously touched on, religion's "ways of knowing" (primarily >revelation/faith and existentialism/phenomenology) are generally not >comparable with those of science (primarily empiricism and rationalism).
That's not to say that rationalism, for example, is excluded in relation
to knowledge via religion. For example, with Christianity,
circumstantial evidence for the resurrection includes the transformation
of the disciples from fearful individuals to bold martyrs, the empty
tomb, the rapid growth and spread of Christianity, and the unchanged >character and unwavering commitment of the earliest followers, even when >facing suffering and death. Circumstantial evidence can used to make >rational inferences, e.g. for a verdict in a court of law.
All the same, as I've acknowledged, assessing the mutually exclusive
truth claims of different religions is problematic and personal. I'm not >claiming otherwise.
I should say too that my own faith does not depend on science, though I
do take science seriously.
All of which takes us back to my original proposal: if my "1000 years" >scenario eventuates, then rationally that adds impetus to consider >supernatural explanations, even with the challenges mentioned. You may
still declare your own unwillingness to consider the supernatural, even
with the the most compelling "1000 years" scenario imaginable, and may >justify that by claiming that such explanations are not knowable. I
would respond that, at some point, a refusal to at least explore would >betray an a priori commitment to materialism in the face of scientific >evidence. And you may disagree, and there we would reach a stalemate.
Okay, we know where we stand. The best we can do then is stick to
discussing science and make our own choices as to where that may lead.
As for the "1000 years" of OOL, thankfully there's no need to wait, it's >already here, the examples below being just a small sample...
--* For example:
1. The thread here "New" "ideas" on origin of life: "The study finds >>>>> liferCOs origin faces severe mathematical challenges".
2. Deeper OOL paradoxes only partially acknowledged, e.g. https://
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11084-014-9379-0
3. Or this (https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/HMw_ZoXIIOc/ >>>>> m/ nb1u4MD6AAAJ):
This talk is from 2015, though David Deamer's book "Assembling Life" >>>>> that is based on this was published in 2019. Note Bruce Damer's call >>>>> for a new approach to OoL, and note the uncanny alignment with Tour, >>>>> Bains, Long Story Short, etc:
4:29 rCL[OoL research has] been mainly focused on individual solution >>>>> chemistry experiments where they want to show polymerization over
here, or they want to show metabolism over here, and Dave and I
believe that it's time for the field to go from incremental progress >>>>> to substantial progress. So, these are the four points we've come up >>>>> with to make substantial progress in the origin of life, and the
first one is to employ something called system chemistry, having
sufficient complexity so instead of one experiment say about
proteins, now you have an experiment about the encapsulation of
proteins for example, and informational molecules built from
nucleotides in an environment that would say be like an analog of
the early Earth, build a complex experiment. Something we're calling >>>>> sufficient complexity, and all of these experiments have to move the >>>>> reactions away from equilibrium. And what do we mean by that? Well, >>>>> in in your high school chemistry experiments, something starts
foaming something changes color and then the experiment winds down
and stops. Well, life didn't get started that way. Life got started >>>>> by a continuous run-up of complexity and building upon in a sense
nature as a ratchet. So we have to figure out how to build
experiments that move will move away from equilibriumrCarCY
6:31 rCLYou can't sit in a laboratory just using glassware. You have >>>>> to go to the field. You have to go to hot springs, you have to go to >>>>> [rCa] Iceland and come check and sit down and see what the natural
environment is like, rather than being in the ethereal world of pure >>>>> reactants and things like thatrCarCY
On Mon, 8 Sep 2025 17:35:25 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/09/2025 7:02 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/7/25 6:58 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 7/09/2025 11:25 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/7/25 12:51 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 7/09/2025 12:28 pm, Chris Thompson wrote:
This brings me back to my "1000 years" thought exercise. If that >>>>>>>> scenario did play out, it would be an instance of science
providing evidence of non-causality. That's the other sharp edge - >>>>>>>> evidence from science giving reason to consider explanations
beyond the reach of science.
Perhaps you could rephrase that? It sounds like gobbledygook.
But we really don't need to wait a thousand years. We can start
with one simple question: what has religion produced in the last >>>>>>> 2000 years, as far as tangible results about the OOL? We've got a >>>>>>> few books that describe magic poofing. We've got a bunch of fables, >>>>>>> like those featuring Coyote. We've got the Dreamtime of Australian >>>>>>> Aboriginal people. And at least a few hundred others. None of these >>>>>>> seem to be any more reliable than the rest. Why hasn't religion
settled on one, or at least a few similar hypotheses? Just because >>>>>>> science has been doing other stuff should not have held theologians >>>>>>> back from working on this.
I agree that we don't need to wait 1000 years, that's an overly
conservative number for the exercise. OOL research is already
progressively revealing inadequacies in naturalistic explanations of >>>>>> even a protocell*.
But I digress. This discussion is a reasonably careful attempt to
define and delineate epidemiological categories and their
application. Thoughtful opposing contributions welcome. However,
statements like "sounds like gobbledygook", "magic poofing", and "a >>>>>> bunch of fables" are standard TO fare and a lazy category error.
I believe you can do better.
I believe, unfortunately, that *you* can't. You ignored the point
entirely. What has religion come up with as an explanation for the
origin of life in the last several thousand years? If it is indeed a >>>>> "way of knowing" on par with science, there should be something you
could point to. What is it?
The epistemological categories are intrinsically different, such that
demanding the category of religion (say) provide anything resembling a >>>> scientific explanation of OOL is to commit a category error.
Science provides 'how' knowledge within its domain. Religion is not
expected to provide the how of life, rather the who and why.
How does religion supply the who and why? How do we determine whether
the claim can be believed?
See my end comment.
And I will note that this is the first time you've separated "what" from >>> "who" and "why". The research you've been trying to find an alternative
to is all about "what", but now you disclaim that entire field of
inquiry, by whatever method.
I'm simply making explicit what I think is generally understood. No-one
is demanding the Bible (or any other religious text) provide a journal
article detailing how God created life, nor is anyone expecting science
to answer metaphysical 'why' questions of meaning and purpose.
To be clear, I'm not anti-science. Moreover, the world religions
contain mutually exclusive claims, which makes 'religion' as an
alternative source of knowledge problematic.
I'm willing to have a discussion in good faith, including highlighting >>>> the challenges and limitations of my own position.
Are you?
Sure. Again I ask, if there are other "ways of knowing", what are they,
and how do we assess whether their results are true?
As previously touched on, religion's "ways of knowing" (primarily
revelation/faith and existentialism/phenomenology) are generally not
comparable with those of science (primarily empiricism and rationalism).
That's not to say that rationalism, for example, is excluded in relation
to knowledge via religion. For example, with Christianity,
circumstantial evidence for the resurrection includes the transformation
of the disciples from fearful individuals to bold martyrs, the empty
tomb, the rapid growth and spread of Christianity, and the unchanged
character and unwavering commitment of the earliest followers, even when
facing suffering and death. Circumstantial evidence can used to make
rational inferences, e.g. for a verdict in a court of law.
All the same, as I've acknowledged, assessing the mutually exclusive
truth claims of different religions is problematic and personal. I'm not
claiming otherwise.
I should say too that my own faith does not depend on science, though I
do take science seriously.
All of which takes us back to my original proposal: if my "1000 years"
scenario eventuates, then rationally that adds impetus to consider
supernatural explanations, even with the challenges mentioned. You may
still declare your own unwillingness to consider the supernatural, even
with the the most compelling "1000 years" scenario imaginable, and may
justify that by claiming that such explanations are not knowable. I
would respond that, at some point, a refusal to at least explore would
betray an a priori commitment to materialism in the face of scientific
evidence. And you may disagree, and there we would reach a stalemate.
Okay, we know where we stand. The best we can do then is stick to
discussing science and make our own choices as to where that may lead.
As for the "1000 years" of OOL, thankfully there's no need to wait, it's
already here, the examples below being just a small sample...
On the one hand, you admit that supernatural explanations and
scientific explanations aren't equivalent, which makes your expressed
line of reasoning a false equivalence, a disingenuous debating tactic.
On the other hand, you assert 1000 years of OOL are upon us, when your examples below actually show that OOL research has only just begun
within my lifetime.
On the gripping hand, you claim to have won the debate, without even
trying to answer the questions you raised, a characteristic typical of IDeology. Bad form, MarkE.
On Mon, 8 Sep 2025 17:35:25 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/09/2025 7:02 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/7/25 6:58 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 7/09/2025 11:25 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/7/25 12:51 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 7/09/2025 12:28 pm, Chris Thompson wrote:
This brings me back to my "1000 years" thought exercise. If that >>>>>>>> scenario did play out, it would be an instance of science
providing evidence of non-causality. That's the other sharp edge - >>>>>>>> evidence from science giving reason to consider explanations
beyond the reach of science.
Perhaps you could rephrase that? It sounds like gobbledygook.
But we really don't need to wait a thousand years. We can start
with one simple question: what has religion produced in the last >>>>>>> 2000 years, as far as tangible results about the OOL? We've got a >>>>>>> few books that describe magic poofing. We've got a bunch of fables, >>>>>>> like those featuring Coyote. We've got the Dreamtime of Australian >>>>>>> Aboriginal people. And at least a few hundred others. None of these >>>>>>> seem to be any more reliable than the rest. Why hasn't religion
settled on one, or at least a few similar hypotheses? Just because >>>>>>> science has been doing other stuff should not have held theologians >>>>>>> back from working on this.
I agree that we don't need to wait 1000 years, that's an overly
conservative number for the exercise. OOL research is already
progressively revealing inadequacies in naturalistic explanations of >>>>>> even a protocell*.
But I digress. This discussion is a reasonably careful attempt to
define and delineate epidemiological categories and their
application. Thoughtful opposing contributions welcome. However,
statements like "sounds like gobbledygook", "magic poofing", and "a >>>>>> bunch of fables" are standard TO fare and a lazy category error.
I believe you can do better.
I believe, unfortunately, that *you* can't. You ignored the point
entirely. What has religion come up with as an explanation for the
origin of life in the last several thousand years? If it is indeed a >>>>> "way of knowing" on par with science, there should be something you
could point to. What is it?
The epistemological categories are intrinsically different, such that
demanding the category of religion (say) provide anything resembling a >>>> scientific explanation of OOL is to commit a category error.
Science provides 'how' knowledge within its domain. Religion is not
expected to provide the how of life, rather the who and why.
How does religion supply the who and why? How do we determine whether
the claim can be believed?
See my end comment.
And I will note that this is the first time you've separated "what" from >>> "who" and "why". The research you've been trying to find an alternative
to is all about "what", but now you disclaim that entire field of
inquiry, by whatever method.
I'm simply making explicit what I think is generally understood. No-one
is demanding the Bible (or any other religious text) provide a journal
article detailing how God created life, nor is anyone expecting science
to answer metaphysical 'why' questions of meaning and purpose.
To be clear, I'm not anti-science. Moreover, the world religions
contain mutually exclusive claims, which makes 'religion' as an
alternative source of knowledge problematic.
I'm willing to have a discussion in good faith, including highlighting >>>> the challenges and limitations of my own position.
Are you?
Sure. Again I ask, if there are other "ways of knowing", what are they,
and how do we assess whether their results are true?
As previously touched on, religion's "ways of knowing" (primarily
revelation/faith and existentialism/phenomenology) are generally not
comparable with those of science (primarily empiricism and rationalism).
That's not to say that rationalism, for example, is excluded in relation
to knowledge via religion. For example, with Christianity,
circumstantial evidence for the resurrection includes the transformation
of the disciples from fearful individuals to bold martyrs, the empty
tomb, the rapid growth and spread of Christianity, and the unchanged
character and unwavering commitment of the earliest followers, even when
facing suffering and death. Circumstantial evidence can used to make
rational inferences, e.g. for a verdict in a court of law.
All the same, as I've acknowledged, assessing the mutually exclusive
truth claims of different religions is problematic and personal. I'm not
claiming otherwise.
I should say too that my own faith does not depend on science, though I
do take science seriously.
All of which takes us back to my original proposal: if my "1000 years"
scenario eventuates, then rationally that adds impetus to consider
supernatural explanations, even with the challenges mentioned. You may
still declare your own unwillingness to consider the supernatural, even
with the the most compelling "1000 years" scenario imaginable, and may
justify that by claiming that such explanations are not knowable. I
would respond that, at some point, a refusal to at least explore would
betray an a priori commitment to materialism in the face of scientific
evidence. And you may disagree, and there we would reach a stalemate.
Okay, we know where we stand. The best we can do then is stick to
discussing science and make our own choices as to where that may lead.
As for the "1000 years" of OOL, thankfully there's no need to wait, it's
already here, the examples below being just a small sample...
On the one hand, you admit that supernatural explanations and
scientific explanations aren't equivalent, which makes your expressed
line of reasoning a false equivalence, a disingenuous debating tactic.
On the other hand, you assert 1000 years of OOL are upon us, when your examples below actually show that OOL research has only just begun
within my lifetime.
On the gripping hand, you claim to have won the debate, without even
trying to answer the questions you raised, a characteristic typical of IDeology. Bad form, MarkE.
* For example:
1. The thread here "New" "ideas" on origin of life: "The study finds >>>>>> liferCOs origin faces severe mathematical challenges".
2. Deeper OOL paradoxes only partially acknowledged, e.g. https:// >>>>>> link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11084-014-9379-0
3. Or this (https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/HMw_ZoXIIOc/ >>>>>> m/ nb1u4MD6AAAJ):
This talk is from 2015, though David Deamer's book "Assembling Life" >>>>>> that is based on this was published in 2019. Note Bruce Damer's call >>>>>> for a new approach to OoL, and note the uncanny alignment with Tour, >>>>>> Bains, Long Story Short, etc:
4:29 rCL[OoL research has] been mainly focused on individual solution >>>>>> chemistry experiments where they want to show polymerization over
here, or they want to show metabolism over here, and Dave and I
believe that it's time for the field to go from incremental progress >>>>>> to substantial progress. So, these are the four points we've come up >>>>>> with to make substantial progress in the origin of life, and the
first one is to employ something called system chemistry, having
sufficient complexity so instead of one experiment say about
proteins, now you have an experiment about the encapsulation of
proteins for example, and informational molecules built from
nucleotides in an environment that would say be like an analog of
the early Earth, build a complex experiment. Something we're calling >>>>>> sufficient complexity, and all of these experiments have to move the >>>>>> reactions away from equilibrium. And what do we mean by that? Well, >>>>>> in in your high school chemistry experiments, something starts
foaming something changes color and then the experiment winds down >>>>>> and stops. Well, life didn't get started that way. Life got started >>>>>> by a continuous run-up of complexity and building upon in a sense
nature as a ratchet. So we have to figure out how to build
experiments that move will move away from equilibriumrCarCY
6:31 rCLYou can't sit in a laboratory just using glassware. You have >>>>>> to go to the field. You have to go to hot springs, you have to go to >>>>>> [rCa] Iceland and come check and sit down and see what the natural >>>>>> environment is like, rather than being in the ethereal world of pure >>>>>> reactants and things like thatrCarCY
On 9/09/2025 2:19 pm, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 8 Sep 2025 17:35:25 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/09/2025 7:02 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/7/25 6:58 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 7/09/2025 11:25 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/7/25 12:51 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 7/09/2025 12:28 pm, Chris Thompson wrote:
This brings me back to my "1000 years" thought exercise. If that >>>>>>>> scenario did play out, it would be an instance of science
providing evidence of non-causality. That's the other sharp edge - >>>>>>>> evidence from science giving reason to consider explanations >>>>>>>> beyond the reach of science.
On 9/09/2025 5:45 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/8/25 12:35 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 8/09/2025 7:02 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/7/25 6:58 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 7/09/2025 11:25 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/7/25 12:51 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 7/09/2025 12:28 pm, Chris Thompson wrote:
This brings me back to my "1000 years" thought exercise. If >>>>>>>>> that scenario did play out, it would be an instance of science >>>>>>>>> providing evidence of non-causality. That's the other sharp >>>>>>>>> edge - evidence from science giving reason to consider
explanations beyond the reach of science.
Perhaps you could rephrase that? It sounds like gobbledygook.
But we really don't need to wait a thousand years. We can start >>>>>>>> with one simple question: what has religion produced in the last >>>>>>>> 2000 years, as far as tangible results about the OOL? We've got >>>>>>>> a few books that describe magic poofing. We've got a bunch of >>>>>>>> fables, like those featuring Coyote. We've got the Dreamtime of >>>>>>>> Australian Aboriginal people. And at least a few hundred others. >>>>>>>> None of these seem to be any more reliable than the rest. Why >>>>>>>> hasn't religion settled on one, or at least a few similar
hypotheses? Just because science has been doing other stuff
should not have held theologians back from working on this.
I agree that we don't need to wait 1000 years, that's an overly >>>>>>> conservative number for the exercise. OOL research is already
progressively revealing inadequacies in naturalistic explanations >>>>>>> of even a protocell*.
But I digress. This discussion is a reasonably careful attempt to >>>>>>> define and delineate epidemiological categories and their
application. Thoughtful opposing contributions welcome. However, >>>>>>> statements like "sounds like gobbledygook", "magic poofing", and >>>>>>> "a bunch of fables" are standard TO fare and a lazy category error. >>>>>>>
I believe you can do better.
I believe, unfortunately, that *you* can't. You ignored the point >>>>>> entirely. What has religion come up with as an explanation for the >>>>>> origin of life in the last several thousand years? If it is indeed >>>>>> a "way of knowing" on par with science, there should be something >>>>>> you could point to. What is it?
The epistemological categories are intrinsically different, such
that demanding the category of religion (say) provide anything
resembling a scientific explanation of OOL is to commit a category
error.
Science provides 'how' knowledge within its domain. Religion is not >>>>> expected to provide the how of life, rather the who and why.
How does religion supply the who and why? How do we determine
whether the claim can be believed?
See my end comment.
And I will note that this is the first time you've separated "what"
from "who" and "why". The research you've been trying to find an
alternative to is all about "what", but now you disclaim that entire
field of inquiry, by whatever method.
I'm simply making explicit what I think is generally understood. No-
one is demanding the Bible (or any other religious text) provide a
journal article detailing how God created life, nor is anyone
expecting science to answer metaphysical 'why' questions of meaning
and purpose.
Excellent. Then why are you here claiming that religion can help us
find the origin of life and the course of evolution?
To be clear, I'm not anti-science. Moreover, the world religions
contain mutually exclusive claims, which makes 'religion' as an
alternative source of knowledge problematic.
I'm willing to have a discussion in good faith, including
highlighting the challenges and limitations of my own position.
Are you?
Sure. Again I ask, if there are other "ways of knowing", what are
they, and how do we assess whether their results are true?
As previously touched on, religion's "ways of knowing" (primarily
revelation/faith and existentialism/phenomenology) are generally not
comparable with those of science (primarily empiricism and rationalism).
And when you say "not comparable" you mean that we have only personal
preference to use in determining whether to believe their claims.
That's not to say that rationalism, for example, is excluded in
relation to knowledge via religion. For example, with Christianity,
circumstantial evidence for the resurrection includes the
transformation of the disciples from fearful individuals to bold
martyrs, the empty tomb, the rapid growth and spread of Christianity,
and the unchanged character and unwavering commitment of the earliest
followers, even when facing suffering and death. Circumstantial
evidence can used to make rational inferences, e.g. for a verdict in
a court of law.
All the same, as I've acknowledged, assessing the mutually exclusive
truth claims of different religions is problematic and personal. I'm
not claiming otherwise.
I should say too that my own faith does not depend on science, though
I do take science seriously.
All of which takes us back to my original proposal: if my "1000
years" scenario eventuates, then rationally that adds impetus to
consider supernatural explanations, even with the challenges
mentioned. You may still declare your own unwillingness to consider
the supernatural, even with the the most compelling "1000 years"
scenario imaginable, and may justify that by claiming that such
explanations are not knowable. I would respond that, at some point, a
refusal to at least explore would betray an a priori commitment to
materialism in the face of scientific evidence. And you may disagree,
and there we would reach a stalemate.
Once more I ask how we would consider supernatural explanations. This
is the heart of your problem.
Something like this:
"Assessing the truth claims of world religionsrCoespecially since many
make mutually exclusive claimsrCorequires a careful, multi-layered
approach. Here are several angles you could use, depending on whether
you prioritize philosophy, history, or lived experience:
1. Philosophical Coherence
Internal consistency: Does the religionrCOs worldview avoid contradictions within its own teachings? For example, does its concept of God,
morality, or human purpose hold together logically?
External explanatory power: Does the worldview make sense of the world
we observerCothings like the existence of consciousness, morality, order
in nature, and human longing for meaning?
2. Historical Credibility
Origins and development: Are the religionrCOs founding events historically verifiable or plausible? For example, the historical resurrection claim
in Christianity, the compilation of the QurrCOan in Islam, or the
verifiable life of Siddhartha Gautama in Buddhism.
Transmission reliability: How well preserved are the original texts and traditions? Do we have strong textual evidence or is it mostly late, fragmented, or contradictory?
Miracle claims: These are often central to veracity. Assess whether they have corroborating witnesses, early testimony, or whether they look more like legendary accretions.
3. Moral and Existential Fruitfulness
Practical impact: Does following the religion produce consistent moral transformation in adherents? Not just in isolated saints, but across
broad communities.
Human needs: Does the religion adequately address deep existential questionsrCosuch as the problem of suffering, the need for forgiveness, or the quest for ultimate meaning?
4. Comparative Exclusivity
Since religions make mutually exclusive claims (e.g., monotheism vs. polytheism, reincarnation vs. resurrection, salvation by grace vs. by works):
One strategy is critical elimination: examine contradictory claims and
see which stand up better to scrutiny.
Another is to explore whether partial truth is possible (religions may contain overlapping moral or metaphysical truths even if not all are
wholly correct).
Some adopt a pluralist stance (all religions are different paths to the
same reality), but this itself is a truth claim that often contradicts
what religions themselves say.
5. Personal and Experiential Dimensions
While harder to evaluate objectively, many believers appeal to lived religious experience (answered prayer, transformative encounters,
mystical insight).
One can test these experiences against external reality: are they consistent, verifiable, and not easily reducible to psychological or cultural explanation?
6. Methodological Guardrails
Beware confirmation bias: People often judge religions by the one they
were raised in or by isolated negative experiences with others.
Use historical method: Treat religious claims with the same standards yourCOd use for other ancient historical claims (documents, archaeology, multiple attestation).
Balance head and heart: Purely intellectual tests might miss the lived
power of faith, while purely experiential tests might ignore contradictions."
Okay, we know where we stand. The best we can do then is stick to
discussing science and make our own choices as to where that may lead.
As for the "1000 years" of OOL, thankfully there's no need to wait,
it's already here, the examples below being just a small sample...
I have no idea what you think "the examples below" are supposed to mean.
Really, no idea?
-------
* For example:
1. The thread here "New" "ideas" on origin of life: "The study
finds liferCOs origin faces severe mathematical challenges".
2. Deeper OOL paradoxes only partially acknowledged, e.g.
https:// link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11084-014-9379-0
3. Or this (https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/
HMw_ZoXIIOc/ m/ nb1u4MD6AAAJ):
This talk is from 2015, though David Deamer's book "Assembling
Life" that is based on this was published in 2019. Note Bruce
Damer's call for a new approach to OoL, and note the uncanny
alignment with Tour, Bains, Long Story Short, etc:
4:29 rCL[OoL research has] been mainly focused on individual
solution chemistry experiments where they want to show
polymerization over here, or they want to show metabolism over
here, and Dave and I believe that it's time for the field to go >>>>>>> from incremental progress to substantial progress. So, these are >>>>>>> the four points we've come up with to make substantial progress >>>>>>> in the origin of life, and the first one is to employ something >>>>>>> called system chemistry, having sufficient complexity so instead >>>>>>> of one experiment say about proteins, now you have an experiment >>>>>>> about the encapsulation of proteins for example, and
informational molecules built from nucleotides in an environment >>>>>>> that would say be like an analog of the early Earth, build a
complex experiment. Something we're calling sufficient
complexity, and all of these experiments have to move the
reactions away from equilibrium. And what do we mean by that?
Well, in in your high school chemistry experiments, something
starts foaming something changes color and then the experiment
winds down and stops. Well, life didn't get started that way.
Life got started by a continuous run-up of complexity and
building upon in a sense nature as a ratchet. So we have to
figure out how to build experiments that move will move away from >>>>>>> equilibriumrCarCY
6:31 rCLYou can't sit in a laboratory just using glassware. You >>>>>>> have to go to the field. You have to go to hot springs, you have >>>>>>> to go to [rCa] Iceland and come check and sit down and see what the >>>>>>> natural environment is like, rather than being in the ethereal
world of pure reactants and things like thatrCarCY
On 9/8/25 4:03 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 9/09/2025 5:45 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/8/25 12:35 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 8/09/2025 7:02 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/7/25 6:58 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 7/09/2025 11:25 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/7/25 12:51 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 7/09/2025 12:28 pm, Chris Thompson wrote:
I agree that we don't need to wait 1000 years, that's an overly >>>>>>>> conservative number for the exercise. OOL research is already >>>>>>>> progressively revealing inadequacies in naturalisticThis brings me back to my "1000 years" thought exercise. If >>>>>>>>>> that scenario did play out, it would be an instance of science >>>>>>>>>> providing evidence of non-causality. That's the other sharp >>>>>>>>>> edge - evidence from science giving reason to consider
explanations beyond the reach of science.
Perhaps you could rephrase that? It sounds like gobbledygook. >>>>>>>>>
But we really don't need to wait a thousand years. We can start >>>>>>>>> with one simple question: what has religion produced in the >>>>>>>>> last 2000 years, as far as tangible results about the OOL?
We've got a few books that describe magic poofing. We've got a >>>>>>>>> bunch of fables, like those featuring Coyote. We've got the >>>>>>>>> Dreamtime of Australian Aboriginal people. And at least a few >>>>>>>>> hundred others. None of these seem to be any more reliable than >>>>>>>>> the rest. Why hasn't religion settled on one, or at least a few >>>>>>>>> similar hypotheses? Just because science has been doing other >>>>>>>>> stuff should not have held theologians back from working on this. >>>>>>>>
explanations of even a protocell*.
But I digress. This discussion is a reasonably careful attempt >>>>>>>> to define and delineate epidemiological categories and their
application. Thoughtful opposing contributions welcome. However, >>>>>>>> statements like "sounds like gobbledygook", "magic poofing", and >>>>>>>> "a bunch of fables" are standard TO fare and a lazy category error. >>>>>>>>
I believe you can do better.
I believe, unfortunately, that *you* can't. You ignored the point >>>>>>> entirely. What has religion come up with as an explanation for
the origin of life in the last several thousand years? If it is >>>>>>> indeed a "way of knowing" on par with science, there should be
something you could point to. What is it?
The epistemological categories are intrinsically different, such
that demanding the category of religion (say) provide anything
resembling a scientific explanation of OOL is to commit a category >>>>>> error.
Science provides 'how' knowledge within its domain. Religion is
not expected to provide the how of life, rather the who and why.
How does religion supply the who and why? How do we determine
whether the claim can be believed?
See my end comment.
And I will note that this is the first time you've separated "what" >>>>> from "who" and "why". The research you've been trying to find an
alternative to is all about "what", but now you disclaim that
entire field of inquiry, by whatever method.
I'm simply making explicit what I think is generally understood. No-
one is demanding the Bible (or any other religious text) provide a
journal article detailing how God created life, nor is anyone
expecting science to answer metaphysical 'why' questions of meaning
and purpose.
Excellent. Then why are you here claiming that religion can help us
find the origin of life and the course of evolution?
To be clear, I'm not anti-science. Moreover, the world religions
contain mutually exclusive claims, which makes 'religion' as an
alternative source of knowledge problematic.
I'm willing to have a discussion in good faith, including
highlighting the challenges and limitations of my own position.
Are you?
Sure. Again I ask, if there are other "ways of knowing", what are
they, and how do we assess whether their results are true?
As previously touched on, religion's "ways of knowing" (primarily
revelation/faith and existentialism/phenomenology) are generally not
comparable with those of science (primarily empiricism and
rationalism).
And when you say "not comparable" you mean that we have only personal
preference to use in determining whether to believe their claims.
That's not to say that rationalism, for example, is excluded in
relation to knowledge via religion. For example, with Christianity,
circumstantial evidence for the resurrection includes the
transformation of the disciples from fearful individuals to bold
martyrs, the empty tomb, the rapid growth and spread of
Christianity, and the unchanged character and unwavering commitment
of the earliest followers, even when facing suffering and death.
Circumstantial evidence can used to make rational inferences, e.g.
for a verdict in a court of law.
All the same, as I've acknowledged, assessing the mutually exclusive
truth claims of different religions is problematic and personal. I'm
not claiming otherwise.
I should say too that my own faith does not depend on science,
though I do take science seriously.
All of which takes us back to my original proposal: if my "1000
years" scenario eventuates, then rationally that adds impetus to
consider supernatural explanations, even with the challenges
mentioned. You may still declare your own unwillingness to consider
the supernatural, even with the the most compelling "1000 years"
scenario imaginable, and may justify that by claiming that such
explanations are not knowable. I would respond that, at some point,
a refusal to at least explore would betray an a priori commitment to
materialism in the face of scientific evidence. And you may
disagree, and there we would reach a stalemate.
Once more I ask how we would consider supernatural explanations. This
is the heart of your problem.
Did you write this yourself or copy it (uncredited) from elsewhere?
Something like this:
"Assessing the truth claims of world religionsrCoespecially since many
make mutually exclusive claimsrCorequires a careful, multi-layered
approach. Here are several angles you could use, depending on whether
you prioritize philosophy, history, or lived experience:
What if you prioritize empirical, objective verification?
1. Philosophical Coherence
Internal consistency: Does the religionrCOs worldview avoid
contradictions within its own teachings? For example, does its concept
of God, morality, or human purpose hold together logically?
That would be a plus, but a very low bar, and all religions I am
familiar with nevertheless fail at it.
External explanatory power: Does the worldview make sense of the world
we observerCothings like the existence of consciousness, morality, order
in nature, and human longing for meaning?
How would such a world view "make sense" of these things? Again, I know
of no actual instance.
2. Historical Credibility
Origins and development: Are the religionrCOs founding events
historically verifiable or plausible? For example, the historical
resurrection claim in Christianity, the compilation of the QurrCOan in
Islam, or the verifiable life of Siddhartha Gautama in Buddhism.
None of these is historically verifiable as far as I know. How would
they lend credibility to other religious claims, particularly about the origin of life?
Transmission reliability: How well preserved are the original texts
and traditions? Do we have strong textual evidence or is it mostly
late, fragmented, or contradictory?
How is this relevant to the credibility of religious claims?
Miracle claims: These are often central to veracity. Assess whether
they have corroborating witnesses, early testimony, or whether they
look more like legendary accretions.
Don't they all look like legendary accretions?
3. Moral and Existential Fruitfulness
Practical impact: Does following the religion produce consistent moral
transformation in adherents? Not just in isolated saints, but across
broad communities.
From what I can see, it doesn't for any religion. Nor can I see how
this, if true, would add credibility to the claims of that religion.
Human needs: Does the religion adequately address deep existential
questionsrCosuch as the problem of suffering, the need for forgiveness,
or the quest for ultimate meaning?
No religion I know of adequately addresses any of these, other than presenting facile answers that satisfy some people who want them to be
true.
4. Comparative Exclusivity
Since religions make mutually exclusive claims (e.g., monotheism vs.
polytheism, reincarnation vs. resurrection, salvation by grace vs. by
works):
One strategy is critical elimination: examine contradictory claims and
see which stand up better to scrutiny.
How would you do this? Perhaps you could present an example of a
comparison of mutually exclusive claims that leads you to reject one of them.
Another is to explore whether partial truth is possible (religions may
contain overlapping moral or metaphysical truths even if not all are
wholly correct).
Why should overlap be a criterion for truth?
Some adopt a pluralist stance (all religions are different paths to
the same reality), but this itself is a truth claim that often
contradicts what religions themselves say.
5. Personal and Experiential Dimensions
While harder to evaluate objectively, many believers appeal to lived
religious experience (answered prayer, transformative encounters,
mystical insight).
One can test these experiences against external reality: are they
consistent, verifiable, and not easily reducible to psychological or
cultural explanation?
Sometimes one can, to a certain extent. But have any such claims
survived a rigorous test?
6. Methodological Guardrails
Beware confirmation bias: People often judge religions by the one they
were raised in or by isolated negative experiences with others.
Out of curiosity, were you raised as a Christian?
Use historical method: Treat religious claims with the same standards
yourCOd use for other ancient historical claims (documents, archaeology,
multiple attestation).
That makes a little sense. But Even the existence of Jesus is not all
that well attested, much less any details of his life or ministry.
Certainly nothing of his resurrection.
Balance head and heart: Purely intellectual tests might miss the lived
power of faith, while purely experiential tests might ignore
contradictions."
Is the "lived power of faith" a "way of knowing"? Is it to be relied on?
Okay, we know where we stand. The best we can do then is stick to
discussing science and make our own choices as to where that may lead. >>>>
As for the "1000 years" of OOL, thankfully there's no need to wait,
it's already here, the examples below being just a small sample...
I have no idea what you think "the examples below" are supposed to mean.
Really, no idea?
None. I'll just snip it, since you don't seem to want to say.
On 9/09/2025 4:55 am, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/6/25 7:23 AM, MarkE wrote:
[big snip]
What if science itself identifies non-causal phenomena? Now, if I
understand correctly, you are saying this can never happen; rather,
what may appear to be non-causal can only be categorised as
"currently unexplained naturally".
This is the nub of the issue I think. You seem to have upfront
excluded epistemologies apart from science (as good as it is). This
provides a jusfication to leave it at "currently unexplained
naturally" rather than considering supernatural explanation, because
you assume that there is no other legitimate means of acquiring
knowledge, and the best we can do is park it in the science baskets
of "to do" or "too hard" (which takes us back to 1 above).
Okay, for sake of argument, let us suppose you have identified
something as non-causal, or even unambiguously supernatural.
Then what?
-aFrom a scientific standpoint, you're at a dead end. The main strength
of science is that it lets us make predictions, but you can't do that
with supernatural. Science also typically opens up further areas for
investigation, but here, instead, you're closing them.
Theology isn't helped, either. "Supernatural" does not tell you
anything about the supernatural "cause" either. (In fact, per our
premise, there was no cause.) Even if you take a leap of faith and say
"God did it," you (or maybe everyone else besides you) are left with
the question, which god?
As far as I can see, there are two reasons why someone might want
supernatural explanations. The first is that they might be popular for
the same reason that postmodernism was popular: you get to make up
bullshit, free from all constraints, that a few other people might
even find impressive. The second is that hostile foreign powers might
encourage it as a way to sabotage a nation's economy and power.
Speaking of BS, here's a shovel-full, in the form of naive, misguided, misleading claims and predictions in relation to OoL research:
Jack W. Szostak (Nobel laureate; protocell/OoL pioneer)
rCL[He] hopes that in the next 5rCo10 years they will develop a good nucleic acid replication system and a functioning rCyartificial cell.rCO rCyI think that is a feasible goal in the time I have left,rCO Szostak said.rCY https://nesacs.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/szostak.pdf
Lee Cronin (University of Glasgow; abiogenesis/synthetic life)
Reported soon after his TED talk on rCLinorganic liferCY: rCLHe still hopes to
rCycreate liferCO in the next year or two.rCY (profile feature summarizing CroninrCOs own stated timeline). https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jul/21/chemputer-that-prints- out-drugs?utm_source=chatgpt.com
E||rs Szathm|iry & the ERC MiniLife team (OoL/evolutionary biology)
The grouprCOs aim is near-term and explicit: rCL[Their] aim is to create, for the first time, a living system from completely abiotic componentsrCarCY within a six-year project window (ERC Synergy grant rCLMiniLiferCY). https://www.rug.nl/research/stratingh/news/sijbren-otto-awarded-an-erc- synergy-grant?lang=en&utm_source=chatgpt.com
Gerald F. Joyce (Salk; RNA world/OoL)
On their 2024 RNA-replicase advance enabling Darwinian-like variation,
Joyce said, rCLWerCOre chasing the dawn of evolution,rCY in a release that also states the work brings researchers rCLone step closer to re-creating RNA-based life in the laboratory.rCY https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/03/240304195250.htm? utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.salk.edu/news-release/modeling-the-origins-of-life-new- evidence-for-an-rna-world/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
In contrast to David Deamer's truth-telling, reflecting on 50 years in
the field:
"I would guess we know maybe 1% of what is necessary to understand how
life can begin. The other 99%...well, wherever you look in origins of
life research, there are vast gaps of ignorance that are within the
reach of anyone who wants to try their hand. I identified some of these
gaps in Chapter 11 of my book, Assembling Life. For example, how did
life become homochiral? How were polymers synthesized non-enzymatically
for life to begin? How did metabolism begin? How was light captured in primitive versions of photosynthesis? Where did ribosomes come from and
how did the genetic code emerge?"
On Tue, 9 Sep 2025 16:58:54 +1000
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/09/2025 2:19 pm, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 8 Sep 2025 17:35:25 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/09/2025 7:02 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/7/25 6:58 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 7/09/2025 11:25 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/7/25 12:51 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 7/09/2025 12:28 pm, Chris Thompson wrote:
This brings me back to my "1000 years" thought exercise. If that
scenario did play out, it would be an instance of science
providing evidence of non-causality. That's the other sharp edge - >> >>>>>>>> evidence from science giving reason to consider explanations
beyond the reach of science.
Well, let's say you win, and the exact sequence of the OoL is unknowable
by science. So you've got a smoking gun: God did it. But how? why? which
god, and is is the sort that requires constant prayers? Doesn't help a
bit, IMHO.
But however He did it, he really does seem to be a sloppy molecular >biologist, and leaving stuff to just evolve seems a bit uncaring to me.
On 9/09/2025 10:54 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/8/25 4:03 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 9/09/2025 5:45 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/8/25 12:35 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 8/09/2025 7:02 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/7/25 6:58 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 7/09/2025 11:25 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/7/25 12:51 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 7/09/2025 12:28 pm, Chris Thompson wrote:
This brings me back to my "1000 years" thought exercise. If >>>>>>>>>>> that scenario did play out, it would be an instance of
science providing evidence of non-causality. That's the other >>>>>>>>>>> sharp edge - evidence from science giving reason to consider >>>>>>>>>>> explanations beyond the reach of science.
Perhaps you could rephrase that? It sounds like gobbledygook. >>>>>>>>>>
But we really don't need to wait a thousand years. We can >>>>>>>>>> start with one simple question: what has religion produced in >>>>>>>>>> the last 2000 years, as far as tangible results about the OOL? >>>>>>>>>> We've got a few books that describe magic poofing. We've got a >>>>>>>>>> bunch of fables, like those featuring Coyote. We've got the >>>>>>>>>> Dreamtime of Australian Aboriginal people. And at least a few >>>>>>>>>> hundred others. None of these seem to be any more reliable >>>>>>>>>> than the rest. Why hasn't religion settled on one, or at least >>>>>>>>>> a few similar hypotheses? Just because science has been doing >>>>>>>>>> other stuff should not have held theologians back from working >>>>>>>>>> on this.
I agree that we don't need to wait 1000 years, that's an overly >>>>>>>>> conservative number for the exercise. OOL research is already >>>>>>>>> progressively revealing inadequacies in naturalistic
explanations of even a protocell*.
But I digress. This discussion is a reasonably careful attempt >>>>>>>>> to define and delineate epidemiological categories and their >>>>>>>>> application. Thoughtful opposing contributions welcome.
However, statements like "sounds like gobbledygook", "magic >>>>>>>>> poofing", and "a bunch of fables" are standard TO fare and a >>>>>>>>> lazy category error.
I believe you can do better.
I believe, unfortunately, that *you* can't. You ignored the
point entirely. What has religion come up with as an explanation >>>>>>>> for the origin of life in the last several thousand years? If it >>>>>>>> is indeed a "way of knowing" on par with science, there should >>>>>>>> be something you could point to. What is it?
The epistemological categories are intrinsically different, such >>>>>>> that demanding the category of religion (say) provide anything
resembling a scientific explanation of OOL is to commit a
category error.
Science provides 'how' knowledge within its domain. Religion is >>>>>>> not expected to provide the how of life, rather the who and why.
How does religion supply the who and why? How do we determine
whether the claim can be believed?
See my end comment.
And I will note that this is the first time you've separated
"what" from "who" and "why". The research you've been trying to
find an alternative to is all about "what", but now you disclaim
that entire field of inquiry, by whatever method.
I'm simply making explicit what I think is generally understood.
No- one is demanding the Bible (or any other religious text)
provide a journal article detailing how God created life, nor is
anyone expecting science to answer metaphysical 'why' questions of
meaning and purpose.
Excellent. Then why are you here claiming that religion can help us
find the origin of life and the course of evolution?
To be clear, I'm not anti-science. Moreover, the world religions >>>>>>> contain mutually exclusive claims, which makes 'religion' as an >>>>>>> alternative source of knowledge problematic.
I'm willing to have a discussion in good faith, including
highlighting the challenges and limitations of my own position.
Are you?
Sure. Again I ask, if there are other "ways of knowing", what are >>>>>> they, and how do we assess whether their results are true?
As previously touched on, religion's "ways of knowing" (primarily
revelation/faith and existentialism/phenomenology) are generally
not comparable with those of science (primarily empiricism and
rationalism).
And when you say "not comparable" you mean that we have only
personal preference to use in determining whether to believe their
claims.
That's not to say that rationalism, for example, is excluded in
relation to knowledge via religion. For example, with Christianity, >>>>> circumstantial evidence for the resurrection includes the
transformation of the disciples from fearful individuals to bold
martyrs, the empty tomb, the rapid growth and spread of
Christianity, and the unchanged character and unwavering commitment >>>>> of the earliest followers, even when facing suffering and death.
Circumstantial evidence can used to make rational inferences, e.g.
for a verdict in a court of law.
All the same, as I've acknowledged, assessing the mutually
exclusive truth claims of different religions is problematic and
personal. I'm not claiming otherwise.
I should say too that my own faith does not depend on science,
though I do take science seriously.
All of which takes us back to my original proposal: if my "1000
years" scenario eventuates, then rationally that adds impetus to
consider supernatural explanations, even with the challenges
mentioned. You may still declare your own unwillingness to consider >>>>> the supernatural, even with the the most compelling "1000 years"
scenario imaginable, and may justify that by claiming that such
explanations are not knowable. I would respond that, at some point, >>>>> a refusal to at least explore would betray an a priori commitment
to materialism in the face of scientific evidence. And you may
disagree, and there we would reach a stalemate.
Once more I ask how we would consider supernatural explanations.
This is the heart of your problem.
Did you write this yourself or copy it (uncredited) from elsewhere?
ChatGPT, hence the opening and closing quotes, but easy to miss (and normally I note use of AI). However, it is a quick indicative framework
that I generally agree with.
I get your questions and concerns. It is very different approach to what science offers. Given the choice, I'll take empirical, objective verification as well. But that's just not how it works. And not to avoid
the issues raised, but each point requires more time than I have
available at the moment (it's midnight and I've got more work to do).
Something like this:
"Assessing the truth claims of world religionsrCoespecially since many
make mutually exclusive claimsrCorequires a careful, multi-layered
approach. Here are several angles you could use, depending on whether
you prioritize philosophy, history, or lived experience:
What if you prioritize empirical, objective verification?
1. Philosophical Coherence
Internal consistency: Does the religionrCOs worldview avoid
contradictions within its own teachings? For example, does its
concept of God, morality, or human purpose hold together logically?
That would be a plus, but a very low bar, and all religions I am
familiar with nevertheless fail at it.
External explanatory power: Does the worldview make sense of the
world we observerCothings like the existence of consciousness,
morality, order in nature, and human longing for meaning?
How would such a world view "make sense" of these things? Again, I
know of no actual instance.
2. Historical Credibility
Origins and development: Are the religionrCOs founding events
historically verifiable or plausible? For example, the historical
resurrection claim in Christianity, the compilation of the QurrCOan in
Islam, or the verifiable life of Siddhartha Gautama in Buddhism.
None of these is historically verifiable as far as I know. How would
they lend credibility to other religious claims, particularly about
the origin of life?
Transmission reliability: How well preserved are the original texts
and traditions? Do we have strong textual evidence or is it mostly
late, fragmented, or contradictory?
How is this relevant to the credibility of religious claims?
Miracle claims: These are often central to veracity. Assess whether
they have corroborating witnesses, early testimony, or whether they
look more like legendary accretions.
Don't they all look like legendary accretions?
3. Moral and Existential Fruitfulness
Practical impact: Does following the religion produce consistent
moral transformation in adherents? Not just in isolated saints, but
across broad communities.
-aFrom what I can see, it doesn't for any religion. Nor can I see how
this, if true, would add credibility to the claims of that religion.
Human needs: Does the religion adequately address deep existential
questionsrCosuch as the problem of suffering, the need for forgiveness, >>> or the quest for ultimate meaning?
No religion I know of adequately addresses any of these, other than
presenting facile answers that satisfy some people who want them to be
true.
4. Comparative Exclusivity
Since religions make mutually exclusive claims (e.g., monotheism vs.
polytheism, reincarnation vs. resurrection, salvation by grace vs. by
works):
One strategy is critical elimination: examine contradictory claims
and see which stand up better to scrutiny.
How would you do this? Perhaps you could present an example of a
comparison of mutually exclusive claims that leads you to reject one
of them.
Another is to explore whether partial truth is possible (religions
may contain overlapping moral or metaphysical truths even if not all
are wholly correct).
Why should overlap be a criterion for truth?
Some adopt a pluralist stance (all religions are different paths to
the same reality), but this itself is a truth claim that often
contradicts what religions themselves say.
5. Personal and Experiential Dimensions
While harder to evaluate objectively, many believers appeal to lived
religious experience (answered prayer, transformative encounters,
mystical insight).
One can test these experiences against external reality: are they
consistent, verifiable, and not easily reducible to psychological or
cultural explanation?
Sometimes one can, to a certain extent. But have any such claims
survived a rigorous test?
6. Methodological Guardrails
Beware confirmation bias: People often judge religions by the one
they were raised in or by isolated negative experiences with others.
Out of curiosity, were you raised as a Christian?
Use historical method: Treat religious claims with the same standards
yourCOd use for other ancient historical claims (documents,
archaeology, multiple attestation).
That makes a little sense. But Even the existence of Jesus is not all
that well attested, much less any details of his life or ministry.
Certainly nothing of his resurrection.
Balance head and heart: Purely intellectual tests might miss the
lived power of faith, while purely experiential tests might ignore
contradictions."
Is the "lived power of faith" a "way of knowing"? Is it to be relied on?
Okay, we know where we stand. The best we can do then is stick to
discussing science and make our own choices as to where that may lead. >>>>>
As for the "1000 years" of OOL, thankfully there's no need to wait, >>>>> it's already here, the examples below being just a small sample...
I have no idea what you think "the examples below" are supposed to
mean.
Really, no idea?
None. I'll just snip it, since you don't seem to want to say.
On 9/09/2025 2:19 pm, jillery wrote:You have asserted *repeatedly* that it's closed-minded to not consider supernatural explanations as valid alternatives to scientific
On Mon, 8 Sep 2025 17:35:25 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/09/2025 7:02 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/7/25 6:58 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 7/09/2025 11:25 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/7/25 12:51 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 7/09/2025 12:28 pm, Chris Thompson wrote:
This brings me back to my "1000 years" thought exercise. If that >>>>>>>>> scenario did play out, it would be an instance of science
providing evidence of non-causality. That's the other sharp edge - >>>>>>>>> evidence from science giving reason to consider explanations >>>>>>>>> beyond the reach of science.
Perhaps you could rephrase that? It sounds like gobbledygook.
But we really don't need to wait a thousand years. We can start >>>>>>>> with one simple question: what has religion produced in the last >>>>>>>> 2000 years, as far as tangible results about the OOL? We've got a >>>>>>>> few books that describe magic poofing. We've got a bunch of fables, >>>>>>>> like those featuring Coyote. We've got the Dreamtime of Australian >>>>>>>> Aboriginal people. And at least a few hundred others. None of these >>>>>>>> seem to be any more reliable than the rest. Why hasn't religion >>>>>>>> settled on one, or at least a few similar hypotheses? Just because >>>>>>>> science has been doing other stuff should not have held theologians >>>>>>>> back from working on this.
I agree that we don't need to wait 1000 years, that's an overly
conservative number for the exercise. OOL research is already
progressively revealing inadequacies in naturalistic explanations of >>>>>>> even a protocell*.
But I digress. This discussion is a reasonably careful attempt to >>>>>>> define and delineate epidemiological categories and their
application. Thoughtful opposing contributions welcome. However, >>>>>>> statements like "sounds like gobbledygook", "magic poofing", and "a >>>>>>> bunch of fables" are standard TO fare and a lazy category error. >>>>>>>
I believe you can do better.
I believe, unfortunately, that *you* can't. You ignored the point
entirely. What has religion come up with as an explanation for the >>>>>> origin of life in the last several thousand years? If it is indeed a >>>>>> "way of knowing" on par with science, there should be something you >>>>>> could point to. What is it?
The epistemological categories are intrinsically different, such that >>>>> demanding the category of religion (say) provide anything resembling a >>>>> scientific explanation of OOL is to commit a category error.
Science provides 'how' knowledge within its domain. Religion is not
expected to provide the how of life, rather the who and why.
How does religion supply the who and why? How do we determine whether
the claim can be believed?
See my end comment.
And I will note that this is the first time you've separated "what" from >>>> "who" and "why". The research you've been trying to find an alternative >>>> to is all about "what", but now you disclaim that entire field of
inquiry, by whatever method.
I'm simply making explicit what I think is generally understood. No-one
is demanding the Bible (or any other religious text) provide a journal
article detailing how God created life, nor is anyone expecting science
to answer metaphysical 'why' questions of meaning and purpose.
To be clear, I'm not anti-science. Moreover, the world religions
contain mutually exclusive claims, which makes 'religion' as an
alternative source of knowledge problematic.
I'm willing to have a discussion in good faith, including highlighting >>>>> the challenges and limitations of my own position.
Are you?
Sure. Again I ask, if there are other "ways of knowing", what are they, >>>> and how do we assess whether their results are true?
As previously touched on, religion's "ways of knowing" (primarily
revelation/faith and existentialism/phenomenology) are generally not
comparable with those of science (primarily empiricism and rationalism). >>>
That's not to say that rationalism, for example, is excluded in relation >>> to knowledge via religion. For example, with Christianity,
circumstantial evidence for the resurrection includes the transformation >>> of the disciples from fearful individuals to bold martyrs, the empty
tomb, the rapid growth and spread of Christianity, and the unchanged
character and unwavering commitment of the earliest followers, even when >>> facing suffering and death. Circumstantial evidence can used to make
rational inferences, e.g. for a verdict in a court of law.
All the same, as I've acknowledged, assessing the mutually exclusive
truth claims of different religions is problematic and personal. I'm not >>> claiming otherwise.
I should say too that my own faith does not depend on science, though I
do take science seriously.
All of which takes us back to my original proposal: if my "1000 years"
scenario eventuates, then rationally that adds impetus to consider
supernatural explanations, even with the challenges mentioned. You may
still declare your own unwillingness to consider the supernatural, even
with the the most compelling "1000 years" scenario imaginable, and may
justify that by claiming that such explanations are not knowable. I
would respond that, at some point, a refusal to at least explore would
betray an a priori commitment to materialism in the face of scientific
evidence. And you may disagree, and there we would reach a stalemate.
Okay, we know where we stand. The best we can do then is stick to
discussing science and make our own choices as to where that may lead.
As for the "1000 years" of OOL, thankfully there's no need to wait, it's >>> already here, the examples below being just a small sample...
On the one hand, you admit that supernatural explanations and
scientific explanations aren't equivalent, which makes your expressed
line of reasoning a false equivalence, a disingenuous debating tactic.
Not "admit", rather clarify and demonstrate (against considerable
resistance here). The corollary being, it's a category error to demand
that the alternative God-hypothesis function in the same way as science >(which explains the resistance).
Your point is simple enough; any arbitrarily long period of timeOn the other hand, you assert 1000 years of OOL are upon us, when your
examples below actually show that OOL research has only just begun
within my lifetime.
No, I'm not having it both ways. The 1000 years was a conservative
number in a thought experiment to make a point. It was not a suggestion
that OoL rightly has decades or centuries to run before judgment can be
made its progress. I've openly stated previously and recently my opinion >that OoL can be called to account now (e.g. my current thread " David >Deamer: Five Decades of Research on the Question of How Life Can Begin").
To the contrary, your responses above show me that I understand yourOn the gripping hand, you claim to have won the debate, without even
trying to answer the questions you raised, a characteristic typical of
IDeology. Bad form, MarkE.
From my responses above, you can see that you've misconstrued what I'm
saying.
--* For example:
1. The thread here "New" "ideas" on origin of life: "The study finds >>>>>>> liferCOs origin faces severe mathematical challenges".
2. Deeper OOL paradoxes only partially acknowledged, e.g. https:// >>>>>>> link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11084-014-9379-0
3. Or this (https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/HMw_ZoXIIOc/ >>>>>>> m/ nb1u4MD6AAAJ):
This talk is from 2015, though David Deamer's book "Assembling Life" >>>>>>> that is based on this was published in 2019. Note Bruce Damer's call >>>>>>> for a new approach to OoL, and note the uncanny alignment with Tour, >>>>>>> Bains, Long Story Short, etc:
4:29 rCL[OoL research has] been mainly focused on individual solution >>>>>>> chemistry experiments where they want to show polymerization over >>>>>>> here, or they want to show metabolism over here, and Dave and I
believe that it's time for the field to go from incremental progress >>>>>>> to substantial progress. So, these are the four points we've come up >>>>>>> with to make substantial progress in the origin of life, and the >>>>>>> first one is to employ something called system chemistry, having >>>>>>> sufficient complexity so instead of one experiment say about
proteins, now you have an experiment about the encapsulation of
proteins for example, and informational molecules built from
nucleotides in an environment that would say be like an analog of >>>>>>> the early Earth, build a complex experiment. Something we're calling >>>>>>> sufficient complexity, and all of these experiments have to move the >>>>>>> reactions away from equilibrium. And what do we mean by that? Well, >>>>>>> in in your high school chemistry experiments, something starts
foaming something changes color and then the experiment winds down >>>>>>> and stops. Well, life didn't get started that way. Life got started >>>>>>> by a continuous run-up of complexity and building upon in a sense >>>>>>> nature as a ratchet. So we have to figure out how to build
experiments that move will move away from equilibriumrCarCY
6:31 rCLYou can't sit in a laboratory just using glassware. You have >>>>>>> to go to the field. You have to go to hot springs, you have to go to >>>>>>> [rCa] Iceland and come check and sit down and see what the natural >>>>>>> environment is like, rather than being in the ethereal world of pure >>>>>>> reactants and things like thatrCarCY
On 7/09/2025 12:28 pm, Chris Thompson wrote:
This brings me back to my "1000 years" thought exercise. If that
scenario did play out, it would be an instance of science providing
evidence of non-causality. That's the other sharp edge - evidence
from science giving reason to consider explanations beyond the reach
of science.
Perhaps you could rephrase that? It sounds like gobbledygook.
But we really don't need to wait a thousand years. We can start with
one simple question: what has religion produced in the last 2000
years, as far as tangible results about the OOL? We've got a few books
that describe magic poofing. We've got a bunch of fables, like those
featuring Coyote. We've got the Dreamtime of Australian Aboriginal
people. And at least a few hundred others. None of these seem to be
any more reliable than the rest. Why hasn't religion settled on one,
or at least a few similar hypotheses? Just because science has been
doing other stuff should not have held theologians back from working
on this.
I agree that we don't need to wait 1000 years, that's an overly
conservative number for the exercise. OOL research is already
progressively revealing inadequacies in naturalistic explanations of
even a protocell*.
But I digress. This discussion is a reasonably careful attempt to define
and delineate epidemiological categories and their application.
Thoughtful opposing contributions welcome. However, statements like
"sounds like gobbledygook", "magic poofing", and "a bunch of fables" are standard TO fare and a lazy category error.
I believe you can do better.
-------
* For example:
1. The thread here "New" "ideas" on origin of life: "The study finds liferCOs origin faces severe mathematical challenges".
2. Deeper OOL paradoxes only partially acknowledged, e.g. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11084-014-9379-0
3. Or this (https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/HMw_ZoXIIOc/m/nb1u4MD6AAAJ):
This talk is from 2015, though David Deamer's book "Assembling Life"
that is based on this was published in 2019. Note Bruce Damer's call for
a new approach to OoL, and note the uncanny alignment with Tour, Bains,
Long Story Short, etc:
4:29 rCL[OoL research has] been mainly focused on individual solution chemistry experiments where they want to show polymerization over here,
or they want to show metabolism over here, and Dave and I believe that
it's time for the field to go from incremental progress to substantial progress. So, these are the four points we've come up with to make substantial progress in the origin of life, and the first one is to
employ something called system chemistry, having sufficient complexity
so instead of one experiment say about proteins, now you have an
experiment about the encapsulation of proteins for example, and informational molecules built from nucleotides in an environment that
would say be like an analog of the early Earth, build a complex
experiment. Something we're calling sufficient complexity, and all of
these experiments have to move the reactions away from equilibrium. And
what do we mean by that? Well, in in your high school chemistry
experiments, something starts foaming something changes color and then
the experiment winds down and stops. Well, life didn't get started that
way. Life got started by a continuous run-up of complexity and building
upon in a sense nature as a ratchet. So we have to figure out how to
build experiments that move will move away from equilibriumrCarCY
6:31 rCLYou can't sit in a laboratory just using glassware. You have to go to the field. You have to go to hot springs, you have to go to [rCa]
Iceland and come check and sit down and see what the natural environment
is like, rather than being in the ethereal world of pure reactants and things like thatrCarCY
On 9/9/25 7:04 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 9/09/2025 10:54 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/8/25 4:03 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 9/09/2025 5:45 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/8/25 12:35 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 8/09/2025 7:02 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/7/25 6:58 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 7/09/2025 11:25 pm, John Harshman wrote:How does religion supply the who and why? How do we determine
On 9/7/25 12:51 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 7/09/2025 12:28 pm, Chris Thompson wrote:
This brings me back to my "1000 years" thought exercise. If >>>>>>>>>>>> that scenario did play out, it would be an instance of >>>>>>>>>>>> science providing evidence of non-causality. That's the >>>>>>>>>>>> other sharp edge - evidence from science giving reason to >>>>>>>>>>>> consider explanations beyond the reach of science.
Perhaps you could rephrase that? It sounds like gobbledygook. >>>>>>>>>>>
But we really don't need to wait a thousand years. We can >>>>>>>>>>> start with one simple question: what has religion produced in >>>>>>>>>>> the last 2000 years, as far as tangible results about the >>>>>>>>>>> OOL? We've got a few books that describe magic poofing. We've >>>>>>>>>>> got a bunch of fables, like those featuring Coyote. We've got >>>>>>>>>>> the Dreamtime of Australian Aboriginal people. And at least a >>>>>>>>>>> few hundred others. None of these seem to be any more
reliable than the rest. Why hasn't religion settled on one, >>>>>>>>>>> or at least a few similar hypotheses? Just because science >>>>>>>>>>> has been doing other stuff should not have held theologians >>>>>>>>>>> back from working on this.
I agree that we don't need to wait 1000 years, that's an
overly conservative number for the exercise. OOL research is >>>>>>>>>> already progressively revealing inadequacies in naturalistic >>>>>>>>>> explanations of even a protocell*.
But I digress. This discussion is a reasonably careful attempt >>>>>>>>>> to define and delineate epidemiological categories and their >>>>>>>>>> application. Thoughtful opposing contributions welcome.
However, statements like "sounds like gobbledygook", "magic >>>>>>>>>> poofing", and "a bunch of fables" are standard TO fare and a >>>>>>>>>> lazy category error.
I believe you can do better.
I believe, unfortunately, that *you* can't. You ignored the >>>>>>>>> point entirely. What has religion come up with as an
explanation for the origin of life in the last several thousand >>>>>>>>> years? If it is indeed a "way of knowing" on par with science, >>>>>>>>> there should be something you could point to. What is it?
The epistemological categories are intrinsically different, such >>>>>>>> that demanding the category of religion (say) provide anything >>>>>>>> resembling a scientific explanation of OOL is to commit a
category error.
Science provides 'how' knowledge within its domain. Religion is >>>>>>>> not expected to provide the how of life, rather the who and why. >>>>>>>
whether the claim can be believed?
See my end comment.
And I will note that this is the first time you've separated
"what" from "who" and "why". The research you've been trying to >>>>>>> find an alternative to is all about "what", but now you disclaim >>>>>>> that entire field of inquiry, by whatever method.
I'm simply making explicit what I think is generally understood.
No- one is demanding the Bible (or any other religious text)
provide a journal article detailing how God created life, nor is
anyone expecting science to answer metaphysical 'why' questions of >>>>>> meaning and purpose.
Excellent. Then why are you here claiming that religion can help us >>>>> find the origin of life and the course of evolution?
To be clear, I'm not anti-science. Moreover, the world religions >>>>>>>> contain mutually exclusive claims, which makes 'religion' as an >>>>>>>> alternative source of knowledge problematic.
I'm willing to have a discussion in good faith, including
highlighting the challenges and limitations of my own position. >>>>>>>>
Are you?
Sure. Again I ask, if there are other "ways of knowing", what are >>>>>>> they, and how do we assess whether their results are true?
As previously touched on, religion's "ways of knowing" (primarily >>>>>> revelation/faith and existentialism/phenomenology) are generally
not comparable with those of science (primarily empiricism and
rationalism).
And when you say "not comparable" you mean that we have only
personal preference to use in determining whether to believe their
claims.
That's not to say that rationalism, for example, is excluded in
relation to knowledge via religion. For example, with
Christianity, circumstantial evidence for the resurrection
includes the transformation of the disciples from fearful
individuals to bold martyrs, the empty tomb, the rapid growth and >>>>>> spread of Christianity, and the unchanged character and unwavering >>>>>> commitment of the earliest followers, even when facing suffering
and death. Circumstantial evidence can used to make rational
inferences, e.g. for a verdict in a court of law.
All the same, as I've acknowledged, assessing the mutually
exclusive truth claims of different religions is problematic and
personal. I'm not claiming otherwise.
I should say too that my own faith does not depend on science,
though I do take science seriously.
All of which takes us back to my original proposal: if my "1000
years" scenario eventuates, then rationally that adds impetus to
consider supernatural explanations, even with the challenges
mentioned. You may still declare your own unwillingness to
consider the supernatural, even with the the most compelling "1000 >>>>>> years" scenario imaginable, and may justify that by claiming that >>>>>> such explanations are not knowable. I would respond that, at some >>>>>> point, a refusal to at least explore would betray an a priori
commitment to materialism in the face of scientific evidence. And >>>>>> you may disagree, and there we would reach a stalemate.
Once more I ask how we would consider supernatural explanations.
This is the heart of your problem.
Did you write this yourself or copy it (uncredited) from elsewhere?
ChatGPT, hence the opening and closing quotes, but easy to miss (and
normally I note use of AI). However, it is a quick indicative
framework that I generally agree with.
Please don't do either of those things: don't post AI slop without
noting it, and don't post AI slop.
I get your questions and concerns. It is very different approach to
what science offers. Given the choice, I'll take empirical, objective
verification as well. But that's just not how it works. And not to
avoid the issues raised, but each point requires more time than I have
available at the moment (it's midnight and I've got more work to do).
Sure. Don't strain yourself. But that's not how what works? And how is
that not avoiding the issues raised?
Something like this:
"Assessing the truth claims of world religionsrCoespecially since many >>>> make mutually exclusive claimsrCorequires a careful, multi-layered
approach. Here are several angles you could use, depending on
whether you prioritize philosophy, history, or lived experience:
What if you prioritize empirical, objective verification?
1. Philosophical Coherence
Internal consistency: Does the religionrCOs worldview avoid
contradictions within its own teachings? For example, does its
concept of God, morality, or human purpose hold together logically?
That would be a plus, but a very low bar, and all religions I am
familiar with nevertheless fail at it.
External explanatory power: Does the worldview make sense of the
world we observerCothings like the existence of consciousness,
morality, order in nature, and human longing for meaning?
How would such a world view "make sense" of these things? Again, I
know of no actual instance.
2. Historical Credibility
Origins and development: Are the religionrCOs founding events
historically verifiable or plausible? For example, the historical
resurrection claim in Christianity, the compilation of the QurrCOan in >>>> Islam, or the verifiable life of Siddhartha Gautama in Buddhism.
None of these is historically verifiable as far as I know. How would
they lend credibility to other religious claims, particularly about
the origin of life?
Transmission reliability: How well preserved are the original texts
and traditions? Do we have strong textual evidence or is it mostly
late, fragmented, or contradictory?
How is this relevant to the credibility of religious claims?
Miracle claims: These are often central to veracity. Assess whether
they have corroborating witnesses, early testimony, or whether they
look more like legendary accretions.
Don't they all look like legendary accretions?
3. Moral and Existential Fruitfulness
Practical impact: Does following the religion produce consistent
moral transformation in adherents? Not just in isolated saints, but
across broad communities.
-aFrom what I can see, it doesn't for any religion. Nor can I see how
this, if true, would add credibility to the claims of that religion.
Human needs: Does the religion adequately address deep existential
questionsrCosuch as the problem of suffering, the need for
forgiveness, or the quest for ultimate meaning?
No religion I know of adequately addresses any of these, other than
presenting facile answers that satisfy some people who want them to
be true.
4. Comparative Exclusivity
Since religions make mutually exclusive claims (e.g., monotheism vs.
polytheism, reincarnation vs. resurrection, salvation by grace vs.
by works):
One strategy is critical elimination: examine contradictory claims
and see which stand up better to scrutiny.
How would you do this? Perhaps you could present an example of a
comparison of mutually exclusive claims that leads you to reject one
of them.
Another is to explore whether partial truth is possible (religions
may contain overlapping moral or metaphysical truths even if not all
are wholly correct).
Why should overlap be a criterion for truth?
Some adopt a pluralist stance (all religions are different paths to
the same reality), but this itself is a truth claim that often
contradicts what religions themselves say.
5. Personal and Experiential Dimensions
While harder to evaluate objectively, many believers appeal to lived
religious experience (answered prayer, transformative encounters,
mystical insight).
One can test these experiences against external reality: are they
consistent, verifiable, and not easily reducible to psychological or
cultural explanation?
Sometimes one can, to a certain extent. But have any such claims
survived a rigorous test?
6. Methodological Guardrails
Beware confirmation bias: People often judge religions by the one
they were raised in or by isolated negative experiences with others.
Out of curiosity, were you raised as a Christian?
Use historical method: Treat religious claims with the same
standards yourCOd use for other ancient historical claims (documents, >>>> archaeology, multiple attestation).
That makes a little sense. But Even the existence of Jesus is not all
that well attested, much less any details of his life or ministry.
Certainly nothing of his resurrection.
Balance head and heart: Purely intellectual tests might miss the
lived power of faith, while purely experiential tests might ignore
contradictions."
Is the "lived power of faith" a "way of knowing"? Is it to be relied on? >>>
Okay, we know where we stand. The best we can do then is stick to >>>>>> discussing science and make our own choices as to where that may
lead.
As for the "1000 years" of OOL, thankfully there's no need to
wait, it's already here, the examples below being just a small
sample...
I have no idea what you think "the examples below" are supposed to
mean.
Really, no idea?
None. I'll just snip it, since you don't seem to want to say.
MarkE wrote:
On 7/09/2025 12:28 pm, Chris Thompson wrote:
This brings me back to my "1000 years" thought exercise. If that
scenario did play out, it would be an instance of science providing
evidence of non-causality. That's the other sharp edge - evidence
from science giving reason to consider explanations beyond the reach
of science.
Perhaps you could rephrase that? It sounds like gobbledygook.
But we really don't need to wait a thousand years. We can start with
one simple question: what has religion produced in the last 2000
years, as far as tangible results about the OOL? We've got a few
books that describe magic poofing. We've got a bunch of fables, like
those featuring Coyote. We've got the Dreamtime of Australian
Aboriginal people. And at least a few hundred others. None of these
seem to be any more reliable than the rest. Why hasn't religion
settled on one, or at least a few similar hypotheses? Just because
science has been doing other stuff should not have held theologians
back from working on this.
I agree that we don't need to wait 1000 years, that's an overly
conservative number for the exercise. OOL research is already
progressively revealing inadequacies in naturalistic explanations of
even a protocell*.
But I digress. This discussion is a reasonably careful attempt to
define and delineate epidemiological categories and their application.
Thoughtful opposing contributions welcome. However, statements like
"sounds like gobbledygook", "magic poofing", and "a bunch of fables"
are standard TO fare and a lazy category error.
I believe you can do better.
I think you're being oversensitive here. I said it sounds like
gobbledegook- meaning I don't get it. That's why I asked for further explanation.
Athena got pissed off and turned Arachne into a spider. How is that not "magic poofing"?
A fable is a category of story that features anthropomorphic animals or plants, and has some kind of moral that's made clear at the end. Are you really saying creation stories don't have fables associated with them?
Chris
-------
* For example:
1. The thread here "New" "ideas" on origin of life: "The study finds
liferCOs origin faces severe mathematical challenges".
2. Deeper OOL paradoxes only partially acknowledged, e.g. https://
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11084-014-9379-0
3. Or this (https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/HMw_ZoXIIOc/m/
nb1u4MD6AAAJ):
This talk is from 2015, though David Deamer's book "Assembling Life"
that is based on this was published in 2019. Note Bruce Damer's call
for a new approach to OoL, and note the uncanny alignment with Tour,
Bains, Long Story Short, etc:
4:29 rCL[OoL research has] been mainly focused on individual solution
chemistry experiments where they want to show polymerization over
here, or they want to show metabolism over here, and Dave and I
believe that it's time for the field to go from incremental progress
to substantial progress. So, these are the four points we've come up
with to make substantial progress in the origin of life, and the first
one is to employ something called system chemistry, having sufficient
complexity so instead of one experiment say about proteins, now you
have an experiment about the encapsulation of proteins for example,
and informational molecules built from nucleotides in an environment
that would say be like an analog of the early Earth, build a complex
experiment. Something we're calling sufficient complexity, and all of
these experiments have to move the reactions away from equilibrium.
And what do we mean by that? Well, in in your high school chemistry
experiments, something starts foaming something changes color and then
the experiment winds down and stops. Well, life didn't get started
that way. Life got started by a continuous run-up of complexity and
building upon in a sense nature as a ratchet. So we have to figure out
how to build experiments that move will move away from equilibriumrCarCY
6:31 rCLYou can't sit in a laboratory just using glassware. You have to
go to the field. You have to go to hot springs, you have to go to [rCa]
Iceland and come check and sit down and see what the natural
environment is like, rather than being in the ethereal world of pure
reactants and things like thatrCarCY
On 09/09/2025 01:05, MarkE wrote:
On 9/09/2025 4:55 am, Mark Isaak wrote:How much of the literature on synthetic life have you read?
On 9/6/25 7:23 AM, MarkE wrote:
[big snip]
What if science itself identifies non-causal phenomena? Now, if I
understand correctly, you are saying this can never happen; rather,
what may appear to be non-causal can only be categorised as
"currently unexplained naturally".
This is the nub of the issue I think. You seem to have upfront
excluded epistemologies apart from science (as good as it is). This
provides a jusfication to leave it at "currently unexplained
naturally" rather than considering supernatural explanation, because
you assume that there is no other legitimate means of acquiring
knowledge, and the best we can do is park it in the science baskets
of "to do" or "too hard" (which takes us back to 1 above).
Okay, for sake of argument, let us suppose you have identified
something as non-causal, or even unambiguously supernatural.
Then what?
-aFrom a scientific standpoint, you're at a dead end. The main
strength of science is that it lets us make predictions, but you
can't do that with supernatural. Science also typically opens up
further areas for investigation, but here, instead, you're closing them. >>>
Theology isn't helped, either. "Supernatural" does not tell you
anything about the supernatural "cause" either. (In fact, per our
premise, there was no cause.) Even if you take a leap of faith and
say "God did it," you (or maybe everyone else besides you) are left
with the question, which god?
As far as I can see, there are two reasons why someone might want
supernatural explanations. The first is that they might be popular
for the same reason that postmodernism was popular: you get to make
up bullshit, free from all constraints, that a few other people might
even find impressive. The second is that hostile foreign powers might
encourage it as a way to sabotage a nation's economy and power.
Speaking of BS, here's a shovel-full, in the form of naive, misguided,
misleading claims and predictions in relation to OoL research:
Jack W. Szostak (Nobel laureate; protocell/OoL pioneer)
rCL[He] hopes that in the next 5rCo10 years they will develop a good
nucleic acid replication system and a functioning rCyartificial cell.rCO
rCyI think that is a feasible goal in the time I have left,rCO Szostak said.rCY
https://nesacs.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/szostak.pdf
Lee Cronin (University of Glasgow; abiogenesis/synthetic life)
Reported soon after his TED talk on rCLinorganic liferCY: rCLHe still hopes >> to rCycreate liferCO in the next year or two.rCY (profile feature
summarizing CroninrCOs own stated timeline).
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jul/21/chemputer-that-prints-
out-drugs?utm_source=chatgpt.com
E||rs Szathm|iry & the ERC MiniLife team (OoL/evolutionary biology)
The grouprCOs aim is near-term and explicit: rCL[Their] aim is to create, >> for the first time, a living system from completely abiotic
componentsrCarCY within a six-year project window (ERC Synergy grant
rCLMiniLiferCY).
https://www.rug.nl/research/stratingh/news/sijbren-otto-awarded-an-
erc- synergy-grant?lang=en&utm_source=chatgpt.com
Gerald F. Joyce (Salk; RNA world/OoL)
On their 2024 RNA-replicase advance enabling Darwinian-like variation,
Joyce said, rCLWerCOre chasing the dawn of evolution,rCY in a release that >> also states the work brings researchers rCLone step closer to re-
creating RNA-based life in the laboratory.rCY
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/03/240304195250.htm?
utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://www.salk.edu/news-release/modeling-the-origins-of-life-new-
evidence-for-an-rna-world/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
In contrast to David Deamer's truth-telling, reflecting on 50 years in
the field:
"I would guess we know maybe 1% of what is necessary to understand how
life can begin. The other 99%...well, wherever you look in origins of
life research, there are vast gaps of ignorance that are within the
reach of anyone who wants to try their hand. I identified some of
these gaps in Chapter 11 of my book, Assembling Life. For example, how
did life become homochiral? How were polymers synthesized non-
enzymatically for life to begin? How did metabolism begin? How was
light captured in primitive versions of photosynthesis? Where did
ribosomes come from and how did the genetic code emerge?"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_biology#Synthetic_life
While there are connections, directed abiogenesis and spontaneous abiogenesis are different problems.
Within directed abiogenesis there is the design problem and the
construction problem. The design problem can be bypassed by using an
already existing design.
If viruses are considered living, then directed abiogenesis has already
been achieved.
If you insist on a cell, then we can already produce lipid membranes, proteins and nucleic acids (up to full bacterial chromosomes) more or
less abiotically. The question is how to put them together, and how much
you need to kick start metabolism when you put them together. You'd need
a genome, RNA polymerases, ribosomes and the rest of the protein
assembly machinery, and a pool of amino acid monomers, ATP, and trace elements. The unresolved (to my knowledge) is how much can be
bootstrapped through the synthesis and subsequent activity of proteins,
and how much has to be present at the start.
As you can see, while directed abiogenesis still has unresolved problems
the questions you quote from Deamer are not relevant to the question of directed abiogenesis. The statements you dismissed as bullshit at first sight all relate to directed abiogenesis. (On the one hand they're more optimistic than I am - my guess is 25-50 years, provided scientific
advance doesn't stall; on the other hand they're better qualified than
me to make an estimate.)
On 10/09/2025 7:21 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/9/25 7:04 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 9/09/2025 10:54 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/8/25 4:03 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 9/09/2025 5:45 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/8/25 12:35 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 8/09/2025 7:02 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/7/25 6:58 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 7/09/2025 11:25 pm, John Harshman wrote:How does religion supply the who and why? How do we determine >>>>>>>> whether the claim can be believed?
On 9/7/25 12:51 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 7/09/2025 12:28 pm, Chris Thompson wrote:
This brings me back to my "1000 years" thought exercise. If >>>>>>>>>>>>> that scenario did play out, it would be an instance of >>>>>>>>>>>>> science providing evidence of non-causality. That's the >>>>>>>>>>>>> other sharp edge - evidence from science giving reason to >>>>>>>>>>>>> consider explanations beyond the reach of science.
Perhaps you could rephrase that? It sounds like gobbledygook. >>>>>>>>>>>>
But we really don't need to wait a thousand years. We can >>>>>>>>>>>> start with one simple question: what has religion produced >>>>>>>>>>>> in the last 2000 years, as far as tangible results about the >>>>>>>>>>>> OOL? We've got a few books that describe magic poofing. >>>>>>>>>>>> We've got a bunch of fables, like those featuring Coyote. >>>>>>>>>>>> We've got the Dreamtime of Australian Aboriginal people. And >>>>>>>>>>>> at least a few hundred others. None of these seem to be any >>>>>>>>>>>> more reliable than the rest. Why hasn't religion settled on >>>>>>>>>>>> one, or at least a few similar hypotheses? Just because >>>>>>>>>>>> science has been doing other stuff should not have held >>>>>>>>>>>> theologians back from working on this.
I agree that we don't need to wait 1000 years, that's an >>>>>>>>>>> overly conservative number for the exercise. OOL research is >>>>>>>>>>> already progressively revealing inadequacies in naturalistic >>>>>>>>>>> explanations of even a protocell*.
But I digress. This discussion is a reasonably careful
attempt to define and delineate epidemiological categories >>>>>>>>>>> and their application. Thoughtful opposing contributions >>>>>>>>>>> welcome. However, statements like "sounds like gobbledygook", >>>>>>>>>>> "magic poofing", and "a bunch of fables" are standard TO fare >>>>>>>>>>> and a lazy category error.
I believe you can do better.
I believe, unfortunately, that *you* can't. You ignored the >>>>>>>>>> point entirely. What has religion come up with as an
explanation for the origin of life in the last several
thousand years? If it is indeed a "way of knowing" on par with >>>>>>>>>> science, there should be something you could point to. What is >>>>>>>>>> it?
The epistemological categories are intrinsically different, >>>>>>>>> such that demanding the category of religion (say) provide
anything resembling a scientific explanation of OOL is to
commit a category error.
Science provides 'how' knowledge within its domain. Religion is >>>>>>>>> not expected to provide the how of life, rather the who and why. >>>>>>>>
See my end comment.
And I will note that this is the first time you've separated
"what" from "who" and "why". The research you've been trying to >>>>>>>> find an alternative to is all about "what", but now you disclaim >>>>>>>> that entire field of inquiry, by whatever method.
I'm simply making explicit what I think is generally understood. >>>>>>> No- one is demanding the Bible (or any other religious text)
provide a journal article detailing how God created life, nor is >>>>>>> anyone expecting science to answer metaphysical 'why' questions >>>>>>> of meaning and purpose.
Excellent. Then why are you here claiming that religion can help
us find the origin of life and the course of evolution?
To be clear, I'm not anti-science. Moreover, the world
religions contain mutually exclusive claims, which makes
'religion' as an alternative source of knowledge problematic. >>>>>>>>>
I'm willing to have a discussion in good faith, including
highlighting the challenges and limitations of my own position. >>>>>>>>>
Are you?
Sure. Again I ask, if there are other "ways of knowing", what >>>>>>>> are they, and how do we assess whether their results are true?
As previously touched on, religion's "ways of knowing" (primarily >>>>>>> revelation/faith and existentialism/phenomenology) are generally >>>>>>> not comparable with those of science (primarily empiricism and
rationalism).
And when you say "not comparable" you mean that we have only
personal preference to use in determining whether to believe their >>>>>> claims.
That's not to say that rationalism, for example, is excluded in >>>>>>> relation to knowledge via religion. For example, with
Christianity, circumstantial evidence for the resurrection
includes the transformation of the disciples from fearful
individuals to bold martyrs, the empty tomb, the rapid growth and >>>>>>> spread of Christianity, and the unchanged character and
unwavering commitment of the earliest followers, even when facing >>>>>>> suffering and death. Circumstantial evidence can used to make
rational inferences, e.g. for a verdict in a court of law.
All the same, as I've acknowledged, assessing the mutually
exclusive truth claims of different religions is problematic and >>>>>>> personal. I'm not claiming otherwise.
I should say too that my own faith does not depend on science,
though I do take science seriously.
All of which takes us back to my original proposal: if my "1000 >>>>>>> years" scenario eventuates, then rationally that adds impetus to >>>>>>> consider supernatural explanations, even with the challenges
mentioned. You may still declare your own unwillingness to
consider the supernatural, even with the the most compelling
"1000 years" scenario imaginable, and may justify that by
claiming that such explanations are not knowable. I would respond >>>>>>> that, at some point, a refusal to at least explore would betray >>>>>>> an a priori commitment to materialism in the face of scientific >>>>>>> evidence. And you may disagree, and there we would reach a
stalemate.
Once more I ask how we would consider supernatural explanations.
This is the heart of your problem.
Did you write this yourself or copy it (uncredited) from elsewhere?
ChatGPT, hence the opening and closing quotes, but easy to miss (and
normally I note use of AI). However, it is a quick indicative
framework that I generally agree with.
Please don't do either of those things: don't post AI slop without
noting it, and don't post AI slop.
No, AI output is not automatically "slop". In this case, it provided a rather satisfactory and relevant summary in the little time I had
available.
I get your questions and concerns. It is very different approach to
what science offers. Given the choice, I'll take empirical, objective
verification as well. But that's just not how it works. And not to
avoid the issues raised, but each point requires more time than I
have available at the moment (it's midnight and I've got more work to
do).
Sure. Don't strain yourself. But that's not how what works? And how is
that not avoiding the issues raised?
I set boundaries for reasons other than avoidance.
TO is a pretty joyless place for a creationist tbh, in fact for most participants for much of the the time it appears. But I keep coming back because it does offer capable and informed critique of ideas and claims.
In view of that, thanks for your engagement.
Something like this:
"Assessing the truth claims of world religionsrCoespecially since
many make mutually exclusive claimsrCorequires a careful,
multi-layered approach. Here are several angles you could use,
depending on whether you prioritize philosophy, history, or lived
experience:
What if you prioritize empirical, objective verification?
1. Philosophical Coherence
Internal consistency: Does the religionrCOs worldview avoid
contradictions within its own teachings? For example, does its
concept of God, morality, or human purpose hold together logically?
That would be a plus, but a very low bar, and all religions I am
familiar with nevertheless fail at it.
External explanatory power: Does the worldview make sense of the
world we observerCothings like the existence of consciousness,
morality, order in nature, and human longing for meaning?
How would such a world view "make sense" of these things? Again, I
know of no actual instance.
2. Historical Credibility
Origins and development: Are the religionrCOs founding events
historically verifiable or plausible? For example, the historical
resurrection claim in Christianity, the compilation of the QurrCOan >>>>> in Islam, or the verifiable life of Siddhartha Gautama in Buddhism.
None of these is historically verifiable as far as I know. How would
they lend credibility to other religious claims, particularly about
the origin of life?
Transmission reliability: How well preserved are the original texts >>>>> and traditions? Do we have strong textual evidence or is it mostly
late, fragmented, or contradictory?
How is this relevant to the credibility of religious claims?
Miracle claims: These are often central to veracity. Assess whether >>>>> they have corroborating witnesses, early testimony, or whether they >>>>> look more like legendary accretions.
Don't they all look like legendary accretions?
3. Moral and Existential Fruitfulness
Practical impact: Does following the religion produce consistent
moral transformation in adherents? Not just in isolated saints, but >>>>> across broad communities.
-aFrom what I can see, it doesn't for any religion. Nor can I see how >>>> this, if true, would add credibility to the claims of that religion.
Human needs: Does the religion adequately address deep existential
questionsrCosuch as the problem of suffering, the need for
forgiveness, or the quest for ultimate meaning?
No religion I know of adequately addresses any of these, other than
presenting facile answers that satisfy some people who want them to
be true.
4. Comparative Exclusivity
Since religions make mutually exclusive claims (e.g., monotheism
vs. polytheism, reincarnation vs. resurrection, salvation by grace
vs. by works):
One strategy is critical elimination: examine contradictory claims
and see which stand up better to scrutiny.
How would you do this? Perhaps you could present an example of a
comparison of mutually exclusive claims that leads you to reject one
of them.
Another is to explore whether partial truth is possible (religions
may contain overlapping moral or metaphysical truths even if not
all are wholly correct).
Why should overlap be a criterion for truth?
Some adopt a pluralist stance (all religions are different paths to >>>>> the same reality), but this itself is a truth claim that often
contradicts what religions themselves say.
5. Personal and Experiential Dimensions
While harder to evaluate objectively, many believers appeal to
lived religious experience (answered prayer, transformative
encounters, mystical insight).
One can test these experiences against external reality: are they
consistent, verifiable, and not easily reducible to psychological
or cultural explanation?
Sometimes one can, to a certain extent. But have any such claims
survived a rigorous test?
6. Methodological Guardrails
Beware confirmation bias: People often judge religions by the one
they were raised in or by isolated negative experiences with others.
Out of curiosity, were you raised as a Christian?
Use historical method: Treat religious claims with the same
standards yourCOd use for other ancient historical claims (documents, >>>>> archaeology, multiple attestation).
That makes a little sense. But Even the existence of Jesus is not
all that well attested, much less any details of his life or
ministry. Certainly nothing of his resurrection.
Balance head and heart: Purely intellectual tests might miss the
lived power of faith, while purely experiential tests might ignore
contradictions."
Is the "lived power of faith" a "way of knowing"? Is it to be relied
on?
Okay, we know where we stand. The best we can do then is stick to >>>>>>> discussing science and make our own choices as to where that may >>>>>>> lead.
As for the "1000 years" of OOL, thankfully there's no need to
wait, it's already here, the examples below being just a small
sample...
I have no idea what you think "the examples below" are supposed to >>>>>> mean.
Really, no idea?
None. I'll just snip it, since you don't seem to want to say.
On 10/09/2025 12:53 pm, Chris Thompson wrote:
MarkE wrote:
On 7/09/2025 12:28 pm, Chris Thompson wrote:
This brings me back to my "1000 years" thought exercise. If that
scenario did play out, it would be an instance of science providing >>>>> evidence of non-causality. That's the other sharp edge - evidence
from science giving reason to consider explanations beyond the
reach of science.
Perhaps you could rephrase that? It sounds like gobbledygook.
But we really don't need to wait a thousand years. We can start with
one simple question: what has religion produced in the last 2000
years, as far as tangible results about the OOL? We've got a few
books that describe magic poofing. We've got a bunch of fables, like
those featuring Coyote. We've got the Dreamtime of Australian
Aboriginal people. And at least a few hundred others. None of these
seem to be any more reliable than the rest. Why hasn't religion
settled on one, or at least a few similar hypotheses? Just because
science has been doing other stuff should not have held theologians
back from working on this.
I agree that we don't need to wait 1000 years, that's an overly
conservative number for the exercise. OOL research is already
progressively revealing inadequacies in naturalistic explanations of
even a protocell*.
But I digress. This discussion is a reasonably careful attempt to
define and delineate epidemiological categories and their
application. Thoughtful opposing contributions welcome. However,
statements like "sounds like gobbledygook", "magic poofing", and "a
bunch of fables" are standard TO fare and a lazy category error.
I believe you can do better.
I think you're being oversensitive here. I said it sounds like
gobbledegook- meaning I don't get it. That's why I asked for further
explanation.
Athena got pissed off and turned Arachne into a spider. How is that
not "magic poofing"?
A fable is a category of story that features anthropomorphic animals
or plants, and has some kind of moral that's made clear at the end.
Are you really saying creation stories don't have fables associated
with them?
Chris
To use an Australian idiom, yeah nah. I'm not being oversensitive - it's business as usual for TO. Rather, your tone gives you away. But I do
think you can do better.
-------
* For example:
1. The thread here "New" "ideas" on origin of life: "The study finds
liferCOs origin faces severe mathematical challenges".
2. Deeper OOL paradoxes only partially acknowledged, e.g. https://
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11084-014-9379-0
3. Or this (https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/HMw_ZoXIIOc/m/
nb1u4MD6AAAJ):
This talk is from 2015, though David Deamer's book "Assembling Life"
that is based on this was published in 2019. Note Bruce Damer's call
for a new approach to OoL, and note the uncanny alignment with Tour,
Bains, Long Story Short, etc:
4:29 rCL[OoL research has] been mainly focused on individual solution
chemistry experiments where they want to show polymerization over
here, or they want to show metabolism over here, and Dave and I
believe that it's time for the field to go from incremental progress
to substantial progress. So, these are the four points we've come up
with to make substantial progress in the origin of life, and the
first one is to employ something called system chemistry, having
sufficient complexity so instead of one experiment say about
proteins, now you have an experiment about the encapsulation of
proteins for example, and informational molecules built from
nucleotides in an environment that would say be like an analog of the
early Earth, build a complex experiment. Something we're calling
sufficient complexity, and all of these experiments have to move the
reactions away from equilibrium. And what do we mean by that? Well,
in in your high school chemistry experiments, something starts
foaming something changes color and then the experiment winds down
and stops. Well, life didn't get started that way. Life got started
by a continuous run-up of complexity and building upon in a sense
nature as a ratchet. So we have to figure out how to build
experiments that move will move away from equilibriumrCarCY
6:31 rCLYou can't sit in a laboratory just using glassware. You have to >>> go to the field. You have to go to hot springs, you have to go to [rCa] >>> Iceland and come check and sit down and see what the natural
environment is like, rather than being in the ethereal world of pure
reactants and things like thatrCarCY
On 10/09/2025 12:53 pm, Chris Thompson wrote:
MarkE wrote:
On 7/09/2025 12:28 pm, Chris Thompson wrote:
This brings me back to my "1000 years" thought exercise. If that
scenario did play out, it would be an instance of science providing >>>>> evidence of non-causality. That's the other sharp edge - evidence
from science giving reason to consider explanations beyond the
reach of science.
Perhaps you could rephrase that? It sounds like gobbledygook.
But we really don't need to wait a thousand years. We can start with
one simple question: what has religion produced in the last 2000
years, as far as tangible results about the OOL? We've got a few
books that describe magic poofing. We've got a bunch of fables, like
those featuring Coyote. We've got the Dreamtime of Australian
Aboriginal people. And at least a few hundred others. None of these
seem to be any more reliable than the rest. Why hasn't religion
settled on one, or at least a few similar hypotheses? Just because
science has been doing other stuff should not have held theologians
back from working on this.
I agree that we don't need to wait 1000 years, that's an overly
conservative number for the exercise. OOL research is already
progressively revealing inadequacies in naturalistic explanations of
even a protocell*.
But I digress. This discussion is a reasonably careful attempt to
define and delineate epidemiological categories and their
application. Thoughtful opposing contributions welcome. However,
statements like "sounds like gobbledygook", "magic poofing", and "a
bunch of fables" are standard TO fare and a lazy category error.
I believe you can do better.
I think you're being oversensitive here. I said it sounds like
gobbledegook- meaning I don't get it. That's why I asked for further
explanation.
Athena got pissed off and turned Arachne into a spider. How is that
not "magic poofing"?
A fable is a category of story that features anthropomorphic animals
or plants, and has some kind of moral that's made clear at the end.
Are you really saying creation stories don't have fables associated
with them?
Chris
To use an Australian idiom, yeah nah. I'm not being oversensitive - it's business as usual for TO. Rather, your tone gives you away. But I do
think you can do better.
-------
* For example:
1. The thread here "New" "ideas" on origin of life: "The study finds
liferCOs origin faces severe mathematical challenges".
2. Deeper OOL paradoxes only partially acknowledged, e.g. https://
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11084-014-9379-0
3. Or this (https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/HMw_ZoXIIOc/m/
nb1u4MD6AAAJ):
This talk is from 2015, though David Deamer's book "Assembling Life"
that is based on this was published in 2019. Note Bruce Damer's call
for a new approach to OoL, and note the uncanny alignment with Tour,
Bains, Long Story Short, etc:
4:29 rCL[OoL research has] been mainly focused on individual solution
chemistry experiments where they want to show polymerization over
here, or they want to show metabolism over here, and Dave and I
believe that it's time for the field to go from incremental progress
to substantial progress. So, these are the four points we've come up
with to make substantial progress in the origin of life, and the
first one is to employ something called system chemistry, having
sufficient complexity so instead of one experiment say about
proteins, now you have an experiment about the encapsulation of
proteins for example, and informational molecules built from
nucleotides in an environment that would say be like an analog of the
early Earth, build a complex experiment. Something we're calling
sufficient complexity, and all of these experiments have to move the
reactions away from equilibrium. And what do we mean by that? Well,
in in your high school chemistry experiments, something starts
foaming something changes color and then the experiment winds down
and stops. Well, life didn't get started that way. Life got started
by a continuous run-up of complexity and building upon in a sense
nature as a ratchet. So we have to figure out how to build
experiments that move will move away from equilibriumrCarCY
6:31 rCLYou can't sit in a laboratory just using glassware. You have to >>> go to the field. You have to go to hot springs, you have to go to [rCa] >>> Iceland and come check and sit down and see what the natural
environment is like, rather than being in the ethereal world of pure
reactants and things like thatrCarCY
MarkE wrote:
On 10/09/2025 12:53 pm, Chris Thompson wrote:
MarkE wrote:
On 7/09/2025 12:28 pm, Chris Thompson wrote:
This brings me back to my "1000 years" thought exercise. If that
scenario did play out, it would be an instance of science
providing evidence of non-causality. That's the other sharp edge - >>>>>> evidence from science giving reason to consider explanations
beyond the reach of science.
Perhaps you could rephrase that? It sounds like gobbledygook.
But we really don't need to wait a thousand years. We can start
with one simple question: what has religion produced in the last
2000 years, as far as tangible results about the OOL? We've got a
few books that describe magic poofing. We've got a bunch of fables, >>>>> like those featuring Coyote. We've got the Dreamtime of Australian
Aboriginal people. And at least a few hundred others. None of these >>>>> seem to be any more reliable than the rest. Why hasn't religion
settled on one, or at least a few similar hypotheses? Just because
science has been doing other stuff should not have held theologians >>>>> back from working on this.
I agree that we don't need to wait 1000 years, that's an overly
conservative number for the exercise. OOL research is already
progressively revealing inadequacies in naturalistic explanations of
even a protocell*.
But I digress. This discussion is a reasonably careful attempt to
define and delineate epidemiological categories and their
application. Thoughtful opposing contributions welcome. However,
statements like "sounds like gobbledygook", "magic poofing", and "a
bunch of fables" are standard TO fare and a lazy category error.
I believe you can do better.
I think you're being oversensitive here. I said it sounds like
gobbledegook- meaning I don't get it. That's why I asked for further
explanation.
Athena got pissed off and turned Arachne into a spider. How is that
not "magic poofing"?
A fable is a category of story that features anthropomorphic animals
or plants, and has some kind of moral that's made clear at the end.
Are you really saying creation stories don't have fables associated
with them?
Chris
To use an Australian idiom, yeah nah. I'm not being oversensitive -
it's business as usual for TO. Rather, your tone gives you away. But I
do think you can do better.
OK Substitute "divine transformation" for "magic poofing". I stand by
the use of "fable" though. It's a legitimate, recognized term for a narrative with particular characteristics.
Can you please answer my question now?
Chris
-------
* For example:
1. The thread here "New" "ideas" on origin of life: "The study finds
liferCOs origin faces severe mathematical challenges".
2. Deeper OOL paradoxes only partially acknowledged, e.g. https://
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11084-014-9379-0
3. Or this (https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/HMw_ZoXIIOc/
m/ nb1u4MD6AAAJ):
This talk is from 2015, though David Deamer's book "Assembling Life"
that is based on this was published in 2019. Note Bruce Damer's call
for a new approach to OoL, and note the uncanny alignment with Tour,
Bains, Long Story Short, etc:
4:29 rCL[OoL research has] been mainly focused on individual solution >>>> chemistry experiments where they want to show polymerization over
here, or they want to show metabolism over here, and Dave and I
believe that it's time for the field to go from incremental progress
to substantial progress. So, these are the four points we've come up
with to make substantial progress in the origin of life, and the
first one is to employ something called system chemistry, having
sufficient complexity so instead of one experiment say about
proteins, now you have an experiment about the encapsulation of
proteins for example, and informational molecules built from
nucleotides in an environment that would say be like an analog of
the early Earth, build a complex experiment. Something we're calling
sufficient complexity, and all of these experiments have to move the
reactions away from equilibrium. And what do we mean by that? Well,
in in your high school chemistry experiments, something starts
foaming something changes color and then the experiment winds down
and stops. Well, life didn't get started that way. Life got started
by a continuous run-up of complexity and building upon in a sense
nature as a ratchet. So we have to figure out how to build
experiments that move will move away from equilibriumrCarCY
6:31 rCLYou can't sit in a laboratory just using glassware. You have
to go to the field. You have to go to hot springs, you have to go to
[rCa] Iceland and come check and sit down and see what the natural
environment is like, rather than being in the ethereal world of pure
reactants and things like thatrCarCY
On 9/10/25 4:54 AM, MarkE wrote:
TO is a pretty joyless place for a creationist tbh, in fact for most
participants for much of the the time it appears. But I keep coming
back because it does offer capable and informed critique of ideas and
claims. In view of that, thanks for your engagement.
You're a creationist? What sort?
On 10/09/2025 11:26 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/10/25 4:54 AM, MarkE wrote:
...
TO is a pretty joyless place for a creationist tbh, in fact for most
participants for much of the the time it appears. But I keep coming
back because it does offer capable and informed critique of ideas and
claims. In view of that, thanks for your engagement.
You're a creationist? What sort?
OEC, reasonably aligned with ID but with some reservations.
Theistic evolution seems problematic to me, though Biologos makes a go
of it.
Progressive Creation with Reasons To Believe attempts to reconcile
various factors.
YEC...well, yes. In my own experience, a mix of sincere advocates with simplistic prepackaged science, and outspoken and dogmatic individuals.
On 10/09/2025 11:26 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/10/25 4:54 AM, MarkE wrote:
...
TO is a pretty joyless place for a creationist tbh, in fact for most
participants for much of the the time it appears. But I keep coming
back because it does offer capable and informed critique of ideas and
claims. In view of that, thanks for your engagement.
You're a creationist? What sort?
OEC, reasonably aligned with ID but with some reservations.
Theistic evolution seems problematic to me, though Biologos makes a go
of it.
Progressive Creation with Reasons To Believe attempts to reconcile
various factors.
YEC...well, yes. In my own experience, a mix of sincere advocates with simplistic prepackaged science, and outspoken and dogmatic individuals.
On 11/09/2025 12:48 am, Chris Thompson wrote:
MarkE wrote:
On 10/09/2025 12:53 pm, Chris Thompson wrote:
MarkE wrote:
On 7/09/2025 12:28 pm, Chris Thompson wrote:
This brings me back to my "1000 years" thought exercise. If that >>>>>>> scenario did play out, it would be an instance of science
providing evidence of non-causality. That's the other sharp edge >>>>>>> - evidence from science giving reason to consider explanations
beyond the reach of science.
Perhaps you could rephrase that? It sounds like gobbledygook.
But we really don't need to wait a thousand years. We can start
with one simple question: what has religion produced in the last
2000 years, as far as tangible results about the OOL? We've got a >>>>>> few books that describe magic poofing. We've got a bunch of
fables, like those featuring Coyote. We've got the Dreamtime of
Australian Aboriginal people. And at least a few hundred others.
None of these seem to be any more reliable than the rest. Why
hasn't religion settled on one, or at least a few similar
hypotheses? Just because science has been doing other stuff should >>>>>> not have held theologians back from working on this.
I agree that we don't need to wait 1000 years, that's an overly
conservative number for the exercise. OOL research is already
progressively revealing inadequacies in naturalistic explanations
of even a protocell*.
But I digress. This discussion is a reasonably careful attempt to
define and delineate epidemiological categories and their
application. Thoughtful opposing contributions welcome. However,
statements like "sounds like gobbledygook", "magic poofing", and "a >>>>> bunch of fables" are standard TO fare and a lazy category error.
I believe you can do better.
I think you're being oversensitive here. I said it sounds like
gobbledegook- meaning I don't get it. That's why I asked for further
explanation.
Athena got pissed off and turned Arachne into a spider. How is that
not "magic poofing"?
A fable is a category of story that features anthropomorphic animals
or plants, and has some kind of moral that's made clear at the end.
Are you really saying creation stories don't have fables associated
with them?
Chris
To use an Australian idiom, yeah nah. I'm not being oversensitive -
it's business as usual for TO. Rather, your tone gives you away. But
I do think you can do better.
OK Substitute "divine transformation" for "magic poofing". I stand by
the use of "fable" though. It's a legitimate, recognized term for a
narrative with particular characteristics.
Can you please answer my question now?
This question? "What has religion produced in the last 2000 years, as
far as tangible results about the OOL?"
As I commented to JH, no-one is expecting the Bible (or any other
religious text) provide a journal article detailing how God created
life, nor is anyone asking science to answer metaphysical 'why'
questions of meaning and purpose. They are different knowledge domains
with different (though overlapping) ways of approaching knowledge.
That's in no way being evasive. It is very different approach to what science offers. Given the choice, I'll take empirical, objective verification as well. But that's just not how it works.
Chris
-------
* For example:
1. The thread here "New" "ideas" on origin of life: "The study
finds liferCOs origin faces severe mathematical challenges".
2. Deeper OOL paradoxes only partially acknowledged, e.g. https://
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11084-014-9379-0
3. Or this (https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/HMw_ZoXIIOc/ >>>>> m/ nb1u4MD6AAAJ):
This talk is from 2015, though David Deamer's book "Assembling
Life" that is based on this was published in 2019. Note Bruce
Damer's call for a new approach to OoL, and note the uncanny
alignment with Tour, Bains, Long Story Short, etc:
4:29 rCL[OoL research has] been mainly focused on individual solution >>>>> chemistry experiments where they want to show polymerization over
here, or they want to show metabolism over here, and Dave and I
believe that it's time for the field to go from incremental
progress to substantial progress. So, these are the four points
we've come up with to make substantial progress in the origin of
life, and the first one is to employ something called system
chemistry, having sufficient complexity so instead of one
experiment say about proteins, now you have an experiment about the >>>>> encapsulation of proteins for example, and informational molecules
built from nucleotides in an environment that would say be like an
analog of the early Earth, build a complex experiment. Something
we're calling sufficient complexity, and all of these experiments
have to move the reactions away from equilibrium. And what do we
mean by that? Well, in in your high school chemistry experiments,
something starts foaming something changes color and then the
experiment winds down and stops. Well, life didn't get started that >>>>> way. Life got started by a continuous run-up of complexity and
building upon in a sense nature as a ratchet. So we have to figure
out how to build experiments that move will move away from
equilibriumrCarCY
6:31 rCLYou can't sit in a laboratory just using glassware. You have >>>>> to go to the field. You have to go to hot springs, you have to go
to [rCa] Iceland and come check and sit down and see what the natural >>>>> environment is like, rather than being in the ethereal world of
pure reactants and things like thatrCarCY
This brings me back to my "1000 years" thought exercise. If that
scenario did play out, it would be an instance of science providing
evidence of non-causality. That's the other sharp edge - evidence from >science giving reason to consider explanations beyond the reach of science.
Science provides 'how' knowledge within its domain. Religion is not
expected to provide the how of life, rather the who and why.