<HTML>John,
> No need to split hairs, I let my question,
>
> <Could you be so kind, sir, as to shed light on my ignorance
> of modern <abiogenesis or autogenesis theories?
>
> take on an uncalled for sarcasm.
No problem at all as most of my posts are littered with it and I'm not anywhere near as arrogant as some of them might indicate. I do have a BSc in Biochemistry and also a PhD in Biotechnology but I will admit to knowing very, very little about abiogenesis.
> To answer your question:
>
> <Is this a positional statement regarding your own beliefs?
>
> While not intended as a positional statement, I'm sure my
> position is quite obvious.
> My position in regards to evolution/creation lies in the
> seemingly unsolveable riddle of what came first, the creator
> or the creation? Or, leave the creator out of it,
> where/when/how did matter/energy initially come to be?
> I don't discount evolution out of hand. It is an endlessly
> fascinating subject.
> <i>But, given the possibilities that lie in a thorough
> mastery of space/time and physics <b>as WE understand it
> today<b/>, I don't think it is being unduely imaginative or
> speculative to suppose there COULD be an individual that HAS
> the capabilities to engineer space/time.<i/>
I can accept that. As Francis (lone) has also realised there is a general antipathy towards anybody questioning evolution and thats borne out of the general ignorance provided by creation science. As far as I'm concerned evolution has been proven (at least to my own satisfaction anyway) and in almost all cases those that seek to dispute evolution have a rather woolly interpretation of it. I'm not sure if it's even possible to properly understand evolution and also disregard it.
Evolution itself does not rule out the role of a divine creator and even if abiogenesis could be proven (which I admit is currently unlikely) that still doesn't discount the possibility of an influencing spiritual force over the universe. I don't oppose anyone seeking or accepting those notions but good science should be allowed to overule theology - especially within the classroom.
> We, as finite beings find it very hard to imagine infinity.
> What came BEFORE the big bang? And before that?
> We will very likely have to attain the aforementioned mastery
> ourselves to answer this enigma.
Exactly. The mind boggles to think about this stuff and it makes far more sense to believe in a creator influencing the universe. However if the evidence to hand is leading astrophysicists in this direction we'd be fools to neglect it. Whatever science does tho' it will never be able to replace religion or to disprove whatever God you choose to believe in.
> <The irony of this position lies in the axiomatic nature of
> the foundations of ALL knowledge.
> Correct me if I'm wrong here, but aren't there basic axioms
> that are unproveable at the base of all science and math?
> Axioms that must be accepted on faith.
Not sure exactly what you mean by that. I think if someone was forcing modern theories of abiogenesis as fact they'd be out on a limb but if a scientific argument is rooted and proven on the basis of observable information then it is considered a fact.
> <Modern theories on abiogenesis do not require the
> spontaneous <generation of
> <proteins but even so the probability of amino acids randomly
> forming
> <proteins is not as unlikely as you indicate.
>
> I didn't indicate anything, Francis Crick did.
I'm really not really sure where he stands on the issue but, and correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think he actually disputes abiogenesis. Fred Hoyle first raised the issue of the probability of biochemicals randomly arranging themselves in an attempt to prove that there had been insufficient time for it to occur on earth (between the creation of the earth and the evidence for the first few lifeforms). He was, however, seeking to show that life on earth could only have been seeded from space (panspermia theory). I'm still unclear as to whether he believed a creator existed elsewhere in the universe or whether he thought abiogenesis had occured elsewhere (although he was initially convinced of the latter I think he favoured the former).
> <How about calculating the probability that there is an
> intelligent
> <designer responsible for creating life?
>
> I don't have the tools or knowledge to calculate this
> probability.
I suppose that was my point (it's an impossible calculation to make). If you believe in a God tho' you could always claim a probability of 1 based on faith alone.
> I will read up at the links you have given me, Duncan. I AM
> an open minded person, not given to accepting ANYTHING at
> face value.
Thanks. I'm all for having an open mind.
> Evolution seems to be a popular subject around this board.
Discussion on it has only happened in the last week. Normally its very much focused on ancient history. Evolution seems to have filled a void on here.
> Has there been much discussion about <b>"Darwin's Black Box,
> The Bio-Chemical Challenge to Evolution"<b/> by Michael
> Behe? If so, what do you think, and if not, why not?
Not on here. I've read some stuff on Michael Behe on Talk Origins tho'.
<a href=""></a>
<a href="[
www.talkorigins.org] here</a>
Cheers,
Duncan</HTML>
