What Is Life/Non-life in Nature?

self | June 23, 2008 | Vanity

[betty boop]

What is Life/Non-life in Nature?

by Jean F. Drew

Everywhere we see the “behavior” of life/non-life (death) in nature; but that doesn’t tell us what life/non-life IS.

Darwin’s theory of evolution doesn’t help with this question. It presupposes the existence of life axiomatically, and then proceeds to speak of the origin and evolution of species. Its fundamental assumption is that biological evolution is a wholly naturalistic, material process governed by the laws of physics and chemistry, with random variation and natural selection as the principal drivers of the system. Central to the Darwinist view is that life forms — species — evolve into completely other, more complex species; and this is so because all living beings are members of a Tree of Life that is rooted in a single common ancestor (the theory is silent on where the common ancestor came from).

But Darwinist theory doesn’t tell us what life is, or where it came from, just how it evolves (or speciates) under purely materialistic and naturalistic constraints. It is not a theory of life, and I think Darwin would agree with that.

This does not prevent theorists from speculating that, given the preferred scientific cosmology of a material universe of infinite size and unlimited duration — no beginning, no end — anything that can happen, will happen in time. Therefore, it is plausible to suppose that life itself may have originated from random chemical reactions that somehow “lucked out” and “stuck,” giving us the origin of life and its ubiquity and persistence henceforth.

The important point is that Darwinism rests on a certain cosmology, or world view. That worldview is increasingly being falsified by modern physics. (See below.)

It seems doubtful that an investigation carried out at the level of physical chemistry can demonstrate the emergence of life from non-living matter. This is called abiogenesis, which describes the situation where non-life (inorganic matter) spontaneously bootstraps itself into a living organism.

Miller and Urey attempted to demonstrate abiogenesis under laboratory conditions, using simulated lightning strikes on a suitable “pre-biotic soup.” They got a bunch of amino acids. But amino acids are the building blocks of living systems, not living systems themselves.

Wimmer got a better result in his attempt to create a polio virus, a living organism. He actually succeeded! But his “recipe” involved far more than the material “cell-free juice” he used as his culture: He introduced information into the mix: Wimmer began with the information sequence of RNA which he synthesized to DNA (because RNA cannot be synthesized) and then synthesized the message from DNA to RNA. When he added the message to a cell free juice, it began transmitting and duplicating. And he got himself a polio virus — a living being….

But the important thing to bear in mind is that, although Wimmer was successful in creating a living being, he was not the author of the information that led to this result. It was already “there” — and no scientist claims to know its source. Indeed, physics so far has been unable to locate any source for this type of life-generating information within the physical world. In other words, scientists recognize the indispensable requirement of information to living systems, they see that it is indeed “there”; but they cannot say how it got there, or from whence it came.

Consider also that the universe itself seems to be “informed,” in the sense of displaying evidence of some remarkable “fine-tuning” that guides its evolution. Physical chemistry itself rests on, is informed by, deeper principles: the physical laws, which in turn depend on certain ubiquitous universal constants — the speed of light; the value of pi; Plank’s constant; Plank time; the resonance precision required for the existence of carbon (a necessary element for life); the explosive power of the Big Bang precisely matched to the power of gravity (its density precisely matched with the critical density of the universe); the delicate balance in the strong nuclear force; the precise balancing of gravitational force and electromagnetic force; the meticulous balance between the number of electrons and protons; the precision in electromagnetic force and the ratio of proton mass to electron mass and neutron mass to proton mass; the Big Bang’s defiance of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and gravity’s cumulative effect; etc., for examples.

If the universe were at bottom “random” in its evolution, these instances of evident fine-tuning would be inexplicable. The fact is we cannot say whether a system is random or not without knowing its symmetrical properties.

The “fans of random” speak and act as if they think the problem of symmetry is irrelevant to their concerns. Yet to the extent that they recognize the universe conforms to physical laws (and usually they do), the symmetry problem cannot be obviated. For laws demonstrate the property of what mathematicians call symmetry. A symmetry of some mathematical object — and the physical laws are inherently mathematical structures — is any transformation that preserves the object’s structure.

A practical application of the principle of symmetry can be found in Einstein’s observation (in his 1905 paper on Special Relativity, the same that gave us his magnificent unification of mass and energy, e = mc²) that the laws of nature are the same for all observers, regardless of their particular space-time positions.

It is evident that there are symmetries in nature, and also that mathematics has been amazingly successful in teasing them out. A favorite story is Reimann’s geometry of curved spaces. He “created” this geometry at a time when no one believed that geometry could be other than flat (Euclidean). So Reimann put his geometry on the shelf where it sat for about 50 years, gathering dust. Then a friend of Einstein pointed him to Reimann’s geometry (and Ricci’s tensor) as possible keys to the elucidation of the problems of special relativity. And they exactly did the trick.

Indeed, mathematicians have been so good at doing this sort of thing — creating mathematical systems with an eye to symmetry, and finally beauty — that Eugene Wigner marveled about “the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics” in its ability to model and describe nature.

At this point, it seems useful to widen our purview and revisit cosmology, for now we are speaking of the universe as a whole, and cosmology is the branch of knowledge that deals with the universe as an integrated and (some would say) even living system (in some fashion).

Cosmology is conventionally defined as: (1) a branch of philosophy dealing with the origin, processes, and structure of the universe; and (2), the astrophysical study of the structure and constituent dynamics of the universe, with a particular eye on the construction and modeling of a comprehensive theory that describes such structure and dynamics. The latter is the scientific approach. Note that (2) does not explicitly address the question of origin.

Indeed, questions of origin, both of the universe and of life, seem to be troubling to many scientists. Historically, their preferred cosmology has been the eternal universe model, wherein the universe, thought to be infinite in size, just always was, having no beginning or end; it just goes along in periods of expansions and contractions in a sort of self-conserving “boom and bust” cycle forever (no second law of thermodynamics to bother it).

Now in an infinite, eternal universe, anything can happen. And so this “classical perspective” of biology anticipates that the origin of life involves “random chemicals reacting for eons and finally lucking out, resulting in a living cell coming together,” as Harold Morowitz explains it.

But then satellite observations of the cosmic microwave background radiation starting in the 1960s provided striking evidence that the universe actually had a beginning. That is, it is not eternal, and it is not infinite. The CMBR — which is universal in extent — is thought to be the “echo” of the original “big bang,” which constituted the creation event of the universe in which we live, and which powers the cosmic space-time expansion. Thus the universe truly can be thought to have “initial conditions.”

The troubling thing about the big bang/inflationary universe theory is the suggestion that the universe was either created out of nothing, or if it was created out of something, then there’s no way we can detect or prove that cause. Using a “time-reversal symmetry transformation” here — running evolutionary time “backwards” like a videotape played in reverse — the laws of physics break down at the Planck Era — 10^–43 of the first second following the big bang. “Prior” to that, there is no space, no time, no physical laws of nature, no matter; it’s pure nihil: Nothing.

The nothingness “before” the creation of the universe is the most complete void that we can imagine — no space, time or matter existed. It is a world without place, without duration or eternity, without number — it is what the mathematicians call “the empty set.” Yet this unthinkable void converts itself into the plenum of existence — a necessary consequence of physical laws. Where are these laws written into that void? What “tells” the void that it is pregnant with a possible universe? It would seem that even the void is subject to a law, a logic that exists prior to space and time. — Heinz Pagels

Which of course is precisely what Genesis says: The Creation is “ex nihilo,” initiated by and proceeding according to the Word, the Logos of God, Who Is the Law of the Void as well as of the Creation, the “logic that exists prior to space and time.”

Evidently this is not a scientific statement, though I believe it is a truthful one. Still it is true that some physicists (and biologists) find the idea of a beginning of space and time out of nothing deeply disturbing for whatever reason. Taking into effect the evidence that leads to this conclusion, some have sought a “non-theistic” explanation for the phenomenon of the Big Bang. This cosmology grudgingly acknowledges that the universe did have a beginning, postulating its origin as a random fluctuation in a universal quantum vacuum field. But of course, this line of reasoning is silent about where the universal vacuum field itself came from in which a random fluctuation can occur, or how time and space got started so that events can occur in it.

This view (non-theistic cosmogenesis) is fallacious, however, because sudden quantum appearances don’t really take place out of “nothing.” A larger quantum field is first required before this can happen, but a quantum field can hardly be described as being “nothing.” Rather, it is a thing of unsearchable order and complexity, whose origin we can’t even begin to explain. Thus, trying to account for the appearance of the universe in a sudden quantum fluctuation doesn’t do away with the need for a Creator at all; it simply moves the whole problem backward one step to the unknown origin of the quantum field itself. — M. A. Corey

Whether your cosmology is philosophical or scientific, ultimately it rests on an unknown that is directly unknowable, a mystery. Scientists just as much as anybody else ponder the origin question, despite the fact that their formal methods cannot help them much there.

Cosmologically speaking, scientists get much better traction with the problem of constructing and modeling a comprehensive theory that describes, not the origin, but the structure and dynamics of the universe. But even here, they run into “mysteries.” Such as evidence for the almost eerie fine-tuning of the universe necessary for the inception, evolution, and support of Life. As Freeman Dyson put it, “The more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming.”

Take just one example from among many, the just mentioned universal vacuum. Because the vacuum is not “nothing,” it has energy, specifically “vacuum energy” — the energy content of empty space. Ian Stewart notes:

As it happens, the observed value [of vacuum energy] is very, very small, around 10^–120, but it is not zero.

According to the conventional “fine-tuning” story, this particular value is exactly right for life to exist. Anything larger than 10^–118 makes local space-time explode; anything smaller than 10^–120 and space-time contracts in a cosmic crunch and disappears. So the “window of opportunity” for life is very small. By a miracle, our universe sits neatly within it.

But Stewart is a tough-minded mathematical scientist, and so evidently feels constrained to add:

The “weak anthropic principle” points out that if our universe were not constituted the way it is, we wouldn’t be here to notice, but that leaves open the question why there is a “here” for us to occupy. The “strong anthropic principle” says that we’re here because the universe was designed specially for life to exist — which is mystical nonsense. No one actually knows what the possibilities would be if the vacuum energy were markedly different from what it is. We know a few things that would go wrong — but we have no idea what might go right instead. Most of the fine-tuning arguments are bogus.”

What a relief that Professor Stewart thinks that only “most” of the fine-tuning arguments are bogus, and not all of them! One of the things likely to “go wrong” under his scenario would be the end of life as we know it on this planet, and with it intelligence. But other than that, his is a respectable argument, even though it would probably be entirely moot under different values for the vacuum energy, since intelligent beings probably would not then be around to entertain it.

There is an abundance of evidence from the precision of the fundamental values of the universe that contradicts the theory that a universe compossible with life can arise (or indeed actually rose) from an “accident.” Just as “nothing comes from nothing,” the laws of nature cannot have been established via a random process. There is nothing implicit in the meaning of “random” that contains any motive spring for it to generate order, organization, higher complexity. It is simply “random”; i.e., it reflects no law in its behavior. The people who say that the universal evolution is nothing more than the effect of a process of matter in its motions and “pure, blind chance” — as Nobel laureate Jacques Monod claims — rely on the same reasoning that says, if life can be spontaneously generated from non-life, then similarly order can come from disorder.

Which is the same sort of problem, it seems to me, involved in all the multiverse and parallel universe and “panspermia” cosmologies one finds littering the landscape these days. The latter — panspermia theory — seems to be a particular favorite of atheists such as Francis Crick and Sir Fred Hoyle.

Panspermia theory holds that life on Earth was seeded here by space aliens. I gather anything that avoids the conclusion that the universe, and Life, is a divine creation, and thus has a spiritual dimension (which would include such things as intelligence, law, information, etc., all the “non-phenomenal” aspects that “tell” phenomena “what to do”) is what is being sought in such fanciful imaginings. Such theories seem ultimately designed to forbid anything that is immaterial from having causal impact in the universe. But if you say that, then where does physical law fit in, where mathematics, or logic, or intelligence, or information? Not to mention the evident universal constants? None of these are material entities.

But the fact regarding these exotic cosmologies is, not a one of them can be falsified, or subjected to replicable experiments. All these cosmologies are works of pure philosophical imagination dressed up in the language of scientific jargon.

However, that doesn’t mean the adherents of such imaginative speculations are bad scientists. Here’s Sir Fred Hoyle, a “non-Darwinian evolutionist,” contented atheist, and honest thinker:

No matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have had a random beginning… there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10²⁰)²⁰⁰⁰ = 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.… the enormous information content of even the simplest living systems… cannot in our view be generated by what are often called “natural” processes,… For life to have originated on the Earth it would be necessary that quite explicit instruction should have been provided for its assembly… There is no way in which we can expect to avoid the need for information, no way in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup, as we ourselves hoped might be possible a year or two ago.

Information is the key to life, just as it is the key to the fundamental structure and evolution of the universe, from the beginning. One conjectures the universe has the structure and dynamics it has because these were “programmed” in at the beginning. And this structure evidently was primed for life.

Again, this is what Genesis tells us: The Universe has an intelligent cause that is outside of space-time. Physics and biology acknowledge the necessity of information for the rise and maintenance of life, but assign no cause for this information within spatiotemporal reality. But if it cannot be found “there,” then where can it be found?

See Genesis. And consider this observation, from Albert Einstein:

“The natural law reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.”

Scientists recognize so well that the universe has fundamental structure that they are encouraged to propound “grand unified theories,” GUTs, or “Theories of Everything.” The standard model of physics today recognizes four fundamental forces in nature: the nuclear strong, the nuclear weak, electromagnetism, and gravity. So far, all have been conveniently “reconciled together,” or unified — except for gravity, which continues to resist being fitted into any kind of “grand unified” model thus far.

Regarding the four fundamental forces, here are some more interesting thoughts from Ian Stewart:

Other types of forces could in principle give rise to other types of universe, and our ignorance of such possibilities is almost total. It is often claimed that without the particular forces we have, life would be impossible, proving that our universe is amazingly fine-tuned to make life possible. This argument is bogus, a wild exaggeration based on too limited a view of what constitutes life. Life like ours would be impossible — but it is the height of arrogance to assume that our kind of life is the only kind of organized complexity that could exist. The fallacy here is to confuse sufficient conditions for life (those aspects of our universe on which our kind of life depends) with necessary ones.

It is interesting that here Stewart reduces life to the definition, “organized complexity.” The description appears to be general enough to encompass everything (everything material at least), yet at the same time, is useless to provide insight into the living nature of actual, particular living beings.

Be that as it may, it seems Stewart is working to a doctrine, to a particular world view, in giving his analysis. And he seems to recognize this in what follows:

The view that a Theory of Everything must exist brings to mind monotheist religion — in which, over the millennia, disparate collections of gods and goddesses with their own special domains have been replaced by one god whose domain is everything. This process is widely viewed as an advance, but it resembles a standard philosophical error known as “the equation of unknowns” in which the same cause is assigned to all mysterious phenomena…. “Explanations” like this give a false sense of progress — we used to have three mysteries to explain; now we have just one. But the one new mystery conflates three separate ones, which might well have entirely different explanations. By conflating them, we blind ourselves to this possibility.

When you explain the Sun by a sun-god and rain by a rain-god, you can endow each god with its own special features. But if you insist that both Sun and rain are controlled by the same god, then you may end up trying to force two different things into the same straightjacket. So in some ways fundamental physics is more like fundamentalist physics. Equations [brief enough to fit] on a T-shirt replace an immanent deity, and the unfolding of the consequences of those equations replaces divine intervention in daily life.

Despite these reservations, my heart is with the physical fundamentalists. I would like to see a Theory of Everything, and I would be delighted if it were mathematical, beautiful, and true. I think religious people might also approve, because they could interpret it as proof of the exquisite taste and intelligence of their deity.

Exactly so — that would be my takeaway!

To sum up, it appears that a model of the universe that stipulates that all that exists — life and non-life — is simply the product of random transformations of “matter in its motions” has been falsified by modern physics. To the extent that information — which presupposes intelligence — plays a role, we have to acknowledge that other, immaterial factors are at work. Which of course we do, to the extent we realize and acknowledge the universal existence of physical laws, of finely-tuned cosmic values, and of the symmetries in nature. To do so, we have to put a check on randomness as a possible explanation for the nature or structure of things.

But we cannot eliminate randomness altogether. In the final analysis, it seems to me the universe lives in the dynamic tension that obtains between that which is changeless (the symmetry), and that which is changeable (a symmetry-breaking event). Or as Leibniz put it, at the level of fundamental universal principles the universe must consist of something that does not ever change, and something that is capable of changing.

For example, consider the first and second laws of thermodynamics. The first is a conservation law — matter cannot be either created or destroyed — that is, matter is unchangeable; i.e., it is “symmetrical” under all known conditions. The second law “breaks the symmetry” of the first; and if it couldn’t do that, then probably nothing would ever happen in our universe.

The most amazing thing to me is that evidently, as a consequence of such a fundamental tension, we live in a “guided” universe, but not a wholly deterministic one.

And the Guide does not seem to reside in the system — at least, as far as science can tell.

Thus it seems to me if the Guide could construct a universe finely-tuned and primed for life on the most global scale — i.e., that of the whole universe — then it should be child’s play for this Source to prime and guide any living (or non-living) sub-unit of the universe — preeminently biological creatures; and of these, Man above all.

Given that the universe evidently has been left deliberately incompletely determined, or underdetermined (Planck’s constant reminds us of this), then not only the “free development” of nature has been left intact (subject only to the natural symmetries), but so also has human free will been left wholly intact.

Given the splendors of natural reality, and the uncanny facility that man has for exploring and understanding them, really all I can say is: I am on my knees in gratitude, thanks, and praise, and all glory be to God — in Whom we live and move and have our Being.

[betty boop]

I see Evolution, The Big Bang, etc, all grouped with things like the speed of light, The constant ? and the laws of physics, etc, and so it leaves me wondering, do you consider them equal?… Has the Big Bang ever been observed to defy the second law of thermodynamics?… It appears that your are stating as fact things that have not been observed.

Fichori, I got your note, and many thanks for it. I hope it would be okay with you if, in the interest of brevity, I stick with your bolds in the present go-’round. You had three, re:

(1) evidence that the universe displays “fine-tuning” in its evolution.

(2) the allegation that the explosive power of the Big Bangexactly matches the power of gravity

(3) whether or not the Big Bang “defies” the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

That ought to keep us busy for a while! Let’s get started:

(1) The universe itself seems to be “informed,” in the sense of displaying evidence of some remarkable “fine-tuning” that guides its evolution.
We are here in the realm of particle astrophysics, just as you acknowledge, when you inquire whether I consider the Big Bang, the speed of light, the constant pi (don’t forget Planck’s constant, or the four fundamental forces of nature, the resonance precision required for the existence of carbon, a necessary element for life as we know it anyways, the energy state of the universal vacuum, etc.) and the laws of physics, etc., to be “equal.” Well, I don’t know about “equal”; but their values, individually and collectively, all do seem to be necessary for Life in the universe to emerge in the first place, and continue as a going concern.

In reviewing the physical laws and the numerical values of fundamental constants, one encounters a remarkable precision in these values such that only small changes in the fundamental constants, such as the strength of the four forces, Planck’s constant, the mass of elementary particles, etc., would yield a universe without galaxies, stars, atoms, or even nuclei, and consequently, without the capacity for life. Many physicists have compiled lists of “cosmic coincidences,” “just right” characteristics of the universe, and “unnatural selections.” The constants of nature, such as the strength of the gravitational force, have exactly the right values necessary for the existence of stars and planets. [Without stars, which manufacture the heavier elements, there would be no Life.]— Dean L. Overman, A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization, Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1997, p. 128.

Which to me strongly suggests that it is a mistake to try to make biology independent of physics, as Prof. Mayr seems to have wanted to do.

Why this is a bad idea: Take the resonance precision of carbon, for instance. Proteins are made up of amino acids, which all have a central carbon atom. It is thought the carbon atom is the fourth most common element in our galaxy. All the life forms we know on earth are carbon-based: At very least, we know of no life form in the universe that is not carbon based. Yet because of the precise requirements for its existence, the carbon atom should be very rare:

The formation of a carbon atom requires a rare triple collision known as the triple alpha process. The first colliding step in this process occurs when a helium nucleus collides with another helium nucleus within a star. This collision produces an unstable, very ephemeral isotope of beryllium known as Be⁸ (Be⁹ is beryllium’s stable form). When the unstable, short lived beryllium collides with a third helium nucleus, a carbon nucleus is formed. — ibid

LOL, but it seems to me it would require a very, very heavy “dose” of “random,” AND a universe of infinite duration, for such a “carbon” selection to occur, repeatedly and constantly in the time available, in the necessary periodicities, such that Life not only can “emerge,” but be “sustainable” over very long periods of time. But we now know that the universe is not eternal: It had a beginning in time. So time enters in as a principle constraining factor mitigating against this view.

Let’s have an atheist explain all this to us: the great mathematician, the late Sir Fred Hoyle:

A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers ones calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.

(2) The explosive power of the Big Bang [is] precisely matched to the power of gravity.
If the force of the Big Bang were only slightly greater than the force of gravity, the universe would consist only of gas — no stars, galaxies, or planets. Without stars, galaxies, and planets, Life could not exist.

According to the mathematical physicist Alan Guth, the rate of matching between the force of gravity and the force released in the Big Bang would have to be in the remarkable precision of one part in 10⁵⁵ in order for stars, galaxies, and planets to emerge — without which Life as we know it, on Earth or putatively elsewhere, would be impossible (at least if it’s carbon-based. :^) ).

If the explosive power of Big Bang’s rate of expansion relative to the force of gravity were reduced by only one part in a thousand billion, the matter in the universe would have collapsed back to a singular point after a few million years. This would be the case of the original singularity “going bust” in fairly short order. I imagine that had it actually done so, you and I would not be around nowadays to debate this point.

(3) How, or in what way, does the Big Bang “defy” the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
Oh my, the perplexing (in its way — see following) Second Law of Thermodynamics, which requires that entropy, or disorder in the universe, always tends toward a maximum.

Thermodynamics is the study of the interrelation between heat and other forms of energy. It has two laws — and these really do seem to be incontrovertible “laws of nature”: (1) First Law: Matter can be neither created nor destroyed. (2) Second Law: The disorder of matter in the universe tends always towards the maximum.

What is ultimately so perplexing about the Second Law is that it is one of the very rare instances of a physical law that is not time-reversible. It definitely, seemingly inexorably, sets an “arrow of time” in motion from past, to present, to future. This makes it highly unusual among the panoply of physical laws, for which the time dimension is largely irrelevant.

But here’s another really weird thing about the Second Law: It implies that the universe cannot be a process that can “dissipate its potentials” unless the process had a beginning in Time. There is no point of discussing a diminution of potentials in a system without reference to the original system which furnishes the standard definition according to which its developments are to be compared and measured; i.e., the Second Law presupposes that such differences have been left to occur, but that they must finally measure up. The Second Law (like the First) requires, in other words, a universe that had an actual beginning.

If we were to be so foolhardy as to “reverse” this supposedly time-irreversible law, we might very well conclude (justly it seems to me) that, since the Second Law implies a Beginning, given that it deals with dissipation of forces, that this beginning must have been very highly ordered as compared with its subsequent evolution in Time.

In other words, the inception of the Universe involved virtually zero entropy as compared to its present state, some ~13 or 14 billion years later.

I figure that’s a burning question for another time….

Again, thank you so much for writing, Fichori!

[hosepipe]

[ That ought to keep us busy for a while! Let’s get started: ]

LoL.. Sometimes your humor is not subtle..

[MHGinTN]

But just look at how gentle!

[Fichori]

Thank you for the reply.


You have put together quite a bit of information here.

When taking in new information regarding science related things, I have two tests I apply.

1: Can it be empirically tested with repeatable results.
2: Does it contradict the Bible.

In my research I have found the Big Bang to fail both tests.

You see, I am a Christian and I believe God's Word, that it is literal and inerrant.

When I look at controversial 'scientific knowledge' that is wholly accepted by atheists as an alternative to any sort of god^{small g}, and find that it not only contradicts what I read in the Bible, but also lacks empirical merit, I do not accept it.


The Big Bang not only has not, but cannot be empirically tested.

Evolution, The Big Bang, Billions of Years, etc, all contradict what the Bible so clearly states.
(Which is why I'm a YEC)


You might think this fellow is half way evolved from a fish to a dog:
But I'm here to tell you that he isn't.

I know, because I made him that way.


But I guess I'm dumping on your thread, now aren't I.

[hosepipe]

[ The Big Bang not only has not, but cannot be empirically tested. ]

I tend to agree with that assessment.. My friends that are in-to physics and cosmology pretty buy the big bang thing more or less.. I do not.. My logic is that if there CAN BE an infinite future then why not an infinite past.. If one is possible then the other is probable.. that is IF time is and can even BE linear.. I have a problem with infinity as do anyone in-to mathematics.. for infinity is a magic variable.. maybe even superstitious..

But my logic is constructed to make things easier for me to comprehend.. With humans what is bull pucky to one can be a treasure to others.. heck even LIFE can be an infinite variable.. The big bang can make things simpler for some.. I'm down with that.. For whose perceptions are purely accurate absolutely?.. Even perceptions of the Word of God.. For what I perceived about many scripture passages have become different, richer and deeper at 20,30,40,50,60 and on like that in my spiritual life.. The bible literally and metaphorically can be and is mostly two different revelations(visions).. We MUST cut each other some slack... WHY?.. Because another may "See" some spiritual things even deeper than "we" do..

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for your outstanding essay-post, dearest sister in Christ!

I must have read it five times these last few days looking for anything I might add, but alas, I have found nothing.

Truly the universe appears to be informed from the beginning. The very existence of the "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics" [Wigner] is like God's copyright notice on the cosmos.

And information (successful communications, Shannon's mathematical theory) appears to be the necessary part of anything we would consider to be 'alive.' It is this reduction of uncertainty in the receiver (or molecular machine) in going from a before state to an after that seems to override the second law of thermodynamics - although in truth it pays the termodynamic "tab" by dissipating heat into the environment upon successful communication.

Or to use your classic example, when we throw a dead bird and a live bird off a tower - the dead bird goes splat and achieves entropy in its environment and the live bird musters itself to fly away - information being successfully communicated in his body, dissipating heat into the environment as he goes.

[Alamo-Girl]

We MUST cut each other some slack... WHY?.. Because another may "See" some spiritual things even deeper than "we" do..

So very true. Thank you for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!

[betty boop]

How could culture be the function of DNA? Culture is the language, customs, practices, religion, etc that are taught to someone. Two identical twins raised in separate environments would have different cultures despite having exactly the same DNA.

I'm so glad we agree on this! I cannot imagine how DNA could really be a factor in the emergence and direction of culture, other than indirectly as an indicator of an organism's capacity for intelligence. And there does seem to be a correlation between intelligence and cultural attainment.

But you had me wondering, because in an earlier post you averred that animal species have been known to demonstrate features of what we would call "culture." You cited teaching offspring hand-washing behavior, for instance; also you mentioned that lifetime male-female bonding — which one might argue is the ultimate basis of culture on solid empirical grounds — occurs in the "lower" animals. I'd suggested that very generally culture could best be understood as the measure of an organism's ability to transform the probability space in which the living organism itself is transformed; i.e., the environment in which it "evolves."

I'm not challenging you on anything here, allmendream; I'm just doing a little musing. Your contributions to same are most welcome. Some thoughts.

It appears that the "teaching" of hand-washing behavior to offspring actually takes place more along the lines of non-verbal modelling of the behavior. That's a minor quibble. In any case, certainly the cultural attainment of hand-washing behavior does not compare to the construction of a gothic cathedral or the writing of a sonnet or symphony for instances.

On the other hand, we do know of animal species that are able to transform their environment in significant ways; e.g., beavers. (Anyone who has beavers for neighbors knows exactly what I mean by this.) As far as male/female bonding in the "lower" species is concerned, the only examples I can think of offhand would be certain bird species (e.g., Canada geese). I can't think of any examples among mammels other than man.

In short, it seems to me that, when we are speaking of the relative cultural attainments of various species, we need to recognize that there is clearly a difference of kind, and not merely of degree respecting man vs. the rest of the animal kingdom.

And it seems you and I agree that DNA does not explain/account for such cultural difference. Indeed, how could it? The DNA of an organism is exactly the same whether the organism is dead or alive. And dead organisms presumably are out of the culture business entirely. Plus you gave the example of identical twins raised in different cultural environments. It seems clear that DNA cannot be the driver here.

So what accounts for the cultural difference? Why is man so radically different from all the other species in regard to cultural proclivity/attainment?

Is this possibly not an interesting question for science? I suppose under the model of methodogical naturalism the question cannot even arise. You'll recall that this model presupposes that "all that there is" reduces to matter in its motions according to the physical laws, plus random mutation and natural selection. IOW, biology and the universe are both fully explicable on the basis of "natural," or rather physically material phenomena alone.

This appears to be the expectation of Darwin's theory of evolution. Yet this inherent bias in favor of "natural" causation means that so-called "supernatural" causes are simply banished from consideration right up-front.

"Supernatural" is a very loaded word for many people these days. To many it connotes some species of fiction involving questions in regard to the deity, with the added expectation that such deity simply does not exist. No proof of this is ever offered; this view is simply designated as "axiomatic."

But to me, this is ridiculous. A better word than "supernatural" would be "non-phenomenal." (The great 20th-century philosopher Eric Voegelin proposed "non-existent" — but most people cannot fathom what he meant by that, so I'll just leave it alone. Unless someone wants me to define what he meant by this term.)

Material things are phenomenal things; yet the laws of nature themselves are not phenomenal things, nor is mathematics. Laws and mathematics (not even to mention such things as morality and ethics) are ineluctibly, irrevocably non-phenomenal, non-physical, even "non-existent" in Voegelin's sense. Yet the physical reality in which we exist would be unimaginable and inexplicable to us without these "non-phenomenal," non-sensory terms.

Anyhoot, I've been reflecting on such questions for quite a while now. This is not to say that I have "answers" that would be acceptable to scientists. At this point, I'm not even sure I can satisfy the philosophers here, let alone the theologians! LOL!

But I thought I'd write to say what I think, hoping to hear what you think in due course. I imagine both of us "see as if through a glass, darkly." But maybe if we compare notes, we can actually get somewhere....

Thank you so much for writing, allmendream!

[hosepipe]

[ On the other hand, we do know of animal species that are able to transform their environment in significant ways; e.g., beavers. (Anyone who has beavers for neighbors knows exactly what I mean by this.) ]

I have lots of beavers as neighbors.. They are amazing engineers.. Being an engineer myself, I am awed.. I know of a beaver that didn't just dam a stream, all beavers do that with a lot work and effort.. but this particular beaver was in an area where all the "easy" construction areas were "taken".. by other beavers..

Sooo this fellow dam'ed up in a marshy area.. with a 360 degree levey.. with his lodge in the middle of the pool the levees made.. Using both alder, birch and other detritus and muddy peaty stuff.. he built levees.. It is a mystery to me how an animal could compute the proper grade for this.. This wouldn't work in a marsh UNLESS there was a good grade to some of the marsh.. so the flow of water could increase into a pool.. I was amazed.. Some.. no Most humans could not have done that..

Wonder if the Holy Spirit visits animals to increase knowledge (to help) under certain circumstances.. This was quite a lesson to me.. or even an Angel serving in some capacity.. I have also noticed other beavers with less than 360 degrees constructions as opposed to a "simple" damming up a stream.. I have seen this myself.. it is not a 2nd party story.. I have much respect for Beavers also for their little buddies/cousins the Muskrats..

[betty boop]

It is a mystery to me how an animal could compute the proper grade for this.

That's an interesting question/problem, isn't it dear brother in Christ? :^)

The point seems to be whether or not the beaver is an original, logical, strategic, tactical thinker in his own right and through his own resources; or whether his evidently "intelligent behavior" stems from another, "higher" source.

Jeepers, this is not rocket science....

Dear 'pipe, you wrote: "I have lots of beavers as neighbors.. They are amazing engineers." Indeed they are. And as "pesky" as they are to "civilized" people, they have as much right to occupy the landscape as we do. IMHO.

Trouble is, beavers have been repeatedly observed to do a lot of wholesale physical "damage" to their environs. Not that the trees they harvest so methodically, nor the surrounding herbage, have any complaint against this natural process. Nor do other biological specimins complain, mind you: Only man is in a position to "complain" in the first place.

You wondered "if the Holy Spirit visits animals to increase knowledge (to help) under certain circumstances." Well, just ask yourself: "Does the Holy Spirit visit me [since I am also an animal] to help out with this sort of thing?

And if anyone asked me to comment on this, I'd say: Well probably dear 'pipe would answer, Yes, of course! — and for cause: Dear hosepipe is an "animal" with whom the Holy Spirit visits, and he knows it. (I'm relying on DH's own testimony/taxonomy here, as amplified spiritually in his marvelous "rider/donkey metaphor"). :^)

Dearest brother in Christ, thank you so much for writing!

[hosepipe]

[ Trouble is, beavers have been repeatedly observed to do a lot of wholesale physical "damage" to their environs. ]

Damage is a pejorative term.. Trees regrow and dams become log jams that aids certain fish until all returns the way it began.. Beavers have been building for well over 10 years.. (the time I've been watching them).. All that said, I am assured by some trappers I know that young beaver tastes very good..

[allmendream]

Not only is pair bonding fairly common among mammals it is even found in other primates like gibbons.

[TXnMA]

It appears to me (IOW, my observation; I haven’t researched it) that even such “simple” creatures as the Mourning dove form lifetime pair attachments...

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for your outstanding essay-post, dearest sister in Christ!

"Supernatural" is a very loaded word for many people these days. To many it connotes some species of fiction involving questions in regard to the deity, with the added expectation that such deity simply does not exist. No proof of this is ever offered; this view is simply designated as "axiomatic."

But to me, this is ridiculous. A better word than "supernatural" would be "non-phenomenal." (The great 20th-century philosopher Eric Voegelin proposed "non-existent" — but most people cannot fathom what he meant by that, so I'll just leave it alone. Unless someone wants me to define what he meant by this term.)

Material things are phenomenal things; yet the laws of nature themselves are not phenomenal things, nor is mathematics. Laws and mathematics (not even to mention such things as morality and ethics) are ineluctibly, irrevocably non-phenomenal, non-physical, even "non-existent" in Voegelin's sense. Yet the physical reality in which we exist would be unimaginable and inexplicable to us without these "non-phenomenal," non-sensory terms.

Precisely. In my view, it is not the existence of cultural matters which can be measured by science, but the (implied) origin of them that raises the eyebrows of so many scientists.

That a thing does not have an apparently physical origin does not ipso facto mean that the origin is by a direct creative act of God. It could be indirect which is to say, it may indeed follow a rule of physical cause and effect. Nor even then does it preclude that the thing could be a direct creative act of God which only appears to follow a rule of physical cause and effect.

But in any case, a phenomenon should stay on the table of science insofar as science is able to measure it. Beyond that science should have nothing to say.

Man is not the measure of God.

Any hoot, that's my two cents...

[Alamo-Girl]

Fascinating. Thank you so much for all these insights, dear brother in Christ!

[hosepipe]

[ I can't think of any examples among mammals other than man. ]

Wolves bond.. whatever bonding means.. pair bonding could have greater implications than just preference.. including a cultural component.. The dynamics of a pack of wolves can seem to be cultural.. or even managerial.. or tribal..

The politics of pair bonding can be mechanical on levels greater than preference.. I am not sure wolves know why they do what they do in this way.. I am not sure most humans do either.. Could be our(human) choices are not completely intellectual or based on quales either..

Spirit?.. is there a spiritual level to quales?.. it could be a factor in some cases.. Like anything spiritual?/physical? bonding could be dynamic on many levels.. I'm not sure what makes me "love"(bond) or "hate"(disbond).. Surely there is a payoff for this activity.. There might be qualities or degrees of bonding..

[RightWhale]

Can somebody please say what is meant by ‘nature’? Then maybe we can get around to stuff we find in ‘nature.’

[YHAOS]

"Can somebody please say what is meant by ‘nature’? Then maybe we can get around to stuff we find in ‘nature.’"

Oh, good one, RWhale. I would like for someone to explain to me how Mankind, with all his habits & habitats, is not a creature of ‘Pristine Nature’ fully as much as he is a creature of God. And, a creature of nature fully as much as a horse, a redwood or a virus.

[gobucks]

I would like for someone to explain to me how Mankind, with all his habits & habitats, is not a creature of ‘Pristine Nature’ fully as much as he is a creature of God.

The man or woman who is capable of doing either does not exist, and never will exist. To explain either has an important implication - our minds are big enough to process the information required to contain the 'explanation', either way.

Given that 'nature' is directly derived from the Greek word that also serves as the root for the word 'physics', this thread captures neatly the conundrum.

The fact, now, is plain ... all persons posting to and reading this thread exist on one sphere-like thing we call Earth. And we are sharing this place, with no option to go somewhere else while we share in this experience we call 'life'.

So, answering all the questions in this thread will never be possible ... so what questions should be asked that can be answered?

What is love? What is non-love?

I can answer this: God is love, and we have been loved by him. And we are purposed to love.

And here's a really good question: what is the ratio of threads regarding science/rationalism/evolution to threads regarding 'How Freeper 'fill in the blank' learned the art of love'?

I assure you, the problem is this ... whatever that ratio happens to be, that ratio should be inversed. And that will begin to happen when the art, the image of such love, is imagined in the mind of man. Once that step is taken, learning this art will grow.

Hint: text of any kind is not an image ... it is, at best, a clumsy interface between two images.

When Christ lived, he lived out a preset imagination that existed before his Life was lived here roughly 2000 years ago. His life was then captured in text.

Here, thus, is the problem - we are to translate that text to imagination in us, NOW.

And then that art becomes the image other men and women can 'see'.

My trust in this understanding did NOT begin with the text ... it began with a ordinary man who lived the image; my trust grew irresistably.

Afterwards, the trust grew to the Word, this man kept referring to.

I don't see this man anymore ... but, his afterimage has stayed with me. And the image of text is now within me.

The exclusive rationalist doesn't get this part ... because his imagination is delimited by default. He or she is deeply misfortunate, because he/she has not yet been ushered into into the presence of a man or woman who builds trust.

. I pray that God change how infrequent these images come to life, here and now, and make this more commonplace.

And what is non-Love? The refusal to ask, and answer, the question "What is Love?"

Finally ... bear in mind the original meaning in English of the word "physic". It meant that item used by physicians to purge someone of what ailed them. Physicians originally were great at those things which helped others purge bad things within themselves.

Castor oil, for example, was a common physic, and still is... and far too many Freepers are not drinking the dose of Castor oil designed for the mind that is available to them. But much, much worse, is that far too many physicians don't remember how to use Castor Oil anymore. I, for one, am working on this...clumsily .... but I am.

[RightWhale]

I have a degree in Physics. Maybe that makes me a scientist, but they never taught us in physics school what physics is. They said ‘do this math’ and ‘measure these quantities’ and you will be doing physics. Fine, I can do physics, but what is it aside from it used to be nature. Then maybe we can talk about these other things.