Replies

Filo, the question I asked was: "...how intelligence could arise from a random cause."

Darwin's macroevolution theory presupposes random causation plus natural selection. And I gather you worship at the temple of Darwinist orthodoxy, piling it on top of a materialist/naturalist/physicalist worldview. On this basis, you could give a rate and a purpose in answering my question (even though Darwinian orthodoxy says that nature has no real purpose, just the appearance of purpose). But you didn't tell me how matter bootstraps itself into life and intelligence.

To say I mentioned nothing about "life" in the formulation of my original question (and therefore its restatement wasn't the "same" question) isn't a reasonable complaint. For intelligence presupposes life: Only living systems in nature possess intelligence (in some form or other).

I am well aware that abiogenesis "isn't within the realm of evolution." At least Darwinists tend to insist on this. But the fact of the matter is even Darwin speculated about the "warm little pond scenario".... Abiogenesis would answer every desire of the materialist insisting on natural causation exclusively, in support of any plausible account of the origin of life that does not involve God. This is why abiogenesis is so desirable (especially to atheists), and will probably be taken seriously as a "reasonable" hypothesis — even in the face of zero evidence — from now till the cows come home.

And life is really NOT "just a matter of definition." It's a matter of existence. No matter what the definition, Life is something we all personally, intimately experience. And when it is absent, i.e., at physical death, we can absolutely tell the difference.

My final point would be, if you do not know what Life is, or from whence it came, but you can come up with a "theory" that it "evolves," pray tell, in what way does this tell us anything at all about what it is that is doing all the evolving? Shouldn't a theory that is supposedly about biology have something to say about the nature of its very subject?

As matters presently stand, for all intents and purposes, Darwinism deals with the behavior of an unknown or undisclosed entity. Somehow, I don't find that sort of thing terribly helpful.

Yet I wonder whether the origin of life is a question that science can answer. For one thing, Life per se is NOT a "direct observable." And no human now living would have been there to see it anyway.

Your thoughts, Filo?

Filo, the question I asked was: "...how intelligence could arise from a random cause."

Exactly. And the evolution of intelligence versus the formation of life (abiogenesis) are two different things.

Darwin's macroevolution theory presupposes random causation plus natural selection. And I gather you worship at the temple of Darwinist orthodoxy, piling it on top of a materialist/naturalist/physicalist worldview. On this basis, you could give a rate and a purpose in answering my question (even though Darwinian orthodoxy says that nature has no real purpose, just the appearance of purpose). But you didn't tell me how matter bootstraps itself into life and intelligence.

Again, two different questions.

For the former there are numerous theories based around amino acids and how they might come together under different circumstances (porous rocks, mud in tide pools, etc.)

For the latter the evolution of nervous systems followed by increasing complexity, etc.

For more details consult a text book.

To say I mentioned nothing about "life" in the formulation of my original question (and therefore its restatement wasn't the "same" question) isn't a reasonable complaint. For intelligence presupposes life: Only living systems in nature possess intelligence (in some form or other).

But clearly not all of them. . .

I am well aware that abiogenesis "isn't within the realm of evolution." At least Darwinists tend to insist on this. But the fact of the matter is even Darwin speculated about the "warm little pond scenario".... Abiogenesis would answer every desire of the materialist insisting on natural causation exclusively, in support of any plausible account of the origin of life that does not involve God. This is why abiogenesis is so desirable (especially to atheists), and will probably be taken seriously as a "reasonable" hypothesis — even in the face of zero evidence — from now till the cows come home.

A whole lot of gibberish in there, but ultimately yes, abiogenesis is the operative theory in the total absence of any evidence supporting creation.

And life is really NOT "just a matter of definition." It's a matter of existence. No matter what the definition, Life is something we all personally, intimately experience. And when it is absent, i.e., at physical death, we can absolutely tell the difference.

Correct, but the metaphysical nonsense has nothing to do with the scientific definition of life.

In that realm a paramecium is alive but a virus is not. The difference between the two is subtle.

In the earliest systems that distinction would be a matter of definition; at what point do the self-replicating chemical systems become living things.

My final point would be, if you do not know what Life is, or from whence it came, but you can come up with a "theory" that it "evolves," pray tell, in what way does this tell us anything at all about what it is that is doing all the evolving? Shouldn't a theory that is supposedly about biology have something to say about the nature of its very subject?

Not necessarily.

As matters presently stand, for all intents and purposes, Darwinism deals with the behavior of an unknown or undisclosed entity. Somehow, I don't find that sort of thing terribly helpful.

Not at all. That is merely your twisted and willfully ignorant interpretation.

Yet I wonder whether the origin of life is a question that science can answer. For one thing, Life per se is NOT a "direct observable." And no human now living would have been there to see it anyway.

Life is very much observable.

The origins of life are not, but we can come up with theories that have testable hypothesis that will ultimately be reasonable or not.

For instance we have no way of observing the formation of the solar system or the Earth/Moon system but we have very good theories about how that happened.

Observations based on those (such as analysis of moon rocks, the compositions of the other planets, meteorites, comets, etc.) and so on either lend credence or discredit those theories.

This has happened to the point where we are quite confident in most of what we know about the formation of the solar system, albeit with some gaps that may be difficult to fill directly.

In the end, however, the overall knowledge is sound regardless of those minor details.

The same holds true of evolution. The whole of the system is understood while the details of how one species evolved from another may or may not be understood in totality.

Unfortunately some folks misunderstand those gaps and attempt to leverage them into a disingenuous attempt to discredit the entire system.

All they ever accomplish is documenting their own ignorance.