Comments on: The Creation of a Controversy http://science.kqed.org/quest/2007/12/24/the-creation-of-a-controversy/ Explore science, nature and environment stories from Northern California and beyond with KQED’s multimedia series Thu, 24 May 2012 05:51:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Barry http://science.kqed.org/quest/2007/12/24/the-creation-of-a-controversy/#comment-17016 Barry Tue, 18 Oct 2011 20:41:37 +0000 http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/2007/12/24/the-creation-of-a-controversy/#comment-17016 I’m used to the same thing. On the scientist side we actually have people trying to disprove God using science. I can’t think of anything more pointless. By definition, God is beyond human understanding. In fact, since faith is such a big factor in Christianity, why would God show that He exists by making it obvious the world was created? Where is the faith in that? How much more faith is required in a world where life evolved due to natural laws? Anyway, I digress. You are right that no one knows how that first "life" happened. There are some interesting thoughts on the matter (see http://www.thetech.org/genetics/news.php?id=123 for example) but obviously nothing proven. The question, though, is whether a scientist can invoke a miracle or if they have to think that life came about through natural processes. By definition, a scientist looks for scientific or natural explanations for what he or she sees. So if there is life on Earth, a scientist would conclude that it must have come about in some natural process. A slightly different question is whether this person is not qualified to be a scientist even if he or she believes that the first life (maybe a single celled organism) was created by a supernatural force around 3.5 billion years ago but has evolved since then into all the life we see around us. The key here is that this person accepts the facts that are uncovered by science but believes that the first life was created. With this set of skills, they would be able to study almost any aspect of biology except the very small part of the field that deals with the origin of life. Just some things to think about…I am still wrestling with them myself! I’m used to the same thing. On the scientist side we actually have people trying to disprove God using science. I can’t think of anything more pointless. By definition, God is beyond human understanding. In fact, since faith is such a big factor in Christianity, why would God show that He exists by making it obvious the world was created? Where is the faith in that? How much more faith is required in a world where life evolved due to natural laws?

Anyway, I digress. You are right that no one knows how that first "life" happened. There are some interesting thoughts on the matter (see http://www.thetech.org/genetics/news.php?id=123 for example) but obviously nothing proven. The question, though, is whether a scientist can invoke a miracle or if they have to think that life came about through natural processes. By definition, a scientist looks for scientific or natural explanations for what he or she sees. So if there is life on Earth, a scientist would conclude that it must have come about in some natural process.

A slightly different question is whether this person is not qualified to be a scientist even if he or she believes that the first life (maybe a single celled organism) was created by a supernatural force around 3.5 billion years ago but has evolved since then into all the life we see around us. The key here is that this person accepts the facts that are uncovered by science but believes that the first life was created. With this set of skills, they would be able to study almost any aspect of biology except the very small part of the field that deals with the origin of life.

Just some things to think about…I am still wrestling with them myself!

]]> By: Jason http://science.kqed.org/quest/2007/12/24/the-creation-of-a-controversy/#comment-16973 Jason Tue, 18 Oct 2011 03:00:41 +0000 http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/2007/12/24/the-creation-of-a-controversy/#comment-16973 Hey. I like the post. It's refreshing to see someone on your side of the issue inviting conversation in a meaningful way. I'm pretty used to seeing closed-minded belligerence from all sides. You may be onto something with the 'arbitrary ignoring' of science but I do know plenty of creationists who accept much longer timelines ('scientific' ones even) and argue that a random assimilation of rudimentary amino acids into functional proteins or self replicating RNA is just too improbably to happen by chance alone. (And as a geneticist you would probably agree that the development of the intricate relationship between nucleotides and proteins would be quite an unlikely process of coincidence). I think that people in each camp are looking at something on the scale of miraculous and since the cause of the miracle just can't be proven (chance or intelligence) as near as I can tell, I find it interesting the fervor that this gets debated with. I think a biologically minded creationist can be just as interested in the 'how' as any evolutionist. The danger I see is when either camp is unwilling to listen to the intelligent points and discoveries being made on each side of the coin. History has shown many 'scientifically minded' individuals defend some pretty ridiculous claims for the sense of pride and personal stake. It's pretty human to ignore data that's disagreeable. A creationist sometimes has the advantage of naming their bias outright. Well, I hope that some of that made sense. I hope my tone is seen as conversational and not judgemental or oppositional. I've spent a lot of time thinking and enjoy debate. Feel free to let me know how this all sits with you. Hey. I like the post. It's refreshing to see someone on your side of the issue inviting conversation in a meaningful way. I'm pretty used to seeing closed-minded belligerence from all sides.

You may be onto something with the 'arbitrary ignoring' of science but I do know plenty of creationists who accept much longer timelines ('scientific' ones even) and argue that a random assimilation of rudimentary amino acids into functional proteins or self replicating RNA is just too improbably to happen by chance alone. (And as a geneticist you would probably agree that the development of the intricate relationship between nucleotides and proteins would be quite an unlikely process of coincidence).

I think that people in each camp are looking at something on the scale of miraculous and since the cause of the miracle just can't be proven (chance or intelligence) as near as I can tell, I find it interesting the fervor that this gets debated with. I think a biologically minded creationist can be just as interested in the 'how' as any evolutionist. The danger I see is when either camp is unwilling to listen to the intelligent points and discoveries being made on each side of the coin. History has shown many 'scientifically minded' individuals defend some pretty ridiculous claims for the sense of pride and personal stake. It's pretty human to ignore data that's disagreeable. A creationist sometimes has the advantage of naming their bias outright.

Well, I hope that some of that made sense. I hope my tone is seen as conversational and not judgemental or oppositional. I've spent a lot of time thinking and enjoy debate. Feel free to let me know how this all sits with you.

]]>