Hawkingfan

Amino acids and proteins are the building blocks of life. Thanks!

Refractor

But the problem is, a lot of the naturalistic origin explanations are woefully inadequate and lack any kind of empirical or logical support. These debates are not so much about the "basic laws"as they are about the explanations regarding what creative feats these laws can and cannot accomplish.

Refractor

Refractor

Amino acids and proteins are not "living organisms". Do you have any idea how big of a gap there is between the mere building blocks of life, and a fully functional organism? It is the difference between a pile of rubble and a skyscraper. Building blocks still require a builder. I think you'll have better luck finding an example of self-assembled skycraper than finding an example of self-assembled organism. Thanks!

Shadowy Man

Well, my area of expertise is astronomy. And though there are plenty of things that are currently either unexplained or not well detailed by our current 'laws of physics' we don't feel that it is prudent at this time to give up on naturalistic explanations.

Are you specifically referring to evolution?

Certainly, if a naturalistic theory has no logical support, it must be highly suspect. I don't think evolution is illogical though. If a theory lacks empirical support, one has to determine if the empirical support is lacking because we can't currently produce adequate empirical support or whether the empirical data actually contradicts the theory.

If the data contradicts the theory, then you need a new theory. If there isn't data, then you can't say whether the theory is correct or not. When Einstein developed General Relativity, for example, there was no way at the time to measure the effects that his theory predicted. However, in modern times we have been able to produce experiments that have measured these effects to very high precision.

I'd be curious to know which naturalistic explanations of things you find to be woefully lacking empirical or logical support.

Mageth

Yes, but the things those organic substances have assembled into have purpose: A heart pumps blood throughout the body, a brain coordinates bodily actions, etc.

That's not "purpose"; that's "function."

What causes organic substances to assemble into things which have a purpose?

Who says that the original, primordial life needed "purpose" to appear? There was no "purpose" for the first self-replicating molecules. The only "purpose" there is what we, as observers, assign to it.

Further, the organic substances don't "assemble" into a heart, a brain, etc. These organs evolved over time, from (typically, but not necessarily) simpler structures, to perform a function.

It seems almost as if they are following a design.

It may seem that way, but seeming does not establish it as a fact, obviously (more on this at the end). However, in a sense, you may be right. But it's wrong that arriving at such a design requires a "designer".

"Function" comes into play here, too. A heart's function is to move blood through the body. What else would work besides some kind of a pump to fulfill this function? The "design space" for the function sets the possible "designs" available. A "mindless" process such as evolution can, and does, over time generate structures that fulfill certain functions by generating a version of one of the possible designs (if there's more than one available); e.g. it follows the paths through "design spaces" to arrive, mindlessly, to a particular version of a "design". If such a structure was not found, then the organism that needed the function provided by the structure could not survive.

A bit of the Anthropic Principle here; if working structures that fulfill the functions that we need to be "human" were not arrived at, then we would not be here to marvel at how well-designed our bodies are!

Refractor

I'll clarify.......

The supernatural cause is:

Axiomatic - if a self-caused universe is the only other alternative. (which it is not, but would have been based on Lob's ammendments to my argument).

Most likely - out of all possible scenarios, our observational evidence most supports that the origin of the universe was a caused event, and the cause was separate and distinct from the universe. (This is the view I hold).

The axiomatic statement was conditional, and premised only on the ammendments Lob added to number 2 of my argument.

Hope that helps clarify.

Refractor

Mageth

A good book to read that discusses how self-organizing systems can arrive at structures that fulfill functions, and that exhibit "design", is Daniel Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea. Simply put, a self-organizing, "mindless" system can and does generate complex organisms without requiring an external engineer or designer. As Dennett puts it, no skyhooks are required; such organisms can evolve over time using simple "cranes." I'd highly recommend the critics of such thought to read this book.

And contrary to what some have said on this thread, there has been much research in these areas, and the theories behind self-organizing systems are quite solid as theories go. I'm sure others could recommend other books that cover the subject.

Hawkingfan

Yeah, about several million years.

Philosoft

No, but I suspect you don't either. Your argument seems to imply that life is necessarily more than complex arrangements of matter. Would you explain how you know this? And how is this "gap" measured?

This is a rather silly analogy, but you probably employ it in order to fallaciously insert the necessity of a designer. We have empirical evidence that piles of rubble become skyscrapers only through the endeavors of builders. We have no such information for life. Thus, your analogy fails.
That's very reassuring, but I'll ask the biologists instead, thanks.

Mageth

I think you'll have better luck finding an example of self-assembled skycraper than finding an example of self-assembled organism.

Here's something that I consider an example of both:



BTW, all of us start out as a fertilized egg, that self-assembles into an adult human in about 18 years or so.