MrHambre - Abiogenesis and Origins

I don't quite agree with either part of the above.You are stuck with the fact that science can not deal with a supernatural God into thinking that it is therefor saying it doesn't exist. That's not the point. The real point is that science just doesn't deal with it. That is bound to appear to be denying the existance of God to some but that's more a side effect of the limits of what science can deal with than something intended (other than in the minds of some).The second part about abiogenesis being more of a problem for the religious might only look that way in the context of what we know now and the fact that you understand a bit more science than others around here.There was a time when the earth moving was a big problem for the religious. The idea of evolution of any kind at all -- any change at all, was a big problem. For some it still is.Now other, more enlightened individuals, may not have as much trouble with that but might with abiogenesis.Others already don't have a problem with a natural orgin of life but do with the origin of the universe.This is all a problem with any God of the gaps type of thinking. Those who adopt this set up a long term gradual retreat from point to point. It is, apparently, not considered to be very good theology by the theologians.Others seem to have no problem with a God that prevades all, no gaps, and allows the universe to unfold based on the way it was set up in the first place (which may not be the big bang but could go deeper than that even).I just love the "Surprise me" line. If I was a believer at all that is the only thing I could see God doing. It is the only thing I could see entertaining a god of any kind. Otherwise a gods existance could only be one of boredom.

It is easy to mix up individuals views with what the appropriate general position should be. Some of us atheists are willing to make the jump to "no god" from the "no god so far" state. This is based on our personal view that not only is methodological naturalism a good way to answer questions (which is science) but also our view that there isn't anything but the natural (which isn't science it is just our personal view).When you hear some of us talking (and Dawkin's is a better stong example) you can be excused for mixing what is a general approach and what is personal.To bring this back to the topic:While abiogenesis is mostly unanswered anyone may say God had a direct, specific hand in it. However many believers would suggest that this is a misunderstanding of how God works with things. They suggest either he has a hand in everything in some God-like way or He chooses to allow the universe to unfold before him after starting it.To keep putting God only into cases of occasional miracles runs the risk of leaving no room for God when each of the cases is explained.Abiogenesis is one such place. Creationists may be safe in that it might be hard to pin point the precise path from non life to life but they may be at risk when you consider what we have explained so far.It was only about 7 decades ago the one man was able to say he understood how the sun shines and no one else did. Go back a century or three and the idea that we could understand such things would have seemed as unlikely as we now might think understanding abiogenesis in precise detail is.Creationists certainly have their credibility at risk (as if there is much left) since the whole probablility arguement and many others will collapse as we get to understand one or more viable possilbe paths from non-life to life.They will, of course, then fall back on the "OH YEA! Sez who? You weren't there!" argument. Which works for some people but is so clearly silly to many it will just force more marginalization.

Two points, one important and one frivilous.Silly first:
You can't "convert" you're our candidate for a creo admin! Sides there are so few that carry on a reasonable conversation we need you.Important:
I second the need to not let any of this damage faith. In my eyes the whole YEC thing isn't as much a faith issue as even those at AIG or ICR might pretend (or even honestly think). I see more of a political power play involved. It is this corruption of faith that my Christian friends are horrified and angered by. Their anger over this is greater than my anger over interferring with education. The faith is much more important to them than the education is to me.Having lost a loved one I can, to a degree, understand some of the comfort that faith might be able to give you. If you've got it don't let it go because of lies told by those at AIG.Have the best of both. An appreciation for the awesome wonder of the natural world and a connection with something you feel is greater still. Just don't let either one get in the way of the other. The simply minded view pushed by the creationist camp blinds them to both the majesty of the natureal universe and any hint of just how truely powerful the God they think they believe in could be. I can just barely understand a bit of the theology of the Christians I know well (a little maybe) but I only see in the creationist view the kind of faith a child might have in Santa Claus and have very, very little clue as to why they would push it on a religious basis. One a political basis I think I can see why.added by edit
'sides the MN side may yet be in for a surprise out there if we really do find gap that simply can not be closed - ever. Or even a hint of something else going on (though I guess that would become within the scope of MN if it did. mmmm, I get confused if I try to get too philosophical or too theological. That might be why I stay away.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-31-2004]