What aspect of life on the Earth requires supernatural powers?
| December 1, 2008 | Posted by Dave S. under Intelligent Design |
Some people who support ID doggedly hold that life on the planet earth requires a supernatural agency to make it happen. Others who don’t support ID also doggedly hold that ID requires a supernatural agency.
I’ve asked, many times, what is it about the construction of organic life on this planet that requires supernatural intelligence to make it happen? What laws of physics or chemistry must be violated to produce any aspect of any living organism thus far examined?
I admit that the origination and diversification of organic life on the earth seems best explained by participation at some point or points by an intelligent agency but I don’t see where a supernatural intelligent agency able to bend or break the laws of physics and chemistry is required.
I concede that the creation of the entire universe out of nothing seems to require an agency with capabilities that go beyond the laws of physics and chemistry as we understand them today but my question isn’t about the creation of a whole universe. My question is just about the creation of organic life on this planet.
105 Responses to What aspect of life on the Earth requires supernatural powers?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
What aspect of life on Earth requires supernatural powers?
The late Leslie E. Orgel was not optimistic about natural formation of necessary prebiotic processes to enable the natural formation of life on earth for some time. Orgel and Crick coauthored a book that proposed that life did not originate from natural processes on earth, but from “extra-mundane” sources, without specifying their particular identity. Speculation of course, but according to Orgel, not al little of proposed prebiotic processes is “…dependent on ‘if pigs could fly’ hypothetical chemistry…”
The Implausibility of Metabolic Cycles on the Prebiotic Earth
Leslie E. Orgel
Citation:Orgel LE (2008) The Implausibility of Metabolic Cycles on the Prebiotic Earth.
PLoS Biol 6(1): e18
Published: January 22, 2008
======
Conclusions
The demonstration of the existence of a complex, nonenzymatic metabolic cycle, such as the reverse citric acid, would be a major step in research on the origin of life, while demonstration of an evolving family of such cycles would transform the subject. In view of the importance of the topic, it is essential to subject metabolist proposals to the same kind of detailed examination and criticism that has rightly been applied to genetic theories [29-30]. In the case of these latter theories, an appraisal of their plausibility can be based on a substantial body of experimental work. In the case of the former, because little experimental work has been attempted, appraisal must be based on chemical plausibility.
Almost all proposals of hypothetical metabolic cycles have recognized that each of the steps involved must occur rapidly enough for the cycle to be useful in the time available for its operation. It is always assumed that this condition is met, but in no case have persuasive supporting arguments been presented. Why should one believe that an ensemble of minerals that are capable of catalyzing each of the many steps of the reverse citric acid cycle was present anywhere on the primitive Earth [8], or that the cycle mysteriously organized itself topographically on a metal sulfide surface [6]? The lack of a supporting background in chemistry is even more evident in proposals that metabolic cycles can evolve to “life-like” complexity. The most serious challenge to proponents of metabolic cycle theories—the problems presented by the lack of specificity of most nonenzymatic catalysts—has, in general, not been appreciated. If it has, it has been ignored. Theories of the origin of life based on metabolic cycles cannot be justified by the inadequacy of competing theories: they must stand on their own.
The situation with respect to chemical cycles unrelated to those involved in contemporary metabolism is different. At least one well-established autocatalytic cycle, the core of the formose reaction, is understood reasonably well [1,18] and, as discussed previously, there is experimental support for the existence of one or two other simple cycles [2,3]. This suggests that there may be more cycles to be discovered, and they could be relevant to the origin of life. The recognition of sequences of plausible reactions that could close a cycle is an essential first step toward the discovery of new cycles, but experimental proof that such cycles are stable against the challenge of side reactions is even more important.
Proposals involving complex metabolisms that are stable even in the absence of informational polymers usually are linked to the context of hydrothermal synthesis in the deep sea vents or some equivalent environment. Such linkage, however, need not be an essential feature of these theories [31]. A metabolist theory based on the self-organization of the Calvin cycle, for example, would be a logical possibility, although not necessarily an attractive one. Conversely, a theory in which metal sulfide–catalyzed reactions provided some or all of the organic molecules needed for the formation of a primitive genetic system would have many attractive features. A number of prebiotic syntheses catalyzed by transition metal sulfides under hydrothermal conditions have already been reported [16,17], and this is now an active area of research. It is important to realize that recognition of the possible importance of prebiotic syntheses that could occur hydrothermally does not necessitate a belief in their ability to self-organize.
The prebiotic syntheses that have been investigated experimentally almost always lead to the formation of complex mixtures. Proposed polymer replication schemes are unlikely to succeed except with reasonably pure input monomers. No solution of the origin-of-life problem will be possible until the gap between the two kinds of chemistry is closed. Simplification of product mixtures through the self-organization of organic reaction sequences, whether cyclic or not, would help enormously, as would the discovery of very simple replicating polymers. However, solutions offered by supporters of geneticist or metabolist scenarios that are dependent on “if pigs could fly” hypothetical chemistry are unlikely to help.
David Chalmers posts on consciousness and ID, Michael Egnor responds.
http://fragments.consc.net/djc.....esign.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....igent.html
Hi Joseph. You seem to be confused. First you say ID doesn’t require supernatural agency (it does because ID postulates not enough probabilistic resources from natural agency causing OOL), then in the very next sentence you talk about naturalism needing a supernatural expliantion.
1) I’m not sure it does
2) This is ‘tu quoque’, which is fallacious
3) It seems a tacit admission that ID required supernatural design.
Thanks!
That is nature, operating freely
The “confusion” is all yours.
I said something beyond nature.
And I am not sure that everything beyond nature needs to be supernatural.
My point is if you want to regress ID you have to apply the SAME standard to your position as well as all/ any other alternatives.
So the bottom-line is you lack reading comprehension skills and fail to apply your “skepticism” evenly.
Not to worry Mike Shermer has the same mental issues.
Hi Joe. I think perhaps you might want to (re)read some of Dr^2 Dembski’s work on the UPB.
He postulates
“10^80, the number of elementary particles in the observable universe.
10^45, the maximum rate per second at which transitions in physical states can occur (i.e., the inverse of the Planck time).
10^25, a billion times longer than the typical estimated age of the universe in seconds. “
We get 10^150 from all of this. If the odds of something happening are 10^150, it can’t happen – and this is key – not only on earth but anywhere in the natural universe at this point in time.
With regards to “Supernatural”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural
“The term supernatural or supranatural (Latin: super, supra “above” + natura “nature”) pertains to entities, events or powers regarded as beyond nature, in that they lack a clear scientific explanation”
You’re welcome to have your own personal definition, but what is postulated clearly fits *this*, widely accepted definition.
IDskeptic,
All your definition says is that the supernatural is beyond nature. Well duh.
Not everything beyond nature has to be supernatural. Things that are unnatural fit the bill.
Things that are other dimensional also fit the bill.
And even YOUR position also requires something beyond nature. You cannot get around that simple fact.
Ya see IDskeptic YOUR position still regresses to the SAME point.
Why? Did I say something that contradicts it?
If you think so please present it.
Oops- I forgot non-natural:
• adjective not produced by or involving natural processes.
IOW you still lack reading comprehension skills and you still do not apply your skepticism evenly.
Joe, you are playing games with synonyms:
http://dictionary.reference.co.....%20natural
“
nonnatural
adjective
existing outside of or not in accordance with nature; “find transcendental motives for sublunary action”-Aldous Huxley “
non-natural = supernautral
Tell you what, help me out. Draw a Venn diagram of natural and non natural for me.
Then we can discuss.
As for “wah wah wah” tu quoque, I don’t care – and the posts isn’t “Does naturalism require a supernatural genesis?” I’m just addressing the post above, using ID theory. The designer must be supernatural because ID says it is. I’m not necessarily agreeing with it, just staying on topic.
1. IDskeptic makes claim X about ID
2. Joseph points out that claim X, is not only false, it also pertains to IDskeptic’s position
Nope, no ‘tu quoque’ involved
Please read what was written.
Joe – “And even YOUR position also requires something beyond nature.”
that’s Tu Quoque Joe, and fallacious within the context of Why ID requires a supernatural entity for OOL.
Work on that Venn Diagram, it will help.
I know what was written.
ID does not require a supernatural entity for the OoL.
If it is outside of nature then we can’t say now can we? No we cannot. And that is because what is outside of nature is not amendable to study.
So the best we can do is say it is outside of nature and leave it at that.
And your claim of super is meaningless.
MY point that is in any “infinite regress” game, your position regresses back to the SAME point.
It could, but it does NOT have to.
You know that Venn diagram and all.
Tu quoque
A makes criticism P.
A is also guilty of P.
Therefore, P is dismissed.
I am not dismissing anything. I am just saying there is equality.
Please read what was written.
That is odd because ID doesn’t say anything about the designer.
But Doesn’t Intelligent Design Refer to Something Supernatural?:
IDSkeptic
Move along to another thread please. You’re not contributing in a constructive manner to this one.
IDSkeptic,
If you should still be lurking. ID does not require a supernatural designer for life on Earth. ETs could have done it.
Now, who would have made the ETs, is not addressed by ID seeking to describe life on Earth.
Obviously, somewhere along the line the matter of an infinite loop would have to be resolved, but how is that different from methodological naturalism?