"Life from non-life" objection to evolution

[steven-nemes]

It seems to me the "life from non-life" objection to the theory of evolution is not sound at all, because it assumes that "life" is something more than chemical substances behaving in relation to one another in complex ways--but that begs the question.

It seems perfectly possible to me that a bunch of non-living things would get together and naturally behave in certain ways in relation to one another in such a way that it is now considered "life"--because all it takes for something to be considered life, it seems, is that it multiply somehow, produce waste, take in nutrients, or whatever else.

I suppose that's what life amounts to in an atheistic universe; the living thing is just a complex system of interacting parts, and nothing more; and it seems perfectly plausible to me that some of those parts might meet each other, interact, and grow, etc.

Plus the assumption that a living thing cannot come from non-living things commits the fallacy of composition: that because the parts are non-living, the whole cannot be considered living, but that clearly doesn't fly.

 

[No Longer A Libertine]

Being sensical is not a strong suit for the prideful hubris of humanism despite their elevation of reason as the ultimate judge of all.

 

[steven-nemes]

Being sensical is not a strong suit for the prideful hubris of humanism despite their elevation of reason as the ultimate judge of all.

What do you mean to say in regards to my post?

 

[ChristianHedonist]

Technically, a "life from non-life" objection would be an objection to abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution is the (false) theory of how life changes forms and becomes more complex. Abiogenesis refers to the the beginning of life (i.e. how the first living cell arose from non-living matter). Atheistic evolutionists do not have a set theory for how life came to begin, even they will admit they don't know, although there are a variety of fringe theories out there. The "life from non-life" objection may not be logically sound, but it is quite scientifically sound. No scientist has been able to put non-living matter together in the right conditions to create life. If science, under rigidly controlled laboratory conditions, cannot generate life from non-living matter, then how in the world did it happen under random conditions billions of years ago??? That is the basis for the objection.

 

[InevitablyReformed]

It seems to me the "life from non-life" objection to the theory of evolution is not sound at all, because it assumes that "life" is something more than chemical substances behaving in relation to one another in complex ways--but that begs the question.

It seems perfectly possible to me that a bunch of non-living things would get together and naturally behave in certain ways in relation to one another in such a way that it is now considered "life"--because all it takes for something to be considered life, it seems, is that it multiply somehow, produce waste, take in nutrients, or whatever else.

I suppose that's what life amounts to in an atheistic universe; the living thing is just a complex system of interacting parts, and nothing more; and it seems perfectly plausible to me that some of those parts might meet each other, interact, and grow, etc.

Plus the assumption that a living thing cannot come from non-living things commits the fallacy of composition: that because the parts are non-living, the whole cannot be considered living, but that clearly doesn't fly.

I think Christian Hedonist beat me to it but the idea that a bunch of elements or molecules (where did they come from anyway?) can just get together and become something living has been handily disproven by atheistic/agnostic scientists.

Matter naturally moves away from other matter/decomposes (I think this is Brown's Law and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics) and 2) Energy + matter = destruction, not organized, functioning life.

Not sure how you came to your conclusions but there's a ton of great scientific info out there disproving all of this junk:
Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - index.html

Hope this helps brother.

 

[steven-nemes]

Technically, a "life from non-life" objection would be an objection to abiogenesis, not evolution.

My mistake.

Evolution is the (false) theory of how life changes forms and becomes more complex. Abiogenesis refers to the the beginning of life (i.e. how the first living cell arose from non-living matter). Atheistic evolutionists do not have a set theory for how life came to begin, even they will admit they don't know, although there are a variety of fringe theories out there. The "life from non-life" objection may not be logically sound, but it is quite scientifically sound.

It begs the question, which is enough to disqualify it from the arena of debate. Although, I suppose, it would force the atheist to acknowledge that life is nothing more than complex behavior of interacting parts, which I'm not sure that many acknowledge. If the they find this explanation lacking or improper, then maybe they can work on their assumptions about life or abandon evolution, or whatever...

No scientist has been able to put non-living matter together in the right conditions to create life. If science, under rigidly controlled laboratory conditions, cannot generate life from non-living matter, then how in the world did it happen under random conditions billions of years ago??? That is the basis for the objection.

But who cares? That a scientist can't replicate it says nothing about the truthhood of the theory. It seems to me the objection actually attempts to prove evolution logically inconsistent, which it doesn't.

-----Added 2/13/2009 at 08:50:13 EST-----

I think Christian Hedonist beat me to it but the idea that a bunch of elements or molecules (where did they come from anyway?) can just get together and become something living has been handily disproven by atheistic/agnostic scientists.

Matter naturally moves away from other matter/decomposes (I think this is Brown's Law and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics) and 2) Energy + matter = destruction, not organized, functioning life.

Not sure how you came to your conclusions but there's a ton of great scientific info out there disproving all of this junk:
Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - index.html

Hope this helps brother.

Ok, but what I am objecting to is the notion that evolution is a logical impossibility because it involves an impossibility (life from non-life), saying that it (the objection) begs the question.

 

[InevitablyReformed]

I am reading your above sentence like this: "I am objecting to the idea that an event cannot occur (evolution) based on the demonstrable fact that the starting point of the event is impossible." That doesn't quite make sense to me.

Steven, we could probably go back and forth on this all day, but the bottom line is that we don't have to come up with some impossible, nutjob theory about how life began on earth. It helps that we have the discipline of science to fully support God's creative work, but I take great comfort in the fact that all I have to do is be faithful to God's Word, tell people about it--and He does the heart transplant.

 

[Nate]

Although, I suppose, it would force the atheist to acknowledge that life is nothing more than complex behavior of interacting parts, which I'm not sure that many acknowledge.

From my interaction with scientists, it is my understanding that many do believe that live is nothing more than complex behavior of interacting parts.

 

[steven-nemes]

Although, I suppose, it would force the atheist to acknowledge that life is nothing more than complex behavior of interacting parts, which I'm not sure that many acknowledge.

From my interaction with scientists, it is my understanding that many do believe that live is nothing more than complex behavior of interacting parts.

It seems that's what they would have to accept and they'd also have to give up a lot of things, among others, like libertarian free will, subjective experiences, "free thought" lol...

-----Added 2/14/2009 at 03:34:34 EST-----

I am reading your above sentence like this: "I am objecting to the idea that an event cannot occur (evolution) based on the demonstrable fact that the starting point of the event is impossible." That doesn't quite make sense to me.

The inability to reproduce an event at the current time doesn't make it impossible (I'm sure they'd reply)...

Steven, we could probably go back and forth on this all day, but the bottom line is that we don't have to come up with some impossible, nutjob theory about how life began on earth. It helps that we have the discipline of science to fully support God's creative work, but I take great comfort in the fact that all I have to do is be faithful to God's Word, tell people about it--and He does the heart transplant.

True, and I agree. I was interested in posting about a common objection to the theory of evolution, which I think unsound is all.

 

[Zenas]

If life is non-living matter behaving in a certain manner, then there is no murder. If there is no murder, can we kill at will?

 

[Brian Withnell]

It seems to me the "life from non-life" objection to the theory of evolution is not sound at all, because it assumes that "life" is something more than chemical substances behaving in relation to one another in complex ways--but that begs the question.

It seems perfectly possible to me that a bunch of non-living things would get together and naturally behave in certain ways in relation to one another in such a way that it is now considered "life"--because all it takes for something to be considered life, it seems, is that it multiply somehow, produce waste, take in nutrients, or whatever else.

I suppose that's what life amounts to in an atheistic universe; the living thing is just a complex system of interacting parts, and nothing more; and it seems perfectly plausible to me that some of those parts might meet each other, interact, and grow, etc.

Plus the assumption that a living thing cannot come from non-living things commits the fallacy of composition: that because the parts are non-living, the whole cannot be considered living, but that clearly doesn't fly.

I do understand at least the math involved in the issue. I also understand where those that use arguments to confront the atheist scientist.

The starting point for evolution has to be a cell (while viruses "replicate" they only do so with taking over a host cell). So in order to have selection occur, replication has to occur. Thus the need for a cell for evolution to start.

Supposedly it takes about 250 proteins to produce a cell (I am not a biologist, so I'm taking others' word on this). Those proteins would have to be produced simultaneously or at least in proximity in time and space and be combined exactly. If one looked at a probabilistic model (the model that evolutionists use to explain evolution) then it just doesn't make sense. If you had even a 50-50 chance of producing a needed protein (one protein, not the whole lot) every trillionth of a second,the odds of having all 250 produced at the same time would be beyond astronomical (1 in 10 to the 52nd power for the whole ... if the same value (10^52) was converted to distance in meters, it is far greater than the distance of the known universe from one end to the other.)

In order to have such a thing happen, what atheistic scientists do is propose an infinite number of parallel universes (which is untestable, and so is non-science).

The real issue is they suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Their conscience becomes seared.

 

[steven-nemes]

If life is non-living matter behaving in a certain manner, then there is no murder. If there is no murder, can we kill at will?

No, I suppose an atheist would argue that what we mean by murder is the abrupt stopping of certain complex behavior of parts that we would label "life".

-----Added 2/23/2009 at 07:12:49 EST-----

Brian: I would agree.

 

[Zenas]

To which I would reply why should we be restrained from doing so.

 

[steven-nemes]

To which I would reply why should we be restrained from doing so.

no longer the same argument.

 

[August]

When did evolution start?

I did a blogpost about a similar issue after a debate...the question remains how you justify the series without accounting for the first in the series?