Science is about to "intellegently Design" life by "Creationsim" how does that grab you?

Question

Scientists say they are 10 years away from creating a single celled life from from scratch. One Harvard University Professor says making a cell membrane is easy.

Now, how does the scientific aspect of Creationsim and Intellegent Design grab you.

Where does this leave the Randomists and Darwinists who say life "just happened" you'll HAVE no PROOF, but SCIENCE will have proof that an INTELLEGENT BRAIN can make life.

How does that grab you, Richard Dawkins.

How does that grab you everyone.

INTELLEGENT DESIGN as a REALITY, to be TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS with FORMUALS

CREATIONISM for LIFE to be TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS

How do the hard core DARWINISTS who can't prove RANDOMISM deal with this reality that is about to hit us from SCIENCE!?

Here are two links:

http://technology.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg19526114.000&feedId=life_rss20

http://cbs13.com/health/health_story_232094940.html

Both of these were Top Yahoo headlines a few weeks ago, don't you guys read the news. Why does a Christian have to tell you about the latest buzz in Science!!!!

It must be true, you don't read books! Only Christians go to school and read books!

Welcome to the world of INTELLEGENT DESIGN the ONLY PROVEN WAY that has been shown to make life happen!

Answer 1

As controversial as this is going to sound, many spiritual leaders around the world believe science is the new religion. Science and religion are not incompatible. Science can explain how God creates. This is not a new school of thought, but has been going on since the 1800's. Many firmly believe science will discover that an unexplainable 'force' started the big bang. Religions will recognize this as God. Both science and religion will slowly over time have more in common.

Answer 2

First, there is no such thing as a Randomist.

Second, the argument of evolution versus intelligent design has never concerned whether or not the processes of evolution or intelligent design _could_ have created us. I doubt the idea that great intelligences can create life has ever been contested. The argument instead centers upon whether or not it was the processes of evolution or intelligent design that _did_ create us. Our ability to create life in know way offers any credence toward the concept of intelligent design.

Also, hopefully they will also teach students in these schools the importance of proofreading. The word "from" is unnecessarily repeated in your first sentence and "formuals" ought to be spelled "formulas." I am sure these were both typos, but you should edit this if possible (I'm not sure if you can).

tissheilah, I mean no offenses by this, but "theory" as a scientific term has a different meaning that that of the word as used in the vernacular. While in the vernacular a theory is little more than an assumption, scientifically a theory has much stronger grounding in fact and can largely be considered of a reliable veracity. I recommend you look up the difference between the two contexts.

Answer 3

Evolution is not random. Mutations may be random, but evolution is not. Evolution is guided by natural selection, and natural selection is not random. I don't understand where fundies continue to get this idea.

Where is this in print ("Scientists say they are 10 years away from creating a single celled life from from scratch. One Harvard University Professor says making a cell membrane is easy.") I'd like to read the entire article to make sure it's not being taken out of context.

The funniest thing is, you fundies continue to complain that scientists can't "prove" that "something" (life) came from "nothing" (nonliving atoms and molecules), but when you are shown the evidence that it may be possible, you claim it as a justification of your own belief system (whether it's creationism, intelligent design, or whatever you want to call it this week), which you always claim to be directly in opposition of that which just provided you the evidence...some sort of vicious circle you have to exist in there, isn't it.

Edit: Thanks for the links. Here's a part you may not have read or may have skipped over...

>>"Murtas is interested in synthetic cells as a model of what happened when the earliest forms of life emerged. His team's achievement falls short of a true bottom-up construction because the recipe they used for protein synthesis had to include structures known as ribosomes, composed of RNA and proteins, which they obtained from E. coli. These "biochemical machines" direct protein synthesis, and to be truly synthetic a cell would have to include structures capable of a similar job that were assembled from their basic components.

"That is probably the biggest challenge," says Church. Though biochemists have been able to assemble ribosomes in the lab for some years, it has required high temperatures and harsh chemical conditions - not the sort of environment to be found in living cells."<<

So even intelligence can't design everything in the cell yet. And, remember, this just demonstrates that intelligent *humans* are close to designing a cell based on already existent models. How does this prove that an intelligent supernatural being designed any of the life we see now? There's still a long way to go for fundies to prove that.

Answer 4

Firstly, as Geezah pointed out, just because life CAN be designed from scratch doesn't mean that life on Earth WAS designed. Especially considering this is by man, some god isn't coming down to show us how it's done.

Secondly, from what I read, they're going to be developing life from scratch by introducing the base elements for life to each other and letting it progress naturally but with, hopefully, guidance. This wouldn't be creating life from scratch, this would be attempting to simulate the development of life from non-life and would just add proof that life CAN develop naturally.

Besides all that, the point in the study/experiment isn't to prove how life started, it's to obtain a base to develop better technology and medicine.

Answer 5

If nothing else it will show that you do not need a god to do this.


Come off it. That is about the most pathetic argument I have ever heard. This is like saying sandstone proves the existence of God because it takes a human to create concrete.

At the same time as these scientist are discussing how to manufacture designer microbes there are a whole load of others who are simulating the young Earth's environment and seeing all sorts of the building blocks of life spontaneously form with no help from any outside force.

What will you do when this second group of scientists find a self replicating chemical has formed all by itself? Because that will prove that abiogenesis is possible.


BTW, what are the FORMUALS (sic) for intelligent design? Inquiring minds would like to know.

Answer 6

The point you're missing here is that something capable of intelligently engineering something as complex as a cell must itself be the end result of a long process of gradual evolution. Which would mean your God must have evolved. Which would discount your God and the idea that life on Earth was intelligently designed. It means that life does not require supernatural agents to come into being.

It also means that living organisms aren't all that special. Since apparently they don't need a soul or anything to operate.

These experiments will confirm the naturalistic worldview, not refute it.

And please explain to me what in the nine evels of hades randomism is.

Answer 7

I personally have a really tough time with the idea that intelligent design and evolution are contrary theories.

Let me ask you...

Have you ever started a project and changed it mid-stream because you thought of a better design?

Why couldn't a Creator do the same thing? Why can't God be able to make design changes in people, animals, and plants over time?

This bickering is pointless.

Evolution is a plausible theory (but it is a theory nonetheless). Many people are going to believe in Creationism. The public schools should continue teaching evolution and the churches should continue to teach creationism. There is no need for debate. I trust that each and every religious person can find a personal belief that will make each theory fit together (i.e. God gave the appearance of evolution in order to test our faith or something else).

Answer 8

How about you learn some logic 101?

The fact that event "B" can follow from "A" does not necessarily mean "B ONLY happens from A". By your "logic", the fact that I can get to England by plane means that nobody ever traveled there by ship.

Boy, you're a bright one!

Oh, by the way, it's creationists who pretty much say "life just happened". Abiogenesis and evolution show that life did NOT "just happen" and shows models that are consistant with what we see. If you actually took the time to read a science book or any of the millions of science journals that have been published, you'd know.
-------------------------------------
EDIT: Did anybody else get emails from this moron? I sure did. Here's my response:

>>Tell me, oh great wise one, how did the
>>first microbe, the first paramecium occur.

Paramecia weren't the first single-celled organisms, oh great biologist. And even if I didn't know the answer, that does not automatically make the Bible and other creation myths equally plausible. Again, like most zealots, you have no grasp on basic logic. If you really want to read the best explanation of how the first amino acids formed and led to the first self-replicating organisms, read "Genesis: The Scientific Quest for Life's Origins" by Robert M. Hazen, Or Iris Fry's "The Emergence of Life on Earth", or look up any of the related articles over the last 10 years from the journal "Nature" (which most university libraries carry). And no, I can't post the contents of a book here. Tell me which ones you precisely read and your exact criticisms with page references. Until then, stop wasting my time.

>>So where is YOUR theory on the FIRST
>>ORGANIC LIFE FORM
>>We'd like to see it oh wise one and put it
>>on R&S so we can all laugh at it

Who's "we"? It's not my fault you're too stupid to go to a library and research abiogenesis. If you think you can do better, then go publish an article in a biology journal, not some internet Q&A forum.

>>Do unto others as you better darn well
>>expect they will do unto you.

Don't preach at me. You made sweeping claims and proposed it as a "question", and I'm posting my critical response. I will do unto others AS they do unto me.

>>The fact remains SCIENCE is about to CREATE LIFE
>>from scratch through INTELLEGENT DESIGN and
>>WILLFUL INTENT

Re-read my paragraph under the first line of my post. This has to be the most laughable creationist argument I've seen.

>>Now show use [sic] video PROOF of how
>>EVOLUTION WORKS
>>Because you can bet the scientists will have
>>VIDEO PROOF OF THEIR WORK.

Oh, so now you want proof of evolution in addition to abiogenesis. Again, do your own homework. What would constitute "video proof" to you? If you knew anything about evolution (and its obvious that you don't), you'd know that it's a gradual process that affects populations, not something that happens to a single organism in a matter of hours. This is like asking for video proof of plate tectonics. Besides, I doubt that the full genetic engineering process you mention could be fully shown on a few hours of video.

How old are you anyway? Are you even old enough to get a drivers license?

Answer 9

I think you misunderstand the point. This will show how life evolved from nonliving molecules. It does not indicate that an "intelligence" was responsible for the beginning of life.

Here's an interesting article on abiogenesis: the development of living organisms from nonliving matter:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html
Science shows us that the universe evolved by self-organization of matter towards more and more complex structures. Atoms, stars and galaxies self-assembled out of the fundamental particles produced by the Big Bang. In first-generation stars, heavier elements like carbon, nitrogen and oxygen were formed. Aging first-generation stars then expelled them out into space – we, who consist of these elements, are thus literally born from stardust. The heaviest elements were born in the explosions of supernovae. The forces of gravity subsequently allowed for the formation of newer stars and of planets. Finally, in the process of biological evolution from bacteria-like tiny cells (the last universal common ancestor) to all life on earth, including us humans, complex life forms arose from simpler ones.

(Edit)
Artificial life likely in 3 to 10 years
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070819/artificial_life.html?.v=1

~ "A mind is a terrible thing to waste." ~

Answer 10

:) Don't count your ammino acids until they form and replicate. All this will prove is that biochemistry works and if those amino acids changes - there's your utter proof of EVOLUTION, not mysticism.

Do you actually not believe in mutation? Well strap a cell phone or massage DNA damaging chemicals to your gonads for a few years, then have some children... And talk then of your intelligent creation.