In his latest book, The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking claims that the concept of God is not needed to explain the existence of the universe. The answer, according to him, is spontaneous creation: the universe created itself, by itself, spontaneously. Spontaneous auto-creation doesn't call for a creator.
In saying this, Hawking doesn't speak like a scientist: he speaks like a (speculative) philosopher. Scientists cannot say whether we "need" a God to explain the way the world is; all they can say is that science (and here mostly they mean physics) can (although so far it hasn't) find equations that account for all the laws of nature. Such a "theory of everything" would account not only for all the laws of nature, but for all the things that are governed by the laws of nature, that is, for the way all things are in space and time. And even for spacetime itself. This would be equivalent (Einstein said) to reading the mind of God. Only Hawking now says that God is not involved: as Laplace said before him, it's a hypothesis for which we no longer have any need.
But this is an old story -- an old fallacy. Hawking claims that the universe created itself by "spontaneous creation." But how come that the universe -- our particular universe -- created itself just the way it is? Was that "spontaneous creation" a lucky fluke? Pure serendipity? Could it not be that the universe has been created so it would create itself the way it is? Scientists know that our universe is a most unlikely place; statistically, it's entirely improbable. According to quantum string theory, there could be about 10500 possible universes (this is the number 1 followed by 500 zeros). Only a handful among this staggering number of possible universes could bring forth life, not to mention so-called higher forms of life where beings who consider themselves intelligent claim they and their world came about by serendipity.
To answer "why" our universe "created itself" the way it did is beyond science. To say that it did so spontaneously is not an answer: it's an excuse for an answer. When Hawking says that the spontaneous self-creation of the universe "out of nothing" is evidence that a creator was not involved, he is not speaking as a scientist. He is not making a scientific statement. His statement is pure theology -- of the negative kind typical of atheists.
To deny the existence of a transcendental creator is just as much an act of faith as to affirm it. Of course, we can speculate on this question, and we should speculate: who says that the limits of science must be the limits of human inquiry? But we should not claim that when we speculate we speak as scientists, even if we happen to be the author of the mind-boggling equations that account for the behavior and ultimate end of black holes.
In a recent post, "Why Some Religious People Fear (and Fight) Science -- And Why It's a Sad Mistake," I said that the religious have no reason to fear science, and I stand by that. I should point out, however, that I meant "science," and not -- and certainly not all -- "scientists."
What we lack during our formative years, we look for elsewhere. If we can't find it, we make it up. "God", who will take care of us and everything is such a replacement; a coping strategie; a defence mechanism, a mere concoction: the 'repression response' to tragedies that have occured in our lives we do not know how to deal with.
"God" is a solution to problems that remain.
When we identify the main theme of, and shared by, most, if not all, religions, then what's the mystery really?
Always keep in mind that the human brain can only comprehend 3 categories to put information in.
The Universe as it is now follows certain laws of physics and chemistry. No one knows how this came about and this creates a gap that some people put a god into. In one breath a creationist says that things cannot create themselves but in the next breath they say when asked about the origin of god they say he's always existed. He wasn't created he just always was. Ok well thats every bit as scientifically impossible as saying the universe created itself. What Professor Hawkins is probably saying is a variation of what I just said. The Universe created itself by following the laws of physics and chemistry. He didn't mean the universe came from nothing. Obviously there was something prior to creation as we know it but lacking a time machine no one knows what that was and we will probably never know.
The bible has been disproven and if this god existed why would he have such hogwash between two book covers?
doesn't exist. That can be proven logically and evidentially. However, to say that there is NO intelligent design, when all of the clues POINT TO an intelligent design is like saying that because we can't explain how explosives could have been planted in the WTC towers ... there WERE no explosives planted by anyone; they simply planted themselves.
And I'm a bit puzzled why so many atheists automatically assume that when someone says "intelligent design" that a supernatural or "God" is always automatically inferred.
It's not. I'm not suggesting that God done it or that God exists. I'm merely saying that the clues all point to an intelligence which structured life. This intelligence -if it exists or was transferred- would be something which science has NOT YET "discovered." If science hasn't discovered it then science has no authority to declare any of its characteristics or ... its non-existence. (And neither does religion have any authority to explain it either).
Let's move the clock back 200 years ... to 1810. Let's imagine that (some) people were talking about devices they'd seen ... in the hands of people, who were apparently talking to friends many miles away ... directly through the air! These people could SEE their friends on those devices and ... were apparently talking to them in REAL TIME.
Now, since nothing had yet been discovered about radio waves, these gadgets would appear to be magical and the means by which they worked would appear to be supernatural. Neither science or religion would have any explanation for it. WHO could authentically and authoritatively take it upon themselves to offer an explanation for the unexplainable? Religion would try of course ... and scientists would likely dismiss it as something experienced by deluded people.
Because we can't understand something doesn't mean that it's automatically supernatural or .... non-existent. Why then, do we ALWAYS need to have something "authoritative" to say about things which are totally -yet- inexplicable?
Now ... the theory of evolution should be testable with modern computers in simulation. Because they work so fast, it doesn't take very long to run billions of computations.
If you set up a group of very powerful computers and had them perform billions and billions of random computations and let them run for a year or two ...
Do you SUPPOSE they would somehow construct a genetic code all on their own? (or even ANYTHING logical and constructive). If not, why not?
I don't really know how to approach those that differ yet I feel I want to try and share and make them understand from my point of view. Recent events have shown my communication a total failure. And far too emotionally draining.
another....serious but yet joking note....anyone who has ever heard Bill Shatner's music CD from the 70's??? honest.....it is impossible to take him even a bit seriously...
as to your question....imv....if someone has a strong belief system, which is defined and clear....and no, most christians do not qualify....for their religion/modern christianity is a hodge podge of various religions...but not to digress...
those who believe ....then do have answers.....for example and speaking for myself....something is either from G-d or it is not....the so called dead....are not floating around in some other dimention....they are 'asleep' in the grave....so they do not communicate with the living.
UFO's? no proof of them.....so just because on e sees some unexplained light in the sky this means it is of a suernatural force??
the majority of people love to 'dumb down' things.....so why not on supernatural ...what is or is not?
just because something seems 'deep' doesn't mean it is....i do not feel Bill's quote is as philosophical as you do.
i like Bill...LOVED star trek...have and rewatch every episode often....i know i suk...
but...i like how Bill doesn't..take himself seriously.....i was very sad for him when his wife passed about 5 years ago.
let's try to be kind to each other jackie....and accept each other for whom we are....AND more importantly whom we are not? as nausiating as that might be??
""Random chance seems to have operated in our favor" - Spock
"In plain, non-Vulcan English, we've been lucky" - McCoy
"I believe I said that, Doctor" - Spock
No code ever constructs itself by random occurrence.
A computer can construct a compression code ... but only with intelligent design for the instructions to do so.
It's possible that a face of Jesus occurs randomly in a cloud of smoke or in the sky. This face is never preserved/never duplicated again. There's nothing to preserve it. Just as randomly as it appeared, it DISappears.
Now, if life started spontaneously with a bolt of lightning hitting a swamp ... you might get a temporary form of life. But how does that life sustain itself without instruction for eating food? What keeps it alive long enough for it to get instruction on how to reproduce itself?
There has to be a consistent bias for survival and ordered construction improvement for any life form to develop. It doesn't just happen randomly.
If the theory of evolution is the total answer, we should see inanimate development as well. We should see other forms of Stone Henge developed which become ever-more sophisticated forms of Stone Henge ... and we don't. Only in life forms do we see change toward sophistication and favoring survival. In the inanimate world, everything ultimately reverts to its simplest form/path of least resistance.
Ok, first off there are a bunch of holes in your comments. If I may.
Life didn't start "spontaneously with a bolt of lightning hitting a swamp" Electricity from lightning is thought to have contributed to conditions that made life possible that it's not at all Frankensteinian. Amino acids led to proteins which led to RNA. Once you have RNA you have the ability to form the first protocells with a fatty membrane. From there you start to get replication. This leads to errors in replication which leads to mutations and an eventual buildup of complexity.
That cell is already digesting protein bonds as a way to get energy. If life formed around the high-temperature sea vents then there are enough enzymes in the water to provide nutrients to these protocells as they begin to become alive.
Part of the reason that you're forced to believe in an intelligence is that you think life just "poofed" into existence. That's not the case.
You said, "There has to be a consistent bias for survival and ordered construction improvement for any life form to develop. It doesn't just happen randomly."
Yes, it does.
You also said, "If the theory of evolution is the total answer, we should see inanimate development as well."
And no, we shouldn't. Inanimate objects do not replicate themselves. They don't breed. No evolution can take place.
give me the sequence of events which created the first life form and then developed into an eating, reproducing cell form ... and then tell me why scientists can't replicate this process in a lab.
of the twenty of so proteins necessary 13 were recreated in the first experiment. The remaining seven have been shown to be able to be created through other experiments.
Here, from the article I posted earlier:
Let us assume the plausible scenario that either RNA was directly synthesized, see above, so that out of a large pool of random RNAs a self-replicating RNA molecule could arise, or that such synthesis was accomplished by a precursor genetic/catalytic system (possibly on the surface of minerals, cf. Orgel 2004). Since fatty acids could have been available in the environment (Hanczyc et al. 2003, Orgel 2004), a primitive fatty acid membrane could have surrounded the first self-replicating RNA molecules (due to their molecular properties, fatty acids can form vesicles spontaneously); this would not have allowed passage of the RNA polymers so that they would have stayed together, but would have let the much smaller nucleotides through, fed in from spontaneous prebiotic synthesis or from a precursor genetic/catalytic system. Such a membrane would have had different characteristics of semi-permeability than modern lipid membranes, where a lot of molecule transfer is regulated through protein channels.
The group of Jack Szostak has performed extensive and plausible studies that these fatty acid vesicles as containers for RNA would have allowed growth and replication merely by physico-chemical mechanisms, until a more sophisticated membrane machinery, steered by the cell itself and more resembling what is found in current organisms, would have taken their place (Hanczyc et al. 2003, Chen et al. 2004, Hanczyc and Szostak 2004, Zhu and Szostak 2009).
While in earlier studies (Hanczyc et al. 2003, Hanczyc and Szostak 2004) more extreme conditions and sheer forces were required for vesicle division, also leading to the loss of a substantial fraction of vesicle contents, a new study (Zhu and Szostak 2009) shows a solution to these problems. It uses multilamellar vesicles (vesicles with several layers of lipid membrane) that form spontaneously by the rehydration of fatty acid films or by the acidification of a concentrated solution of fatty acid micelles. Once multilamellar vesicles are formed, spontaneous further incorporation of fatty acid micelles into them causes, via an unexpected mechanism, the formation of strongly elongated, thread-like vesicles. After subjection to mild shear forces these divide into several, again round, small daughter vesicles that preserve RNA contents well.
The group of Szostak also has demonstrated that nucleotides can pass through prebiotically plausible fatty-acid based vesicles and that non-enzymatic template copying of a model oligo dC DNA template can take place within them (Mansy et al. 2008), which, in connection with the studies of vesicle growth and division, reveals in principle how a heterotrophic protocell may have functioned (Fig. 2). Furthermore, they showed (Mansy and Szostak 2008) that prebiotically plausible model membranes are surprisingly thermostable, allowing them to tolerate at least short periods of temperatures of up to 100°C. Thermal cycling might have been possible near or within the surface of hydrothermal vents or hot springs (for thermal convection within hydrothermal pores, see also the below mentioned study by Baaske et al. 2007). This might solve the thorny issue of separating the double-stranded product of the copying reaction for further replication. Thermal cycling could have allowed for this separation of copying products (and increased nucleotide uptake, see Mansy and Szostak 2008) at high temperatures, and copying at lower ones, analogous to the polymerase chain reaction (PCR).
Extrapolating from all the above data, inside fatty-acid vesicles the first self-replicating RNA molecule could have started copying itself. During copying, various things would have been possible. High-fidelity copies would have yielded the same self-replicating molecule. Copies with errors would mostly have resulted in RNA that was non-functional, but in a minority of cases, they could have yielded RNA that copied itself faster. It has been shown (Chen et al. 2004, see also news article) that RNA/vesicle systems that contain more genetic material (which would have resulted from faster RNA replication) develop more internal tension than neighboring vesicles that do not contain as much RNA, and draw membrane material from them. Importantly, this would have allowed for natural selection of vesicles by competition even in the absence of the ability to synthesize their own membrane components and therefore to directly control their own growth. Thus, for the first time, a system would have had the ability to undergo Darwinian evolution by natural selection acting on variation. This would have been a new and crucial emergent property arising at the transition from non-life to life.
A small portion of other copying errors (again, most substantial errors would probably have resulted in non-functional molecules, but those would have been filtered out by natural selection) could have led to RNA molecules with yet other, entirely different catalytic properties than the copying function. A new property could have allowed the RNA/vesicle system to even better compete for resources: just like in the case of the RNA molecules featuring the better copying function, the RNA would have evolved (1). The copy function of the parent molecules would probably have acted on these daughter molecules as well (like an RNA polymerase enzyme that copies any RNA). RNA/vesicle systems that had the altered RNA molecules with the new beneficial function, in addition to retaining the RNA with the copy function, would have been favored by natural selection. Finally, through reiteration of such processes, a series of new catalytic properties could, for example, have allowed the RNA pool within the vesicles to start making its own nucleotides. Would it then have been self-sufficient? To a certain degree, yes. Could this have been the first primitive cell? Why not?
It is just that in this scenario, the initial metabolism would have been much simpler than todays metabolism: Among others, energy metabolism could have been replaced by passage of activated building blocks for molecules from the outside environment into the vesicle (in a sense providing a preliminary substitute for modern-day ATP production, a possibility in view of the simple metabolism), and lipid metabolism, building of membrane structure and its regulation during replication would have been replaced by simple vesicles plainly obeying physico-chemical forces.
In other words: the cell would have depended more on the outside world, but for what it was doing, it was to a certain degree self-sufficient (todays organisms also need sustenance from the outside world of course, in the form of nutrients). On the other hand, the dependence of the cell on the outside world would also have been possible in a more immediate manner. A modern cell cannot, for example, use fatty acids from the outside in a way that they are directly incorporated as membrane elements.
Earlier we had asked: How could a complex network of more than 200 essential proteins, as it is found in todays most elementary cells, have arisen on its own?
The key to answering this question appears the combination of the above two attributes in the primitive cell: more direct dependence on the outside world than the modern cell, but also a greater ability to show such dependence by accepting molecular building blocks as such without having to convert nutrients into them. Starting with these characteristics and gradually moving on from there, evolution indeed could have eased the cellular system into more complexity.
Perhaps lipid synthesis, in a precursor form of modern synthesis, could have made the system more independent. The RNA system could have, bit by bit, invented protein synthesis as mentioned, the modern ribosomes still contain ribozymes (catalytic RNA) that catalyze the formation of peptide bonds which eventually result in proteins. In a compelling study (Wolf and Koonin 2007) the authors propose a stepwise model for the origin of the protein translation system, in which each step confers a distinct advantage onto an ensemble of co-evolving genetic elements. The goal of development of translation would not have been required, a foresight which evolution does not have. The initial cause for the emergence of translation would have been the ability of amino acids and peptides to stimulate reactions catalyzed by ribozymes (for peptides experimentally shown, see Robertson et al. 2004). Even if it will turn out that several steps in the evolution of translation probably have been different from the proposed model, the study clearly demonstrates that there is nothing in the emergence of the translation system that would represent a case of irreducible complexity, incapable of being subject to stepwise Darwinian evolution.
A recent study (Bokov and Steinberg 2009), based on analysis of the interdependence of elements of the macromolecule, shows a step-by-step evolution of the ribosome on the structural level, beginning from a very small core, the peptide transpeptidation centre. Further layers were added from the outside one by one, until the current complex macromolecule emerged. Each of these layers is structurally connected only to the respective previous one, and could be removed in the model without destroying the integrity of the inner layers (like the peeling of an onion), showing that there was no need for the entire molecule to emerge at once. This establishes the lack of irreducible complexity of the translational machinery from another perspective.
Finally, complex metabolism could have been achieved and the transition to the modern DNA/(RNA)/protein world. The dualism DNA/protein of course is a source of complexity in itself, one that is lacking in an RNA-only organism.
What about the difficult issue of a genome which holds all genes together? It might have been that in the first primitive cells RNAs were ligated by accident step by step, one by one, into forming a genome precursor and that each such step conferred an advantage in natural selection over competitor cells, since genes would not have been lost anymore during cell division, and replication would have been synchronized. Over time, an entire small RNA genome potentially could have organized itself in this manner, until mechanisms for internal expansion, like they are found in modern genomes, could have taken over, e.g. gene duplication and variation of the duplicated gene.
Certainly, reading of a string of ligated RNA as several single genes would have required that the primitive cellular mechanism would have come across a way to recognize beginning and end of a sequence. Promoter regions and start/stop codons, in the form they are used in protein-coding genes, would not have been present in a primitive RNA organism.
While lack of replication fidelity would have been an issue in primordial RNA genomes, analysis of experimental mutation studies on ribozymes indicates that an RNA genome may nonetheless have grown as large as 100 genes (Kun et al. 2005, Poole 2006). The RNA genome could, bit by bit, have been replaced by a DNA genome, a selectable advantage that primordial cells would have encountered by chance.
As for the universal genetic code: there is evidence that, until the last common ancestor, the genetic code was selected to a substantial extent for error minimization, thus is not arbitrary. Yet in part it is probably also frozen accident since the selection for this feature appears not to be maximal (Koonin and Novozhilov 2009).
In summary, based on available data a spontaneous origin of life as simple cells containing a single genetic polymer, upon which natural selection could act, is feasible. A gradual evolutionary transition from these to common cellular complexity would have been possible.
We're supposed to believe that a bolt of lightning hit a swamp of primordial soup ONCE upon a time and ... it resulted in an AMAZING number of things all at once:
It created the first living cell.
This cell somehow got the instruction to multiply itself
This cell got instruction to feed itself
That cell eventually FILLED the swamp completely but didn't die out.
And ....
This NEVER happened again!! Just that one time and a kind of 'miracle' kept it alive and reproducing which eventually branched into life as we know it today.
Now we know that the chances of being killed by lightning are slight ... one in 2.3 million.
Chances of winning a lottery are even more slim. For 6/49 it's 1 in 14 million.
Chances of being killed on a 5 mile bus trip are 1 in 500 million.
Chances of a meteor landing on your house is 1 in 182,138,880,000,000 !
Ok now that LAST one has me interested because the odds are more in line with the start of life on earth chances. Has it ever happened? By gum, it has!
Life should have been reproduced MANY times over in 4.5 billion years as well. Is there any sign that this has ever been duplicated within recorded history? Nope.
Life may have started up many different times. It's just that the organisms that started the first time had the edge and ate them. Or life started many times in different places around the earth and only one type survived. Or life is insanely rare and while the complex chemicals are not the boundary between replication and life is only crossed once in a blue moon. Or maybe it's been crossed a few gazillion times and wiped out by the puddle drying up or who knows what.
Your definition of what's required for life is not accurate so your belief that it can't happen without guidance is founded upon inaccurate information.
I can't give you a simple definition of the origin of life. Once I make it simple enough for your needs it sounds like, "it just happened" which is no longer accurate. Sometimes complex ideas are not able to be made into sound bites. Especially when nobody knows for sure. What we do know is that life is here. Biologic molecules are abundant throughout the universe. There's no reason they couldn't have gone on to form more and more complex molecules and eventually cells.
Monomers, polymers, cells. Evolution would have started as early as between monomers and polymers.
Why isn't it happening again? Because the earth is vastly different now than it was then. During recorded history oxygen levels are so high as to be poisonous to early single-celled organisms.
I find it hard to take your position seriously when it's so flawed...
I rely on the, what I call the cavalier physicists , to argue all this stuff with the more 'fundy' (sorry Phred ) physicists.
If I can sense a reconciliiation of sorts from some of these latest 'findings / theories', with my own spiritual (beliefs..), then I work with this understanding.
Of course, this is not goinf to be good enough for Phred, cos Phred desires a different something from what I do. I have no problems witht that at all. Diiferent Ways, Many Paths. It's cool.....
Wow, I am impressed Phred. Your post was like the pages I have to turn over tut sweet in some of my pop. science books!
It most certainly can. This guy is begging to say that the universe cannot be created except by a god, by an intelligence. It's the old anthropomorphic argument for our universe. Can't be this way because it's so suited for us. Must have been created with us in mind. Mind presumes God.
I agree. Science observes and experiments and discovers. What it discovers it tells us about. It hasn't found any divine footprints yet. Hawking was just eliminating one more corner of the universe where believers hope those footprints are hiding.
The Universe isn't here for the benefit of life on eaerth.
October 22 2010, 12:26 PM
During the developement of our universe there were no living things. The universe came about and certain factors came about that led to the developement of life as we know it. The universe wasn't adjusted for us we adjusted for the conditions of the universe.
I'm too special to have been crafted by any natural process since life, the entire planet, solar system, galaxy, and universe were especially created with the pinnacle of it in mind: me, the religionist
Always keep in mind that the human brain can only comprehend 3 categories to put information in.
There are lots of examples were someone "needs" a "god" to overcome an addiction, improve themselves by reflection, attribute the source of their "epiphanies", or cope with heavy grief. These aren't "proof" of "god" or "God" by any stretch and I would never claim such, but they are real situations. Science quite often doesn't help in these situations. The opposite seems to be the case in lots of ways as there's a lot of "science" about smoking, eating, exercising, working, etc. but people seem to completely ignore or go the opposite direction of the science.
This guy is begging to say that the universe cannot be created except by a god, by an intelligence. It's the old anthropomorphic argument for our universe. Can't be this way because it's so suited for us. Must have been created with us in mind. Mind presumes God.
That might be what "this guy" said, but it's not what I said... Hence my "strawman" comment. The Universe exists, either it began or it was always here... Regardless, the reality of the Universe and its origins seems totally orthogonal to God. That is my view and the point of my post, not the "anthropomorphic argument".
I agree. Science observes and experiments and discovers. What it discovers it tells us about. It hasn't found any divine footprints yet. Hawking was just eliminating one more corner of the universe where believers hope those footprints are hiding.
I don't believe there are such things as "divine footprints", especially as defined as something that will be uncovered by science. Which, again, is my view that Science and God are orthogonal in nature and concept.
Your mileage may vary.
This message has been edited by ever-a-newbie on Oct 22, 2010 6:17 PM
![[linked image]](http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc319/8-DJ/truth-itworks.gif)
![[linked image]](http://images.bravenet.com/common/images/smilies/27_laughing.gif)
