Mark Vernon, at the Guardian's blog site, asks what would happen to theology if Corot finds evidence of inhabited planets (which it won't, because it's not set up for that). He raises the traditional theological concerns, made popular in C. S. Lewis' Perelandra series. But then he makes the following mistake.
The scientifically-minded should be careful before using such a reductio ad absurdum as another stick with which to beat Christianity. For life on other planets would set science in a spin, too. Take Darwinism. Although evolutionary theory is mute on how life started, it does suggest that: (a) whatever it is that kicks life off, it is a very rare event; and (b) whenever life kicks off, it diversifies massively. Imagine, then, that life was discovered on not just one, but dozens, then thousands, of other planets. In fact, on every Earth-like planet that we could see. This would challenge the apparent improbability of the event that led to life's origin on earth.
Who said that the origins of life was rare? Who said that evolution requires that? If life arises any time it can, and I think it must if it is the outcome of the requisite chemistry, and appears on every rocky planet that has the right precursors, evolution goes just the same as if it only happens every hundred million planets. In fact, evolution merely requires that things can reproduce. The rest happens automatically.
So I think that this is one case in which science does indeed offer a counterargument to at least one theological position.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Nice post. It is a shame that people can make such sweeping comments without understanding the underlying science they are trying to critique. (Although sadly it is not uncommon in the Guardian)
Plato suggested, that before we (I mean "rationalists" -modern Socrateses) will start to criticize/explain in biological terms meaning of religion, we should first learn everything about human being.
I'd like to think about myself as a person, which is not talking about things I don't know (at least when I'm sober :)
When intoxicated person sees a vampire in the corner of the room, sayin that there is no vampire without potention to turn on the light will lead only to quarrel.
Sometimes, I think science should be perfectly boring, because everything, which stirs me up is an ideology :D
Debating the old debate. Reminds me of judo. There is always a counter, and a counter for a counter. With regard to "sweeping comments, without understanding the science"...does this mean then, that bacteria are not common on this planet, as we need to examine all other planets and compare prior to making this "scientific announcment", so that we might re-define what common really is. That would be so with diamonds and accessable gold. My whole life I have fought for proper nesting habitat for various bird and wildlife species, and now I am involved in the spiritual/biological arena with regards to humans and our planet.
I am finding that the banter with words is not unlike lawyers going back and forth going no where, fast.
Are we trying to search for the truth, or are we trying to be "right".
Both sides of the debate have brilliant individuals working night and day searching for the "truth" We much surly be misguided to think that one day one side will be "right" and the other side "wrong".
I am as much as a Evolutionist as I am Creationist. 95% of the world has some belief in something. Surly they are not all dillusional. On the flip side, to say that evolution has not taken place and you Can't prove it is just more banter with words and perception of words, bringing no closer to the truth. I see evolution is fact. As well for me, spirit or soul is fact.
How can I see it as both? I dont, I see it as one in the same, percieved differently. How you ask? Because I don't see time in the equation.
After this comment gets all ripped apart, I will explain HOW I don't see time the equation, even though I am big on evolution.
I am as much as a Evolutionist as I am Creationist. 95% of the world has some belief in something. Surly they are not all dillusional.
Evolution is not a matter of philosophy, it is an observed reality. And argumentum ad populum is a classic fallacy.
In your quote, Mark Vernon seems to be projecting onto science, the creationist claims of "disproof by incredulity". That is, it's creationism, not science, which obsesses over the "improbability" of natural abiogenesis.
Observed realities are of course coming into question these days with the works of top level physisits- and I don't mean in some spooky mistic way. I mean in hard scientific data.
Blind belief, or following the crowds- never been one to do that. Knowledge without experience, is limited at best.
Here is my dilema on the involvement on time. (once again, not trying to be "right")
Hominids and Pongids - Pongids being our older ancestors because they emerged earlier than us. We of course are the younger family as we have emerged relatively recently. Basic stuff.
As we are all aware, breeding occurs, yada yada yada, genes resulting in the family to better adapt to or hold on to it's ecological nich' are passed on from generation to generation...through time... yada yada
It would make sence then, would it not, that if time is involved, that it would be the older of the familys - in this case, Pongids - that would contain the most favorable genes as they are older than us and not the youngest, the hominids. For hominids to get the benifit of genes that have been mutating for longer than we have been on the planet does not make sense to me that we are a younger family than the Pongids.
Clayton --
You write "It would make sence then, would it not, that if time is involved, that it would be the older of the familys - in this case, Pongids - that would contain the most favorable genes as they are older than us and not the youngest, the hominids."
Yes, time is involved, but hasn't the same amount of time passed for both?
RE: same time has passed for both- and I want to just simplify things and say apes and man as I am aware that some texts say the gibbons and orangs split from chimps and apes and man yadda yadda..
I suppose the same amount of time has passed for both if one looks at it that man came from ape, as both would be really one. yet we still say that the family of man is younger than the family of ape, because ape was here first. It depends if one is a lumper or splitter.
If the same amount of time has passed for both, how could one be young and the other old?
Observed realities are of course coming into question these days with the works of top level physisits- and I don't mean in some spooky mistic way. I mean in hard scientific data.
Blind belief, or following the crowds- never been one to do that. Knowledge without experience, is limited at best.
Knowledge with only personal experience is in fact far more limited. Science operates by corroboration, peer-review, criticism, repetition, etc. Science is experience, just a far more sophisticated and rigorous kind.
If you are here to discount the scientific method as unreliable, you won't get much traction. Some of us work in science and intimately know what goes on. Most of those people will resent your likening of it to "[b]lind belief, and following the crowds."
Clayton,
Humans are a member of the family hominidae, we are apes, as are chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. Are you suggesting that the older a subfamily, within the larger family, should offer it a better chance for survival because of greater gene fitness? I believe you may be confusing what the target of evolution is, which is the reproducing individual, not the genes. If this was the case then the black rhino doesn't really have much to worry about, I believe they have been around for some 50myas. There have been many species of Homo that have existed and gone extinct, yet still were able to survive for periods of time much greater than modern Homo sapiens have, yet humans are the very last representative of the genus.
And inherit, with mutations.
Implied by the term "reproduce". It isn't reproduction if there's no heredity, and as no heredity is ever 100% accurate, there will be errors.