Notes on Creationism

Ian Musgrave has a site which ought to place quite a few issues related to Abiogenesis into perspective.Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics,and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations

You have never really bougbt the notion of a supernatural creator putting life ( as we know it – complex, diverse et al ) into motion consciously as a simple act. You do not really have a problem with Evolution as it has been generally laid out. The Creationist / Evolutionist / Intelligent Design / Natural Selection debates have never featured in your mindspace so far. You do not wish to peruse any creationist literature. “Intelligent Design”, for you, is successful natural design. It is just that you would not like to think of natural selection pressures being blind as dear Mr Dawkins would like to put it.

Dumb Questions : In relation to the last point above, how does Natural Selection itself evolve? Does it? Any studies / views on that count? You would not be content with the notion of a meaningless mechanistic process since it implies a cetain kind of inevitability that makes you think of the Anthropic Principle and its implications. In particular, you would not feel happy with the hypothesised necessary fine-tuning of initial conditions that gives rise to life as you know it. It seems needless to emphasise that if something were different by a certain degree then you might not be here at all. Does this mean that the only form of life that is possible in any arbitrary set of conditions, that may derive itself from a given initial beginning, is the carbon-based oxygen-dependent life? It would appear more reasonable to state that if the universe were any different, then life itself may or may not have been different.

Confession : You would feel happiest if the first replicative autopoetic life-form/process were to be seen as a kind of chaotic attractor that, once established, extends itself to develop the kind of complexity and simililarity within diversity that we see.

Ad Hoc : I suppose it would not really have been a bad idea to let ID be part of science curriculum, especially after having intoduced Darwin effectively – prefaced with something like ‘As a matter of curiosity, the question does arise for Humans, seeing the complexity of Nature; whether there is a conscious design behind it all. The theory of Intelligent Design is derived from Religious Sentiment and is not a Scientific perspective. Legend hast it that …

I am led to wonder how students would respond to something like this – not sure if it would, at worst, create a rational basis for NOMA.

Advertisements

About this entry