The Simplest Cell

[David M]

Hey there David,

There is no mystery about the formation of atoms. We can do it in the lab. Just take a free electron and collide it with a free proton, and TADA! you will have a hydrogen atom. Then take a hydrogen atom and collide it with another hydrogen atom and TADA! you'll have H₂. The collide the H₂ with an oxygen atom and you will get H₂O = water. All of these processes occur through known natural laws. There is no need for any divine action at any point in this sequence of chemical evolution. It can be tested in the lab.

As for the other areas of science that are on the speculative cutting edge - what else would we expect? We've only been doing modern science like Quantum Mechanics for less than a hundred years now.

Richard

OK. Let's split atoms; it is better than splitting hairs.

How was the electron formed or the proton or the neutron or the quarks etc. that make up those components?

You have to make all the constituent parts of the hydrogen atom. I understand how atoms hydrogen atoms bond thereafter and what makes up the various atomic elements.

While you are explaining this, can you explain where gravity comes from. It seems to be eluding the scientists and does not fit in with their accepted model of the atom.

All the best,

David

[Richard Amiel McGough]

OK. Let's split atoms; it is better than splitting hairs.

How was the electron formed or the proton or the neutron or the quarks etc. that make up those components?

You have to make all the constituent parts of the hydrogen atom. I understand how atoms hydrogen atoms bond thereafter and what makes up the various atomic elements.

While you are explaining this, can you explain where gravity comes from. It seems to be eluding the scientists and does not fit in with their accepted model of the atom.

All the best,

David

OK - it sounds like you agree that the formation of atoms from subatomic particles like electrons, protons, and neutrons can be fully explained by natural law. That's all that's needed to move forward in this conversation. The question about the ultimate source of matter and energy would just lead us back to the Big Bang. There is only one "gap" in physics where the God hypothesis is still viable - what caused the Big Bang and established the laws of physics? But that's a purely metaphysical question in the most literal sense, since physics deals only with what can be objectively verified. Any events before the Big Bang, or even if they needed a "cause", are entirely speculative.

So let's move this conversation forward rather than backwards. Here is my conception of what we know and where God could fit in the picture. I begin with Big Bang. I think it was probably energy in the form of pure radiation (or perhaps a soup of radiation and quarks) that then cooled to produce particles like electrons, protons and neutrons. It doesn't really matter for my conception of how things got here:

BIG BANG - Maybe God did it, maybe natural law. <===================== A gap God might fill!
Formation of atoms through natural law (physics)
Formation of basic molecules like H₂O through natural law (physics)
Formation of more complex molecules through natural law (chemical evolution)
Formation of self-replicating molecules (natural law? If not, then skip this step)
Formation of the first cell (God or natural law?) <====================== A gap God might fill!
Evolution of the first cell (mutation + natural selection)
Evolution of species (mutation + natural selection)
Evolution of humans (mutation + natural selection)

Of course, the first "gap" is not really a gap at all, since nothing precedes it. The only real gap that I see is in the formation of the first cell.

Everything that we can see and touch, including our own bodies, operate purely by natural law that we can measure, test, and verify. So it seems that the "God hypothesis" is entirely out of place in all this science and to insert him into the one gap that we can find seems rather desperate, arbitrary, and unjustified.

Remember, the only reason you are pursing this line of reasoning is because you began with a religious belief that you are seeking to justify. So the real question is "Why should we begin with such a belief?" If we just began with science and what we can actually know, the God hypothesis would never be needed.

[David M]

So let's move this conversation forward rather than backwards. Here is my conception of what we know and where God could fit in the picture. I begin with Big Bang. I think it was probably energy in the form of pure radiation (or perhaps a soup of radiation and quarks) that then cooled to produce particles like electrons, protons and neutrons. It doesn't really matter for my conception of how things got here:

BIG BANG - Maybe God did it, maybe natural law. <===================== A gap God might fill!
Formation of atoms through natural law (physics)
Formation of basic molecules like H₂O through natural law (physics)
Formation of more complex molecules through natural law (chemical evolution)
Formation of self-replicating molecules (natural law? If not, then skip this step)
Formation of the first cell (God or natural law?) <====================== A gap God might fill!
Evolution of the first cell (mutation + natural selection)
Evolution of species (mutation + natural selection)
Evolution of humans (mutation + natural selection)
Of course, the first "gap" is not really a gap at all, since nothing precedes it. The only real gap that I see is in the formation of the first cell.

Instead of a Gap at the Big Bang, it is an explanation that is needed. If Evolution cannot explain how the universe came into existence, then "God" can be the answer. "God" might be the answer to any question/gap that Evolution cannot give the answer to or provide the necessary proof.

Everything that we can see and touch, including our own bodies, operate purely by natural law that we can measure, test, and verify. So it seems that the "God hypothesis" is entirely out of place in all this science and to insert him into the one gap that we can find seems rather desperate, arbitrary, and unjustified.

It is not desperation on my part, but I sense a desperation on your part to eliminate God altogether.

Remember, the only reason you are pursing this line of reasoning is because you began with a religious belief that you are seeking to justify. So the real question is "Why should we begin with such a belief?" If we just began with science and what we can actually know, the God hypothesis would never be needed.

The only reason I am pursuing this is to find a balance between Evolution and Creation to explain the formation of plants and animals over a long period of time and to overcome the obstacles caused by gaps or lack of proof on the side of science.
Science does not know everything and that is why if we start as you suggest and begin with the science we know, there will come a point where science does not know the answer, and that is when we can insert God into the timeline.

If you want to start of at the beginning of say the first cell and progress from there along scientific grounds, let's see how far we get.

All the best,

David

[Richard Amiel McGough]

OK - it sounds like you agree that the formation of atoms from subatomic particles like electrons, protons, and neutrons can be fully explained by natural law. That's all that's needed to move forward in this conversation. The question about the ultimate source of matter and energy would just lead us back to the Big Bang. There is only one "gap" in physics where the God hypothesis is still viable - what caused the Big Bang and established the laws of physics? But that's a purely metaphysical question in the most literal sense, since physics deals only with what can be objectively verified. Any events before the Big Bang, or even if they needed a "cause", are entirely speculative.

So let's move this conversation forward rather than backwards. Here is my conception of what we know and where God could fit in the picture. I begin with Big Bang. I think it was probably energy in the form of pure radiation (or perhaps a soup of radiation and quarks) that then cooled to produce particles like electrons, protons and neutrons. It doesn't really matter for my conception of how things got here:

BIG BANG - Maybe God did it, maybe natural law. <===================== A gap God might fill!
Formation of atoms through natural law (physics)
Formation of basic molecules like H₂O through natural law (physics)
Formation of more complex molecules through natural law (chemical evolution)
Formation of self-replicating molecules (natural law? If not, then skip this step)
Formation of the first cell (God or natural law?) <====================== A gap God might fill!
Evolution of the first cell (mutation + natural selection)
Evolution of species (mutation + natural selection)
Evolution of humans (mutation + natural selection)
Of course, the first "gap" is not really a gap at all, since nothing precedes it. The only real gap that I see is in the formation of the first cell.

Instead of a Gap at the Big Bang, it is an explanation that is needed. If Evolution cannot explain how the universe came into existence, then "God" can be the answer. "God" might be the answer to any question/gap that Evolution cannot give the answer to or provide the necessary proof.

Good morning David,

By "gap" I meant "gap in our knowledge." We do not have scientific knowledge about what caused the Big Bang. An explanation would fill that "gap."

And as I said, "There is only one 'gap' in physics where the God hypothesis is still viable." The fact that creationists must focus on that one gap shows how weak their argument really is. There is nothing about the way that the universe actually functions that needs God as an answer. The God concept is viable only in areas that are currently beyond our scientific knowledge. That is the classic "God of the Gaps" argument. Here is a brief explanation of this error:

"God of the gaps" is used to describe the tendency of believers to appeal to God as the cause for phenomena which human knowledge has not yet explained. When these gaps are filled, the believer just jumps to the next gap and the game can continue ad nauseam until human knowledge is able to explain everything. The argument is an instance of the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance. Nor is it a very theologically sound argument, as it has the effect of reducing and diminishing one's god over time.

One of the more prominent examples of current "God of the Gaps" thinking is the Intelligent Design movement, which claims that some aspects of how life formed are impossible to explain — not only with today's scientific knowledge, but ever.

The God of the Gaps argument finds what is perhaps its most popular manifestation in ideas about first cause. The argument essentially suggests that, as there is no commonly accepted theory to completely explain the original origin of the universe, then God (or Gods) must exist.

This is one of the oldest, and most obviously fallacious, tricks in the creationist toolkit.

Everything that we can see and touch, including our own bodies, operate purely by natural law that we can measure, test, and verify. So it seems that the "God hypothesis" is entirely out of place in all this science and to insert him into the one gap that we can find seems rather desperate, arbitrary, and unjustified.

It is not desperation on my part, but I sense a desperation on your part to eliminate God altogether.

Your senses are misleading you. I have absolutely no need to "eliminate" God in any way at all. Zero. Nada. Zilch. I would have no problem at all if some kind of God were necessary to explain the origin of the universe or the origin of the first cell. It would not give one ounce of support to your claims about the God of the Bible. Your entire line of argument is meaningless because it is absolutely impossible for you to prove that any God is necessary because you have no way to know if there might be a scientific explanation. And even if you could prove some sort of God was necessary, it would be irrelevant to our conversation because that God would have nothing to do with your claims concerning the God of the Bible who we know is not the true God for many reasons.

Remember, the only reason you are pursing this line of reasoning is because you began with a religious belief that you are seeking to justify. So the real question is "Why should we begin with such a belief?" If we just began with science and what we can actually know, the God hypothesis would never be needed.

The only reason I am pursuing this is to find a balance between Evolution and Creation to explain the formation of plants and animals over a long period of time and to overcome the obstacles caused by gaps or lack of proof on the side of science.
Science does not know everything and that is why if we start as you suggest and begin with the science we know, there will come a point where science does not know the answer, and that is when we can insert God into the timeline.

I see nothing that indicates you "want to overcome the obstacles caused by gaps." On the contrary, I see you looking for gaps so you can find a place where you can insert your preconceived God concept.

If you want to start of at the beginning of say the first cell and progress from there along scientific grounds, let's see how far we get.

OK - sounds good. The first cell was busy replicating. The process involved mutation, gene drift, inheritance, and natural selection. As time progressed, more and more diverse and complex organisms evolved. I'll let you choose which part(s) of this process you would like to explore and/or challenge.

Great chatting!

Richard