We all too often have ignorant "creationists" trying to address the evolution of life on Earth based upon their religious myths established by superstitious people thousands of year ago but the fact is while we weren't there, which leads to some speculation, science generally has a very good idea on the steps necessary for the first living cells to form. These necessary steps are being reproduced in laboratories and it is anticipated that eventually life will be created in a scientific lab. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9841/ I will refrain from continuing the "blueprint" for the formation of living cells that we know were the foundation for evolution as a simple click on the link provides that information. This is the "science" that the advocates in religious mythology want to deny exists. We basically know what was required for the generation and evolution of life on Earth. We weren't there to witness it but it wasn't magical as we can and have determined the actual steps necessary and are proving that they could happen in science labs today, No magic, no mythical entities, just logic and knowledge that we continue to acquire today.
Since 1982, between 40% and 50% of adults in the United States say they hold the creationist view that "God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years" when Gallup asked for their views on the origin and development of human beings. As of 2012, the percentage of believers decreases as the level of education increases. Only 25% of respondents with postgraduate degrees believed compared with 52% of those with a high school education or less. A 2011 Gallup survey reports that 30% of U.S. adults say they interpret the Bible literally. So...based on the above excerpt, another question needs to be asked; Why does the belief in 'creationism' go down as the education level increases? Another interesting question to ask is; How do the world's ~300 recognized religions reconcile creationism? If the 'young world' believe they have a 'literal' translation of the Bible, but the 'old world' or other religions believe they have a 'literal' translation of the Bible, which is different, what does this say about the use of the word 'literal'? Or the translation? Or the validation of creationism? Lastly, in the mythical belief of creationism, exactly how did the Gawd du jour physically do the creating? Was it the wave of a magic wand? Was it poof...and everything appears? What was the physical process of creationism...
Why does the belief in 'creationism' go down as the education level increases? Perhaps those with more education understand the stupidity of the position of creationism? I don't think there's a correlation with belief in God though. I think it's perfectly rational for a well educated person to believe there is a God. But creationism is the place for the uneducated and ignorant and/or the truly religiously brainwashed types.
So the root issue of creationism versus evolution is education? Seems kind of stupid to me for anyone to poo-poo or ignore or even feel challenged by science? Science, IMO...is a thinking-persons activity, an area in which our curiosities search for answers which make some sense based on the fundamentals we know. Anything short of this requires no thinking...just acceptance of the dogma...
From the OP... "How life originated and how the first cell came into being are matters of speculation, since these events cannot be reproduced in the laboratory." That is really the question isn't it? I know there is on-going research into specific molecular formations etc. but whether or not such formations can create life without assistance has yet to be proven. The fact that organisms evolve is a proven scientific fact but, what was is the 'spark' that started the process of what we call life? Even if we manipulate these 'building blocks' and somehow create life, it still does not prove that some entity did not start the process.
I wouldn't suggest it's a root issue, more of a correlation than a cause without a lot more investigation. The ignorant and the brainwashed will argue for the creationist ideas, most educated people understand the broad science and have enough critical thinking ability to accept the scientific hypotheses and weigh them up against the evidence of creationists.
But that is not a creationist approach. I don't think science is capable of finding out who or what started the process. What it may be able to do is to show the process. But to be able to say that any supernatural being caused the process is probably beyond science and beyond human ability to do so. It becomes fodder for the metaphysical. Yes, God could be a First Cause. But then the whole thing might be a cosmic accident. Imagine if in all the universe there is nothing except gas and rock and a few other bits and pieces, no life, nothing else and only on one planet were conditions just right for the emergence of carbon-based life forms. Now it could be argued from that that God selected Earth to create life. And it could be argued that there is no First Cause as God. It could also be argued that Nature is God or Physics is God or the Universe itself is God. It all becomes speculation of the highest order, interesting but not going to go anywhere meaningful in a hurry.
Well then if there is a 'First Cause' it is most certainly our Creator but then, we need to ask: Where did the Creator come from? If the answer is the Universe then it follows: Where did the Universe come from? and obviously...What exactly IS the Universe...Where is it? etc, etc, etc. Until we have answers, no one can really say much of anything....All we have is belief. Perhaps what we truly believe is our ultimate destiny? I find the whole subject intriguing. I think there are those that cannot abide the unknown on both the Religious side and the Atheistic side. Both seem to be afraid of the unknown and so state their positions as being unassailable.
It is a scientific fact that life developed on Earth and that it had to be caused by a progression of events from inorganic molecules becoming organic molecules and then those organic molecules becoming replicating chains (RNA), the cell structure developed and then the metabolism of the cell. Before a proposition can be made that an "entity" intervened there has to be evidence of such an entity but no such evidence exists. The only "entities" ever proposed were by religions that were founded upon myth and superstition. There have been literally hundreds of different religions with hundreds of creationist myths where no evidence supports any of them. This is, of course, the science and technology forum so if someone can present a "theory of creation" then that would be news. Please provide the theory of how this super-entity created the first cell. What steps were involved in it? How did this super-entity convert inorganic compounds into organic compounds and then into reproducing molecules and the cell structure formed around these and then metabolism established? How was it done because that's what science does, it explains how thing happen. So how did a super-entity accomplish this step-by-step?
That is exactly the question that science asks which is why discussions on religious beliefs have no meaning in this thread. This is about science and not myth.
There is no proven 'theory of creation' or 'theory of evolution'....For myself, I am content to watch scientific experimental results while also not discounting those traditional explanations that may allegorically correspond to certain scientific findings.
Yes and science continues to ask and ask and ask....as it should. Seems to me you want outcome based results.
Why does the belief in 'creationism' go down as the education level increases? A: Because the devil is in the details I'm saddened by how pathetic our public education system appears to be, going by these results. Public schools aren't challenging religious nonsense. I expect they're afraid to even try that, given the angry responses they will invariably get from parents and students alike. I remember getting a disclaimer from a science teacher of mine back in the 90s about evolution. She didn't want to get anywhere near to challenging religious views.
The point is....nothing will ever "Prove" an entity did not start life, but nothing will ever prove it either. The point of science is to study those things that can be proven as true.
Actually, prupose of Science is to explain and it's the best explanatory process known. It has no bias or agenda, it merely follows the evidnece to where it leads...And, this is what has the "faithfull' all in a nutter.
And one wonders why it is so important to some. We - those Christians among us, are taught that God is a living entity in our lives, we commune with him on a daily basis, ask for guidance, hope and strength in difficult times. If we really do believe that to be a self evident truth, then what happened 4.5 billion years ago should have virtually no influence on our faith one way or another. If the first spark of life was artificial or a random chemical event, the subsequent story of life on this planet is pure magic no matter what your perspective. While the question "why" is a wonderful thing to contemplate and ponder. Perhaps for now the story of "how" is the one we are destined to enjoy in our lifetimes
Theories are never "proven" but instead are verified by the collection of empirical evidence. A theory attempts to explain how something observed in nature occurs. For example, the "Theory of Natural Selection" (which is the predominate theory of evolution) attempts to explain how evolution, that is a scientifically accepted fact based upon physical evidence, occurs. The theory attempts to explain the mechanics of evolution just like the theory of relativity attempts to explain the relationship between energy and matter. Theories are created based upon the scientific method and the Theory of Natural Selection was and is being subjected to the scientific method. It is a valid scientific theory. There is not, and never has been, a "Theory or Creation" as "creationism" is based upon religious beliefs. Creationist beliefs have never been subjected to the scientific method which is required for a scientific theory. There have been literally hundreds of different religious "creationist" beliefs historically. One problem with many "Christians" is that they are myopic in believing that their beliefs of creation are unique and undisputed by other religious beliefs. If we were to have an educational course on "creationism" it would logically address all of the major historical beliefs in "creation" from the Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Shinto, Native-American, Norse, Pacific Islander, and other religious stories of "creation" that have existed over time. If such a course were presented at an "age-appropriate" level (e.g. late high school or college level) then virtually everyone would reject "creationism" realizing that it's really an absurd proposition. The problem in the United States is that young children are fundamentally brainwashed by their parents into believing in "Christian creationism" before they're old enough to critically address it from an intellectual standpoint.
I guess I have to ask is, why the need? Are you not able to stand, think and navigate life on your own? I am....so, I'm not understanding why anyone wound need to fall backy on a mythical sky fairy. What is the requirement for a "why"? - - - Updated - - - Religion is about control.
No argument from me on this as it is a well established fact. Religion is and has always been about political control of people by a few or one religious leader(s) on a power trip.
Because by nature we are an inquisitive species. We human encounters a puzzle, we need to solve it. Does that mean we will automatically solve every puzzle? No, but it is a lot fun trying
I see people more and more moving toward a belief in God vs a belief in the bible, I think as time goes on this will become more and more the standard many already do this even though they still consider themselves Christians because that was the way they were raised
Actually the greatest growing movement in the world today is the rejection of religion completely as people become more educated and knowledgeable. Studies indicate that 1.1 billion people describe themselves as Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist today which is approaching the number of people that follow Islam (1.5 billion) and about 1/2 of the number that claim to be Christians (2.1 billion). http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html This is a relatively surprising statistic considering that most were indoctrinated into believing in religion as children and then later rejected it.
if history is any sign of the future, old gods will be replaced by new ones by many, most will just say they believe what the majority believes as it's the easier path .
