Scientists Create Building Block for Life - God Not Required

[Jose Fly]

Assuming that scientists will continue to make progress in this area and eventually be able to create life (some scientists believe they will be able to do this within a few decades)...

How do you think the religious community will, or should, respond to this? What message will be given to the faithful?

I think we can imagine how the extremists will react, but what about the more mainstream religious denominations?

For those of you who believe God is the creator of life, would this accomplishment weaken your faith or strengthen it, and why?

The fundamentalists will just deny it (as they do with most science).

The ID creationists will say "Yeah, but this lab work required intelligence, so intelligence must have been involved 3+ billion years ago".

The theistic evolutionists will make the post-hoc assertion "That must be how God did it".

The Deists will make the post-hoc assertion "Some higher intelligence rigged the universe so this could happen".

And a whole bunch of people will never even hear a thing about it.

 

[Enlighten]

I wasn't speaking to you specifically but using "people" as a general term. You can't argue with the fact that "back in the day" it was considered heretical for Christians to think that man could perform the same feats as God. Or am I wrong here? Yet they are following the same Biblical instructions that are still in place today, and Christians in general don't burn people at the stake anymore (just ruin their political careers I guess). Progress made through science must be causing people in general to reinterpret the Bible on some level. Is there a tipping point somewhere when the "hows" that the Bible explains are discredited to the point that even the "whys" are considered fallacies?

:no: I can't argue with that, plus there are still some today that would still consider this heretical. I don't think that we as mere humans could ever perform anything as well as God but as we are in His image then we should see where it leads us, we would never know if it weren't for scientists trying at least.

Oops I better remove the stake from my garden

I'm not sure it will this will cause people to reinterpret the Bible as such, for me anyway I can read the same book over and over and still keep finding more each time, so perhaps people will see things they previously missed?? Who knows. I think some Christian's are becoming more rational and accepting these days.

I can't personally see there being a tipping point as we (Christian's) are all growing in Christ so it's a daily/weekly/yearly learning for us, and it's our faith that keeps our belief in the word.

That is the point of these forums to make assumptions and discuss? It's fun, right?

Among many things, yep, that is some of the points of the forum. And yep it is fun (at times)

 

[Willamena]

That might have implications for various creation myths...

Hopefully will lead people to interpret them better!

 

[painted wolf]

It's a very exciting find... it will be interesting to see where it leads next.

wa:do

 

[Kilgore Trout]

That might have implications for various creation myths...

"God did it" and "God works in mysterious ways" are non-arguable claims that have survived, and will continue to survive, any amount of conflicting scientific knowledge we gain.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

"God did it" and "God works in mysterious ways" are non-arguable claims that have survived, and will continue to survive, any amount of conflicting scientific knowledge we gain.

Absolutely ... while "God Not Required" is simple hubris.

 

[logician]

Reminds me of the story about the scientists who had figured out how to make life out of the dust of the Earth. They went to God and said, "We don't need you - we can create life all on our own."

God said, "Show me."

They bent down and started collecting dust, and God said, "Wait a minute - make your own dust".

Except there was no need for any creation in the multiverse.

 

[TechTed]

Absolutely ... while "God Not Required" is simple hubris.

So, you believe that God gets the credit for all our scientific discoveries? Forgive me for being arrogant, but I just have more faith in our intelligence, creativity and ingenuity than you do.

 

[AlsoAnima]

-snip-

 

[logician]

God is not required, regardless of whether we create life in a lab or not.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

God is not required, regardless of whether we create life in a lab or not.

For some.

 

[slave2six]

I imagine that many religious communities would view this discovery as an answer to "how" God created the world, allowing them to continue relying on their various doctrines to explain the "why" part.

It makes sense, why wouldn't they?

The thing is that Judeo-Christianity (in particular) has always presumed to have the answers to the "how" questions which are quantifiable and that therefore all the answers to the "why" question were also in their purview. My problem is simply that since they have clearly gotten the "how" questions 100% wrong, their answers to the "why" questions are beyond being suspect. Only a great fool would listen to people who give answers about the ethereal when those same people are completely wrong about the physical.

 

[MSizer]

My theology couldn't get much further from the mainstream, but this doesn't trouble it a bit. The divine qualities of our reality render abiogenesis inevitable... recreating it was merely a matter of time. (And btw, God is still very much involved.)

As for my religion, I imagine my fellow UUs will be either excited or indifferent, depending on their interests.

Please do try to remember that not all of us religious types are rabidly ignorant anti-science wackos.

Storm, I hope you see my post. I'm wondering how you can espouse so much science, yet you're comfortable adding "god was still involved" (paraphrased). I don't get it. Anyone can say "it was still god", but if there's no evidence for that, why do you think it?

 

[richardlowellt]

My theology couldn't get much further from the mainstream, but this doesn't trouble it a bit. The divine qualities of our reality render abiogenesis inevitable... recreating it was merely a matter of time. (And btw, God is still very much involved.)

As for my religion, I imagine my fellow UUs will be either excited or indifferent, depending on their interests.

Please do try to remember that not all of us religious types are rabidly ignorant anti-science wackos.

Just can't get away from that mythical being of your always being somehow involved, even when science now hints, and will very soon show, that this entity was not needed at all.

 

[spearman]

Im so glad theres not a God anymore now we can worship ourselves! Im not worthy oh great spearman you have made a building block or was it a lego block? :bow: Go ahead try it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling untill you understand you will die one day and all you have worked for and your family and friends will only be worm food then it kind of sucks, I think I will stick with my illusions and be happy thank you very much :yes:

 

[richardlowellt]

Im so glad theres not a God anymore now we can worship ourselves! Im not worthy oh great spearman you have made a building block or was it a lego block? :bow: Go ahead try it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling untill you understand you will die one day and all you have worked for and your family and friends will only be worm food then it kind of sucks, I think I will stick with my illusions and be happy thank you very much :yes:

What a foul outlook you have on life. yes someday we will all be worm food and it will only suck if we have not left anything behind, or contributed to our society, left it better in someway. I am a creative person and a teacher, my work will be here long after I am gone, my influence on my students will be passed on, we are born live and then die, that the way it is, what we do while we live is important, this is all there is, if the illusion of an afterlife comforts you, if it is something you need to make your life meaningful, then good for you, I need no such fantasy.

 

[spearman]

only suck if we have not left anything behind, or contributed to our society, left it better in someway. I am a creative person and a teacher, my work will be here long after I am gone, my influence on my students will be passed on, we are born live and then die, that the way it is, what we do while we live is important, this is all there is

Oh Im sure people generations from now will remember who you were and marvel at you great achievments, behind a podeum 1,000 years from now they will gather to celebrate the life and times of -richardLowellt- and his great posts on the religious forums. Sounds like a bit of an illusion to me? Oh great teacher and creative person -Richardlowellt- will be taught to high school kids who will yawn mightly, and rub buggers on the text book.

 

[richardlowellt]

Oh Im sure people generations from now will remember who you were and marvel at you great achievments, behind a podeum 1,000 years from now they will gather to celebrate the life and times of -richardLowellt- and his great posts on the religious forums. Sounds like a bit of an illusion to me? Oh great teacher and creative person -Richardlowellt- will be taught to high school kids who will yawn mightly, and rub buggers on the text book.

You sound jealous, don't you have anything to leave future generations? So your life will be worthless, no contributions, nothing creative to leave for future generations, how very sad. I don't teach high school were you apparently rubbed buggers on your text books, which might explain why you have nothing to leave behind. No they will not celebrate my life and times, foolish of you to think so, but my creative output will be alive and vital for as long as humans enjoy creative endeavors, and my students will pass on what I have taught them so my impact will be felt for many years to come. Try not to be so jealous, or rude, get yourself together and try and be productive, create something, leave a mark, leave this earth a better place than when you came in. Good luck!!

 

[wlkngwthgod]

:thud:

 

[Heneni]

From one of the articles:

The "creatures" — wait, we can't call them that! — evolved, with some "species" winning out.

And where are the 'winning out' species now? Alive? Dead? And can you call something a 'specie' unless it has DNA? What they dont tell you is the life-expectancy of the 'winning species'. For this to prove evolution, the lifetime of the RNA has to be long enough to produce DNA within the same lifecycle.

And, to say that this is how life evolved billions of years ago, is rather incorrect. Its how RNA did what it did in a lab, which does not exactly replicate the conditions of the earth billions of years ago, because lets face it, we dont know for a fact,what earth was like billions of years ago.

And unless this RNA can make DNA its hardly proof of evolution.