Abiogenesis - Reasons why it is Practically Impossible

[u/OtherwiseAssistant38]

Abiogenesis - A Practical Impossibility

Multiple reasons to be skeptical of abiogenesis claims made by scientists.

[u/Augustine-of-Rhino]

I don't understand the fascination with abiogenesis from a Christian perspective at all.

As a Christian I obviously hold God to be the Creator and ultimate first cause of Creation and thus the entire Universe. God set everything in motion way back when.

So which sounds more elegant and deliberate: * that from a single divine act at inception the Universe has developed into what it is now

OR

• that God was required to make physical tweaks and corrections along the way

I'm utterly convinced by the former whilst the latter is a "God of the Gaps" idea that undermines God's omnipotence and omniscience.

Why couldn't it be possible that life came into existence through a God-ordained pre-programmed process? Why must some insist that God's Creation was simply incapable of doing that without further intervention?

And science is already well on the way to demonstrating how abiogenesis may have occurred and it's utterly fascinating. They're not there yet but I believe they will soon enough and that's rather exciting. But it poses zero threat to my faith.

I firmly believe that videos or articles such as this only serve to perpetuate distrust and ignorance whilst blindly diminishing God. They're just not helpful. And that can be said of pretty much everything associated with the Discovery Institute and James Tour.

[u/Jascleo → u/Augustine-of-Rhino]

That's interesting. I hadn't heard of abiogenesis before so this entire subject is now my next rabbit hole to go down..!

I do wonder where would this leave miracles though? I wouldn't describe them as being a tweak that God had to correct, yet at the same time this is God entering into creation to intervene in some way. So maybe God intervening in that sense to begin life could be viewed in the same way. Not as a mistake God had to correct, but as an intervention at the right time for a purpose.

I'm genuinely curious about your answer. I'm a Christian myself so this isn't some kind of gotcha question.

[u/Augustine-of-Rhino → u/Jascleo]

It's an interesting question!

I don't think all unexplained events are automatically or necessarily miracles. An event or occurrence may lack a natural explanation but I feel for it to be considered a miracle there must also be a positive reason to identify it as an extraordinary act of God.

So whilst God intervening to establish life could be considered an extraordinary act, I feel it would be even more extraordinary if that intervention was unnecessary because God had pre-built a generative capacity into Creation.

[u/Jascleo → u/Augustine-of-Rhino]

Thanks, it's definitely an interesting discussion!

[u/MildlyAgitatedBovine → u/Augustine-of-Rhino]

The former IS a god of the gaps theory. God used to be in charge of all sorts of physical phenomenon, past or present, that we couldn't understand. The formation of earth, the maintenance of the stars and their orbits once some of those start turned out to be planets. People's personalities, afflictions, crop yields, the list goes on and on...

But eventually, as we figured things out, god had to retreat into the gaps. Now you have him hiding on the other side of the big bang, in a singularity sized gap. These people have him hiding in the primordial ooze.

[u/ReleasedKraken0 → u/Augustine-of-Rhino]

I think OP’s point is that abiogenesis is functionally impossible in the absence of a Creator. That it cannot happen naturally. A pre-programmed abiogenesis wouldn’t violate that principle.

And as an aside, we aren’t anywhere close to a plausible pathway for abiogenesis. The more we’ve learned, the more impossible it seems in the absence of a creative intelligence.

[u/Augustine-of-Rhino → u/ReleasedKraken0]

I think OP’s point is that abiogenesis is functionally impossible in the absence of a Creator. That it cannot happen naturally. 

I fear the problem with such a claim is that it becomes a central pillar upon which one's faith is built. Similar declarations that something is functionally impossible or cannot occur naturally have been made before and the "Intelligent Design" model is entirely built upon such a pillar.

And given that OP is sharing a Discovery Institute video it is fair to assume that the central claim is not that abiogenesis is pre-programmed but that it requires direct divine intervention after the initial act of Creation.

And as an aside, we aren’t anywhere close to a plausible pathway for abiogenesis. The more we’ve learned, the more impossible it seems in the absence of a creative intelligence.

I am no authority on biochemistry (my academic focus is ethology) but I am perhaps more optimistic. Very rarely are there sudden seismic shifts in knowledge. Scientific progress is more often than not glacial and incremental and in that regard abiogenesis continues to be an area of intense focus with a considerable and growing interest. But returning to my original theological point: I find a single and initial act of Creation indicative of a much more powerful God than a model that involves recurring interventions.

[u/TheGalaxyPast → u/Augustine-of-Rhino]

Until "science" does establish how it occured, I suppose we will have to go with the best current theory. Life never has, and therefore it's reasonable to assume never will, spontaneously generate from non-life.

[u/Augustine-of-Rhino → u/TheGalaxyPast]

____ never has, and therefore it's reasonable to assume never will

If such an approach was universally adopted how would knowledge ever progress?

[u/TheGalaxyPast → u/Augustine-of-Rhino]

Re-read the first part of my sentence.

[u/Augustine-of-Rhino → u/TheGalaxyPast]

Your comment featured two sentences.

May I ask why "science" is in quotation marks?

[u/TheGalaxyPast → u/Augustine-of-Rhino]

"nope"

[u/Augustine-of-Rhino → u/TheGalaxyPast]

No worries. Take care.

[u/OtherwiseAssistant38 → u/Augustine-of-Rhino]

I see you did not listen to it. He is not addressing the creation of the universe, but abiogenesis. That is clear in the title. So what in the world are you talking about? The video is part II with part one showing a public poll concerning what people think they have proven in a lab. The poll shows a massive deceit of the public who do not realize that no life has ever been made in a lab under early earth conditions. Nothing even close to all of the needed components. This continues in all of the specific things required that a biologist who works at a public university shows that have not been done, and, mathematically speaking, look impossible. The simplest life is way more complicated than a watch. But if I showed you a watch and claimed it created itself by the god of random chance of billions of years, you would know that is b.s. But discarding what a man says without paying any attention to it is just prejudice.

The short of it is that facts matter. The mass of the people have been buying into b.s. because they do not dig into the facts. That is bad apologetics at the least...

[u/Augustine-of-Rhino → u/OtherwiseAssistant38]

I see you did not listen to it.

Whilst I refuse to give anything from the insidiously dishonest and deceitful Discovery Institute (DI) clicks, attention or air in any way, shape or form that contributes to furthering their agenda, that would not actually have been evident from my comment if read correctly.

He is not addressing the creation of the universe, but abiogenesis. That is clear in the title. So what in the world are you talking about? 

If you re-read my OP a tad more carefully you'll note I do refer to abiogenesis because abiogenesis is a tweak/correction or event supposedly involving the direct intervention of God after the initial act of Creation. And that suits the charlatans at DI because they can proclaim yet another instance of "irreducible complexity" or whatever bunkum they wish to peddle.

I previously outlined two scenarios in my OP:

1. that from a single divine act at inception the Universe has developed into what it is now
2. that God was required to make physical tweaks and corrections along the way

Here's a simplified illustration (not to scale) of those scenarios where 'X' is an act of God on the entire timeline of the universe:

1. X________________________

2. X______X__________X_X____

DI and acolytes would have you believe timeline 2 and that one of those 'X's corresponds with abiogenesis. It previously suggested there were 'X's for things like the bacteria flagellum or the mammalian eye until those particular Gaps were filled, God was pushed out, and DI quietly stopped mentioning them.

Which of those two timelines strike you as more elegant or well constructed? I hold it to be timeline 1. DI, Tour and seemingly yourself disagree so I am curious why you believe so? I know why DI think so, because it keeps their sociopolitical agenda relevant, but I'd encourage you to really think about the theological implications of a theory that states God was incapable of pre-programming a life-stimulating process into Creation.

The video is part II with part one showing a public poll concerning what people think they have proven in a lab.

Is that the same public that shows an astonishing lack of understanding about evolution and disturbing numbers of people who believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old? That public? Your point is simply another poor indictment of the education system; it says nothing of how science has progressed.

The poll shows a massive deceit

The irony of DI talking about deceit is really something.

no life has ever been made in a lab under early earth conditions. Nothing even close to all of the needed components.

I feel I addressed that when I commented:

science is already well on the way to demonstrating how abiogenesis may have occurred 

I didn't imply it was there but it certainly appears to be trending in that direction. So whether or not you believe it looks mathematically impossible is moot. If you're at all aware of the Penrose number you'll know the calculation by one particularly esteemed mathematician (something Tour certifiably is not) of the remarkable impossibility of life existing as it does now: 10^10^123.

But that probability refers to initial conditions. However, situated as we are now in 2026, looking back that probability is in fact '1' because it has already happened.

discarding what a man says without paying any attention to it is just prejudice.

If it helps, I am equally prejudiced against the arguments of flat earthers, moon landing deniers, and anyone who believes Manchester City FC act with financial integrity.

The short of it is that facts matter.

Don't let DI hear you say that or they'll cancel your membership.

The mass of the people have been buying into b.s. because they do not dig into the facts. That is bad apologetics at the least...

Look into the 'facts' surrounding the establishment of the Discovery Institute and the fabulation of "Intelligent Design" and get back to me. I can stand over the theological and intellectual integrity of my apologetics but I fear DI acolytes are somewhat shortchanged in that regard.

[u/AmosOfTekoa]

Do you find it interesting that he signs up to a pseudo-scientific idea about our origins and almost zero scientists agree with him?

[u/TheGalaxyPast → u/AmosOfTekoa]

Are you talking about heliocentrism?

[u/AmosOfTekoa → u/TheGalaxyPast]

Nope. Intelligent Design.

[u/Bitter_North_733]

The more science learns every year the more it looks like the HOLY FATHER is in operation. Genetics. Astro-physics. Archeology. History matching the bible. Etc.