Is There Any Real Difference Between ID and God of the Gaps?

[rookiebatman]

I've been watching debates about origins, and the more I hear creationists argue against evolution, the more I feel like there is no meaningful difference between Intelligent Design and God of the Gaps. When creationists say they have evidence in favor of creationism, what they really mean is things that evolution can't explain. Their arguments are basically just, "this, this and this does conflict with evolution, but does not conflict with creation." They're really just saying that evolution doesn't have answers for everything, and offering that as positive evidence for creationism. But just because we don't have the answers now doesn't mean we never will. I was watching a debate from 1994 where the creationist pointed out that there weren't any examples of mutations causing information to be gained, but there are properly-cited examples of that on TalkOrigins.org from the years and decades after he said that. But if everybody had just been satisfied that God was the final answer, they never would have looked for any other answers, and thus never would've found that real data which was observable and knowable.

The way I interpret the oft-repeated quote that "we cannot allow a divine foot in the door" (often quoted as proof that evolutionists are closed-minded and dogmatic) is that science can't be "solved" by just saying "God did it," because once we accept that as the answer, we will stop looking for answers, even though the real answers might very well be out there for the finding. We'll never be able to observe the moment that life began, but there are a lot of other things that can be observed and tested, which we can only do if we humbly accept that we don't have all the answers (and excusing everything we don't know by saying "God did it" is claiming to know all the answers). I submit that the only "evidence" in favor of creation is really just offering examples of the widely-accepted fact that evolution doesn't have all the answers yet. And that's just God of the Gaps.

So, to put that into question/debate form, can creationists (or proponents of Intelligent Design, if you prefer) explain how supposed evidence in favor of creation/ID is anything more than just pointing out something that evolutionary theory does not have an explanation for yet?

If you can't draw any distinction, then why do you think, with all the things we've learned over the years in science, that now is a good time to just stop trying to get a constantly better understanding of things and just accept that God is the only possible answer for every single thing that we don't satisfactorily understand at this moment right now?

[JoeyKnothead]

Oh lord, we got one studyin' our language.

Sorry if I warp the bell y'all

[FarWanderer]

Only in apologetics will you find people who seem to think that we've discovered all there is to know about the rules that govern the natural world.

Everyone knows Prima Facie that we don't know everything; but that very fact doesn't preclude knowing some things. Do you have something "Specific" that you take issue with....?

If you want to base an argument on induction from observation (scientific laws being an example of such) and claim it as knowledge, that'd be eminantly normal of you, and you'll get no argument from me. However, then your conclusions are subject to those same premises as well; and since God violates them at least as flagrantly as abiogenisis does, God is no better an answer.

[Enoch2021]

Only in apologetics will you find people who seem to think that we've discovered all there is to know about the rules that govern the natural world.

Everyone knows Prima Facie that we don't know everything; but that very fact doesn't preclude knowing some things. Do you have something "Specific" that you take issue with....?

If you want to base an argument on induction from observation (scientific laws being an example of such) and claim it as knowledge, that'd be eminantly normal of you, and you'll get no argument from me. However, then your conclusions are subject to those same premises as well; and since God violates them at least as flagrantly as abiogenisis does, God is no better an answer.

However, then your conclusions are subject to those same premises as well; and since God violates them at least as flagrantly as abiogenisis does, God is no better an answer.

If I pick up a book off the table and raise it above my head... Is the Law of Gravity Violated?


regards

[Wyvern]

According to this faith is both the substance and evidence, we call this a circular argument.

It's not circular. A circular argument is the conclusion is assumed in one of the "Premises" (Begging The Question). With your current "implied" Equivocation Fallacy with "Blind Faith", then it's merely Contradictory, not Circular.

Remove the Equivocation Fallacy that "Blind" Faith ='s "Biblical" Faith and the contradiction vaporizes.

Actually no, according to the quote you used faith is its own substance and evidence so it boils down to you need faith to have faith hence a circular argument.

All you need to turn blind faith into biblical faith is faith since according to the quote you used faith is both substance and evidence.

All you need to do to turn "Blind" Faith into "Biblical" Faith is have substance and evidence....

(Hebrews 11:1) "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

You even highlighted it for me, faith is substance, faith is evidence.

Then why would you believe in god considering it can not be proven?

Have you read all my posts in this thread? If you have the same question after that mission...I'll be happy to clarify on any "Specifics".

Yes I have and so far your argument amounts to the fallacious argument from incredulity i.e. I can not believe x so god.

I'm guessing you haven't been to a christian church ever in your life.

Yes, I have. What's the issue?

Going from your definition of a religion claiming Christianity is not a religion.

Exactly what practices, rituals, ceremonies etc. does this secular religion of yours partake in?

None.

Also care to explain how a religion can be secular in the first place?

Why? Ask Professor Ruse.

You used the quote so it can be surmised you are in agreement with what it states which is why I am asking you. If you do not agree with the quote you used then why use it other than to muddy the water. Either way I am asking you.

Nope. If you would've quoted my entire thought on the matter, instead of stopping "...The Scientific Method!!!" you would have seen, THIS or something to the effect of: "If they wish to Peer Review the "Study Methods and Design" then that is legitimate...but that's as far as it goes".

Then your Strawman (Fallacy) vaporizes.

btw, I have participated in the Peer Review Process.

If you have then you know that one of the primary goals of peer review is to ensure proper methods have been used, strange that you come out against it.

It probably has something to do with being able to point out the building where the software was first coded and the places where it is replicated. Of course this is nothing more than an argument of incredulity.

Really? So if I can't point out the building or the engineer that DESIGNED my car...then that leads you to Ipso Facto conclude: the Wind and The Waves Created it?

How on EARTH is this an Argument from Incredulity? Please explain "Specifically"...?

That's the point, you can point out who and where your car was designed. You can not do so with nature so you make up a god so you can point to it and say that is what did it. Again hence this being an argument from incredulity. Strange how you can so easily point out the fallacies of others but are incapable of doing so to yourself.

1. Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware!


A reducing versus an oxidative atmosphere.

Can you be a tad more specific, as in mechanisms please....? And Begging the Question (Fallacy)--- "reducing vs oxidative atmosphere". Please show the Experiment(s) that VALIDATE a reducing atmosphere....?

Are you a YEC?

Atoms are not stupid, unless you can point out where their brains are located.

Non-Sequitur (Fallacy) the premise doesn't agree with the conclusion. Please show where the Intelligence is in the Brain or Atoms "Physically".... put it in a Jar and Paint it Red so we can Identify it.....?

Please show where atoms have any capability for thought in the first place. Your insistence on claiming atoms are stupid is plain silly, is water a moron as well?

As a lifelong chemist as you claim I would think you know the answer to this one already.

Yes, I surely know.

Then why continue with this silliness of yours?

[dianaiad]

.........
Is there anything that's STILL particularly confusing about this subject that I can clear up for you?

regards

Moderator Comment

Please refrain from this type of condescending and negative comment. They take arguments from reasoned debate to acrimonious exchanges.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Enoch2021]

According to this faith is both the substance and evidence, we call this a circular argument.

It's not circular. A circular argument is the conclusion is assumed in one of the "Premises" (Begging The Question). With your current "implied" Equivocation Fallacy with "Blind Faith", then it's merely Contradictory, not Circular.

Remove the Equivocation Fallacy that "Blind" Faith ='s "Biblical" Faith and the contradiction vaporizes.

Actually no, according to the quote you used faith is its own substance and evidence so it boils down to you need faith to have faith hence a circular argument.

All you need to turn blind faith into biblical faith is faith since according to the quote you used faith is both substance and evidence.

All you need to do to turn "Blind" Faith into "Biblical" Faith is have substance and evidence....

(Hebrews 11:1) "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Then why would you believe in god considering it can not be proven?

Have you read all my posts in this thread? If you have the same question after that mission...I'll be happy to clarify on any "Specifics".

Yes I have and so far your argument amounts to the fallacious argument from incredulity i.e. I can not believe x so god.

I'm guessing you haven't been to a christian church ever in your life.

Yes, I have. What's the issue?

Going from your definition of a religion claiming Christianity is not a religion.

Exactly what practices, rituals, ceremonies etc. does this secular religion of yours partake in?

None.

Also care to explain how a religion can be secular in the first place?

Why? Ask Professor Ruse.

You used the quote so it can be surmised you are in agreement with what it states which is why I am asking you. If you do not agree with the quote you used then why use it other than to muddy the water. Either way I am asking you.

Nope. If you would've quoted my entire thought on the matter, instead of stopping "...The Scientific Method!!!" you would have seen, THIS or something to the effect of: "If they wish to Peer Review the "Study Methods and Design" then that is legitimate...but that's as far as it goes".

Then your Strawman (Fallacy) vaporizes.

btw, I have participated in the Peer Review Process.

If you have then you know that one of the primary goals of peer review is to ensure proper methods have been used, strange that you come out against it.

It probably has something to do with being able to point out the building where the software was first coded and the places where it is replicated. Of course this is nothing more than an argument of incredulity.

Really? So if I can't point out the building or the engineer that DESIGNED my car...then that leads you to Ipso Facto conclude: the Wind and The Waves Created it?

How on EARTH is this an Argument from Incredulity? Please explain "Specifically"...?

That's the point, you can point out who and where your car was designed. You can not do so with nature so you make up a god so you can point to it and say that is what did it. Again hence this being an argument from incredulity. Strange how you can so easily point out the fallacies of others but are incapable of doing so to yourself.

1. Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware!


A reducing versus an oxidative atmosphere.

Can you be a tad more specific, as in mechanisms please....? And Begging the Question (Fallacy)--- "reducing vs oxidative atmosphere". Please show the Experiment(s) that VALIDATE a reducing atmosphere....?

Are you a YEC?

Atoms are not stupid, unless you can point out where their brains are located.

Non-Sequitur (Fallacy) the premise doesn't agree with the conclusion. Please show where the Intelligence is in the Brain or Atoms "Physically".... put it in a Jar and Paint it Red so we can Identify it.....?

Please show where atoms have any capability for thought in the first place. Your insistence on claiming atoms are stupid is plain silly, is water a moron as well?

As a lifelong chemist as you claim I would think you know the answer to this one already.

Yes, I surely know.

Then why continue with this silliness of yours?

Actually no, according to the quote you used faith is its own substance and evidence so it boils down to you need faith to have faith hence a circular argument.

Well I already illustrated, in far too much detail, that this is erroneous.

You even highlighted it for me, faith is substance, faith is evidence.

Faith RESULTS from.....substance and evidence. Substance is Substance, Faith is Faith, Evidence is Evidence. Faith isn't "substance"....mainly because they're two different words.

Yes I have and so far your argument amounts to the fallacious argument from incredulity i.e. I can not believe x so god.

Actually, as I said previously, it's not....

You only have 2 choices as to "How" we are here: Random Chance (Nature) or Intelligent Design (GOD). The Laws of Physics, Chemistry/Biochemistry, Information; and the tenets of Specific Complexity, Irreducible Complexity, and Common Sense Rule Nature out...Laughingly so. If you summarily rule one of the choices out.... where does it leave you?
Based on the Law of Non-Contradiction--- two things that are contradictory can't be responsible the same time (or do you disagree?). This is not a False Dichotomy (Bifurcation Fallacy) because there is no THIRD CHOICE. Now if I summarily refute Randomness the choice MUST BE ID. YOU MAY THEN conjure thousands of possibilities under ID; however, it has ZERO to do with the tenets of first postulate.

George Wald Nobel Laureate Medicine and Physiology

The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. THERE IS NO THIRD POSITION. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. {Emphasis Mine}
Wald, G., The Origin of Life, Scientific American, 191 [2]: 45-46, 1954.

Do you have any more options? Please list: 3rd, 4th, 5th....?

You used the quote so it can be surmised you are in agreement with what it states which is why I am asking you. If you do not agree with the quote you used then why use it other than to muddy the water.

Quibbling (Fallacy). Yes, I used the Quote to show evolution is a Religion....and Voila. If you wish to get into secular vs. non-secular, Mr. Gish, or any of the other color commentary within said quote, go ask Professor Ruse.

If you have then you know that one of the primary goals of peer review is to ensure proper methods have been used, strange that you come out against it.

My disdain comes from the Abuse/Neglect I've seen with it...not from the "Concept" of it. It can be corrupted to become more like "Peer Pressure" than "Peer Review".

1. Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware!


A reducing versus an oxidative atmosphere.

Can you be a tad more specific, as in mechanisms please....? And Begging the Question (Fallacy)--- "reducing vs oxidative atmosphere". Please show the Experiment(s) that VALIDATE a reducing atmosphere....?


Are you a YEC?

So your answer to the query is: "Are you a YEC?" ? Yes I'm a Young Earth Creationist. I also enjoy jogging in the rain; a "Rain Jogger", as it were.

Please show where atoms have any capability for thought in the first place.

ahhh, Shouldn't you be answering that, since you said: "Atoms are not stupid...." ??

Your insistence on claiming atoms are stupid is plain silly, is water a moron as well?

In our "Context", Yepper.

Then why continue with this silliness of yours?

Well, ya see sir....DNA, The Genetic CODE----Software, displays Algorithmic Cybernetic CODING and De-CODING Schemes. It's chalk full of "INFORMATION", the sine qua non of life.
INFORMATION when traced back to it's source, only ever ever ever reveals INTELLIGENT AGENCY, without Exception.

So if you are a "GOD Denier"....."Methodological Naturalist", to Justify and cogently Support your "World View", MUST explain HOW this is the Case. Savvy?


regards

[Enoch2021]

Irreducible complexity is not a "tenet." It's been long since refuted. The originator of that idea was Michael Behe, and even his own department issued a statement opposing his beliefs. I'm sure I can find plenty more evidence that nobody in the general scientific community has a moment's hesitation about Irreducible Complexity, but then, what sway does evidence hold over you?

Sorry missed this in all the excitement.

Irreducible complexity is not a "tenet."

Au Contraire.

The originator of that idea was Michael Behe

Factually Incorrect. The concept was well known before Woodstock...

Polanyi, M., Lifes irreducible structure, Science 160:1308"1312, 1968.

Professor Behe just popularized the concept.

It's been long since refuted.

I beg to differ sir, Quite Adamantly:

This is quite easy to understand; Let's use a Bicycle: You have the frame, handle bars, handle grips, seat, mirror, 2 wheels, chain, peddles, flag. What Irreducible Complexity is speaking to is there are certain parts of the system that must be present/complete and "functioning" to make a Bicycle a "functioning" Bicycle. With our parts above, which are absolutely necessary? Frame, Handle Bars, both Wheels, Chain, Peddles. These are absolutely necessary; Ergo...the system is Irreducibly Complex

For our example, lets take a wheel away....Does the Bike still Function? If that wheel is used as a "Functioning" Roulette Wheel for ground squirrels or the spokes repatriated and used for Shis Kababs is the Bicycle still Kaput? Does the mere fact that the parts of the wheel are now functioning for another purpose Preclude the Fact that the Bike is a Football Bat? Will the Frame, Handle Bars, Chain et al get together and reconstruct the missing wheel? What happens in the Interim? Do Stupid Atoms and Molecules have Sentience, Prescience, and Intelligence...then build a new wheel, from scratch? Welcome to Irreducible Complexity it's as right as rain.

And btw, the "debunking" blusters from the "gallery" ALL (IN TOTO) including Kenneth Miller, argue The Stamp On The Forehead Strawman Fallacy...that the existence of the Roulette Wheel and Shis Kabobs dis-annuls the Irreducible Complexity of the Bike.

So go ahead and wheel out the disheveled: Flagellum, Blood Clotting Cascade et al arguments, and I'll take them each to the Woodshed....Step By Step.

and even his own department issued a statement opposing his beliefs.

This one....

Department Position on Evolution and "Intelligent Design". Lehigh University...

"The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.

The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."

Can you show me where "Irreducible Complexity" specifically... is refuted, Please.....?


regards

[Box Whatbox]

You only have 2 choices as to "How" we are here: Random Chance (Nature) or Intelligent Design (GOD). . . . .
Do you have any more options? Please list: 3rd, 4th, 5th....?

Determinism.
Example 1.
A rock sits on a gravelly hillside, in a land where it rains sometimes.
Eventually the rock will move downhill.
Supernatural Design? Unnecessary.
Random Chance? Not really. (Ask yourself whether there was an equal chance that it could have moved uphill? Or even if there was a reasonable chance it could have just stayed in the same spot forever?) Given gravity, unstable substrate, likely rainfall, passing sheep or hikers, lots of other possible factors, further down the hill is where the rock is very likely to end up.
Example 2.
Given that the most common elements of life (Oxygen, hydrogen, carbon, etc) are also the most common elements produced in stars, and there are trillions of stars just in the universe we can observe, what we have is a set of starting conditions from which some sort of self-replicating 'organism' is quite probable, within a few billion years.
The 'Design or random chance' dichotomy is based either on deep ignorance of science, or deep dishonesty about it.

[Bust Nak]

You only have 2 choices as to "How" we are here: Random Chance (Nature) or Intelligent Design (GOD). The Laws of Physics, Chemistry/Biochemistry, Information; and the tenets of Specific Complexity, Irreducible Complexity, and Common Sense Rule Nature out...Laughingly so.

Except your so called "ruling nature out" are fallacious arguments from incredulity. Which is what we've been pointing out all these time. Every attempt at ruling nature out takes the form of "you don't know how X work naturally, therefore it isn't nature" Well, that, quotes and appeals to ridicule.

If you summarily rule one of the choices out.... where does it leave you?
Based on the Law of Non-Contradiction--- two things that are contradictory can't be responsible the same time (or do you disagree?). This is not a False Dichotomy (Bifurcation Fallacy) because there is no THIRD CHOICE.

Granted nature and non-nature is a not false dichotomy. Random chance and intelligent design however, is a false dichotomy.

Now if I summarily refute Randomness the choice MUST BE ID. YOU MAY THEN conjure thousands of possibilities under ID; however, it has ZERO to do with the tenets of first postulate.

Except that wasn't what was being pointed out.

Do you have any more options? Please list: 3rd, 4th, 5th....?

Easy enough, an alternatives to spontaneous generation and a primary act of supernatural creation is the iterative nature process commonly labelled "abiogenesis."

Yes, I used the Quote to show evolution is a Religion....

Oh? Quotes can do that? Here is a quote "Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense." - Chapman Cohen. I have shown that belief in God is incompatible with science and common sense, or have I?

Well, ya see sir....DNA, The Genetic CODE----Software, displays Algorithmic Cybernetic CODING and De-CODING Schemes. It's chalk full of "INFORMATION", the sine qua non of life.
INFORMATION when traced back to it's source, only ever ever ever reveals INTELLIGENT AGENCY, without Exception.

False by counter example: I can give you any number of source of information other than intelligent agency, such as fractors.

This is quite easy to understand; Let's use a Bicycle: You have the frame, handle bars, handle grips, seat, mirror, 2 wheels, chain, peddles, flag. What Irreducible Complexity is speaking to is there are certain parts of the system that must be present/complete and "functioning" to make a Bicycle a "functioning" Bicycle. With our parts above, which are absolutely necessary? Frame, Handle Bars, both Wheels, Chain, Peddles. These are absolutely necessary; Ergo...the system is Irreducibly Complex

If that's how you define irreducibly complexity then evolution is perfectly capable of producing irreducibly complexity. The kind of complexity that evolution cannot produce, are complexities where there is no way to produce in a iterative process, where each stage is functional - wheels, chains and so on on a bike, can each be functional individually, just not as a bike.

[Danmark]

The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. THERE IS NO THIRD POSITION. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. {Emphasis Mine}
Wald, G., The Origin of Life, Scientific American, 191 [2]: 45-46, 1954.

Do you have any more options? Please list: 3rd, 4th, 5th....?

You're not only continuing to mine quotes in a way that misrepresents, you are now recycling your mined quotes, including those that have been revealed as such, for example on March 3 on this subforum:

George Wald Nobel Laureate Medicine and Physiology...

The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. THERE IS NO THIRD POSITION. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. {Emphasis Mine}
Wald, G., The Origin of Life, Scientific American, 191 [2]: 45-46, 1954.

More quote mining, and well known, plagiarized quote mining:

'"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution."

The poster (or whoever he cribbed it from - one of the dangers of plagiarism is that someone else's mistakes transform into your mistakes without warning) got the reference wrong. If he had photocopies of the paper, that would not have happened. The correct citation is:

Wald, G. 1954. The Origin of Life. Scientific American August: 44-53.
[there is some confusion between the 1958 ref. and the 1954, but the essence of both quotes is completely different from what Enoch posted, and from what the YEC'r referred to on talkorigins posted. Both misrepresented what Wald wrote. You may note there is even a discrepancy in the way the 1954 article was referenced. ]
I went to the library and found the [September 1958] article. The quote is a complete fabrication. What the article does say is:

The great idea emerges originally in the consciousness of the race as a vague intuition; and this is the form it keeps, rude and imposing, in myth, tradition and poetry. This is its core, its enduring aspect. In this form science finds it, clothes it with fact, analyses its content, develops its detail, rejects it, and finds it ever again. In achieving the scientific view, we do not ever wholly lose the intuitive, the mythological. Both have meaning for us, and neither is complete without the other. The Book of Genesis contains still our poem of the Creation; and when God questions Job out of the whirlwind, He questions us.

Let me cite an example. Throughout our history we have entertained two kinds of views of the origin of life: one that life was created supernaturally, the other that it arose "spontaneously" from nonliving material. In the 17th to 19th centuries those opinions provided the ground of a great and bitter controversy. There came a curious point, toward the end of the 18th century, when each side of the controversy was represented by a Roman Catholic priest. The principle opponent of the theory of the spontaneous generation was then the Abbe Lazzaro Spallanzani, an Italian priest; and its principal champion was John Turberville Needham, an English Jesuit.

Since the only alternative to some form of spontaneous generation is a belief in supernatural creation, and since the latter view seems firmly implanted in the Judeo-Christian theology, I wondered for a time how a priest could support the theory of spontaneous generation. Needham tells one plainly. The opening paragraphs of the Book of Genesis can in fact be reconciled with either view. In its first account of Creation, it says not quite that God made living things, but He commanded the earth and waters to produce them. The language used is: "let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life.... Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind." In the second version of creation the language is different and suggests a direct creative act: "And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air...." In both accounts man himself--and woman--are made by God's direct intervention. The myth itself therefore offers justification for either view. Needham took the position that the earth and waters, having once been ordered to bring forth life, remained ever after free to do so; and this is what we mean by spontaneous generation.

This great controversy ended in the mid-19th century with the experiments of Louis Pasteur, which seemed to dispose finally of the possibility of spontaneous generation. For almost a century afterward biologists proudly taught their students this history and the firm conclusion that spontaneous generation had been scientifically refuted and could not possibly occur. Does this mean that they accepted the alternative view, a supernatural creation of life? Not at all. They had no theory of the origin of life, and if pressed were likely to explain that questions involving such unique events as origins and endings have no place in science.

A few years ago, however, this question re-emerged in a new form. Conceding that spontaneous generation does not occur on earth under present circumstances, it asks how, under circumstances that prevailed earlier upon this planet, spontaneous generation did occur and was the source of the earliest living organisms. Within the past 10 years this has gone from a remote and patchwork argument spun by a few venturesome persons--A. I. Oparin in Russia, J. B. S. Haldane in England--to a favored position, proclaimed with enthusiasm by many biologists.

Have I cited here a good instance of my thesis? I had said that in these great questions one finds two opposed views, each of which is periodically espoused by science. In my example I seem to have presented a supernatural and a naturalistic view, which were indeed opposed to each other, but only one of which was ever defended scientifically. In this case it would seem that science has vacillated, not between two theories, but between one theory and no theory.

That, however, is not the end of the matter. Our present concept of the origin of life leads to the position that, in a universe composed as ours is, life inevitably arises wherever conditions permit. We look upon life as part of the order of nature. It does not emerge immediately with the establishment of that order; long ages must pass before [page 100 | page 101] it appears. Yet given enough time, it is an inevitable consequence of that order. When speaking for myself, I do not tend to make sentences containing the word God; but what do those persons mean who make such sentences? They mean a great many different things; indeed I would be happy to know what they mean much better than I have yet been able to discover. I have asked as opportunity offered, and intend to go on asking. What I have learned is that many educated persons now tend to equate their concept of God with their concept of the order of nature. This is not a new idea; I think it is firmly grounded in the philosophy of Spinoza. When we as scientists say then that life originated inevitably as part of the order of our universe, we are using different words but do not necessary mean a different thing from what some others mean who say that God created life. It is not only in science that great ideas come to encompass their own negation. That is true in religion also; and man's concept of God changes as he changes.

I think that this extended quote shows that the "quote" is not even correct as a paraphrase. The quote reflects neither the words or the spirit of what Dr. Wald wrote.'

_ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/ ... rt1-4.html
[emphasis applied]