Science and Spontaneous Generation

[awestruckchild]

To look at the history of the arguments for and against Spontaneous Generation around the time of Pasteur is fascinating.
I catch fleeting glimpses of us today in it, but they are fleeting and I can't quite grasp them.

It went back and forth for some time beginning with Redi and his experiment with the gauze on rotting meat where he proved that it was fly eggs and not spontaneous generation that caused the worms.

The nail in the coffin of Spontaneous Generation was not really Pasteur, to my mind. It was the man who EXPLAINED why different results were being had. Well, I guess it was both of them...

It is kind of amazing that scientists can be so stubborn. If you are getting different results, it always has to enter your mind that YOU could be the one skewing your results. But arrogance says that it is impossible and just says: YOUR results are not MY results, therefore, YOUR results are wrong.

And all the time, it was just different boiling times.
If your broth is still cloudy, you might just need to let it steep longer....it might have more heat resistant things growing in it.
It isn't a "scientist" thing. It is a "human" thing.
My experience is real, yours is not. Don't know what you did wrong, but if it isn't duplicated exactly in my experience, then yours is wrong and mine is right! Because God is in this box and He can't ever go outside of it.
God cannot be enclosed in any one mans experience. We can't pin Him down and examine all His ways and workings. That would make us as all knowing as He is.

[awestruckchild]

And for the newest things I have been learning in class...
I do not think many people really realize what is going on with the ability of bacterias to build up resistance to antimicrobials.
And it isn't just a matter of being more judicious with antibiotics. Even if we have begun to do this, there are places in the world where antibiotics are sold over the counter to anyone and for any reason. And in these places, thousands of people fly in and out, carrying the now antibiotic-resistant strains with them, and they pass through many airports and spread what they have picked up.
It isn't just a scary thought or POSSIBLE scenario, and there is not a microbiologist on earth who would say to you - well...IF, because it is not a matter of if - it is a matter of WHEN an outbreak of one of these nasties cannot be contained because there is nothing in our arsenal TO contain it. And we are not currently in research to DEVELOP any new antibiotics (at least not in the seriousness of response that the situation dictates).

So I just kind of shake my head and think: well, there goes the third of the population that Revelation speaks of in some places. So, we aren't taking this imminent threat in any seriousness because scripture WILL be fulfilled. Pretty amazing. Not a day goes by in class that I do not see a locking in place of pieces of the puzzle.

[Vanderhoven7]

To look at the history of the arguments for and against Spontaneous Generation around the time of Pasteur is fascinating.
I catch fleeting glimpses of us today in it, but they are fleeting and I can't quite grasp them.
.

Check out (part of which is quoted below)
http://www.truenews.org/Creation_vs_...n_of_life.html

"Charles Darwin's theory of evolution on the origin of life proposes that some four billion years ago, inanimate chemicals developed completely by chance into highly complex, living, single-celled organisms. This process of life coming from non-life is called "spontaneous generation.".....

The Odds
During the last several decades a number of prestigious scientists have attempted to calculate the mathematical probability of the random-chance origin of life. The results of their calculations reveal the enormity of the dilemma faced by evolutionists.

Dr. Blum estimated the probability of just a single protein arising spontaneously from a primordial soup. Equilibrium and the reversibility of biochemical reactions eventually led Blum to state: "The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all probability. This calculation alone presents serious objection to the idea that all living matter and systems are descended from a single protein molecule which was formed as a ‘chance’ act."

In the 1970’s British astronomer Sir Frederick Hoyle set out to calculate the mathematical probability of the spontaneous origin of life from a primordial soup environment. Applying the laws of chemistry, mathematical probability and thermodynamics, he calculated the odds of the spontaneous generation of the simplest known free-living life form on earth – a bacterium.

Hoyle and his associates knew that the smallest conceivable free-living life form needed at least 2,000 independent functional proteins in order to accomplish cellular metabolism and reproduction. Starting with the hypothetical primordial soup he calculated the probability of the spontaneous generation of just the proteins of a single amoebae. He determined that the probability of such an event is one chance in ten to the 40 thousandth power, i.e., 1 in 1040,000. Prior to this project, Hoyle was a believer in the spontaneous generation of life. This project, however, changed his opinion 180 degrees. Hoyle stated: "The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40 thousand naughts [zeros] after it. It is enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence." Hoyle also concluded that the probability of the spontaneous generation of a single bacteria, "is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard could assemble a 747 from the contents therein."

Hoyle’s calculations may seem impressive, but they don’t even begin to approximate the difficulty of the task. He only calculated the probability of the spontaneous generation of the proteins in the cell. He did not calculate the chance formation of the DNA, RNA, nor the cell wall that holds the contents of the cell together.

Example 1
Consider this. The odds of winning a state lottery are about 1 chance in ten million. The odds of someone winning the state lottery every single week from age 18 to age 99 is 1 chance in 4.6 x 1029,120. Therefore, the odds of winning the state lottery every week consecutively for eighty years is more likely than the spontaneous generation of just the proteins of an amoebae!

A more detailed estimate for spontaneous generation has been made by Harold Morowitz, a Yale University physicist. Morowitz imagined a broth of living bacteria that was super-heated so that all the complex chemicals were broken down into their basic building blocks. After cooling the mixture, he concluded that the odds of a single bacterium re-assembling by chance is one in 10100,000,000,000. This number is so large that it would require several thousand books just to write it out. To put this number into perspective, it is more likely that an entire extended family would win the state lottery every week for a million years than for a bacterium to form by chance!

Example 2
In his book, Origins–A Skeptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, Robert Shapiro gives a very realistic illustration of how one might estimate the odds of the spontaneous generation of life. Shapiro begins by allowing one billion years (5 x 1014 minutes) for spontaneous biogenesis. Next he notes that a simple bacterium can make a copy of itself in twenty minutes, but he assumes that the first life was much simpler. So he allows each trial assembly to last one minute, thus providing 5 x 1014 trial assemblies in 1 billion years to make a living bacterium. Next he allows the entire ocean to be used as the reaction chamber. If the entire ocean volume on planet earth were divided into reaction flasks the size of a bacterium we would have 1036 separate reaction flasks. He allows each reaction flask to be filled with all the necessary building blocks of life. Finally, each reaction chamber is allowed to proceed through one-minute trial assemblies for one billion years. The result is that there would be 1051 tries available in 1 billion years. According to Morowitz we need 10100,000,000,000 trial assemblies!

E

Regarding the probabilities calculated by Morowitz, Robert Shapiro wrote: "The improbability involved in generating even one bacterium is so large that it reduces all considerations of time and space to nothingness. Given such odds, the time until the black holes evaporate and the space to the ends of the universe would make no difference at all. If we were to wait, we would truly be waiting for a miracle."

Regarding the origin of life, Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize in biology, stated: "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."

Regarding the probability of spontaneous generation, Harvard University biochemist and Nobel Laureate, George Wald stated: "One has to only contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet we are here–as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation." In this incredibly twisted statement, we see that Wald’s dogmatic adherence to the evolutionist’s paradigm is independent of the evidence. Wald’s belief in the "impossible" can only be explained by faith: "…the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Despite these incredible odds and insurmountable problems, spontaneous generation is taught as a fact from grammar school to the university level. In fact, NASA reported to the press in 1991 their opinion that life arose spontaneously not once, but multiple times, because previous attempts were wiped out by cosmic catastrophes!

Conclusion
The overwhelming evidence is clear…spontaneous generation is an impossibility. It is a scientifically corrupt theory that, among other things, violates the Law of Biogenesis, which says that that life never arises except from life. Life simply cannot come from non-life. Since spontaneous generation is impossible, so then the foundation that evolution rests on has been shattered. Without spontaneous generation there can be no evolution.

Despite scientific evidence to the contrary, however, there are those who continue to believe in evolution, and are therefore forced to accept and defend some form of spontaneous generation. The reason for this dogmatic adherence to spontaneous generation is eloquently pointed out by George Wald: "When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: Creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: That life arose spontaneously by chance!" According to Wald, it’s not about discovering the truth through the finding of fact, it’s not a matter of evidence, not a matter of science…it’s a matter of philosophy! Like George Wald, many people do not like the alternative: that all life on earth was created by God. So, as Wald said, they are willing to "believe the impossible."

Since the impossibility of spontaneous generation is a conclusion that leads to a supernatural creative act by God, it is a conclusion that many choose not to accept. It carries with it what are felt to be, in the present politically correct climate, undesirable philosophic and religious implications. It is for that unfortunate and illogical reason most scientists continue to cling to the unscientific, disproved theory that life arose from non-life through spontaneous generation.

[teddyv]

"Charles Darwin's theory of evolution on the origin of life proposes that some four billion years ago, inanimate chemicals developed completely by chance into highly complex, living, single-celled organisms. This process of life coming from non-life is called "spontaneous generation.".....

I don't think Charles Darwin proposed a theory on the origin of life or spontaneous generation, nor did he know that the earth was some 4.5 billion years old (I read that the current age was determined in 1956). Darwin certainly proposed nothing of what this sentence says.

[awestruckchild]

And you know what really gets me in all of this, Vanderhoven?
It is that we've already been through this!
The 1500's, 1600's - it was dis-proven and now we have gone back to it and insisting it is possible!
It is like entering the dark ages again!
It is going backwards and is LOSING the knowledge we have just as when they insisted the world was flat even though we knew from the bible that it was not!
I am not exaggerating when I say it completely blows my mind.
It just leaves me speechless....

[SeminoleTom]

These threads get me down some. The reason is it really pits science vs Chistianity. God created the universe which makes me more interested in learning how he did it everyday. Should a Christian just not even like or want to go into science related field?

[teddyv]

These threads get me down some. The reason is it really pits science vs Chistianity. God created the universe which makes me more interested in learning how he did it everyday.

Amen.

Should a Christian just not even like or want to go into science related field?

If that is where your talents are, then by all means bring glory to God wherever you find yourself. One should always remain cognizant of the various worldviews at play though. Science can illuminate inform us and reveal truths, but it should not be the lens through which we view our faith (not that that is easy at times in our western society).

[Youssarian]

Well, no. This thread is a step up, at least, from people who simply shout "the Bible says so!" Not saying the Bible isn't credible, but not much scientific peer review can be done on it. Since, y'know, the peers of Moses lived something like 3,500 years ago. Despite being an Old Earther, arguments like these are certainly compelling enough to be worth looking at. I do "believe the impossible," that God was the source of the spontaneous generation of life.

We can go into science if we wish. Let's not forget how many important scientists in history were Christians. Science is not anti-God. It is the study of how God created and operates the universe.

Just my $0.02.

[watchinginawe]

I don't think Charles Darwin proposed a theory on the origin of life or spontaneous generation, nor did he know that the earth was some 4.5 billion years old (I read that the current age was determined in 1956). Darwin certainly proposed nothing of what this sentence says.

teddy, you are aware of the Hooker letter, right? Far short of a theory, but Darwin did contemplate the matter from a completely naturalistic philosophy. The idea was alive and well back in Darwin's time to be sure. http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-7471

[teddyv]

teddy, you are aware of the Hooker letter, right? Far short of a theory, but Darwin did contemplate the matter from a completely naturalistic philosophy. The idea was alive and well back in Darwin's time to be sure. http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-7471

I can't recall if I read this before so thanks for the reminder. But you are right, certainly not a theory, and barely a hypothesis.

[watchinginawe]

These threads get me down some. The reason is it really pits science vs Chistianity. God created the universe which makes me more interested in learning how he did it everyday. Should a Christian just not even like or want to go into science related field?

There is no controversy when one is willing to separate truth from philosophy. However, one has to stay on their toes to not accept an implied truth or a truth as the result of a philosophy; at least until it is truly shown to be true (to you). (When this occurs is slippery, it sometimes happens that it is your standards for truth and/or your underpinning philosophy which are changed to accomodate "truth").

There is a lot of separation between Darwin's evolution and naturalistic production of life nowadays. However, in Darwin's time, evolution was generally accepted as explaining how life also began. Life must have began naturalistically just like it evolved, over a long period of time in gradual and successive steps. Science only needs to uncover what these steps were.

While separation of theories is emphasized now, if you have been through school you know that the natural production of life on Earth is still taught. Do you accept that as truth? One way to look at it is "it has to be so"; that there is some kind of "law of life" (created by God like other laws or not) which results ultimately in life wherever conditions are conducive. Now this entire thing is extrapolated in our time to how common life must be in the universe since the number of Earth like planets just in our galaxy of so many galaxies and so forth... there is just all kinds of life out there. There probably was life on Mars in the past. The reasoning goes so far as an expectation to find ancient evidence of life on Mars. It must exist, all we have to do is discover it. There is a lot said about the implications of such a discovery on Mars. But what about the implications of not finding evidence of life at all? It is never mentioned, life must occur naturally and thus exploration will find an abundance of life in the universe, period. That is the kind of "truth" I would wait for absolute evidence of. It kind of frees the mind.

If life didn't occur naturalistically, then what? Is there any implication regarding evolution that would result? Of course there would be. If life isn't natural then it is caused; if caused then perhaps caused with design and purpose. Design and purpose even in front of evolution changes the theory drastically. But what of the truth of the matter? Maybe the linear thinking of one cell organism to one cell reproducing organisms to human beings over huge unobservable voids of time demands more evidence in light of that. Why? Because like spontaneous generation, evolution really is underpinned by the acceptance of it occurring naturalistically over a long period of time in gradual and successive steps. Science only needs to uncover what these steps were.

So if you go into science, my advice is to separate what you hold "true" from what science postulates is "true, as best as we know today, if it all happened naturalistically"; especially in matters that are unobservable and have a philosophical underpinning like evolution. You can make A's on all of your tests and gain the great benefit of Science by understanding what Science concludes. But don't take it to yourself as your understanding of the absolute truth of the matter. Learn to word things like: Science postulates; Science theorizes; Science states; etc. Not Tom believes; Tom accepts; Tom now is enlightened to know... There is a crucial difference to be discerned here and I hope you will make these distinctions if you do select a career in Science.

[Youssarian]

So if you go into science, my advice is to separate what you hold "true" from what science postulates is "true, as best as we know today, if it all happened naturalistically"; especially in matters that are unobservable and have a philosophical underpinning like evolution. You can make A's on all of your tests and gain the great benefit of Science by understanding what Science concludes. But don't take it to yourself as your understanding of the absolute truth of the matter. Learn to word things like: Science postulates; Science theorizes; Science states; etc. Not Tom believes; Tom accepts; Tom now is enlightened to know... There is a crucial difference to be discerned here and I hope you will make these distinctions if you do select a career in Science.

Excellent advice. Good science observes the world around us and theorizes why it is so. The conclusions that scientists make are from what they were able to observe and theorize. But it should never claim itself to be the last word because theories can and have been overturned throughout history. The person who considers science to be the absolute, infallible truth puts more stock in science than it should get.

[SeminoleTom]

Another thing about Christians going into the sciences--- there are many professions that can be considered in the sciences but have absolutely nothing to do with how old the universe is or evolution. These include- doctors, dentists, pharma's, engineers, etc. So to say 'do not go into the sciences' is probably not good advice. This isn't to say they won't have their own challenges but I don't see many people in those professions researching the solar system....lol.

Great discussion....

[NHL Fever]

Check out (part of which is quoted below)
http://www.truenews.org/Creation_vs_...n_of_life.html

"Charles Darwin's theory of evolution on the origin of life proposes that some four billion years ago, inanimate chemicals developed completely by chance into highly complex, living, single-celled organisms. This process of life coming from non-life is called "spontaneous generation.".....

Much of this article sounds very silly to me. The basis for the guesses of probabilities is unclear. In this first line it seems like the author uses imprecise language which makes me think perhaps he doesn't understand the issue very well. For example 'inanimate chemicals' is a strange statement. All elements and chemicals if not in a life-form, are inanimate so this seems redundant to say. What is normally talked about is 'inorganic' elements turning into 'organic' structures and then later into cells. In the last part is says 'spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago'. Is this talking about the fly larvae thing? If so, this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. Not sure where this fits in.

Later it uses the language of 'random chance', which always makes me cringe. The idea is not that organic matter came up from random chance, but that it arose in a specific set of circumstances including large amounts of energy. Now this doesn't mean it happened, but it is different than random chance.

Faith needs to exist on its own, not viewed through an assumed theory of evolution. I accept that evolution may have been the mechanism through which God created us, but it is not necessary to rule it in or out.