The link above is to a commentary that supports the once-discredited theory of a "life force."
I will produce a separate commentary here, but strongly recommend reading Mark Mahan;s piece (above).
The original theory (of life force) had some serious defects, but that was because subsequent advances in genetics seemed to contradict it.
The original theory, for example, supposed that rotting meat somehow spontaneously turned into flies,
through something called "spontaneous generation."
The science of genetics began when Gregor Mendel, an Augustinian friar, used a very clever
statistical analysis to predict how the offspring of heteromorphic parents (such as plants or mice)
would appear. For example, the offspring of white flowers and black flowers would not be grey.
as one might expect, but rather, three white flowers to one black (or vice versa).
Mendel theorized that this was due to paired dominant and recessive genes,
an ingenious insight into the mechanics of heredity.
The science of genetics entered the realm of physics when Watson and Crick discovered DNA.
Watching the complex molecule divide into two, each half replicating the "parent" molecule,
was a profound and stunning discovery.
After that, it seemed just a matter of time before the so-called "miracle of life" would be shown to be
just another physical event, explained in solely physical terms, with no need for any other explanation.
However, much time has passed, and the evidence no longer favors a solely material explanation for life.
DNA is a mechanical manifestation of life, but acts in a subservient role, not the
"master manipulator" role that biology students have been being taught for a lifetime.
Therefore, the search for an animating force (or causative agent) is now once again underway.
Some scientists believe that that agent will yet be found to be purely physical, hidden somewhere in
the molecules that they say comprise life.
The God paradigm however predicts that not only no such hidden
agent will be found in the atoms, but rather, that accumulating evidence will
provide the need for, and the basis for, an explanation that goes beyond any
known physical substances or media.
The explanation for this will be found to be the same or similar to the explanation for consciousness.
In short, science now has no adequate explanations for either life or consciousness. Its proposed explanations are becoming increasingly inadequate with every new advance in science.
Furthermore, life and consciousness are fundamental bases of material reality, and this opens the door to verification that free will is a third related fundamental of physics.
In the case of free will, physics not only has no explanation, but concedes that it is impossible to reconcile determinist physics to free will. Each forbids the other. One of them must be false. If this conflict is resolved in favor of free will, it will lead to a historic paradigm shift in science. The consequences will be profound. New avenues of research will open, research that could lead to results undreamed of.
= = = = =
[Comment and response]
"Elan vital" isn't a useful scientific hypothesis.
Nor will it be until further evidence comes along that forces inquiry outside the present bounds of physicalist science.
In one respect, the universe itself has already been identified as a life force through the fine-tuning observation.
With its improbable combination of physical laws and constants,
all of nature conspires to make life possible (inevitable?)---
and not only life, but technological civilization as well.
Life, consciousness and free will are presently considered to be outcomes of nature, not causes of it.
Physics disputes the contention that these three are at its very foundation and purpose.
But if we ourselves are living, conscious, volitional entities,
we can equally dispute that nature is a mindless, purposeless casino machine that happened just by chance
to produce and sustain us. Can mindlessness produce a mind?
Even if chance is invoked, it must be recognized that randomness can operate only within nonrandom parameters.
What generates those parameters?
Science is a bottom-to-top inquiry into nature.
That is a very useful avenue until its limit is reached.
Reality, however, seems to be structured from top-to-bottom.
If so, then the very premise of science is called into question, at least until we find a
useful hypothesis that explains nature from the top down.
To paraphrase the late Bishop Fulton J Sheen,
we may have to rely on truths that are not accessible to ordinary reason,
but which once we are in possession of them, do not violate it either.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment