Life on Earth: Chance or Deliberate. A Reply

Hameed!

Your articles and comments on it leave no further elaboration or countering.

Sometimes it kills discussion to be so precise.

Dear Omar,

Thanks for your detailed reply. About your example

of the Persian battery, I would certailnly call

it of Persian origin. I said that in the

article and I would say it again that

the Greeks benefited from earlier cultures like

Egypt, Mesopotamia, and others. No civilizaton

grows in isolation. But they utilized this

knowledge and produced original work also (and

they made numerous contributions to pure sciences).

Lets take the example of Muslim scientists.

They borrowed and revered ideas from the Greek,

Persian, and Indian civilization. Infact, one

of the main purposes of Al-Mamoon`s great

library was to translate any kind of informative

material that was available, into Arabic. Does this mean that there is no Scientific contribution from these Muslim scientists? I don`t think

so. I think Muslim scientists advanced science

and their work along with their translations

helped sparked the renaissance.

Greek science has a similar story. They benefited

from the advances of earlier civilizations, but then produced original work. Their contribution to science cannot be denied. This is not to belittle

other ancient civilizatons. We should give them

credit also, but at the same time we should

not take credit away from the Greeks. Again,

I would say that Sarton`s book on early

Greek science provide a great background

on other civilizations and their influence on

Greek science. It also deals with the

contributions of individual Greek scientists

as well, to give you an idea of their vigorous scientific method.

After saying that, let me bring up two other

issues. First, there is a difference between

science and technology. For exmaple, Greeks

were a great scientific society, but it is

the Romans that are known for their technological

feats. Similarly, Abbasid Empire and Omayyads

in Spain are known for their scientific

contributions, but the Ottomans are really the

technological civilization. Now there are ancient

civilizations like the Egytptians (and

also Chinese) that show amazing technological

advances, but it is the Greek and Indian cultures

that thought about pure scineces. Note, that

I have made huge generelizations here and

certainly there were occasions when this

was not true.

The second point that I want to make is that

science and the influence of science has

really made its mark on the world in the post-renaissance era. Hence, it is dominated by Western influence. I don`t think that anyone would argue that past 400 years have been dominated by Western science. And in those 400 years science has not only become integrated in our lives, but

has also become global. It is the timings of the

renaissance that made it possible. Had the peak

of the Abbasid Dynasty shifted 500-600 years,

we may have seen a similar effect, with Muslims dominating world science. But the

fact remains that it was the West that stumbled

upon modern science. Hence we trace the

history of science through western influences.

Ancient Chinese science, as great as it was,

did not have a huge influence on western

thought (though it indirectly helped the

Egyptians and the Greeks). Now present-day

China would not rely on the discoveries of

ancient China, but will utilize the scientific

discoveries of the past few hundred years.

Hence the link of ancient-science to modern-science, due to the nature of the modern world, passes through the West.

Regarding Aliens, I certailnly think that non-carbon-based life could exist. I don`t know whether life can exist as pure energy without

matter. My inclination would be to say no. I don`t see any evolutionary process leading to the loss/conversion of matter to energy even if it is possible.

``Could there be method of communication that`s even more superior to the nervous system?``

Sure, we ourselves may develop better brains naturally...or may be, artficially. We don`t know what directions will the thinking computers take.

Again, thanks for your detailed reply.

-Salman.

Von Danikens in his book ``Chariots of Gods`` explained the origins of the theory cosmosa which began after 17 amino acids were discovered in a meteorite.12 of the Amino Acids were left handed(levorotatory),the life on earth as we know it is made of these left handed amino acids but 5 of the 17 amino acids were right handed (dextrorotatory) and on this earth no life form is known which is made up of righthanded amino acids.From this observation the theory of Extratrestrial origin of life developed.

Now considering the life is extratrestrial in origin, the time required for one amino acid to form after a DNA molecule is formed into a fully functional multicellular organism is so long that our earth appears to be younger to it.And if we are to entertain this theory of our evolution then we should correct the age of our universe to accomodate this concept.

would like to discuss more if anybody interested.

thanks

Salman Qadeer

Since the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) came up here, I`m taking the opportunity to ask :

Look at the very low-power, ultrawideband radio communication technology being promoted at :

http://www.tdsi.com/files/TMUWB_overview.pdf

If this technology works as described, then it might be the preferred means of radio communication by an advanced civilization. Then our narrow-band radio spectrum searches for SETI might be doomed to failure. (In any one narrow band the signal in this method is indistinguishable from noise.)

The question is : what are your thoughts ?

-arun gupta

-

The Chowk is activelly censoring. I though rejecting posts because of their contents was bad enough, but to my surprise, they are editting posts. This is the last time I`ll ever come on this site. I hope everyone who finds such behavior abhorent will also avoid Chowk.

Tibor, Reply#19

Hey! I just said that.

Salman,

Thanks for the clarifications.

Am looking forward to your reply to Omar.

regards,

PM

and oh, apologies to temp for the typos. It was the (long) weekend syndrome, u see :)

First of all, thanks for your encouraging messages. I will try to reply to respond to some of your messages:

#10: Sameer, a nice insightful way to look at the world at micro-cosmos level. In a way it provides a nice harmony.



#3: RSaxena, I agree with you about our evolutionary need to believe in something supernatural.

#5: ``I`ll dig out the name of the book if anyone is interested.

Macgupta, the book is ``Rare Earth`` by Ward and Brownlee. Yes, they do propose that intelligent life may be very uncommon. However, here we are discussing the origin of life. The issue of intelligence is much more complicated than that. Secondly, from what we know about organisms on Earth, life can be very resilient. Life has been found near the volcanic vents, under hundreds of meters of ice in Antarctica, etc. So life may even find a way to survive, say near the center of our galaxy. And once it survives for a long enough time, it may evolve intelligence also. But currently all of this is very speculative as we only have one example, Earth.

#7: ``I also recognise that human intelligence is simply not equipped to understand EVERYTHING.``

(macgupta)

True, and thats the wonderful thing about being human. It would be a pretty boring universe in which we knew everything. Human mind feeds on challenges.

#12 and #5: (Anaryan & PM)

``Just an FYI. Jupiter is the exact reason for the existance of the asteroid belt in our solar system.``

Yes you are right. But Jupiter saves us from numerous comets enroute to inner solar system (e.g. the crash of comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 in 1994).

#16: (PM)

``Hopefully``? hmmm... Do I sense an agenda here??? Whatever happend to the scientist`s dispassionate/disinterested pursuit of knowledge?``

Good point. But scientists are not robots, even though they are often portrayed as such in the movies. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a passion for something. However, you don`t abandon the scientific process.

Lets take an example: Carl Sagan`s passion was to find life on Mars. He even wrote papers on how life may be possible on today`s Mars. However, when life-experiment results from the Viking landers came negative in the mid 1970`s, he was the first one to accept the results. Similar, people who are working on SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) are very passionate about their work. But a possible detection has to pass a very vigorous test.

#17: (PM)

``Wow, but couldn`t it have been eqaully possible (and certainly much more plausible)

that the life-rich rocks were ejected from the primieval Earth TO Mars. Heck, maybe life even evolved independtly on the two planets, but why the eargerness to speculate (badly) that it originated on Mars and then was transfered to the more hospitable Earth?``

This is an excellent point. But according to climate models of early Earth and Mars, it appears that Mars was more hospitable for life than Earth. Despite the relatively hostile environment of early Earth, life started within the first few million years. Mars` friendly climate could have helped start life on Mars even sooner and due to heavy bombardment of planets by astroids and comets earlier on, it could have hurtled some life-rich rocks towards Earth.

However, it could have been the other way too. Its a hard question to answer. There is another speculative idea ``Panspermia``, which suggests that micro-organisms can survive in comets and that life is seeded via these comets all over the universe. This is a very very speculative idea. But comets do contain raw materials for life: Organic compounds and water.

#11: Omar, Thanks for taking the criticism nicely and for writing a long reply. I will reply to your points tomorrow (I need a breather..)

Urstruly,

What do you mean apples and oranges? Religion is superstition which can never be proven wrong because the yardstick keeps getting moved. Every time any dogmatic belief is proved wrong that explanation is that (GOD) is testing our faith.

On the other hand, science theories are proved and disproved by experiments and logic. If a theory is proven wrong is discarded. Only if religion was practiced in that manner. Maybe then there would have been some competition and religion may have had some positive affect on humanity.

Two Desis, you-know-who, entered a restaurant, exactly at 12:00 PM. They were really thirsty. They saw a glass sitting on the table upside down. One of them said nervously, ``Damn! It`s closed on the top``. The other picked up the glass and put it upright and said, ``Goddamnit, it has no bottom either``.



In the matters regarding science versus religion the only thing that matters is how you look at it. Has anyone ever thought that we might be comparing apples and oranges.

Dear Salman Hameed,

I don`t mean to be the skunk at the garden party here. I applaud all efforts to find the truth, but it is when scientist allow their personal desires to dictate (and skew their speculation), that I am a bit irked. Not that I think it wrong to have personal desires, but becasue I think it dishonest to claok them in the garb of science itself. That diminshes science itself.

For instance, from the article:

``The nature does not need a ``trillion gazillion`` planets to form life. It is suspected, and scientific investigations are underway, that life may have originated on Mars first. A meteor or an asteroid impact on Mars, could have ejected life-rich rocks into space and some of these rocks may have seeded the Earth with early life. The discovery of possible micro-fossils in the Martian meteorite, ALH840001, in 1996, further supports the view that Earth may not have been the only planet in our solar system, where life may have flourished.``

Wow, but couldn`t it have been eqaully possible (and certainly much more plausible) that the life-rich rocks were ejected from the primieval Earth TO Mars. Heck, maybe life even evolved independtly on the two planets, but why the eargerness to speculate (badly) that it originated on Mars and then was transfered to the more hospitable Earth?

Would appreciate input from anyone on this...

regards,

PM

from the article:

``In the third century B.C., the director of the great library at Alexandria, Eratosthenes, came to know of a well at Cyenes that did not cast any shadows at noon on June 21st. ... From the distance between Cyene and Alexandria, and the length of the shadow, Eratosthenes was able to get an estimate of the circumference of the

Earth. His answer is within a few percent of the correct measurement!``

``Speculative thinking?``

I`d say, strictly speaking, yes! (as opposed to empirical methodology). But that is not to deprecate the value of the conclusion at all. If anything, it demonstrates the strength of speculative reasoning. Sure, this kind of deductive thinking never the final word (in the example above, the chappy could`ve conceiveably, with the same data, drawn the conclusion that the world was indeed flat but the sun`s rays refracted at varying degrees over different parts of the Earth)

But cetainly, speculative thought, with a healthy does of plausability-checking is to be desired over revelation that flies in the face of common sense, does it not?! To reject scientific theories/models becasue they might be modified tomorrow, and then retreat to non-scientific ones, well, this makes as much sense as saying one will stick to eating bread becasue the flavour of cake might change some day.

Also fro mthe article:

``The discovery of a single micro-organism outside Earth would deprovincialize biology and its impact would be comparable to the reshaping of our universe by Copernicus. And that day is, hopefully, not that far away.``

Now the impact of Copernicus upon the psyche I can understand, but dude, in a world in which, for the most part, God is Dead (or haven`t you heard??) I don`t think this is gonna matter a diddle.

``Hopefully``? hmmm... Do I sense an agenda here??? Whatever happend to the scientist`s dispassionate/disinterested pursuit of knowledge?

Soem good points raised and information presented in the article, but that last bit kinda spoilt it for me.

regards,

PM

A thought just came to me...

Assuming there`s no purpose to our existence, nothing really (ultimately) matters, right?(following survival instincts is a can of worms we can open later)

Or at least it doesn`t matter whether or not we believe there IS a purpose and organize our lives accordingly -- It`s no less absurd to assign a purpose of our own than to contend that we shouldn`t do so, if indeed `nothing matters` (in a purposeless world).

Isn`t the fact that even proponents of the purposelessness postulation engage in debate, in a way, testimony to the truth that Man NEEDS a purpose-- that somethings DO matter! (for, again, in a purposeless world, nothing really should) Isn`t the tail wagging the dog when we say that there isn`t a purpose becasue sicence says their ain`t one??

Maybe there are flaws in my reasoning... would be glad for them to be pointed out.

regards,

PM

Re: temporal

I was waiting for someone to catch me on my involvement in the ``pissing matches.`` :)

You`re right, I am guilty of participating in them although I don`t think I initiate them.

Topics like this one interest me the most, since they transcend all our petty divisions and concerns and all people with wandering minds and curiosities can participate with few biases (other than those who want to pack us off to hell for discussing such topics in contexts outside of religion)

Re: SameerJB #10

``Actually there is not even marginal difference between us and inanimate objects at micro level. ...No atom or sub-atomic particle can be marked as animate or inanimate. It is at the molecular or macro level that we see different properties for different forms of molecules. ``

I agree. I should have been more careful when I said ``marginal difference.`` I recently read Brian Greene`s book on String Theory, which, although not directly related to the topics we are discussing, did raise my awareness and understanding of sub-atomic particles. A tau particle is a tau particle and a muon is a muon... indistinguishable in every representation of life or even from one atom to another.

As an aside, I appreciate both the content and initiative of your piece. It`s a wonder to me why more people don`t get intrigued or provoked by this stuff...probably because it`s very unsettling to a lot of people.

Re: Omarphoenix Reply #: 11

(1)

``It was dated to be 2500-2700 (general date) years old, certainly dated before Alexander the great conquered the Achaemenid Empire. What they discovered was an orange and a lemon connected together by two metal wires.``

Now if only we could find out how they preserved these things. Bhai, hamaray aalu-pyaaz sirf dus din kay mehmaan hotay hain :-)



(2)

``I personally would hate it if someone were to stop discovering these particles because of such reasons but let`s have some humility. Every day, someone almost seems to make a designer particle with a nice name. You have an ambiguity or some anomaly in your result and someone decides to create a particle, give it a name and says that this particle can do this and that and that`s why our readings are different. There`s nothing wrong with that but in essence, you are doing the same thing, taking a leap with your eyes closed. Then you get proved wrong and the particle goes down the drain.``



Cheer up Omar. At last sighting, Superstring Theory was sweeping away all comers who dare stand in the way. At long last, an elegant way out of the mess.

(Next frontier - what are those strings made of)

(3)

Re: macgupta Reply #: 5

``You need a Jupiter-size planet to sweep the area clean of asteroids and so on.``

Just an FYI. Jupiter is the exact reason for the existance of the asteroid belt in our solar system.

Dear Salman

Many thanks for taking the time to provide an excellent critical angle to the article. It was informative to say the least. Apologies for the ratio mistakes. I guess my research wasn`t refined enough (a certain scientific journal shall be hearing from me very soon) and since you are light years ahead of me in physics, I shall not challenge that figure though we both know that in future, that particular number shall be modified / changed.

A few points:

Regarding the Greeks, I still believe that their science was speculative, though now I`ll say `largely speculative` to please a few others. The Greeks were more than scientists, they were a civilisation and a beautiful one at that. There is a romanticism attached to their science and every modern scientist would like to think that the principles he exercises were derived from an old civilisation which excelled in arts and literature and they had their own beautiful mythical people such as Zeus, Hera etc. etc. There is then a natural tendency to hype the `progenitors.`

Few years back, historians stumbled upon a preserved artefact in Iran (sorry I can`t remember the specific place right now). It was dated to be 2500-2700 (general date) years old, certainly dated before Alexander the great conquered the Achaemenid Empire. What they discovered was an orange and a lemon connected together by two metal wires. This is essentially an ancient `battery.` The wires complete the circuit. The orange and lemon have different hydrogen potentials due to different pHs. The question is, would you consider the battery a part of the Greek civilisation or would you say it were the Persian?

Another thing, bosons, and leptons and neutrinos and top, down, charm, heavy and pions and grvitons and gluons, taus, muons, positrons are all mythical creatures. We still haven`t `held them in our hands` or `seen them with our own two eyes. That does not imply that they do not exist. I personally would hate it if someone were to stop discovering these particles because of such reasons but let`s have some humility. Every day, someone almost seems to make a designer particle with a nice name. You have an ambiguity or some anomaly in your result and someone decides to create a particle, give it a name and says that this particle can do this and that and that`s why our readings are different. There`s nothing wrong with that but in essence, you are doing the same thing, taking a leap with your eyes closed. Then you get proved wrong and the particle goes down the drain. Many times one would think that science was a pure trial and error process. But then this is how science progresses and a simpleton like me would not dare the ingenious minds of those scientists.

Regarding aliens, I`m just wondering. Do you believe that non-carbon based life could exist? It seems like so. Is it possible for life to exist as pure `structured` energy that lacks all matter? What if one was to say that life on Earth was geared towards achieving that goal, the fact that it`s not about evolution of organisms but the evolution of the brain/mind. It began with communication amongst a few rogue molecules that got together under a structure (i.e. prokaryotic organisms-bacteria). Crude communication took place until the eukaryotic organisms bought with them a better means of interaction. Then came other organisms (plants, amoebae) which also utilised chemical communication until animals came to `life` and they bought with them different means of communication, a nervous system. This nervous system was crude in the earlier models but improved with time. They started off with single neural cells in simple animals and developed into circuits and later on as life evolved, into `pools` and so on. The axons (processes that transmit an impulse to another neurone) of `old` animals (e.g. squids) are unmyelinated, that is they lack a fatty padding at every given interval along the axon. Higher organisms however, e.g. dolphins have myelinated axons. This means that the speed by which an impulse travels across a neurone is much faster and efficient in a dolphin than in a squid. The neural network is an electrical network of communication and is an upgrade on the older chemical methods. Humans are of course the best example since they have pound for pound, the largest brain (1400cc) and the most developed one also (Neanderthals an exception with their 1500cc brains). `Conscious` it self is electrical since when you die you can no longer put a light bulb on your head and expect it to light up (sorry for the crude joke).

I personally think of humans as the worlds fastest train that`s being fed on coal. The universe`s most complex structure requires food and organ baggage like lungs and heart to burn food and release ENERGY which sustains the human conscious. In fact the more and more organisms get complex, the more and more the body becomes designed solely to support the brain. When does the `cut off` point arrive when the conscious does not require pink matter or blood

Could there be a method of communication that`s is even more superior to the nervous system? Now, if I was to ask you, do you believe in angles or jinns (Ha Ha Ha), would you believe me? I won`t bore you any longer.

Once again, thank you for taking the time and I look forward to the day when they find an ET. When they find one, I`ll bow down and accept there was something wrong in my thinking.

Take care and best wishes,

Omar Phoenix

RSexena (#3): I pretty much agree with what you said except for the last sentence:

[Fair enough, I too don`t find the thought of there being only a marginal difference between us and inanimate objects particularly comforting.]

Actually there is not even marginal difference between us and inanimate objects at micro level. The quote from Physicist Steven weinberg as well as my comments later (post #1) dealt with the matter at atomic and sub-atomic levels. No atom or sub-atomic particle can be marked as animate or inanimate. It is at the molecular or macro level that we see different properties for different forms of molecules. No serious person can argue for marginal differences at supra-macro level, i.e., between life and inanimate matter. Even without bringing the religions, social evolution and morality into discussion, a human being (dead or alive) is lot more valued than its atomic components. The market value of the atoms and compounds extracted from a cremated human being are worth 10-15 cents. A careful seperation and purification of all the compounds of a human being (without cremation or decomposition) are worth 7-10 million dollars(without excluding the cost of seperation and purification). It would be stupid of me or any other person to ask a mother to love a stone as much as her child based upon atomic or sub-atomic Physics. This article is about Astronomy, Cosmology and Physics. My response was strictly based on the current understanding of science at that level. Speaking strictly, based on Physics, Chemistry and Biology, our current understanding does not require a purposefulness of life on earth. I think, deliberate or chance are not the right terms to debate this issue. The favorable treatment of certain acquired characters by the natural conditions (as the long neck of giraffe or thick wooly skin of polar bears--survival of the fittest) through evolution could be termed as deliberate by nature. Using natural selection as a justification for a creator is in the realm of religions and human psyche and not Astronomy or Cosmology.

This reminds me of an episode in a movie called ``Einstein meets Marilyn Monroe`` !

Einstein is staying at a hotel attending a conference and going down to the lobby in the elevator. He recognises the elevator boy as a Red Indian and asks him `` Are you a Cherokee ?``. The elevator boy says `` Yes, that`s correct.`` Einstein says ``Did you know wherever a Cherokee is, he is always at the centre of the universe ?`` The elevator boy replies `` Yes I`ve heard that, but it`s difficult to believe it when you`re going up and down in a 5`x4` elevator all day !``

Rgds

RSaxena #3:

TUNNEL-VISIONED IMBECILES

When I read, ``Excellent writing. It`s unfortunate that it is on Chowk and will suffer the inevitable cycle of degenerating into a battle over Islam, then Pakistan, then India, and then India vs. Pakistan.`` I chuckled.

I chuckled because at times you are in the forefront of such futile pissing matches!

You seem intelligent and caring person. Can I implore you to ignore the Tunnel-Visioned imbeciles?

(Of course there will always be a few shouting from atop some mandir or minaret; but if we ignore them they will go fart elsewhere.)

I share your last thought, `` It`s a complex topic with contradictions at every corner and I too have more questions than answers.``

rgds

t

Salman:

Welcome to Chowk.

At the risk of being drenched under a rain of missiles of quotes from chapters and verses from the Book I guess I am in that minority that believes in an unending pursuit of ilm, knowledge.

I also recognise that human intelligence is simply not equipped to understand EVERYTHING. Or, in another turn of phrase: human intelligence has its limitations.

While we may go on speculating till dooms day about certain fundamental issues ..... this probing..... the relentless pursuit (of knowledge) enriches us ... enables us to extend our froniters ever so far.

This game of life with some pursuing knowledge, and others reconciling, recoiling, rejecting or following will go on........

Keep writing,

regards

t

salman:

Thank you for resurrecting the subject.I have gleaned & rifled through the article but I`ll do intend to participate when I`m ready.



wassalam

There is also a new science book out, that argues that intelligent life might be rather rare, and that humans on the earth might actually be unique.

The idea is that to develop intelligent life takes billions of years through evolution and requires a rather stable stellar neighborhood. This excludes globular clusters and the central parts of galaxies, too many star collisions and supernova and so on. Likewise, you need a long-lived star, should not be in a binary system. You need a Jupiter-size planet to sweep the area clean of asteroids and so on. I haven`t read the book, only a review, so I`ll stop here. Large though the visible universe is, such conditions turn out to be probably unique under these assumptions.

I`ll dig out the name of the book if anyone is interested. The point being that science does not yet rule out the solar system being special.

-arun gupta

Question : did not Aristotle make statements that were accepted as truth that adult women had fewer teeth than adult men ? What is not an Aristotlean theory that motion required force ? No denying the brilliance of the Greeks, but remember that like us, the West feels a need to justify itself with a long lineage, and they have erected myth around the Greeks to do so. Ancient Greek civilization and science more resembled that in other parts of the ancient world than it does modern Western Christian culture. Or to put it another way, Greek knowledge was available all over the ancient world, and was lost in Europe only for several centuries (reintroduced via the Muslims ). So, if the Greeks invented what we call science, then there were a lot of opportunities to follow up. We can loosen our definition of science, and then every society had it, probably the greatest measure in the Chinese, or else we can accept that it was a modern invention. Take your pick.

Regarding Weinberger`s comment on the pointlessness of the universe, one can counter with George Smoot`s seeing the face of God in the fluctuations in the microwave background radiation that were discovered in the experiment that he lead. Weinberger, Smoot and Omar Phoenix are all making the same kind of mistake.

-arun gupta

Excellent writing. It`s unfortunate that it is on Chowk and will suffer the inevitable cycle of degenerating into a battle over Islam, then Pakistan, then India, and then India vs. Pakistan.

In any case, here`s my two cents. It has and will continue to be very difficult for man to ever remove himself from the center of the universe (metaphorically speaking of course.) We cannot accept ourselves as simply another arrangement of atoms much like the computer keys I am striking, the water I just drank or the sun that baked me outside. However, it`s fair to make the distinction that in ``our world`` - the world defined by a collection of human beings - we are significant but holisitically we are not. But our minds and curiosities do not permit us to simply forget and ignore the universe or abandon our need to explain our existence (at least those of us with wandering minds.)

On a similar note, we are centuries away from from removing ourselves from the clutches of religion. What once started as a way for Mr. Caveman to reassure his family frightened by the unexplainable thunderstorm (``god is angry, but you can control it by being a good human being``), has devolved into perhaps the biggest source of violence and destruction in our history. Unfortunately we still do need religion, if for nothing else than to give the hopeless a measure of hope and to keep cynicism about our coincidental and perhaps meaningless existence at bay. Fair enough, I too don`t find the thought of there being only a marginal difference between us and inanimate objects particularly comforting.

I apologize if this is a little jumbled. It`s a complex topic with contradictions at every corner and I too have more questions than answers.

great article...healthy criticism should always be welcome...and it was indeed very informative.

cheers.

Salman Hameed: Very good article.

Let me begin with a quote from Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg of UT Austin: ``The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it seems pointless``. The realm of inanimate matter, really does offer no evidence of higher purpose. When we move into the realm of animate matter--all life forms including human beings--and move from evolution to human history, a sense of direction or arrow is what, for some, justifies their belief in a causation for all such causes, though not necessarily God. On the other hand, since inanimate matter is the backbone of all forms of life, the direction or arrow can as well be explained as the result of billions of years of natural selection and survival of the fittest to reach where we are today.

Many creationists would accept the purposlessness of each and every grain of sand on the beaches but they have difficulty to accept the complexity of matter cooperating--guided by enzymes-- enzymes production guided by DNA, to create copies of itself. Beats me!!!