Ridley Scott Acknowledges Failings Of Naturalistic Evolution

Just finishing up listening to the 2003 commentary for Alien, featuring Ridley Scott and the cast.

Near the very end, Ridley commented to Sigourney Weaver that it doesn't make sense that we would be the only life in the galaxy. (At first giving me the impression that he thinks life is easy to come by naturally.) However, he then goes on to say that if you believe in the Big Bang, in the time the universe has existed there had to have been "an accident of trillions of events" in order for human life to be possible. He adds that a scientist will say "its either the wand of God or a far superior being" that is responsible for human life.

Interesting that Riley has been processing these thoughts for almost 10 years prior to the release of Prometheus, which still leaves the question of our origins dependent on a superior being of some kind even if it does reject any logical acceptance of the Bible and lean toward the "alien seeding" theory.

I've read that in real scientific circles (as opposed to the circles of the pop-scientists that get all the interviews, etc.) naturalistic evolution is a theory in crisis. (Whether or not this is true, I can't honestly know.) Now I wonder if we are finally seeing the beginning of popular culture catching up and seeing some of the serious holes in the theory.

Paeter wrote:I've read that in real scientific circles (as opposed to the circles of the pop-scientists that get all the interviews, etc.) naturalistic evolution is a theory in crisis. (Whether or not this is true, I can't honestly know.)

I've often felt that the media in general has an agenda and tend to slant everything they report in their favor. Everytime I've been close enough to a real situation to know what really happened and then seen the story later I've seen this! Too often its the voice of one screaming individual that silences the whole mass of humanity. Really sad honestly. And so many will see / hear the story and just take it at face value (who could investigate everything personally) and move on with life. Anyway.....Guess it will only get worse! This always reminds me that "they are willfully ignorant" and "the small things will confound the wise".

Paeter wrote:Interesting that Riley has been processing these thoughts for almost 10 years prior to the release of Prometheus, which still leaves the question of our origins dependent on a superior being of some kind even if it does reject any logical acceptance of the Bible and lean toward the "alien seeding" theory.

It all depends on how much of a literalist you are. Young Earth Creationism would reject the "alien seeding" theory out of hand without acknowledging that it does nothing to alleviate the need for God in the creation of life. (How did life originally arise? How did consciousness emerge? Etc)...

God uses many external agents to accomplish His purposes. He used angels to send messages, He uses people in my life to spur me to do the good deeds He's prepared for me, He's even used his enemies to test the faithful. I don't see why He couldn't have used others to raise us from the dust of the earth. That theory does nothing to invalidate God's sovereignty in creation, just our literalistic interpretation of it... ;-)

Regardless, it definitely sounds as if Scott is on the road to theism at least, if he's not there already... :-)

45shiro45 wrote:

It all depends on how much of a literalist you are. Young Earth Creationism would reject the "alien seeding" theory out of hand without acknowledging that it does nothing to alleviate the need for God in the creation of life. (How did life originally arise? How did consciousness emerge? Etc)...

God uses many external agents to accomplish His purposes.

Well I agree there's room for some mystery in how to interpret the early chapters of Genesis, given their specific stylistic parallels with ancient poetic writing. So there is room for additional events and details not included in the biblical creation accounts. But adding causes unnecessarily is more the realm of speculation than deduction. And this strikes me as being the case with the "space seeding" concept.

The "space seed" hypothesis has always struck me as a delay tactic used by those committed to naturalistic evolution who realize their model needs far more time to produce human life than earth history allows for. I don't know of any logical need to go to the space seed hypothesis unless we want to avoid the special intervention of God.

Paeter wrote:Well I agree there's room for some mystery in how to interpret the early chapters of Genesis, given their specific stylistic parallels with ancient poetic writing. So there is room for additional events and details not included in the biblical creation accounts. But adding causes unnecessarily is more the realm of speculation than deduction. And this strikes me as being the case with the "space seeding" concept.

I agree! But I think the only real deduction is that God created, and the subsequent ramifications of that. The possible methods of how He created is all speculation (except for the actual process of biological evolution- that's a done deal) with varying degrees of plausibility. Panspermia I would say is not very plausible...

Paeter wrote:The "space seed" hypothesis has always struck me as a delay tactic used by those committed to naturalistic evolution who realize their model needs far more time to produce human life than earth history allows for. I don't know of any logical need to go to the space seed hypothesis unless we want to avoid the special intervention of God.

Again, I am 100% with you. I've always wondered how a mere additional 10-12 billion years could be enough for the gradual formation of the star system, the formation of a planet in the habitable zone, plus the requisite time for the random spark of life to ignite, plus the requisite billions of years for the evolution of a species capable of faster than light travel to seed other planets in their respective habitable zones... All without God's intervention? VERY implausible...

Regardless, my point wasn't to argue the plausibility of the hypothesis, merely that such a discovery wouldn't do anything to effectively shake my faith. It would be merely another of God's wondrous works! ;-)

(except for the actual process of biological evolution- that's a done deal)

It is?? Sorry, I'm not much one for debates but couldn't let such a statement go.

WhiteBoy wrote:

(except for the actual process of biological evolution- that's a done deal)

It is?? Sorry, I'm not much one for debates but couldn't let such a statement go.

No worries, I love civil debates! ;-)

I spent about twenty years of my life as a YEC, and my grandparents are still quite staunch about their literalistic biblical interpretations, so I understand the mindset and a lot of the motivations as well! I get a little upset when people start confusing naturalistic evolution (a philosophical/metaphysical worldview) with the biological process of evolution (a scientific theory about how life adapts and changes over time with about as much verifiable evidence as the theory of gravity or atomic structure), which was accepted just fine as consistent with Christian belief up until around the 1950's...

Anyway, discussion about the supposed creation/evolution debate is healthy! I'm up for it! ;-p

45shiro45 wrote:I get a little upset when people start confusing naturalistic evolution (a philosophical/metaphysical worldview) with the biological process of evolution (a scientific theory about how life adapts and changes over time with about as much verifiable evidence as the theory of gravity or atomic structure), which was accepted just fine as consistent with Christian belief up until around the 1950's...

I think I understand your position. And if I'm correct in that I think we're in the same camp or close to it. The idea of evolution (life adapting and changing over time) doesn't contradict with scripture at all. The question would be "how much does it change?"

Evolution as "adaptive biological change over time" doesn't presuppose all life emerging from a single-celled organism. Although many supporters of naturalistic evolution toss in that assumption.

In other words, I believe in evolution defined as "adaptive biological change over time".

I don't believe in evolution defined as "all life originating from a single organism".

Even granting the poetic nature of the early chapters of Genesis, it's a bit of a leap to make. Additionally, my understanding of the fossil record is that it is far more supportive of the first definition of evolution and contains huge gaps when trying to support the second.

But I'm always open to new data if anyone has some to put on the table.

Paeter wrote:I think I understand your position. And if I'm correct in that I think we're in the same camp or close to it. The idea of evolution (life adapting and changing over time) doesn't contradict with scripture at all. The question would be "how much does it change?"

Evolution as "adaptive biological change over time" doesn't presuppose all life emerging from a single-celled organism. Although many supporters of naturalistic evolution toss in that assumption.

In other words, I believe in evolution defined as "adaptive biological change over time".

I don't believe in evolution defined as "all life originating from a single organism".

Even granting the poetic nature of the early chapters of Genesis, it's a bit of a leap to make. Additionally, my understanding of the fossil record is that it is far more supportive of the first definition of evolution and contains huge gaps when trying to support the second.

But I'm always open to new data if anyone has some to put on the table.

We probably are close, not that it matters, but I don't really have a problem with common descent, either. Also the question "how much does it change?" isn't really an issue unless the age of the Earth is in question. Regarding the actual data (astronomy, astrophysics, geology, etc.), it isn't really, though Young-Earthers would disagree. The issue of the leap of common descent from the poetic rendering of Genesis isn't as much of a problem when we keep in mind that God is outside time (as well as within it). As G.K. Chesterton said, “If evolution simply means that a positive thing called an ape turned very slowly into a positive thing called a man, then it is stingless for the most orthodox; for a personal God might just as well do things slowly as quickly, especially if, like the Christian God, he were outside time.” When that principle extends logically over the last 580 million years, then all life indeed could have evolved from God's first created life-form with its ingenious genetic programming established. As far as gaps in the fossil record, that's to be expected considering the rarity of the conditions required for fossil formation. Although the gaps keep getting filled nonetheless. The evolution of whales from land-based mammals to sea-based is particularly amazing. Modern whales still have the exact same bone count and comparative position as their land-based ancestors... Amazing stuff!

What amazes me the most is something that I've been ruminating on lately regarding an argument against evolution that young-earthers commonly used. In my Christian high school education, I learned that evolution can't possibly have occurred because it violates the second law of thermodynamics, AKA entropy. However, considering a theistic reading of evolution, it makes evolution that much more impressive as God's creation when you understand that it defies and upholds entropy at the same time! On the micro-level, it upholds it by the 99%+ of mutations that are not beneficial. It defies it by accumulating the <1% beneficial mutations over millions of years to increase biological diversity and complexity. AMAZING! He is so amazing...

I also think that the poetic reading of Genesis isn't the only reading that jives with theistic evolution or old-earth creationism. ;-p

Anyway, the steps I took from young-earth creationism to theistic evolution took a few years, a lot of prayer and consideration and finally the willingness to open my mind to a major paradigm shift in my (limited) understanding of our awesome Creator. (For the record, more than a few feathered dinosaurs and a couple science classes didn't hurt)...

Ultimately, it's a non-salvation issue and I have a great time discussing it. I just tend to back it up a bit if I perceive it's getting downright divisive, since scripture's pretty clear on that.