Part 1 Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius (C

Home , Lactantius

Session 3 will focus on the Historical Context of The Intersection of Science and Christian Theology. Before arriving at the material specifically found in our CTCR document, I will highlight a few representative theological aspects relevant to the subject. While Session 4 will focus specifically on Philosophical Issues of the controversy, I cannot correctly address the historical context without noting that evolutionary theory, at heart, is a philosophy voiced centuries before Erasmus and Charles Darwin. Professor Miguel Benitez assures me that what I plan to touch on here will not overlap his upcoming session. This post will especially highlight that classic philosophy found the need to invoke an unobserved and inexplicable source for life as nothing less could suffice.

Part 1 Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius (c. 250 – c. 325) was an early Christian author who became an advisor to the first Christian Roman emperor, Constantine I, guiding his religious policy as it developed, and a tutor to his son Crispus. His most important work is the Institutiones Divinae ("The Divine Institutes"), an apologetic treatise intended to establish the reasonableness and truth of Christianity to pagan critics. [Wikipedia]

Some of today’s evolutionary explanations attempt to satisfy the same ancient questions about how life could arise from non-life and then immediately possess full reproductive abilities. Lactantius asserted the scientifically sound principles that life always comes from life and that kind produces kind. Near the end of this first selection, Lactantius’ position prefigures the role of information/DNA in his insistence that life requires “seed” to come into existence. From his letter to Donatus on the anger of God, Chapter 10, we see philosophical foundations of evolutionary theory that even include early versions of “necessity” (i.e. chemical predestination, “far from equilibrium” events, and perhaps even a limited multiverse style concept). Although wrong in some of his beliefs, Lactantius highlights the illogic of denying a Creator. While we now know atoms exist, nonetheless Lactantius was correct to assert that if they did, they would have no power in themselves to form all things. The following text is from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library, found online at https://www.ccel.org/fathers.html. Footnote numbers are removed, underscore added.

TREATISE ON THE ANGER OF GOD, CHAP. X.—OF THE ORIGIN OF THE WORLD, AND THE NATURE OF AFFAIRS, AND THE PROVIDENCE OF GOD.

They who do not admit that the world was made by divine providence, either say that it is composed of first principles coming together at random, or that it suddenly came into existence by nature, but hold, as Straton does, that nature has in itself the power of production and of diminution, but that it has neither sensibility nor figure, so that we may understand that all things were produced spontaneously, without any artificer or author. Each opinion is vain and impossible.

But this happens to those who are ignorant of the truth, that they devise anything, rather than perceive that which the nature of the subject requires. First of all, with respect to those minute seeds, by the meeting together of which they say that the whole world came into existence, I ask where or whence they are. Who has seen them at any time? Who has perceived them? Who has heard them? Had none but Leucippus eyes? Had he alone a mind, who assuredly alone of all men was blind and senseless, since he spoke those things which no sick man could have uttered in his ravings, or one asleep in his dreams?

The ancient philosophers argued that all things were made up of four elements. He would not admit this, lest he should appear to tread in the footsteps of others; but he held that there were other first principles of the elements themselves, which can neither be seen, nor touched, nor be perceived by any part of the body. They are so minute, he says, that there is no edge of a sword so fine that they can be cut and divided by it. From which circumstance he gave them the name of atoms. But it occurred to him, that if they all had one and the same nature, they could not make up different objects of so great a variety as we see to be present in the world. He said, therefore, that there were smooth and rough ones, and round, and angular, and hooked. How much better had it been to be silent, than to have a tongue for such miserable and empty uses! And, indeed, I fear lest he who thinks these things worthy of refutation, should appear no less to rave. Let us, however, reply as to one who says something. If they are soft and round, it is plain that they cannot lay hold of one another, so as to make some body; as, though any one should wish to bind together millet into one combination, the very softness of the grains would not permit them to come

2 together into a mass. If they are rough, and angular, and hooked, so that they may be able to cohere, then they are divisible, and capable of being cut; for hooks and angles must project, so that they may possibly be cut off.

Therefore that which is able to be cut off and torn away, will be able both to be seen and held.

“These,” he says, “flutter about with restless motions through empty space, and are carried hither and thither, just as we see little particles of dust in the sun when it has introduced its rays and light through a window. From these there arise trees and herbs, and all fruits of the earth; from these, animals, and water, and fire, and all things are produced, and are again resolved into the same elements.” This can be borne as long as the inquiry is respecting small matters. Even the world itself was made up of these. He has reached to the full extent of perfect madness: it seems impossible that anything further should be said, and yet he found something to add. “Since everything,” he says, “is infinite, and nothing can be empty, it follows of necessity that there are innumerable worlds.” What force of atoms had been so great, that masses so incalculable should be collected from such minute elements? And first of all I ask, What is the nature or origin of those seeds? For if all things are from them, whence shall we say that they themselves are? What nature supplied such an abundance of matter for the making of innumerable worlds? But let us grant that he raved with impunity concerning worlds; let us speak respecting this in which we are, and which we see.

He says that all things are made from minute bodies which are incapable of division.

If this were so, no object would ever need the seed of its own kind. Birds would be born without eggs, or eggs without bringing forth; likewise the rest of the living creatures without coition: trees and the productions of the earth would not have their own seeds, which we daily handle and sow.

Why does a corn-field arise from grain, and again grain from a corn-field? In short, if the meeting together and collecting of atoms would effect all things, all things would grow together in the air, since atoms flutter about through empty space. Why cannot the herb, why cannot the tree or grain, arise or be increased without earth, without roots, without moisture, without seed? From which it is evident that nothing is made up from atoms, since everything has its own peculiar and fixed nature, its own seed, its own law given from the beginning. Finally, Lucretius, as though forgetful

3 of atoms, which he was maintaining, in order that he might refute those who say that all things are produced from nothing, employed these arguments, which might have weighed against himself.

For he thus spoke:—

“If things came from nothing, any kind might be born of anything; nothing would require seed.”

Likewise afterwards:—

“We must admit, therefore, that nothing can come from nothing, since things require seed before they

can severally be born, and be brought out into the buxom fields of air.”

Who would imagine that he had brain when he said these things, and did not see that they were contrary to one another? For that nothing is made by means of atoms, is apparent from this, that everything has a definite seed, unless by chance we shall believe that the nature both of fire and water is derived from atoms. Why should I say, that if materials of the greatest hardness are struck together with a violent blow, fire is struck out? Are atoms concealed in the steel, or in the flint? Who shut them in? Or why do they not leap forth spontaneously? Or how could the seeds of fire remain in a material of the greatest coldness?

Part 2

Lactantius denied that the earth could of itself bring forth life. He also refuted belief that animals could arise apart from reproduction to then begin continuous reproduction. As we might today note, a gradual development of reproductive ability and especially bisexual systems for life is inexplicable by evolutionary processes. While we may have more precise scientific facts to refute abiogenesis than Lactantius, the underlying logic remains similar for us today. In his day, instead of the primordial soup, deep ocean vents, or other modern beliefs, some philosophers (Lucretius, 1st Century, for one) suggested special “wombs” that [somehow] arose on earth naturally, producing first life, which then reproduced. The following text is from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library, found online at https://www.ccel.org/fathers.html, footnote numbers removed, underscore added. The Divine Institutes, Of the Origin of Error, Chapter XII

That Animals Were Not Produced Spontaneously, But by a Divine Arrangement, of Which God Would

Have Given Us the Knowledge, If It Were Advantageous for Us to Know It.

They say that at certain changes of the heaven, and motions of the stars, there existed a kind of maturity for the production of animals; and thus that the new earth, retaining the productive seed, brought forth of itself certain vessels after the likeness of wombs, respecting which Lucretius says,—

“Wombs grew attached to the earth by roots;” and that these, when they had become mature, being rent by the compulsion of nature, produced tender animals; afterwards, that the earth itself abounded with a kind of moisture which resembled milk, and that animals were supported by this nourishment.

How, then, were they able to endure or avoid the force of the cold or of heat, or to be born at all, since the sun would scorch them or the cold contract them? But, they say, at the beginning of the world there was no winter nor summer, but a perpetual spring of an equable temperature. Why, then, do we see that none of these things now happens? Because, they say, it was necessary that it should once happen, that animals might be born; but after they began to exist, and the power of generation was given to them,

______

Notably, today’s theories still require some version akin to “wombs” for the origin of life. Now, instead of “wombs” we have ice, clouds, aliens, an unknown RNA “world”, primordial soup, clay, undersea thermal vents, and invisible and non-demonstrable chemical or other “necessity”. None is more observably active than Lucretius’ posited “wombs”. Following is a short, nontechnical summary of basic theories for abiogenesis written by an evolutionist. I think we find sound reason to disagree with his, at times, optimistic views.

[Start quotation]

Beneath the Ice Some evidence indicates that, around three billion years ago, Earth’s oceans were covered with ice. This ice may have been hundreds of metres thick and was mainly due to the sun being much less fierce than it is nowadays. This theory contends that the ice may have protected the compounds, allowing them to interact and, thereby, creating life.

Electricity Yes, there is a theory that life on Earth began Frankenstein style! It has been proven that electricity can produce simple sugars and amino acids from simple elements in the atmosphere. This leads to the theory that lightning may have been responsible for the origins of life, primarily by striking through rich volcanic clouds.

Panspermia Now, from the horror of Frankenstein, to the realms of science fiction. Panspermia is the proposal that life on Earth didn’t actually begin on Earth at all. Rocks, and other debris from impacts, are plentiful. In fact, rocks from Mars have been found here on Earth, and it has been suggested they any one of these would have brought microbes that could have kick-started life. So… would that make us all aliens?

RNA Ribonucleic acid (RNA) is today most known for its role in the expression of genes. To put it simply, DNA unzips, revealing the necessary gene that is being called for by the body, then RNA is transcribed from single nucleotides, copying the revealed segment for gene expression. This theory states that all life sprouted from a complex RNA world. This is plausible, as RNA is far more self regulating, if less efficient, than DNA.

Simple Metabolism and Reactions In contrast to the RNA theory, this approach suggests that the primordial soup simply continued to react with itself over time, producing more and more complex molecules, eventually yielding life. This is the most simple of the standing theories, and is difficult to dismiss.

Clay Breeding Ground Research at the University of Glasgow, in Scotland, has given rise to the theory that life on Earth may have evolved in clay. It is suggested that clay may have served as an area of concentrated chemical activity, providing a breeding ground for DNA and other components.

Submarine Hydrothermal Vents Submarine hydrothermal vents, or deep-sea vents, contain vast and diverse ecosystems. The nutrient rich environment filled with reactive gases and catalysts, creates a habitat teeming with life. Studies suggest that life may have originated from within these vents, a theory that cannot be ignored, and one that may in fact tie in with the ice theory at the beginning of this article.

The New Theory! The newest addition to this mix of theories has been clearly articulated by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the USA (though a series of individuals have contributed over the years). The contention from supporters of this idea is that life evolved out of necessity, following the laws of nature, rather than through any accident or freak occurrence. In a number of papers, physicists have argued that the occurrence of life is a matter of inevitability, and they have a sound formula to support their claims. The new(ish) models that physicists have come up with are formulated on previously established theories in physics, and they conclude that matter will generally develop into systems that, when “driven by an external source of energy” and “surrounded by a heat bath,” become increasingly efficient at dissipating energy. Studies have shown that populations of random atoms, when exposed to energy, will shuffle and organise themselves to dissipate energy more efficiently. It is suggested that this re-modelling would eventually lead to life. So, this new theory may be viewed as an addition to the simple metabolism and reaction theory above, but with energy, such as is provided by the sun, as the catalyst. This theory was touched upon by Charles Darwin himself, but was dismissed. However, the new research from MIT is backed up by mathematical and scientific evidence. Only time and further research can truly tell if there really is any energy in these claims. [End quotation]

Article copied from

https://futurism.com/abiogenesis-7-scientific-theories-origin-life-one-new-one 11.27.19 ______

I find that the “new theory” above is essentially the old, empty “chemical predestination” (Melvin Calvin) briefly touted around the mid-1970’s mixed with Ilya Prigogine’s “far from equilibrium” events and updated with more recent, undoubtably over-extrapolated experimentation. Whatever the origin of life belief, today’s evolution theories still need inexplicable “wombs” operating outside of known scientific principles to produce life and its ability to reproduce. [Prigogine, who honestly sought to find how evolution could occur in contradiction to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and contrary to his evolutionary predisposition, denied that his research findings were helpful to explain evolutionary theory.]

Part 3

One of Lactantius’ arguments prefigures the universal condition now expressed by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and remains a powerful truth to argue against evolutionary theory. In this document he holds that things which exist must have a beginning. He then affirms that they necessarily also have an end. The following text is from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library, found online at https://www.ccel.org/fathers.html, footnote numbers removed, underscore added.

Divine Institutes, Book II, On the Origin of Error, Chapter XI Of living creatures, of man; Prometheus, Deucalion, the Parcæ

For all things must necessarily be comprised in three periods of time—the past, the present, and the future. The commencement belongs to the past, existence to the present, dissolution to the future. And all these things are seen in the case of men individually: for we begin when we are born; and we exist while we live; and we cease when we die. On which account they would have it that there are three Parcæ: one who warps the web of life for men; the second, who weaves it; the third, who cuts and finishes it. But in the whole race of men, because the present time only is seen, yet from it the past also, that is, the commencement, and the future, that is, the dissolution, are inferred. For since it exists, it is evident that at some time it began to exist, for nothing can exist without a beginning; and because it had a beginning, it is evident that it will at some time have an end. For that cannot, as a whole, be immortal, which consists of mortals. For as we all die individually, it is possible that, by some calamity, all may perish simultaneously: either through the unproductiveness of the earth, which sometimes happens in particular cases; or through the general spread of pestilence, which often desolates separate cities and countries; or by the conflagration of the world, as is said to have happened in the case of Phaethon; or by a deluge, as is reported in the time of Deucalion, when the whole race was destroyed with the exception of one man. And if this deluge happened by chance, it might assuredly have happened that he who was the only survivor should perish. But if he was reserved by the will of divine providence, as it cannot be denied, to recruit mankind, it is evident that the life and the destruction of the human race are in the power of God. And if it is possible for it to die altogether, because it dies in parts, it is evident that it had an origin at some time; and as the liability to decay bespeaks a beginning, so also it gives proof of an end. And if these things are true, Aristotle

8 will be unable to maintain that the world also itself had no beginning. But if Plato and Epicurus extort this from Aristotle, yet Plato and Aristotle, who thought that the world would be everlasting, will, notwithstanding their eloquence, be deprived of this also by Epicurus, because it follows, that, as it had a beginning, it must also have an end. But we will speak of these things at greater length in the last book. Now let us revert to the origin of man.