To come back to what we're actually humbly after in the field of CE, it's a full theory of at least one rational (scientifically orthodox) way in which life could have originated entirely naturally on the early Earth, and this is essentially a chemical problem, which IMO intellectually reduces to finding a sensible origin for the RNA World. Questions involving ID/creationism should be dismissable by anyone whose science degree means anything.
Chemical evolution:
- Thread starter paddoboy
- Start date
Well, I'd say that following the stunning discoveries of ribozymes (early 1980s) and the XRD revelations of the ribosomal active-site (early 2000s), that there's now a widespread 'faith' among astrobiologists that, eventually, someone will arrive at a fully workable theory of incipient abiogenesis which will be pointing recognisably in the direction of the RNA World. And that once that Chemistry/geoscience problem's been solved satisfactorily, that the remainder of the Abiogenesis problem will rapidly become essentially the preserve of Molecular Biologists, of Biochemists, of Evolutionary Biologists, of Microbiologists, & of Ecologists. It'll be Chemistry's gift to Biology, which one can also hope might even offer novel insights to Physiology.
I'll take it as a given the scientists is rock solid correct
What possible reason can YOU give to pander to a religious person's delusion?
Can't remember the believer who flatly stated "Even if Evolution was proven to be correct I would still believe the bible". I suspect many other believers are of the same cut
I would point out also downplaying the truth (or more to the point the correctness) would give your co-workers doubts about you and provide wriggle room for the believers
If you are sure (as noted I am taking it as a given) go in with all guns blazing and take no prisoners
Darwin had his (with good reason) his doubts given his lack of knowledge at the time. Look how believers treat him with a constant barrage of "Even Darwin blah blah blah about Evolution"
I'll drink to that
Of course it could be a lucky guess or a inspirational thought but a one paragraph listing of those two is not going to get published in any scientific journal
You could make it there and put ID in there also still not get published in any reputable magazine
Imagine you are among the middle level scientists and you receive your monthly magazine and you read a article which goes something like this
"Today I would like to bring to you my discovery blah blah blah. It came about because I had a dream / flash of inspiration / and guessed the answer to BLAH was blah blah blah"
Seriously
You don't have the answers to metaphysical questions because metaphysical problems metaphysical questions seek to answer DON'T EXIST
How many angels can dance on a pin head cannot be answered because you first have to find your angles before you count them
I don't know how life originate
Glad to hear that I would hate to think you were keeping it secret
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
What kind of an Aunt Sally is this, suddenly? Methodological naturalism is inherent in the scientific method. That's all.
A scientist can hold any metaphysical worldview and indeed many scientists are religious believers. But ID demands a departure from methodological naturalism. So it's not a scientific idea.
We would be justified in ignoring any results it claims to make about any problem if it does not show (as my maths teacher was prone to put out) show their workings (evidence)
Yes, let's assume rock solidity (i.e., lab-demonstrable). As far as affecting those with serious Genesis-type adherences, one wouldn't want to precipitate them into something like depression, and worse. So perhaps using the conditional to the n'th degree might help. It'd be nice to escape a "fatwa" as well, haha.
Last edited:
As I explained I think you are treating them as if they were fragile butterfly wings
They are not. The belief in them is strong and it would take more than your assertions to break their "Onward Christian" mindset
Condescending tripe. IF such a scenario ever genuinely eventuates, an overwhelmingly sympathetic media will loudly trumpet the occasion regardless of any hypothetical scientist's hypothetical reticence. There is already a history of false claims of life created in a lab, with the inevitable backlash muted compared to the initial headline claims.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I asked "Why isn't ID science? And what would it imply if ID indeed isn't science?"
If one asks "What explains the observed orderliness and seeming rationality of nature?", why wouldn't "Because nature has a rational supernatural Source" be an explanation?
Certainly it wouldn't be a very informative explanation if we don't have any knowledge of the hypothetical 'Source' or the mode of extra-natural being that we are hypothetically attributing to it.
But it doesn't appear to be any less informative than announcing 'Reality's observed orderliness is simply the result of the Laws of Physics'. Particularly when we have no real understanding of what kind of reality the 'Laws of Physics' actually have or what accounts for their existence.
In the first case we are attributing the rationality of reality to its hypothetical sufficient reason and are attributing the qualities of reality that we want to explain to the nature of whatever the unknown explanation is.
The second case is more of an example of circular reasoning, attributing the observed orderliness of reality to a phrase which is basically just another term for the observed orderliness of reality.
Basically because it does not EXPLAIN anything
If one asks "What explains the observed orderliness and seeming rationality of nature?", why wouldn't "Because nature has a rational supernatural Source" be an explanation?
Certainly it wouldn't be a very informative explanation if we don't have any knowledge of the hypothetical 'Source' or the mode of extra-natural being that we are hypothetically attributing to it.
But it doesn't appear to be any less informative than announcing 'Reality's observed orderliness is simply the result of the Laws of Physics'. Particularly when we have no real understanding of what kind of reality the 'Laws of Physics' actually have or what accounts for their existence.
In the first case we are attributing the rationality of reality to its hypothetical sufficient reason and are attributing the qualities of reality that we want to explain to the nature of whatever the unknown explanation is.
The second case is more of an example of circular reasoning, attributing the observed orderliness of reality to a phrase which is basically just another term for the observed orderliness of reality.
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
It would be an unsatisfactory explanation.
“We must know−we will know!” -David Hilbert
"We explore because we are human, and we want to know!" -Stephen Hawking
Science reaches for the knowable stars, religion reaches for an unknowable God
As far as a "rational natural Source" which explains the observed orderliness and seeming rationality of nature, I have already provided an existing satisfactory candidate. MUH!
Last edited:
That is not an explanation, it's merely a statement
Just as useless as "The Universe runs from a invisible supernatural herd of unicorns"
Physics exist as properties of the stuff the Universe is made of. They are fundimental to the operation of the Universe. Being fundimental they provide the rationality
As soon as you invoke supernatural you leave science and any explanation becomes equal to any other explanation
Physics is one explanation to rule them all
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I agree, we have an established theory of what happened after the BB, but does that have an associated theory which explains the causality of the BB ? Is the concept of the BB sufficient as a theory?
Here we run into the same problem as the concept of abiogenesis. We know what happened after abiogenesis, but is the concept of Chemical process sufficient as a theory?
All we can say, these concepts are demonstrably axiomatic, whereas the existence of a physical or metaphysical god cannot be described as a theory at all except in terms of "In the beginning was the Word" ?
It used to be, in one variety or another. It was the best anyone could come up with for thousands of years.
It didn't work. It conflicted with some physical facts and observations, it failed to explain others, and as the body of physical fact and observation exploded during the early days of biological science it explained less and less and conflicted with more and more. It enjoys a peculiar distinction as one of the very few basic scientific theories ever discarded by a significant fraction of the best researchers in a field before a replacement had been proposed - it was that bad: in the minds of many of the best scientists of the time it was worse than nothing.
Fortunately a much better theory did come along (two or three, actually, with Darwin's/Whitehead's eventually winning out) - the need was so great that it was adopted by consensus within a matter of a few years. (Granted Darwin had put decades into putting a foundation under it).
In general: all ID speculations have in common that they generate no soundly reasoned predictions or guiding questions for research (and no, the Gaia hypothesis doesn't count ), that they fail to explain the major features of observed biological reality, and (this shouldn't matter as much as it does, but the situation has become increasingly absurd and these shortcuts help) their proponents invariably misunderstand and/or misrepresent Darwinian theory - making their claims dubious and difficult to take seriously.
You are still talking about "self-replication" and nucleic acids.
Why? (as noted above, neither one of those is a likely feature of abiogenesis).
You have seen that debunked at least four times now. Slow learner?
To repeat: Darwinian theory is of course the long established solution to that kind of problem. That's why it was invented.
To repeat: There is no such problem during Darwinian evolution. As Darwin worked out, and many others have elaborated and researched and investigated and employed ever since, there is no need to get a functioning mousetrap "in the first place". Or any of the hundreds of prior and subsequent places (there is no "first place" necessary in Darwinian theory, either). The function is often the very last thing to show up, a side effect of something else.
To repeat: nothing is "irreducible" if there is no particular function involved. Irreducibility is defined in terms of function. A standard springsnap mousetrap, for example, is easily reduced to some wire and a small piece of wood.
Behe plainly and clearly and explicitly claims that irreducible complexity conflicts with Darwinian theory. We don't know for sure why he makes that claim - it was very profitable for him, but that was not necessarily his sole or even significant motive. He was and may still be a fundie Christian, but that in itself is no reason to bollix basic comprehension. It's quite possible that he, like you, simply does not understand Darwinian theory.
Last edited:
(1.) On what rational grounds do you say that the NAs were "almost certainly not involved in abiogenesis"?
(2.) As one with an apparently deep appreciation of the minutiae of Darwinism, at which point in the abiogenic story would you envisage Darwinism beginning?
Not relevant, as you should well know - evolution is defined as the change, over time, in allele frequency in a population. Darwin suggested a driver for this change - natural selection - but there are most certainly others
Whatever abiogenic theory one postulates, it sure as hell has nothing to do with populations of genetically similar organisms