Hello, newbie here! I've had these forums recommended to me at other forums as having scientifically knowledgeable posters, so I would like to propose a subject that on one at those forums seems to be able to address, and I've never noticed being addressed anywhere else.
The term abiogenesis has been around for hundreds of years, its concept has been around for thousands, all the way back to Aristotle. It is a term that refers to natural processes, a spontaneous generation of life from non-life by random, unguided processes. It is a conflictive view to any kind of purposive, supernatural creation. Since the Miller-Urey experiment, combined with an ever increasing scientific knowledge about the simplest forms of life and conditions on an early earth, the likelihood of life beginning on earth by purely naturalistic processes is scientifically diminishing, not increasing. Yet we see this at talkorigins;
quote:
Quote:
Abiogenesis is a fact. Regardless of how you imagine it happened (note that creation is a theory of abiogenesis), it is a fact that there once was no life on earth and that now there is. Thus, even if evolution needs abiogenesis, it has it.
CB090: Evolution without abiogenesis
I don't think that anyone disagrees that there once was no life on earth and now there is. I know of no worldview that disputes that. But in my view, the rest of that paragraph is completely false. Creation does not harmonize with abiogenesis, it conflicts with abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is not just ANY origin of life as talkorigins asserts, it is only about a NATURAL origin of life. Evolution does not automatically have it. Creation is NOT a theory of abiogenesis. When talkorigins says to "note that creation is a theory of abiogenesis", I'd like to know where it is noted, except in talkorigins administrators claims. It's certainly not noted anywhere in official, dictionary definitions of abiogenesis.
It seems to me that in the scientific community’s haste to set criteria just higher than the concept of intelligent design can attain, they have also made it impossible for abiogenesis to be considered science. The criteria has to be evenly applied, or there is a serious problem with non-scientific bias. Since there is evidence that abiogenesis is referred to and noted in most, if not all, science textbooks at the high school and college level, it appears to me that it’s a fact that we have a serious problem with atheist bias in the scientific community in the U.S.
Who can rationally and reasonably explain why I’m wrong about that?
™ Version 4.2
