Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   abiogenesis
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 13 of 177 (543421)
01-17-2010 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Huntard
01-17-2010 3:58 PM


It's all a question of semantics, and Huntard put his finger right on the problem.
Strictly speaking, abiogenesis means life from non life. In a scientific sense, however, it can only apply to natural causes, since that is all science can study.
In other words, when a scientist uses the word ''abiogenesis'', no one ever thinks he is referring to supernatural creation of life. We all know he is talking about scientific hypothesis about a natural explanation to the origin of life. This is in fact the general understanding of the definition of the word as of today in both layman and scientific terms, and as Briterican said you should usually find this '... by natural processes' in the definition of the word.
The problem comes when a Theist uses the word and says something like ''abiogenesis is impossible'' etc. Someone is bound to bring up the argument that the greek origin of the word simply means life-from-nonlife and therefore a theists also believes in abiogenesis etc. etc. (This has happened to me the both times I got involved in an 'origin of life' thread, and so I stopped going into this area because of it unfortunately ...)
Of course I hope everyone can see the fallacy in this. They do not take into account that the definition of the word has evolved and changed, and that it is no longer this definition that applies. Words evolve all the time, and if we were restrained only by their greek or latin origin, my sentence right here maybe wouldn't even make sense. In a way, when someone brings up the greek origin of 'abiogenesis' and says that this is still our understanding of it, it is simply equivocating the term and setting up a false representation of what the other wanted to say.
Think about it this way, talk to about any scientists today about abiogenesis, will a single one of them think you are talking about supernatural creation ? If not, then it shows that the meaning of the word has changed, and now means most probably ''life from non-life by natural processes''

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Huntard, posted 01-17-2010 3:58 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Blue Jay, posted 01-18-2010 2:45 AM slevesque has replied
 Message 15 by Huntard, posted 01-18-2010 9:10 AM slevesque has not replied
 Message 21 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-19-2010 8:51 PM slevesque has replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 16 of 177 (543534)
01-19-2010 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Blue Jay
01-18-2010 2:45 AM


The reason we respond like that is because the logic that concludes that a naturalistic origin of life is impossible must also conclude that special creation is impossible. You have to understand that: every argument brought against naturalistic abiogenesis is also ultimately fatal to special creation, as well.
Naturalistic abiogenesis is is life coming from non-life by natural means; in other words, the laws of nature applied on matter and energy. Now unless you view supernatural intervention by God as a law of nature, special creation isn't included in naturalistic abiogenesis.
That’s why we insist on pointing out that special creation is also abiogenesis: it is not just a semantic argument.
That's why I'm insisting that it is but a semantic argument. the whole issue turns on if we should always put the word 'naturalistic' in front of 'abiogenesis' if we wanted to exclude supernatural creation of life, or if simply saying 'abiogenesis' is enough to convey the information that special creation is not being refered to.
In my opinion, in the scientific community (not just colloquial usage) the adjective naturalistic has long being dropped and the exclusion of supernatural creation is implied when simply using the word abiogenesis. Why then can't YECist or IDers do the same ? Why can't they use the word abiogenesis the same way all scientists use it, ie excluding special creation ?
The truth is that every time one says abiogenesis without 'naturalistic' in front, they get fed the Red Herring of technical definition. I consider this a Red Herring because the intended meaning the speaker wants to convey is clearly understood by everyone, and so bringing it up simply diverts the attention on a meaningless point.
I'll end with this last bit:
But, they don’t have jurisdiction over scientific terminology. In science, once we’ve solidly defined a technical term, we don’t change the meaning. The whole reason for making technical terms is so we have a stable vocabulary that we can use to communicate information in the most precise manner possible.
Exactly, the information needs to be conveyed in the most precise manner possible. This means that everytime a scientist writes a paper on the origin of life, he will never feel obliged to explicitly precise that he is talking about abiogenesis by natural means. He knows that simply using 'abiogenesis' will be understood to have this meaning by itself. All I am saying is that IDers also should never be obliged to precise they are talking about naturalistic abiogenesis when using the word abiogenesis.
I do think a quick mulling it over will show that it is just plainly sensical both parties should be allowed to use the same words in the same way.
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Blue Jay, posted 01-18-2010 2:45 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Huntard, posted 01-19-2010 2:54 AM slevesque has replied
 Message 39 by Blue Jay, posted 01-20-2010 10:06 AM slevesque has not replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 18 of 177 (543593)
01-19-2010 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Huntard
01-19-2010 2:54 AM


When an IDer wants to refer to 'supernatural abiogenesis' as you call it, he will say 'special creation' or something similar. Heck, this applies to everybody. Did you ever hear Dawkins use the expression 'supernatural abiogenesis' ? In my knowledge of his work no, he also talks about 'special or supernatural creation' when he wants to refer to divine intervention to create life.
In other words, this is the terminology that is being used 99,9% of the time at least:
- special creation: Supernatural intervention to create life
- Abiogenesis: Life-from-non-life via natural processes
Note also that in the case of the Biblical creation event for example, special creation is more appropriate then 'supernatural abiogenesis' since every living thing except for man was spoken into existence rather then a none-life-to-life process

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Huntard, posted 01-19-2010 2:54 AM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by cavediver, posted 01-19-2010 1:56 PM slevesque has not replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 22 of 177 (543627)
01-20-2010 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Dr Adequate
01-19-2010 8:51 PM


I don't think any person, biblical literalist or otherwise, would call Jesus turning water-to-wine ''fermentation''
This is why I don't think anybody should call God turning Dust-to-man ''abiogenesis''.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-19-2010 8:51 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-20-2010 2:30 AM slevesque has replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 25 of 177 (543638)
01-20-2010 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Iblis
01-20-2010 12:41 AM


Re: Recognition
For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon.' 19The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners.
I wonder what Jesus drank that John didn't ... probably water ...
In all seriousness, I think the view presented in the link you gave would probably be in the minority amongst christians (or at least certainly here in quebec)
Edited by slevesque, : drinked --) drank

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Iblis, posted 01-20-2010 12:41 AM Iblis has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-20-2010 3:30 AM slevesque has replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 28 of 177 (543645)
01-20-2010 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Dr Adequate
01-20-2010 2:30 AM


Touch. I see your point. But then, you see mine --- according to the sort of reasoning you're invoking, you would then have to admit that whatever Jesus made, it wasn't wine.
Mmm yeah, well we have no other way to do wine but through fermentation, and so we include this in the definition. But we all know wine simply is the chemical mixture of alcool+whatever other organic molecule is in there, so he can still miraculously make some.
A simpler example would be God speaking a molecule of CO2 into existence. Just because he didn't use combustion wouldn't make it any less carbone dioxide.
You wish, I gather, to make the word refer to a sort of process, albeit one that neither of us can adequately describe --- you want it to mean the production of life from non-life by possible means to the exclusion of the production of life from non-life by impossible means.
I think that (especially when having these sorts of discussions) it makes sense for the word to refer to the event, whether it took place in accordance with or contrary to the laws of nature.
Perhaps we should invent two new words with no ambiguity, but how would we make them stick?
Well since we know that there once was no life, and after that there was life, there really is two alternatives:
1- With supernatural intervention
2- Without supernatural intervention
No need to invent words, just use 'special creation' when talking about the first case and 'abiogenesis' when talking about the second case. This is already how it is being used in the scientific community and so I don,t why we wouldn't use this simple and more precise manner here on EvC.
Until then, I would point out that the person who made the OP wasn't actually confused by what the folks at talkorigins said, he just wanted to complain about those pesky scientific folk using a word differently from him. My heart bleeds for him.
Talkorigins seems to be a bit outdated at times. Sometimes, it will be very insightful and a good read, but I remember when I was patrolling it a lot it wasn't uncommon to see a strawman, Red Herring or equivocation.
But aside from that, I don't know if marc9000 is still around, but I would have liked to know what he meant by that last part in his OP:
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-20-2010 2:30 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-20-2010 4:28 AM slevesque has replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 31 of 177 (543653)
01-20-2010 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Dr Adequate
01-20-2010 3:30 AM


Re: English
Thanks, every bit counts to improve my English

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-20-2010 3:30 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-20-2010 4:34 AM slevesque has not replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 50 of 177 (543899)
01-21-2010 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Dr Adequate
01-20-2010 4:28 AM


I think this issue has been discussed long enough already, so this will probably be my last comment on it.
Only the phrase "special creation" means so much more than that. It would not, for example, incorporate the case where God created the first primitive life and then sat back and let evolution roll.
As soon as a supernatural being would come in and create something (without using the natural laws) then this should be included into 'special creation'.
My experience of creationists is that, like 9/11 conspiracy theorists, they tend to shout "strawman!" whenever they watch someone debunk some aspect of the great tangled ball of creationism / conspiracism that they themselves do not happen to believe in.
I try to be careful with the use of the word 'strawman'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-20-2010 4:28 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-21-2010 6:36 PM slevesque has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024