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.
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?
quote:slevesque writes; 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:
Glad to see I haven’t been completely forgotten, I’ve just been waiting for the dust to settle (and busy with other things too). I’m pleased to see this much discussion of this subject. I’ll eventually answer your question above – not sure just how ordered this post will be. I’d like to keep this from being too long winded. But to basically summarize my point so far;
quote:Hundard writes; Ok, to finally get to the gist of this discussion,. can we all at least agree that for the sake of this discussion, "abiogenesis" refers to life from non life due to natural causes, and "special creation" to god creating/designing something, even if it is from non life? At least we can then get on with it!
I agree, but I think we can come to two conclusions, when averaging this discussion together with an overall look at the history and the concept of the term “abiogenesis”;
1)The word does in fact mean “life from non-life by natural causes” currently.
2) The word is now in the process of a definition change.
If a special interest group wants to see the definition of a word changed, they can get it done in a surprisingly short period of time. The perfect example is the word “gay”. I’m 55 years old, and growing up in the 1960’s, the word gay had a completely non-controversial meaning. It was simply synonomous with “happy, and had practically no other meaning. In only a few decades, it is seldom if ever used in any way except in the homosexual sense. The homosexual community wanted it, and they helped themselves to it. The scientific community wants the term abiogenesis to take on new vagueness, so it can be claimed as a “fact”. They know that if it remains defined as it is, natural causes only, it is only speculation, ON THE SAME LEVEL AS INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
quote:Briterican writes; Hi marc9000, welcome to the fray.
quote:I agree with your assessment that the term "abiogenesis" cannot include creation, given that the definition involves naturalistic processes. I think when someone says "creationism is a theory of abiogenesis", what they mean to say is that creationism is an explanation (I disagree and consider it a non-explanation) that replaces abiogenesis.
In analyzing the statement “creationism is a theory of abiogenesis” I think it is stating that creationism is one of several subsets, or paths, of the broad, vague term of abiogenesis. I can’t see any hint of “replace” in it – I think the word “includes” is a much more reasonable way to dissect its meaning, and I think that fits the assertions of several other posters here. At this point, we’ve pretty much reached an impasse on it, but I’d like to see others thoughts on my opinion that the definition of the word is currently undergoing change, by a special interest.
quote:Perhaps I'm wrong about this, perhaps another member will set us both straight. But I ask you this... what explanation? Where's the evidence for creation? What possible usefulness is it in the exploration of the history of life to simply say "OK it MUST have been divine intervention, a supernatural miracle" ? The enquiry ends with this cop-out, non-explanation, and scientists are not willing to sacrifice rational thinking in favour of magical fairy dust, sorry.
I think studies of naturalistic abiogenesis are comparable to studies of ID concerning usefulness to society, and open inquiry in science. They also seem comparable in terms of being testable, repeatable, observable, and falsifiable. The reason the scientific community treats them so differently is because one compliments Darwinism, (Darwinism actually has a huge gap without it) and the other challenges Darwinism. Darwinism is an established paradigm – a politically established one – and established paradigms can and usually do conflict with open inquiry.
quote:marc9000 writes: 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.
quote:Briterican writes; I would disagree with this assessment. The longer we study the possibile scenarios for abiogenesis, the closer we come to viable explanations. Take for example the PAH world hypothesis: I consider it uncanny that the separation between rings in a PAH stack is 0.34nm, precisely the same separation found in RNA and DNA. This hypothesis may not be the answer, but it is much more compelling than the bare assertion, unsupported by evidence, that an intelligent designer was involved.
I’ve seen several webpages that claim that unscientific assumptions are made concerning early conditions on earth, among other things, that show that abiogenesis falls short of attaining testability, repeatability, observability.
quote:marc9000 writes: 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?
quote:Bricerican writes; Let me try. The scientific community does have strict criteria, and "intelligent design" simply doesn't meet it. (Hypotheses regarding abiogenesis do rise to the necessary criteria, and your proposition that they do not is simply false.)
I think if one does, the other does, and if one doesn’t, the other one doesn’t. You take an interest in abiogeneis obviously, with your look at “PAH world hypothesis”, and take very little interest in intelligent design, as we see with your next statement;
quote:All of this isn't the scientific community's fault, it is the fault of ID proponents who, in THEIR haste to posit an intelligent designer have failed to demonstrate any evidence of such a designer.
ID proponents are no more hasty to posit an intelligent designer, than abiogenesis proponents are to posit their claim that “there is no God”. ID is “the search for evidence/signs of design in biological systems”, and it can do the equivalent of “PAH world hypothesis” in their searches for those signs. The testability, repeatability, and observability are comparable in both abiogenesis vs ID. I know that you’ll immediately demand detail in what ID can do that is scientific, and YOU WON’T ACCEPT PROMISORY NOTES. ID has plenty of promissory notes, AS DOES ABIOGENESIS. When ID proponents ask questions of the substance of abiogeneis studies, it seems they get lots of promissory notes. It is a huge double standard.
quote:Irreducible complexity has been demonstrated (in a court of law) to be wrong. The courts have determined that intelligent design is no more scientific than astrology or alchemy. Would you like the schools to teach those subjects as if they were supported by evidence? No? Then why would you support the teaching of intelligent design?
We don’t live in a perfect world, and there is evidence that courts may not be perfect. If a science class is referred to talkorigins by a teacher to demonstrate to them that “abiogenesis is a fact”, there needs to be some balance, in a free society with open inquiry. There is a clear, publicly established implication that religion is false.
quote:The onus is on YOU (ID proponents) to provide evidence for your assertion of an intelligent designer. In the meantime, the scientific community will continue to examine things on a rational, logical basis, and not resort to pseudo-science and bare, unsupported assertions.
What I see evidence of is the scientific community going into great technical detail about abiogenesis, and hastily hand-waving away any technical detail about Intelligent Design. Not necessarily rational and logical.
quote:PaulK writes; I thin that there are two topics here. The talkorigins point is just one guy's opinion and doesn't really reflect any calculated or agreed strategy. So that's just a side issue, of no great importance.
I think it is of great importance, because I’m always told the science is safe from an atheist bias, because the scientific community always “polices” itself. That statement “abiogenesis is a fact” has been at talkorigins for some time. No one has policed it, and it is obviously a very questionable statement.
quote:RAZD writes; And in that sense it has simply meant life from non-life, as it would pre-date the scientific usage.
Predate scientific usage? From Aristotle onward, it has always been about science.
quote:Curiously, reality is completely non-dependent on your opinion. Anyone is free to be 100% wrong about any number of topics and it will not affect reality in the slightest.
Equally, reality is not completely encompassed by science. Science is not the only source of knowledge. The scientific community can be completely wrong about events in the past, it can ram them down school childrens throats, it can win in the courts, it can destroy religion and gain an ever increasing political status, and after all that, it will still not affect reality in the slightest.
quote:Now, I expect that you would not want just any one single person's personal belief to be a foundation for education, so you should agree that your personal opinions and beliefs are also not a valid basis on their own for education, whether scientific or not. Enjoy.
I don’t want any one single special interest group’s personal opinions to be a foundation for education. I don’t want arrogant tenured college professors personal opinions to be foundations for education. As Thomas Sowell has said, To too many teachers, social workers and others in occupations with pretensions of being “professional,” what being a professional means is not having to listen to common sense from ordinary people, mush less develop any of their own.
quote:Bluejay writes; Hi, Marc. Welcome to EvC! Kentucky's a nice place, ain't it?
It is at that, where in Ky are you from? I’m in northern Ky, the greater Cincinnati area, (just in case anyone wants to find me and kill me)
I agree with most of what you say however this bit:
The scientific community wants the term abiogenesis to take on new vagueness, so it can be claimed as a “fact”.
Is just plain worng. I don't know of any scietist who will say that how abiogenesis happened (IE: what processes were involved and how it happened) is a fact.
Talkorigins, in a vague, general way, did just that – a website that is supposed to be made up of many scientists. A large part of the scientific community heartily endorses talkorigins as being a scientific website, a scientific reference.
quote: The reason we don't have a clear picture yet of how it happened is not a reason for you to go claim scientists want to keep it vague. They wouldn't be researching it if they wanted to do that.
Sure they would, they would just research it in a less vague (naturalistic) way. If it’s specifically defined as only naturalistic, the religious community can legitimately question if it’s criteria for study is an exercise in atheist philosophy, rather than legitimate science. If its definition is vague, then the same atheist philosophy can be claimed to be pursuit of greater understanding of a “fact”.
quote:"They know that if it remains defined as it is, natural causes only, it is only speculation, ON THE SAME LEVEL AS INTELLIGENT DESIGN."
Then why are they researching the subject?
Because most of the scientific community is made up of atheists, and no one is completely neutral and perfect.
quote:Also, it's nowhere near the same level as intelligent design. We have, for instance, up until now found that all natural phenomena we have investigated are due to natural causes (IE: Lightning, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions etc....), while we haven't observed a single instance of something just poofing into existence.
Not everything can be studied scientifically. Human behavior, love, lots of things. Origin of life may fall into that category. At a certain point, the scientific community leaves science and enters philosophy in the public establishment. (education/university grants, etc.) AND I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT, unless they point accusing fingers and haul into court others who seek to do it in a way that differs from a godless position.
quote: PaulK writes;
quote by marc9000: "I think it is of great importance, because I’m always told the science is safe from an atheist bias, because the scientific community always “polices” itself. That statement “abiogenesis is a fact” has been at talkorigins for some time. No one has policed it, and it is obviously a very questionable statement."
talk.origins - for all it's virtues - is primarily a popular level site. And one that is currently receiving little to no maintenance. We're not talking about a peer-reviewed paper, just a short response to a creationist claim. We're not even talking about a clear factual error, just a poor argument.
Its endorsement page shows that it's endorsed and recommended by Scientific American Magazine, The American Association for Advancement of Science, The Smithsonian Institution, The Geological society of America, the Leakey Foundation, and is used as a reference in countless biology textbooks. If it’s established in public education to this very thorough extent, it shouldn’t be winked and nodded at, for engaging in philosophy that inspires howls of outrage if something comparable comes from the intelligent design community.
Even if it contains just a short response to a creationist claim, it can be claimed as a scientific statement, and referenced in public education.
quote: quote: The scientific community wants the term abiogenesis to take on new vagueness, so it can be claimed as a “fact”. They know that if it remains defined as it is, natural causes only, it is only speculation, ON THE SAME LEVEL AS INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
You've produced no evidence to support either assertion. The first is just a conspiracy theory. The second is a failure to understand what is going on in science and what is going on in ID.
The big difference between abiogenesis research and ID is that abiogenesis is the subject of active scientific research. There's virtually no ID research, and what is being produced isn't much use.
But there are plenty of other differences. Abiogenesis researchers don't start their research by writing school textbooks or soliciting for funds to support their strategy to influence society. They don't make films, making dubious charges of persecution. They don't try to link scientific opponents to the Nazis. They don't spend more time on the road preaching to the public than they do on research.
They don’t have to, because they’re in the drivers seat. They are publicly established, and they also have authors like Richard Dawkins, Victor Stenger, and many others cranking out the atheist books that gain attention and interest from a general public that reads them for their social claims far more than for their scientific content. Each side can accuse the other of “conspiracy theories”. No one shouts about conspiracy theories louder than scientific opponents of ID.
quote:That's dead wrong too. "Darwinism" doesn't have a gap that is filled by abiogenesis at all.
I agree, the gap isn’t filled, but it still has its gap, and that’s its problem. It starts at step two. If it had naturalistic life from non-life, primordial soup, step by step chemical changes over long periods of time, with no guidance, no purpose, you know –abiogenesis as it is actually defined and understood, then Darwinism would be a complete package. Then we could close down churches, and put science in charge of all moral decisions concerning embryonic stem cell research, abortion, and many other similar things.
quote:You might fairly say that science has a gap. You are also completely wrong to say that Darwinism was politically established (it won on scientific merit).
Here is why I don’t think it won solely on scientific merit – “Origin of Species” was released in 1859 without scientific peer review, without much approval, or even notice, from the scientific community at that time, at all. Yet it sold out on the very first day. That logically tells me that it wasn’t purchased by those with a scientific interest, it was purchased by those with an atheist interest.
quote:And it is the ID paradigm that seems to conflict more with open inquiry.
My claim that Darwinism conflicts with open inquiry isn’t because of its content, it’s because of its establishment. If ID were accepted as science, it wouldn’t replace Darwinism, it would compete with/supplement Darwinism. The two views together, in scientific study, would be the most complete form of biological open inquiry.
quote:First, there is nothing new about the vagueness of the term. It has always encompassed every idea that refers to life coming from non-life, and, even in the restricted sense you want to give it, it still encompasses perhaps a dozen or so distinct hypotheses. When it was first coined, I suppose it was probably thought to be a much simpler issue than we view it as being today.
Thomas Huxley (Darwin’s Bulldog) coined it, and it’s quite a stretch to suppose he intended it to include Biblical creation, or that it has been used that way until only recently. Supernatural creation has always been referred to as “creation”, and a naturalistic origin of life without the supernatural needed a term as Darwinism was growing in popularity by 1870, and Huxley provided it. The distinction between the two terms (creation=supernatural origin of life, vs abiogenesis=natural, unguided origin of life) made perfect sense. To take one of the two terms, and have it vaguely represent both ideas, and leave one idea (naturalistic, unguided origins) without its own reference term simply makes no sense. Unless of course, there is a tricky motive for doing so.
quote:Second, you're missing the point here, just like Slevesque. No scientific paper that I have ever read compares naturalistic Abiogenesis to supernatural Creation, or even infers such a comparison! Rather, they all compare naturalistic Abiogenesis to naturalistic Biogenesis. The only axis of comparison used is “life-from-life” vs “life-from-nonlife.” What you are doing is introducing a new axis of comparison: natural vs supernatural. It’s like scientists are comparing a big square to a small square, and you’re bringing in your big circle under a different name, and insisting that it’s not fair for me to say your circle is still big.
I don’t see biogenesis (life from life) as an issue here.
quote:It certainly is predominantly speculation at this point, and I will agree that some of it is largely untestable and unfalsifiable at present; but it’s not “on the same level” as ID. All current hypotheses are based on known laws of physics, and there is a set of empirical evidence (an admittedly meager one) on the topic from which to make inferences. These are, and have always been, the only requirements for calling something “science”!
I believe ID has those, in a comparable way as does abiogenesis. Meager? Maybe so. Promisory notes? Very comparable in both cases.
quote:Science is not just well-supported theories: theories have to start somewhere, and the way you start developing a theory is just as scientific as the way you complete it. ----- marc9000 writes: The reason the scientific community treats them so differently is because one compliments Darwinism, (Darwinism actually has a huge gap without it) and the other challenges Darwinism.
Intelligent Design is also fully compatible with Darwinian evolution. Look at these two scenarios:
[dembski quote] Life arose naturally; then it evolved over time. Life was created by God; then it evolved over time.
This is what TalkOrigins meant when it said, “Thus, even if evolution needs abiogenesis, it has it.” I have since agreed not to use the word “abiogenesis” in this way, but the principle is still there: even life that was originally created by God can evolve in the Darwinian fashion.
No further contest at this time, except to say that "evolution" is a slippery word, and I believe talkorigins authors to be slippery people.
quote: marc9000 writes: ID proponents are no more hasty to posit an intelligent designer, than abiogenesis proponents are to posit their claim that “there is no God”.
As a proponent of abiogenesis, I have never made the claim that there is no God. I believe in God.
What do you think of Victor Stenger’s book; “How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist”? Or Dawkins; “The God Delusion”? I know you wouldn’t agree with their titles, but would you agree with much of their content? Or what their effect is on science and society?
quote:I prefer not to be too specific online, because I’m not keen on being found and killed by any random stalker types that might be reading in on us.
I understand! ________________________________________
quote:greyseal writes; "actually we were wondering if you'd come back..."
This ain’t my first rodeo. Of course I know I’ll never get the last word, I don’t really seek it. But there’s more fun to be had! I’ll announce it when I’m finished posting in this thread. But I’m self employed, quite busy, and I won’t be rushed, especially with multiple challengers/opponents.
quote:I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean your refusal to acknowledge you're wrong about what "abiogenesis" means then sure...but don't blame us when the evidence YOU'VE been showing also proves you wrong
Your guess about what I meant was incorrect. I meant we reached an impasse on it because it looked like the two positions had a comparable number of posters in this thread on each side, and it didn’t appear that anyones mind was going to be changed. Some people acknowledge that word meanings are subjective, not subjected to dictates by the scientific community, and discussions on some things can come to a mature end. Others hammer their fist on the table and claim they’re always right and those who don’t agree with them are wrong. Such is often the characteristic of those in the almighty scientific community. As I said, not my first rodeo.
quote:Once again, with feeling, quote: ________________________________________ Abiogenesis has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
Feeling (emotion) often goes along with insecurity. Talkorigins doesn't even attempt to put fourth that whopper.
quote: talkorigins; ....However, many have thought that the theory of evolution logically requires a beginning of life, which is true.
Hence, it really does have something to do with it.
quote:the Theory of Evolution is a perfectly complete and correct scientific theory of the change we see in animal populations over time whether god made the world or not ________________________________________ I said it last time. I didn't expect you to bring up the same canard YET AGAIN in the very next message you posted here.
That’s because I’ve seen it stated many times, and never seen any more detail to go along with it to back it up. If you’d say “Abiogenesis has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, just like ID has nothing to do with religion", it could be more believable. Or if you had given examples of other subjects that start with step two and see no need for a first step.
quote:In the immortal words of one of my best friends: quote: ________________________________________ This horse is dead. Fuck it, or walk away, but stop flogging it
Science textbook material in a few years?
quote:ID has provided nothing, nothing, of the sort of quality demanded by serious scientific researchers. It is hidebound to one book in anything it's proponents attempt - you may think it difficult to overturn current opinion on certain facts and theories when it comes to science, but it is IMPOSSIBLE to overturn opinion on anything to do with ID. FLATLY IMPOSSIBLE because they all demand that any ID work be in accordance with the bible, and anything not in accordance is deemed automatically to be wrong.
This is a clear indicator of the double standard that we have – the shouting down that is going on. It’s forceful enough throughout the scientific community that it seldom gets the discussion that it deserves.
The subject of ID has nothing to do with creation or the Bible. It is a study for evidence of design. If one or more religious people involved with it tie it into the religion in any way, that is only their personal opinion and nothing more. When Dawkins writes a book called “The God Delusion”, I’m told that’s his personal opinion and nothing more. When Victor Stenger writes a book called “How Science Shows that God Does Not Exist”, I’m told that’s his personal opinion and nothing more. If Phillip Johnson, or the late Henry Morris say/said anything that ties ID to their personal beliefs, it’s no more representative of ID than is Dawkins or Stengers opinions on evolution.
quote:We do not have, to my knowledge, a complete understanding of abiogenesis through natural means, however the simple fact is that both groups agree with that simple fact that at one time on the planet Earth, there was no life, and after some point, there was. THIS is the core of abiogenesis - it happened and we can all happily disagree with the how, but do not pretend that your one-liner explains anything, nor that because this one (however important) piece of the jigsaw is missing that we must give up everything else (however UNCONNECTED) because of it, and instead go back to a theory which boils down to "godidit". That is absurd. Explain rationally why it isn't, please.
Your “give up everything else” claim is false. It’s only part of the emotional shouting down process. The study of ID can be done alongside other things, compared to other things, compete with other philosophies that dominate todays scientific community. An addition doesn’t necessarily have to be a replacement.
This is what I wish someone would rationally explain to me. Why is it always claimed that a scientific acceptance of ID somehow causes some naturalistic aspect of science to be removed? Where does the "give up everything else" claim come from?
quote:Now, why have I highlighted Britericans words?
To save the suspense, I'll tell you - it is because Briterican has made it clear that we do not have a complete understanding of how to turn non-living chemicals into life-forms.
Then you come along and state that your unnamed webpages say that "unscientific assumptions" are made - if your webpages reference other webpages from the populist press that states outlandish things like "boffins create life in the lab!!!" then you'd be right, but still, that would have no bearing whatsoever on the work being done to complete a theory still in it's infancy.
But what if my now named webpage didn’t have to reference anything else, what if they just clearly showed that “the whole notion of abiogenesis rests upon an exceedingly weak foundation which is actually contrary to much of the scientific knowledge which we actually have obtained through extensive experimentation. Abiogenesis, in fact, violates several basic principles of chemistry and biochemistry which are so universally held as to be axiomatic. To get around these difficulties, evolutionary scientists have turned to various means of modifying their basic abiogenetic theory so as to resolve one or another of the problems presented. Yet, while pointing to directing clays, undersea thermal vents, interstellar amino acid generation, or several of the other more esoteric and generally dismissed theories, evolutionists manage to resolve (or often, just give the illusion of resolving, in the popular image framed by the media) one problem, while yet failing to address the other difficulties. Thus, abiogenesis, as far as can be seen from the actual experimental work and knowledge (apart from any concern for philosophical arguments or pure theory), is not supportable from true science."
quote:We can't create life in the lab yet. We don't know how abiogenesis happened yet. We can't prove it did happen naturally yet. BIG DEAL.
If it's speculated on in science textbooks, it really is a big deal, if the ACLU isn't suing.
Abiogenesis is a theory that attempts to explain the origin of life through random natural processes, and is taught as a regular component of evolutionary biology. The evidence to support a spontaneous origin of life is nonexistent, but like evolution itself is taught as absolute fact in biology classes.
It seems that evolution textbook disclaimer stickers in a southern state causes a much different legal reaction than do textbook speculation/instruction of abiogenesis. (the naturalistic kind)
quote:If you don't understand why it's not a problem then ask again.
I’ll have to ask again, because I asked in my previous post, and you didn’t address it. Promisory notes are no problem for studies of naturalistic abiogensis, and are unacceptable for ID. Why?
quote:Briterican answered your question rather succinctly. The ID crowd does NOT meet scientific standards with their work. If they did, they'd have a wealth of papers out on their own merit, not pushed through by biased editors (and later withdrawn).
If you don't like that, tough, that's the way it is.
So a sheer volume of “papers” gives studies of naturalistic abiogenesis a position in science superior to that of ID? If one has an establishment in public study, (all the associated time and money) and the other doesn’t, wouldn’t it make sense why one outdid the other in volume?
quote:The reason that Briterican (and anyone else seriously interested in the scientific field of abiogenesis) is not interested in creationist views is because creationist views are fulfilled by the statement "godidit". They offer nothing, teach nothing, explain nothing. they are, as I and others have said, anti-knowledge as they do nothing but stop research and learning.
I’ve said nothing about creationist views. I’ve been referring to ID. If you claim such a vast separation between atheism and science, why do you not allow ID proponents to claim an equal separation between religion and ID?
quote: quote marc9000; ID proponents are no more hasty to posit an intelligent designer, than abiogenesis proponents are to posit their claim that “there is no God”.
say wha? Intelligent Design proponents don't posit an intelligent designer? I'll have WTF for $200 please Bob.
ID looks for design, not the designer. When you say that abiogenesis lovers don’t seek to rule out God completely, then I have to ask for the same WTF that you do. You honestly can’t see that they’re comparable?
quote:When talking about abiogenesis, we know it is a fact. Your stubborn refusal to understand the word notwithstanding, when a teacher teaches about abiogenesis in a science classroom (not a religious classroom, or a philosophical classroom) he or she can only speak about facts, and cannot favour any particular religious viewpoints. This is the establishment clause and I would hope you would understand it. Even without such a clause, religious tracts contain no such facts and as such do not fit with scientific learning, not because they are wrong or right but because they are NOT SCIENTIFIC.
You WOULD NOT BELIEVE how well I understand the establishment clause of the first amendment, and the intent of the framers. Maybe if you'll come down off of your haughty platform of scientific knowledge sometime, we can discuss it as two regular, common peasants in a future thread.
quote:There are no technical details proving ID. None. There has been no meaningful irrefutable proof of ID in it's entire existence. Please produce this proof if you wish to prove your point.
As there are no technical details proving naturalistic abiogenesis.
quote:Books arguing from incredulity DO NOT COUNT because saying "I do not understand this" does not mean "it cannot be understood".
And if you refuse to understand ID, it does not mean it cannot be understood.
quote:Scientists don't say that there is no god, unless you're asking their opinion (and then they may be telling you there is!) - there is no "atheist bias". when over 70% of the population of the USA is christian (and an ever higher percentage theist) then you can't complain about being oppressed.
A large part of the Christian population is unaware of what’s going on. When the movie "Expelled" came out, a small percentage were awakend. I wasn't, I, like several others, asked, "what took so long?"
quote:Maybe you could - and should - be asking why many scientists who have actually done their homework don't believe, but that's an entirely different question.
I have done that many times. The answer seems to be that they enter scientific study as teenagers, and are indoctrinated/brainwashed into atheism by their public education. A couple of the noted ID haters in "Expelled" (Provine/Crick) admitted that it happened to them, and it happens easily. A worldview reprogramming - the tossing out of a purpose in life, and its associated morals goes along perfectly with allowing the raging hormones all the freedom they need. A perfect time to become smarter than their parents.
quote:I'm personally glad about the onward march of science you're so pessimistic about - but when you come up with a better system for investigating and cataloguing real facts let me know. It's Standard Creationist Retort #159 is that statement, and it's as pointless now as it's ever been.
It has a number? Atheists in universities have so much time on their hands that they can number the general public’s questions about an atheist establishment in government? Does the numbering/ridiculing process automatically make them false?
Does that list appear somewhere on the net? I’d like to see it.
quote:you don't want any single special interest group's personal opinions to be a foundation for education?
Not when lots of money, and lots of philosophy are involved.
quote:Says the man who wants his own special interest group (ID) to be a foundation for education!
I never said that. ID’s entrance into public science does not automatically mean its dominance in public science. There is no conspiracy theory, other than to reasonably reign in publicly established atheism.
quote:YOU want the courts to FORCE the teaching of YOUR religious book in a scientific classroom, and only your book.
You’re not alone in building these amazing straw men, and it’s this kind of shrieking that causes people to wonder what’s going on in the scientific community, to wonder what they’re afraid of, to wonder what ID proponents actually have to say. You know that I’ve mentioned nothing except ID, a study for evidence of design in nature.
quote:I don't think you want to hear about the cosmic egg, do you? You don't want to hear about the egyptian book of breathing, or the book of the dead, in a scientifc classroom, do you? What about the Bhagavad Vita? The mahabharata? the koran? Are all of these scientific enough for you?
As scientific as the book “How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist”, by Victor Stenger.
quote:Your post is far to long to reply to, so I'll address only a point or two:
So you can sympathize with me as I try to reply to 4 or 5 long posts?
quote:Science does not deal with the non-material. The religious community can study whatever subjects they want, in whatever way they want, but perhaps they should just leave science alone.
If people like Stenger and Dawkins would leave science alone, it could possibly work.
quote:We all know what the real issue is here -- science contradicts a lot of religious beliefs.
Science doesn't, but a lot of scientists do. Their opinions vary. In religion, opinions can vary according to different faith beliefs. In science, there are supposedly no faith beliefs. Why is it that not all scientists are as militant as Dawkins and Stenger? Aren't they all referring to the same science? If atheists are running wild with it, why can't others participate?
quote:The solution, on the part of the religious community, seems to be to either discredit science or change it until it is no longer science. (See Behe's comments on the witness stand at Dover.)
Not discredit science, just question those who control it.
quote:I have a better idea. Why don't you just leave science alone? If your methods of investigation are superior, stick with them. Knock yourself out! Follow them to wherever they lead, and wherever you want. But just leave science alone.
Science won't leave us alone! It needs our funding, then tells us to get lost, while it promotes atheism to our children.
quote:How are you going to have ID accepted as science when it doesn't follow the scientific method?
It can and does, at least to the equivalent of how abiogenesis follows the scientific method.
quote:It is, in fact, the exact opposite of science. It starts with a conclusion (creationism) and seeks to cherry-pick any data that might be stretched or manipulated to support that conclusion.
As those who control it today start with atheism.
quote:Further, it operates in the political arena, not as a scientific discipline. The Discovery Institute is a prime example of this. Check out their staff and their funding. They have far more lawyers and PR flacks than anything else, and any science "fellows" are creationists first and scientists second; they are window dressing to a massive PR effort. Also, check the wiki article on their funding and note the biblical literalist who provided a huge amount of money a few years back -- the one who wants this country run according to strict biblical principles. Not a whole lot of science there either, eh?
This is microscopic compared to the scientific communities' relationship with liberal universities, the Democratic party, etc.
Glad to see you have returned to the thread and weren't just one of those single-post anomalies.
I appreciate it - you seem like an okay guy.
quote:I think greyseal and others have more than adequately addressed the points you've raised in this post.
Uh oh, my opinion of you just went down a notch.
quote:I simply want to add one crucial point. The notion of "design" has been discussed in depths in other threads, and I would encourage you to search the forums for more on this matter.
At your suggestion, I’ve done that, though only briefly – one can’t really learn much of anything about ID, what it is or what it seeks to do, by reading on forums such as these. (unless I’ve been posting there : p) The biggest talking points against ID by far is to misrepresent what it is. The “Wedge Document” does not represent it, anymore than Dawkins or Stenger represent all of science. Fortunately, there is one source for learning about what ID is and does – it does have one well known representative who is not an emotional wreck, (unlike the scientific community, it seems) and that is William Dembski.
quote:You seem to imply that ID deserves equal footing with scientific matters, when it makes two tremendous, unsupported assumptions by its very definition: 1) life was designed, 2) the designer was intelligent.
Like the tremendous, unsupported assumptions of abiogenesis; “life originated from non-life”, and “it did it by natural, unguided process”?
quote:There are many many examples of natural processes that result in the illusion of design. Virtually anything you look at in nature, from an organism to a solar system to a galaxy... has an illusion of design. These things are "designed" only in the sense that they have achieved levels of complexity through natural processes that are greater than their initial state. These resulting higher levels of complexity were not decided in advance
The important distinction is that the term "design" implies an overarching plan with a purpose and a target goal. The design we see in living organisms clearly demonstrates that they were built bottom-up, not top-down. There was no master plan for "goldfish" that results in a goldfish... instead there is the geneticly coded instruction for a goldfish embryo, a coded instruction that has a long history of gradual change in small steps that only seem dramatic when viewed over the vast expanse of geological time.
There is a tremendous difference between this illusion of design, and design in the sense of a plan with a predetermined goal/purpose.
When you add the word "intelligent" before design, you are in a whole new arena, and there simply is no evidence of such in nature. Literally everything that you could point to as "evidence of intelligent design" has been shown to be a result of natural processes. Does that mean I am biased against "intelligent design" ? No. It simply means that there is no evidence of intelligent design.
If you think that my comments imply that we shouldn't be looking for evidence of intelligent design... I've said it before and I'll say it again. EVERY scientist who studies living organisms and astrophysics is CONSTANTLY looking for evidence... ANY EVIDENCE... that will point them towards a deeper understanding of the processes they observe. If they came across evidence of intelligent design, they'd be as excited as they are now when they don't. The fact is, they don't.
Oh no, the Darwinist/ atheist stranglehold on science will have to be reigned in, and no one but an outraged general public will ever be able to do it. Until then, no challenges to Darwinsim will ever see the light of day. Ask Michael Behe. His work was not fairly judged, it was emotionally shouted down. Darwinism is a financial/social empire, many lifelong careers are dependent on it. It is far more socially entrenched today than religion was in 1859.
Are we talking about the topic of abiogenesis, or are you using this as a soapbox to unload various pent up issues?
I'm an ID proponent, so naturally I'm facing a barrage. I'm trying to thoroughly respond to issues and condescension that weren't originated by me. I'm pleasantly surprised at the quality of most posters here, but am not surprised that one or two obviously wish I would stop posting.
quote: It seems your topic is more about whether abiogenesis is science than about the actual origins of life issue. Is that accurate?
Yes it is, but it's also about the motivation that declares abiogenesis to be science, while claiming evidence for design is not.
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.
Are you really talking about abiogenesis or the fact that ID is not treated as science because it doesn't meet the specifications of science?
Why don't we run down how each measures up to the specifications of science?
quote:Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is, in its broadest sense, any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome. In this sense, science may refer to a highly skilled technique or practice.
In its more restricted contemporary sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, and to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research. This article focuses on the more restricted use of the word. Science as discussed in this article is sometimes called experimental science to differentiate it from applied science, which is the application of scientific research to specific human needs—although the two are commonly interconnected.
Science is a continuing effort to discover and increase human knowledge and understanding through disciplined research. Using controlled methods, scientists collect observable evidence of natural or social phenomena, record measurable data relating to the observations, and analyze this information to construct theoretical explanations of how things work. The methods of scientific research include the generation of hypotheses about how phenomena work, and experimentation that tests these hypotheses under controlled conditions. Scientists are also expected to publish their information so other scientists can do similar experiments to double-check their conclusions. The results of this process enable better understanding of past events, and better ability to predict future events of the same kind as those that have been tested.
The study of abiogenesis fits this more restrictive usage of the term science. It is possible for any concept to fit this restrictive definition, as all that is required is that it be done by a systematic process of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, and the organization of the body of knowledge gained through such research.
In other words, to be considered science one needs to do science.
Can you show how ID fits that restrictive description of science as well as ("natural") abiogenesis does?
I'll work on that, it may take a week, or it may take a month.
quote:We can start with the scientific method and you can describe how ID meets those criteria:
quote:Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently-derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.
Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process be objective to reduce biased interpretations of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.
quote:Let's focus on a topic rather than have a series of roundabouts eh?
I'll work on doing a better job at keeping things condensed, and it will involve ignoring roundabouts from one or two posters who seem to be able to go as far as taunt, use vulgar words, and go un-noticed and un-criticized by anyone but me.
quote:You've been to a "few rodeos", however in this forum we like specific topics and we like to stick to them.
But I see this forum has one thing that I've seen so much of before, one poster that seems to gauge his success on how quickly he can bully someone out - make someone who disagrees with him stop posting.
quote:It doesn't appear that any of your subsequent posts have added clarification to the original post for what specific point you would like to discuss.
I think it has - the comparison of scientific qualifications for abiogenesis vs ID.
quote:The problem is focus rather than responding to every little reply.
And yes, the more you sling around and throw off replies to each and every response you get, the more the topic (whatever it is) will be buried by additional comments that drift further from any specific topic.
But the less I throw off replies, the more taunts, and more repeated comments I get.
quote: Do you want a discussion or a shouting match?
Such behavior is discouraged here at EvC Forum, but moderators can't read everything that is posted, so we have a thread for members to post to when they're encountering difficulties: Report discussion problems here: No.2
I apologize for any trouble I’ve caused. I haven’t yet, and probably never will privately complain about anyone else. It’s just not me – I take no pleasure in seeing someone losing posting privileges. I can ignore what I don't like.
I have to do better at ignoring insults, condensing my replies to several different posters, and of course, better using the mechanics of the board. You’ll see an improvement in all three.
You're doing a good job keeping up with a whole swarm of opponents. I'm woefully bad at it, and I always end up ignoring and offending some people.
It’s not possible to look dignified when drinking from a fire hydrant.
A few tips: many people will prefer that you respond with individual posts, using the "reply" button at the bottom right corner of a specific post. It helps them keep track of the conversation better.
Yes, you’re the first of several that have given me some much needed tips on that, I’ll have it all down pat soon.
At the time, I couldn't find any information about the term predating Huxley, but I’m not an expert on this topic, so I just assumed you knew something that I didn't. I don't care which of your two statements is true: I would just prefer that you stick with one story.
That was my fault – I was being careless in referring to the term vs the concept. I think we can move beyond all that from this point forward in this thread. I’ll detail that in my next response to Briterican.
First off, I wasn’t quoting Dembski: why did you say I was?
I don’t understand how that happened – all I did was copy/paste. I faintly remember seeing the words ~[dembski quote]~ in what I c/p’d, and it didn’t make sense to me then. I see it’s gone now from the original post. who knows, who cares. Nothing tricky on my part.
If I ever fail to respond to something you've said and you'd like me to, just ask again and I will - you're a good poster.
Don't misunderstand me. I am not implying that anyone has won this debate. It shouldn't be about winning, it should be about clearly and succinctly expressing the reasons why we hold our opinions. This is precisely what many members have done in response to the propositions in your original post.
What we need from you now are clear and succinct explanations for why you consider ID hypotheses to be as rooted in science as the abiogenesis hypotheses are.
That’s what I would like to do – what you suggest goes along with the last paragraph of my opening post. I think it’s time to move on from the beginnings of my opening post, the “abiogenesis is a fact” statement of talkorigins, I don’ t claim “victory” there, but I certainly don’t admit defeat either. But what we need to do in this thread is end all reference to supernatural abiogenesis at this time – we need a term that references only naturalistic abiogenesis, the scientific theory of abiogenesis, maybe more accurately the scientific hypothesis of abiogenesis. Hopefully we can agree that THAT is not a fact. I think from now on if we just say “abiogeneis” it should be understood that it references only naturalism. If someone insists that we use some hyphenated way to reference the term, then I’ll do that.
So - let's expand on the PAH hypothesis: (Please read this - it is all-important)
As this describes organization, separation, swiveling action, formation, etc. – are these not descriptions of changes over long periods of time? It seems disingenuous that I’m constantly told that abiognesis and evolution don’t have a thing to do with each other. Aren’t the processes you’ve described above similar in many ways to the ‘simple to complex’ explanations of evolution?
What you’ve shown here is what looks like a good, solid theory at how science can get to a beginning of nucleic acid (amino acid?) Did you notice the link I provided in my message 56?
My question would be (and it’s not a challenge, just a question from myself, a non-scientist) does what you put forward above solve the “reducing atmosphere” problem as described in this link?
Once you answer that one, we’ll move along on the abiogenesis part. Do you consider that a credible link? If not, why not?
Now here's ID's hypothesis: "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection".
I'd like anyone (but specifically you) to expand on that in a way that provides anything close to an abiogenesis model, or explanation for the origin of life from non-life.
I would have to go back and glance through a dusty old book or two I have, to check into some claims by prominent people on the subject. I'll need time - I do have a busy life. But for now, I'll just put forward a few general, overall thoughts. Some will accuse me of straying off topic - it's only intended to inspire thought on how quickly different people are to accept what they're told without question, depending on the source.
We live in a realm of rearrangement – that’s all we can see, all we can understand. We can’t create nor destroy, all we can do is rearrange, and our thinking can’t take us beyond it. Our limit to rearrangement is how the “big bang” theory was conceived, and I’m not the only one that finds that kind of speculation almost laughable. When we try to fit all of reality in our little world of rearrangement, we may be thinking more highly of ourselves than we ought to think. Reality does not easily fit in that little world. People who casually refer to the big bang often refer to billons of light years like it’s a trip to grandma’s house. Have you ever done any size reductions to try to bring the light-years measure of distance into something fathomable? Again, the following is off topic, but it’s my way of illustrating that it can be logical to not always worship science.
The earth is about 8000 miles in diameter – light travels at 186,000 miles per second. So if we lined up 23 earths side by side, it would take light one second to cover that distance. Naturally, if we play God (ooops, sorry) and reduce the size of the earth to something we can look at, at arms length if we want, or in our front yard, we can slow the speed of light down proportionately. (I’ve figured this before without noting the exact numbers, and my memory might not be perfect – I’m not going to carefully do it all again.) But if I remember right, if we want to make light go 60 mph, a speed we can relate to in our interstate travel, earth would be a 4’ diameter ball. We’d have to go about 8 miles to get to the sun, and it would be about as big around as a 50 story tall building. But that still tells us nothing about a light year. To get light years to something we can relate to, we have to get the earth down to the size of a grain of sand. If earth is a grain of sand, the sun is about the size of an apple, about 22 feet away. The entire solar system would fit in the picture if we had a really big field, to include the outer planets. If this field was in New York City, one light year away would be the distance to Atlanta, Georgia. Four light years, the distance of the nearest star to the grain-of-sand-in-New-York earth, would be somewhere beyond LA, in the pacific ocean. How far would the speck-of-dust moon be from this grain of sand earth – about ¼ inch, give or take a hair? Just recently, about 40 years after that “giant leap for mankind”, we hear, “Hey man, the moon just might have WATER on it!!” What an amazing new discovery! And if I ask; “when you point the hubble telescope to such and such area in the sky on such and such date, do you have any revisions in the number of galaxies you see” – I know what answer I’ll get – “nope, no revisions today. Same amount of water there, too.”
I don't really doubt that the nearest star is in fact 4 light years away, or that some of the characteristics claimed as fact for our galaxy aren't accurate. They've been observed and studied by many people of many generations. But they all had roughly the same methods. The same methods can consistently give wrong answers.
How capable are humans in figuring out everything they want to know? Should we compare the amount of time the Bible has been preserved to the amount of time the drawings (all information) of the Apollo missions lasted? (less than 40 years) There is a logical reason why everyone doesn’t worship science.
No I don't consider it a credible link, because it portrays a false impression of evolution at the very start:
IMO what you’ve done is taken statements that were made to appeal to laypersons in an abbreviated way, and applied more detailed scientific jargon that actually largely parallels them, and tried to discredit an entire webpage because of it. That webpage’s opening summary used far fewer words than you did, to explain a general, layman’s understanding of how the word evolution is thought of, and used in society. For you to go into technical terms to claim that evolution does not “require” progression from simple to complex, well, isn’t that what it is supposed to have done?
Personally, I think this a battle that you don't need to fight (eg beat your head against). We can agree that the term 'abiogenesis' refers to the development from chemicals, and that evolution -- the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding population from generation to generation -- is rooted in the present day, and applying what we see in life around us to the fossil record to see if it explains the diversity of life as we know it, in the fossil record, in the genetic record, in history, and in the world around us.
Abiogenesis is rooted in the past, a past so distant that there are no surviving fossils or records of how life began on earth. The first known fossils, some 3.5 billion years old, show life already fully developed in the form of cyanobacteria. We just don't know what preceded those organisms. It could have been any one of the five hypothetical scenarios quoted above, or it could have been something entirely different.
So the study of abiogenesis that I'm seeing so far here falls under your one-sentence description in your message 73;
quote:Science (general): any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome.
As the "PAH hypothesis" was originated in 2005 and I've been able to find no evidence that it's been tested, I'll still accept that abiogenesis fits it so far.
We know that your site is aware of this second part, and ignoring it to confuse the issue, because they discuss it later in a weird misrepresentation of circular polarization in nebulae. Nor are their further arguments any more honest.
So to sum up what you've said, we’re there, with naturalistic abiogenesis? The PAH world hypothesis, combined with claims that the early earth atmosphere posed no threats to it becoming a starting point for evolution to begin, is now a solid theory? I haven’t seen it on the news. What am I not being told about that keeps naturalistic abiogenesis in its current position of only a hypothesis?
Hi Marc. Just an encouraging note to tell you that you're the kind of ID proponent balance needed here at EvC for both ID proponents like me and for opponents who need to be challenged. They don't like twidling their thumbs waiting for a challenging debate.
I hope you don't become discouraged from posting. It's always tough for the minority PoV. You're doing great, teaching me and others including readers (not members) in layman's terminology.
I hope you hang in here and help us out with the kind of balance needed to make EvC even better.
Thanks! Stay tuned, be patient, contribute if you wish!
You’re right: they are very similar in some ways, and they do have some things to do with one another. But, similarity and relatedness do not automatically translate into interdependency. Just because they are similar doesn't mean that one can't exist without the other.
Furthermore, similarity doesn’t mean that arguments against one count as arguments against the other. Certainly there are some of the “shared logical fate” issues that I talked about earlier, but the simple point here is that created things can evolve in the same way that naturally-formed things can evolve, so evolution is not dependent on naturalistic abiogenesis.
Yes, I agree, but as we can easily see, those who take an interest in evolution have an equal enthusiasm for naturalistic abiogenesis. And abiogenesis may fall under a more 'loose', or more "exploratory" definition of what is science. One that I believe I can fit ID into.
This is a statement that I really wish Christians would stop making. I don’t know any people who do worship science in the same manner that people worship deities and religion. And, there is good reason for this: science never proclaimed itself to be absolute truth, nor even capable of discovering absolute truth.
By worship, I really mean accepting something without question, similar to the way religious people do. Atheists, and others as well, seem to automatically accept what the scientific community tells them. A lot of politics involved, global warming comes to mind.
For the life of me, I don’t understand why people feel that ancient ideas are somehow superior to modern ideas. Read Genesis 30 for some good examples of the way the ancients thought: apparently, they believed that, if sheep conceived in front of striped sticks, they would bear striped young, and Jacob was able to manipulate this in his favor by controlling which sheep would bear striped young (which he had been granted as payment for his services).
If this is generally the quality of ancient knowledge, it seems foolhardy to claim that things of ancient date are superior to things of modern date. Do you agree with me on this?
Move along to chapter 31, and in verse 3 you’ll find; “Then the Lord said to Jacob” That was a different time and place, the record of scripture was being established. God directly speaks to no one today. But you’ll still find many ancient ideas in the Bible to be relevant today – money management and morality to name only two. There were wars then, there are wars now. Jealous leaders then, jealous leaders now. Human nature hasn’t changed.
You complained that an incomplete theory (as part of a chemistry lesson, it would seem) is discussed in a science classroom, yet you want religion taught by the state in clear opposition to your own constitution.
I don’t want religion taught by the state, never claimed that I did. I like the U.S. foundings just as they are, and don’t want my Protestant Lutheran views taught as science. The subject of ID is not religious. If it’s used as a weapon against atheism, it’s no different than science used as a weapon against religion. (Stenger/Dawkins) If its founders (Morris, Johnson) were Christians, it’s no different than abiogenesis proponents (Huxley, others) being non religious. The generation differences between Huxley/others vs Johnson/others doesn’t matter.
You complained about an atheist bias when scientists (as part of their work) can only talk about what they can interact with, and have proclaimed nothing about god in their work, and when many scientists have faith in a god or gods - yet the fact that ID proponents are to a man religious entirely escapes you.
Abiogenesis proponents are to a man atheist. The atheist leanings of the current scientific community are comparable to the religious leanings of the ID community. An uninvolved God is right next to a non-existent God. We'll get into the theistic evolutionist thing later - either in this thread or another.