abiogenesis

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

I don't think that there is any truth in this. Do you notice anything missing from this paragraph ? I do. There is no statement of what these criteria are !Now why don't you go back, state what the criteria are - with evidence that they are actually applied - and explain why you think that abiogenesis fails them.

quote:

---

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.

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.

quote:

---

I think studies of naturalistic abiogenesis are comparable to studies of ID concerning usefulness to society, and open inquiry in science.

---

I don't even agree with that.

quote:

---

They also seem comparable in terms of being testable, repeatable, observable, and falsifiable.

---

That's dead wrong. Abiogenesis research is all about producing hypotheses that can be tested by means of repeatable observations. ID seems to be about avoiding that altogether.

quote:

---

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.

---

That's dead wrong too. "Darwinism" doesn't have a gap that is filled by abiogenesis at all. 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). And it is the ID paradigm that seems to conflict more with open inquiry.

quote:

---

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.

---

And none of these rule out the possibility that there is a poor argument here and there. Which is all you've got. You've not shown anything to inspire "howls of outrage". The ID movement has done plenty of worse things.

quote:

---

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.

---

So there are a few books by scientists promoting atheism. And there are books on the other side, too. Is Dawkin's promotion of atheism really that different from Francis Collins' promotion of Christianity ? Neither of them are the equivalent of the Wedge Strategy.But this evades the main point. The ID movement puts doing science very much in second place behind the PR and the politics and the plans for social change. That's not the case with abiogenesis researchers, who are getting on with doing the work.

quote:

---

Each side can accuse the other of conspiracy theories. No one shouts about conspiracy theories louder than scientific opponents of ID.

---

No, that's just one of the ID movement's smears. There's nothing comparable to your invention of a plan to redefine "abiogenesis". (And, I should point out that it is at least as common to find creationists taking advantage of the different meanings of "abiogenesis" to claim that Pasteurs experiments on spontaneous generation prove abiogenesis impossible).

quote:

---

I agree, the gap isn’t filled, but it still has its gap, and that’s its problem

---

Then you disagree, since my position is that there isn't a gap to be filled. However you define life one of the most important parts - the origin of the first replicators - is outside of evolutionary theory. It has to be, since without replicators you can't have evolution.

quote:

---

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.

---

I suppose if you view Darwinism as a conspiracy against Christianity then that argument might make sense. But it sure as hell as nothing to do with the science - or the scientific reasons for viewing abiogenesis as something outside of Darwinian evolution.

quote:

---

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.

---

Then I have to say that you don't know what you are talking about. Firstly you need to understand that scientific procedures have changed since the mid-Nineteenth century. The peer review system as we understand it was not in place. Secondly Darwin had extensive correspondence with a number of scientists while he was working on developing his theory. Thirdly - and most importantly - Darwin and Wallace presented a paper on evolution to the Linnaean society in 1858. The scientific work - and the presentation of that work to the scientific community took precedence over publication to the public.Even worse is your jumping to the conclusion that people would buy a scientiifc work out of an interest in atheism. Why could it not be an interest in a controversial scientific work ? And how can you jump from public popularity to scientific acceptance ?

quote:

---

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.

---

The ID movement isn't even trying to offer a genuine sciientific alternative to evolutionary theory. Demanding that a falsehood be accepted as a fact seems an odd way to promote open inquiry. Even if you rule by government fiat that ID is science (itself an unprecedented step) how do you propose to deal with the lack of good quality work supporting ID ? You may assume that simply ruling that ID is science will result in that solving itself, but what if it does not ? Remember that it is the lack of good scientific work that keeps ID from being accepted as science, not any fiat ruling.

quote:

---

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.

---

Actually it seems that you have changed your mind and now include special creation as a form of abiogenesis. As I will demonstrate.

quote:

---

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.

---

​

Pasteur, fermentation, contagion, and proving a negative

​

Hence, it really does have something to do with it.

---

Let us note that it says "a beginning", not "a naturalistic beginning". And just to make it clear that it does not mean only a naturalistic beginning, it also says (in the main text, not a footnote) In other words, you can only claim this essay as support for the idea that evolution requires abiogenesis if you define abiogenesis as the origin of life - including creation.

quote:

---

I've already done that - requirements for falsifiability not required of other sciences...

---

Let us be clear here. The falsifiability requirement is not being applied to the basic idea of ID (which clearly isn't falsifiable). The problem is that - unlike abiogenesis research - ID isn't producing falsifiable hypotheses that could serve as a basis for research. "All DNA has function" for instance isn't falsifiable without complete understanding of the genome. (And we should note that it isn't specific to ID and at least most - perhaps all - of the successful attempts to find function for non-coding DNA have been driven by evolutionary theory).Abiogenesis research is making scientific progress in determining how life might have originated. Where is the equivalent ID research ?

quote:

---

...political action in courts,

---

What you mean here is that the courts are brought in to counter illegal political action from the ID side. It is the ID supporters who try to use the political process to change the curriculum to favour their religious beliefs. Complaining that ID can't get special favourable treatment is hardly evidence that ID is being held to a higher standard.

quote:

---

...and the biased subjectivity applied when ID vs other sciences are held to standards of science definitions.

---

Again you seem to be talking about the ID side. Let us not forget that it is Behe who argued for widening the definition of science in the Dover trial - to the point where it would include astrology. Would you want astrology taught in schools ?And we look through your posts and we see all sorts of demands that ID should be given special favourable treatment. Something of an inconsistency there.

quote:

---

Where is the equivalent access for ID to university grants, acceptance in the scientific community, exposure to new students, free passes from legal challenges?

---

ID researchers have the same access to grants as anyone else. All they have to do is to demonstrate the merit and the value of their work to the same standards.Acceptance in the scientific community is earned, not just given. In fact it is earned by producing worthwhile research so on this count you are clearly putting the cart before the horse.The ID movement has the same means of getting exposure to students as any other idea in the same situation. If it wants to be treated like mainstream science it has to earn that place. Which again comes down to actually doing the research.Abiogenesis research has no "free pass" from legal challenges. So I don't know what you are talking about there.

quote:

---

Not necessarily to favor religious beliefs, but to challenge a previous establishment of atheistic beliefs, which violates the first amendment.

---

Teaching mainstream science in science classes is accepted as a valid secular purpose, and is therefore not in violation of the First Amendment. If ID could establish itself as valid mainstream science then it coud be taught in science classes without violating the First Amendment. But that requires time and work and the ID movement does not appear interested in doing the work, or in waiting - unlike scientific researchers in any other field, including abiogenesis.And let us be clear that in the actual Dover case we had creationists on the school board who wanted ID taught because they objected to evolution.

quote:

---

ID research doesn’t have the same establishment in public universities as does naturalism. The political separation of church and state diminishes its access to public grants.

---

Then perhaps they should drop the religious aspect of ID instead of unconvincingly trying to hide it when it is inconvenient. Producing some real scientific research using the Discovery Institutes money would be a good start (it has to be better than financing bad history books trying to blame Darwin for the Holocaust).

quote:

---

It can't easily demonstrate its merit while simultaneously warding off powerful, emotional claims that it's nothing but religion.

---

It's even harder when the merit is conspicuously lacking.

quote:

---

I’d like to know the date, and research established on that date, when abiogenesis was first accepted as science by the scientific community. I don’t think you’ll be able to produce it, because no one really has that information. Its acceptance was automatic, and no one knows when that was.

---

Now let us remember that most of what ID objects to is evolution rather than abiogenesis, as I pointed out. And I should also point out that you aren't giving any details of what is actually taught.Because acceptance is an informal consensus and because it is based on a body of research looking for a specific date would be foolish. But let's look at what Wikipedia - a popular and easily accessible source has to say. Wikipedia puts the real start of modern abiogenesis in the 1920s when Oparin and Haldane put forward serious ideas on how abiogenesis might have happened, according to the scientific knowledge of the time. (This is already a step beyond anything that ID has managed). If we follow the link to Oparin we see that he performed experiments which supported some of his suggestions (the article on Haldane doesn't talk about abiogenesis at all, probably because his other accomplishments were considered more important). By the 50's we have the Urey-Miller experiment and Fox had started work.Then we need to talk about where it first appeared in school textbooks and what those textbooks said if you want to say that that preceded acceptance of abiogenesis as valid science.

quote:

---

Again, it's hard to forward the talk of research while defending against the screams of religious accusations.

---

It's even harder when you haven't got the research to talk about. I'm not screaming at you, so if this research exists, where is it ? And why are you ignoring the many serious criticisms of ID ?

quote:

---

So you can give me examples of when abiogenesis status as science was challenged in court?

---

So you want me to find evidence that supports YOUR claim ? If no challenges have been made then there's no evidence of any "free pass".I'll also like to take on your claim made in Message 161You claim that the Wedge document was:

quote:

---

...a reaction to the science (nonsense) of Richard Dawkins, Victor Stenger, Daniel Dennett, William Provine, Carl Sagan, Stephen Jay Gould, many others.

---

Might I ask why the reaction to the publication of popular books putting forward a view you disagree with needs to be any more than writing popular books putting forward an opposing view (as, for instance, Francis Collins has done) ?

quote:

---

There is no proposal to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview by enforcement, the proposal is to reverse it by open inquiry

---

Yet you have proposed giving ID unearned privileges, by government action based on the strange idea that the First Amendment requires "affirmative action" to support religious beliefs that can't stand up to open inquiry. Can you try to be more consistent ?

quote:

---

t’s not an informal consensus when it comes to ID, is it? ID has to conform with many formal requirements that abiogenesis and the SETI institute never had to, doesn’t it?

---

That seems to be an unfounded assumption on your part.

quote:

---

That it’s a step beyond anything ID has managed is only your opinion. ID has also put forward some serious ideas.

---

It seems to be an obvious fact to me. What has Id produced that is comparable ? How productive has it been in terms of inspiring research ?

quote:

---

Experiments that supported? It says;

---

As I said experiments that supported some of his ideas: Did you miss that part ?

quote:

---

Dembski and Behe haven’t released any extensive experiment to investigate any of their ideas either, but that doesn’t mean no one possibly can 30 years from now, at least to the feeble extent that Miller did for abiogenesis. Yet abiogenesis was science when Oparin was only forwarding his ideas, wasn’t it?

---

Neither Dembski nor Behe have done ANY significant experiments to verify their ideas. If you want to claim that their contributions are on the same level as Oparin's you are going to have to do better than unsupported assertions.

quote:

---

Abiogenesis IS considered science — I’m saying it has been there since long before the politics of today, long before separation of church and state, long before the ACLU. There’s nothing to suggest that it was legally prohibited from being in science textbooks 90 years ago. If it was limited in science textbooks 90 years ago, (as I suspect it was) it was because of school board decisions, not legal action. ID’s content in science textbooks should equally be determined by school board decisions, not legal action as it is today.

---

Whether or not a field of study is considered science has nothing to do with separation of church and state or the ACLU. (Although I think that you will find that the First Amendment is rather older than a mere 90 years).

quote:

---

As we now see, abiogenesis didn’t start with research, it started with ‘ideas’ (Oparin) One book called The Design Revolution by William Dembski (2004) has enough ideas about ID to compare with a couple of decades of abiogenesis ideas by Oparin and several of his friends, I’d venture to say.

---

I'd venture to say that it contains nothing comparable at all.

quote:

---

The scientific community constantly clamors for evidence of research for ID, as if to imply that if the research is good enough, thorough enough, scientific enough, then it will welcome ID into the scientific community with open arms. As we clearly saw with Behe, it doesn’t matter what the ID community comes up with, when it releases anything, the scientific community goes into destroy mode.

---

By which you mean that they find the errors in his work. All part of the scientific process and Behe should know it. But it is significant that Behe has published very little about ID in the scientific journals - and I've yet to see any significant evidence of him submitting seriosus papers that have met with unmerited rejection.

quote:

---

How can that possibly be? I’m constantly told that evolution and abiogenesis don’t have a thing to do with each other!

---

That's a very silly argument. What you have been told is that abiogenesis is not a part of evolutionary theory, not tat it is completely unrelated. But then Oparin being called "the Darwin of abiogenesis" doesn't establish any real link anyway. All it really means is that Oparin is seen as the founder of abiogenesis - if any working ID theory is produced it is unlikely that Behe or Dembski will rate a similar title.

quote:

---

Hahaha — IF NO CHALLENGES WERE MADE, THAT IS EVIDENCE OF A FREE PASS! One thing is for sure - the scientific community doesn't have the market cornered on logic!

---

If no challenge have been made that means that no challenges have been made. It does not mean that abiogenesis has the sort of special privileges you want for ID.

quote:

---

Because of the differences in reaction of the SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY to popular books — the way it embraces the authors and ideas of atheist books (Stenger/Dawkins), and tries to discredit the authors of books that scientifically challenge evolution. (Behe/Dembski)

---

I must admit that I have seen no evidence to support that. (And you would have to show that the difference is reaction was not due to the relative quality of the books),

quote:

---

Not by government action, by government INACTION, the same inaction that abiogenesis got 90 years ago. Why do you put the words affirmative action in quotes, as if I said them?

---

Obviously you are unfamiliar with the concept of "scare quotes", where the quotes are used to indicate that the enclosed words do not precisely represent the situation.
However, government inaction cannot in any way give ID special privileges, so obviously you meant something more.

quote:

---

ID leaders like Dembski have put forward ideas about how design in biology can be detected by scientific methods.

---

Dembski's method requires identifying ALL explanations other than design and showing that ALL of them are ridiculously improbable. It has not been successfully applied to find design even once in biology. It seems to be so utterly impractical as to be worthless.

quote:

---

No, I’ve proven it. It’s a fact that ID is required to conform with many formal requirements to become science, and it’s a fact that no one here can show me where abiogenesis ever had to do that as a requirement for entrance as a scientific subject.

---

I haven't seen any formal requirements, and it is pretty clear that abiogenesis currently meets the standards - and that ID does not, and maybe never will.

quote:

---

It’s not a research volume thing. It’s a research-pathway thing, and both have the experimentation/curiosity/speculative principles/predictions requirements satisfied to comparable ways.

---

Now THAT is just an assertion and one that appears to be untrue. But please tell us of the research ID enables, with detailed examples.

quote:

---

might form — may spontaneously form — might have formed? I wonder how thick the stack of paper was that contained his outlines. The thicknesses of only Dembski’s and Behe’s books in one stack would probably be measured in feet. But it’s never enough, I know.

---

In other words Oparin offered quite detailed ideas on how things may have occurred. Dembski and Behe have not done so - Dembski has even suggested that ID should not do so.
Comparing the thickness of books with no regard to the content is not valid.

quote:

---

It had everything to do with it at the Dover trial. ID is religion in disguise — that was the main case made by..the ACLU.

---

However, neither the Constitutional separation of Church and State nor the ACLU dictate whether a field is considered religion or not. Even if the inclusion of abiogenesis in school tests was wrong at some point in time - and you have not shown that it was - two wrongs do not make a right.

quote:

---

It’s about my claim that IF naturalistic abiogenesis is science, then ID is science.

---

And so far you seem unable to back up that claim. At present abiogenesis has a large body of ongoing research. ID has virtually nothing. It doesn't even seem to be up to the level of Oparin's work.

quote:

---

So all you can really require of ID to be science is for it to make small (compartmentalized, if you will) studies and determinations comparable to what abiogensis studies have — see message 107 for examples.

---

And it is somewhat fatal to your case that this has not yet been done. And there is no sign that it ever will be done.

quote:

---

Real world studies and observations in ID would be to determine whether information in orderly, complex systems could lie dormant for long periods of time, or whether the information would have to be added close to the time when the system became operational.

---

If you mean Behe's idea of front-loading, genes that serve no function will be disabled by neutral drift (as the human gene for synthesising vitamin C has been). This work has already been done by evolutionary scientists.

quote:

---

The mere existence of the Dover trial alone and the associated publicity it received clearly shows that it’s off the ground. Whether or not something is off the ground in the real world is not completely dependent on what’s going on in the ivory towers of today’s universities. These forums and many others are loaded with discussions about it. Why would you imply that it's not off the ground?

---

So the fact that a Christian group encourages Christians on a school board to support ID on religious grounds somehow "shows" that ID is scientific ? Surely it shows that ID is in fact primarily a religious apologetic which pretends to be science to get around the Constitutional barriers. A pretence that was exposed in the court.

quote:

---

Why then, do there seem to be so many qualified biologists at message boards such as these who are so agitated by it?

---

Because they object to the dishonesty and the hate flowing from the ID side ? Because they want the children of their nation to receive a good scientific education, not one manipulated to serve religious groups ?There are a lot more errors in your post (for instance your gross misrepresentation of the blood clotting dispute) but this is enough.