Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   abiogenesis
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 124 of 177 (545944)
02-06-2010 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by marc9000
02-06-2010 10:25 AM


Re: Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID unknown
Hi marc9000,
This appears to be the crux of your whole untenable position:
marc9000 writes:
Looking at what is done, not what is promised, isn't fair concerning the historical, actual applications of science, because it requires far more of ID than was ever required for abiogenesis.
Science doesn't reject ID because of a lack of evidence, though the lack of evidence is certainly a severe handicap. Science rejects ID because it stipulates entities and processes for which there is no evidence. It isn't the lack of evidence for these things that is the problem. It's that despite the lack of evidence, ID stipulates them anyway.
What ID has is an interesting hypothesis, that because life is so intricate it might have been designed and constructed by an intelligence. If they started with that hypothesis, stopped disparaging methodological naturalism, and began conducting serious research then they would at least fare no worse than ESP researchers.
But ID doesn't do that. Instead of saying that life is so intricate that it might have been designed, they're insisting that life is so intricate that it *must* have been designed. Some like Dembski and Behe even claim they've demonstrated this to be fact, and say it with a straight face even though they only present their ID arguments in popular press books and never in scientific journals.
Abiogenesis stipulates that life originated through the same physical laws with which we're already familiar. A theory of abiogenesis that imitated ID by stipulating something equally without evidence, like a life force or some such, would be rejected just like ID.
Because abiogenesis is a process requiring nothing more than the universe being just what it already is, we're confident that if we could somehow replicate in the laboratory the conditions on the early Earth that gave birth to life that we could produce new life. But ID requires something beyond the known universe, an intelligence for which there is no scientific evidence and who prominent IDists like Behe and Dembski openly admit they think is God.
At one point you mention falsifiability. I don't think I'd be very far off the mark saying that very little has been established with certainty about abiogenesis. To the extent that there's a theory of abiogenesis, all it says is that life originated through natural means. How are you going to falsify that, since the same assumption underlies all scientific study?
You think that ID is burdened with requirements with which abiogenesis is unencumbered, but on the contrary they are being held to identical standards. If you think that's not the case then be specific instead of hiding behind generalities.
Touching now on a few other unrelated errors:
He [Judge Jones of Dover trial fame] then could have asked didn’t one Louis Pastuer show, only 11 years ago, that life doesn’t spontaneously arise from non-life?
Not sure how you went so wrong here. Pasteur (not 'Pastuer') died over a hundred years ago, and his work was completely unrelated to abiogenesis. What he showed was that the life observed arising on decaying organic matter (e.g., maggots on rotting meat) was not new life, but merely life that was deposited there later (e.g., flies lay eggs in the rotting meat) or was already there (e.g., bacteria). He did no work at all on de novo life on the early Earth.
When we require ID to be published in scientific journals, fully engaged in research and testing, and fully accepted by the scientific community before it is accepted as science, aren’t we doing the same thing as requiring an entry level worker to have experience before we allow him to have a job? How can he get experience if he can’t get a start? How can the scientific community accept ID if they refuse to evaluate it because it’s not science? I don’t see evidence that they even get started looking at it before they declare it religion and throw it out.
What other scientific theory has ever received special treatment like this? You mentioned Pasteur. Was his rejection of spontaneous generation accepted before he did his experiments? Was relativity accepted before Sir Author Eddington measured the predicted effects of the general theory? Was continental drift accepted before the evidence of sea floor spreading and directionally magnetized rocks were discovered?
But ID isn't being rejected just because it has no evidence. It's being rejected as inherently unscientific because of its unevidenced assumptions that are so obviously religious in nature. Drop the unscientific religious assumptions and it might have at least a prayer of the scientific community taking it seriously.
When we evaluate the definitions of science, we need to include questions about why the details in qualifications for what is science have been changed over the past 50 or 100 years, and why they’ve changed, and why older subjects don’t have to adapt to new requirements.
Prove you're not making this up and detail the changes.
As we network researchers and resources, can we scrutinize their personal beliefs and goals to the same extent that the beliefs and goals of ID proponents are scrutinized? Since evolution and abiogenesis are claimed to be completely separate issues, is it a philosophical problem if we find that the same people are uniting them as they study them?
If you scrutinize the beliefs of evolutionists and abiogenesists you'll find that they come from a variety of cultures, countries, backgrounds and religions. If you scrutinize the beliefs of IDIsts you'll find that they're predominantly evangelical Christians. Comparing the religious beliefs of the two sides in the creation/evolution debate is not a good idea for the creationist IDist side. Of course, you can always fall back on the old lie of, "Evolutionists are all atheists who are trying to destroy religion."
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by marc9000, posted 02-06-2010 10:25 AM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by marc9000, posted 02-21-2010 5:16 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 132 of 177 (547688)
02-21-2010 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by marc9000
02-21-2010 5:16 PM


Re: Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID unknown
Hi Marc,
The requirements of science are the same for all fields. ID is being held to the same requirements asany other field within science. If you think this isn't true then tell us what additional requirements you think ID is being asked for.
Science is not atheistic. It just doesn't comment on phenomena for which there is no evidence. Science seeks natural explanations for natural phenomena. Anything we can detect through our senses is natural and can be part of science. If ID is about things that we can actually observe, such as the modification of genes and the creation of new species, then it is definitely part of science and all IDists need do is find the evidence.
Does it bother you that science doesn't include supernatural explanations for gravity or radio? Of course not (I assume). Then why does it bother you that science doesn't include supernatural explanations for abiogenesis. Could it be because abiogenesis somehow bears upon your religious beliefs, while gravity and radio do not?
The detail of Message 107 enumerating what we do know about abiogenesis shouldn't be something that bothers you. When I said that there's no real theory of abiogenesis other than that it came about through natural causes (an assumption that underlies all of science) I only meant that we don't know the specifics of how it happened. We don't even know if it happened in the air, on the ground, beneath the ground or underwater. But I certainly didn't mean to imply we don't know anything. We obviously know a great deal, and Message 107 provided a very high level outline of what we know. But there's no real theory of abiogenesis beyond that it came about through natural causes, again, an assumption that underlies all of science.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by marc9000, posted 02-21-2010 5:16 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by marc9000, posted 02-21-2010 8:06 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 138 of 177 (547749)
02-22-2010 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by marc9000
02-21-2010 8:06 PM


Re: Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID unknown
marc9000 writes:
The requirements of science are the same for all fields. ID is being held to the same requirements asany other field within science. If you think this isn't true then tell us what additional requirements you think ID is being asked for.
I've already done that - requirements for falsifiability not required of other science...
What "other science" isn't being held to the requirements of falsifiability?
Science assumes a level above human power when it rules out (attempts to trump) possible processes that it can't deal with/understand.
But ID isn't being ruled out by science. It's being deemed "not science." About things that are "not science" science has no comment. That's why science doesn't rule out God, and it doesn't rule out ID.
Does it bother you that science doesn't include supernatural explanations for gravity or radio? Of course not (I assume).
It doesn't bother me, because the natural explanations for those things doesn't weaken the existance/power of God.
Then why does it bother you that science doesn't include supernatural explanations for abiogenesis. Could it be because abiogenesis somehow bears upon your religious beliefs, while gravity and radio do not?
Yes, not only my religious beliefs, but the beliefs of future generations, and their parents who are currently paying the bills in todays scientific study.
Well, at least you're honest about being religiously motivated, but in the science forums it would be nice if you'd confine yourself to scientific arguments about abiogenesis.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by marc9000, posted 02-21-2010 8:06 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by marc9000, posted 02-27-2010 8:06 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 148 of 177 (548559)
02-28-2010 6:10 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by marc9000
02-27-2010 8:06 PM


Re: Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID unknown
Hi Marc9000,
Your problem isn't with abiogenesis but with science. You can't single out abiogenesis for being naturalistic because all of science is naturalistic, and abiogenesis is held to the same requirements of falsifiability as all the rest of science.
If you want to discuss naturalism and falsifiability in science, and/or its supposed air of superiority, then I suggest you take the discussion to one of the Is It Science? threads, or propose a new thread over at Proposed New Topics.
marc9000 writes:
That’s not a religious motivation, it’s a political motivation. A motivation to counter unconstitutional political action from the scientific community. These forums aren’t only about nuts-and-bolts science, they’re about the social aspects of science. I’m not a scientist, and I can’t go into scientific details on an equal basis with scientists. But I’m a middle aged member of a society that is supposed to have open inquiry, and I can discuss social aspects of science with anybody.
Of course you can, but in threads where it would be on-topic. This thread's about abiogenesis.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by marc9000, posted 02-27-2010 8:06 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by RAZD, posted 02-28-2010 7:02 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 164 by marc9000, posted 03-10-2010 9:37 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024