|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: abiogenesis | |||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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: 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 don't even agree with that.
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Actually it seems that you have changed your mind and now include special creation as a form of abiogenesis. As I will demonstrate.
quote: 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)
A recurring theme in antievolution literature is that if science cannot account for the origin of life, evolution is false, and that "spontaneous generation" was disproven, so therefore evolution is false. This syllogism fails, because evolution (that is, common descent and transmutation of species) occurs whether or not life arose by chance, law or design...
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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's even harder when the merit is conspicuously lacking.
quote: 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: 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 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 161 You claim that the Wedge document was:
quote: 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: 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 ?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024