quote:
But since it is a conclusion that seems to lead back to some supernatural creative act, it is a conclusion that scientific men find very difficult of acceptance. It carries with it what are felt to be, in the present mental climate, undesirable philosophic implications, and it is opposed to the scientific desire for continuity.
What scientists find difficult is the notion of modeling or testing a hypothesis based on something that can't by definition be tested empirically. A supernatural explanation is anything you want it to be, except an explanation.
quote:
It introduces an unaccountable break in the chain of causation, and therefore cannot be admitted as part of science unless it is quite impossible to reject it. For that reason most scientific men prefer to believe that life arose, in some way not yet understood, from inorganic matter in accordance with the laws of physics and chemistry.
A supernatural creative act could indeed be considered "impossible to reject" if there were evidence that such an act were possible in the first place. In the absence of such evidence, we have to depend on mechanisms we can detect, test, and understand. Show us how NOT using physical or chemical laws has ever produced a satisfactory explanation for natural phenomena. What else should we use?
------------------
I would not let the chickens cross the antidote road because I was already hospitlized for trying to say this!-Brad McFall
™ Version 4.2