> Moorad's POV, with which I concur, is that
"evolution-in-the-full-sense",
> including abiogenesis, is the ONLY option available to the scientist
who
> works (as I do) under the methodological naturalism assumption.>>
Steve replied:
"This is not strictly true. MN requires one to produce theories about
how life got here by natural means. "Evolution-in-the-full-sense" is
(or seems to be) the statement that life developed by natural means
from non-living matter, and that different living things are related
by common descent (again by natural means). This is a theory allowed
by MN, but it is not, at least in principle, the only one. The other
MN-allowed possibilities would seem to be that life has always existed,
or that different life forms developed independently of one another."
I stand by my assertion, Steve. let me unpack your note
to help explain why I do.
"This is not strictly true. MN requires one to produce theories about
how life got here by natural means."
MN requires nothing in particular, of course. It only requires one to
posit
natural causation as the only causation involved in whatever
scientific model suggested. If one is positing theories of how
life is here, then your second sentence is true. If one is
positing theories about why the coefficient of resiliency varies with
impact speed, the question of how life got here is moot.
"Evolution-in-the-full-sense" is
(or seems to be) the statement that life developed by natural means
from non-living matter, and that different living things are related
by common descent (again by natural means)."
The first part is true; the second is not. One might posit, for instance,
that each living thing developed from non-living matter wholly
independently from any other. As you point out later in your note.
"This is a theory allowed
by MN, but it is not, at least in principle, the only one. The other
MN-allowed possibilities would seem to be that life has always existed,
or that different life forms developed independently of one another."
Earlier in the thread the possibility of life "always existing" was
mentioned and discarded, But, you are correct, I should have included it
once again
in what I wrote. So my (changed) statement will read:
> Moorad's POV, with which I concur, is that
"evolution-in-the-full-sense",
> including abiogenesis, is the ONLY option available to the scientist
who
> works (as I do) under the methodological naturalism assumption
>except the option of life always existing.>>
I meant "evolution-in-the-full-sense" to specifically include
abiogenesis, of course, and not any particular theory. In particular, I
do not
include in it the theory of common descent.
Burgy
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]