Howard, I did not claim Leslie Orgel despaired of science, nor did I
claim his work wasn't worth while. I don't believe there can be a final
proof that life cannot arise by "natural" means - else I would not have
proposed God might work through "hidden options" in the history of
life's origin and further evolution.
However, I do question that prebiotic Earth's "formational processes"
were sufficient to produce life on their own. There is a wide-spread
confidence, nurished primarily by metaphysical beliefs rather than
scientific data, that the origin-of-life question is solved in principle
(in the sense that it _has_ happened by "natural" means), and that the
working-out of the details is just a matter of time. I just wanted to
point out that there are _no_ scientific data, beyond some hunches and
speculations based on the ever-increasing knowledge of the history of
the Earth and of chemical feasibility, to support that confidence. It
may very well be that the quest will have to be given up as insoluble.
It's all a question of the probabilities involved.
If you counter the "on their own" in the above paragraph by saying the
"formational capability" given the prebiotic Earth by the Creator's
providence does not support its autonomy, then please give us some
concrete idea of _how_ God's providence would overcome transastronomical
improbabilities! Wouldn't it be more appropriate for us to confess
publicly that we just don't know how life could have originated on its
own - this, in fact, is the gist of Orgel's review, closing with his
"The only certainty is that there will be a rational solution."
Peter
"Howard J. Van Till" wrote:
> > 2. Question: Given Orgel's experience, does he despair of science ever
> > coming to a better understanding of the formation of first life? Does he,
> > for example, conclude that, in spite of all of the remarkable things that
> > molecules and molecular configurations can do, the formational economy of
> > the universe is inadequate for the actualization of life without being
> > supplemented by some sort of divine action? Or, on the other hand, does he
> > judge that it makes perfectly good sense for him to continue his research in
> > the field of "first formation of living systems" (more commonly called
> > "origin of life" research)?
>
> I think I now have the answer to this question. Orgel open his brief review
> essay as follows:
>
> "The problem of the origin of life on the earth has much in common with a
> well-constructed detective story. There is no shortage of clues pointing to
> the way in which the crime, the contamination of the pristine environment of
> the early earth, was committed. On the contrary, there are too many
> suspects. It would be hard to find two investigators who agree on even the
> broad outline of the events that occurred so long ago and made possible the
> subsequent evolution of life in all its variety." P. 491
>
> Orgel then proceeds with admirable candor to outline both the strengths and
> weaknesses of several theories posing answers to either of two questions:
> (1) What were the sources of the small organic molecules that made up the
> first self-replicating system? (2) How did biological organization evolve
> from an abiotic supply of small organic molecules? Orgel summarizes his
> review by saying:
>
> "In summary, there are several tenable theories about the origin of organic
> material on the primitive earth, but in no case is the supporting evidence
> compelling. Similarly, several alternative scenarios might account for the
> self-organization of a self-replicating entity from prebiotic organic
> material, but all of those that are that are well formulated are based on
> hypothetical chemical syntheses that are problematic. Returning to our
> detective story, we must conclude that we have identified some important
> suspects and, in each case, we have some ideas about the method they might
> have used. However, we are very far from knowing whodunit. The only
> certainty is that there will be a rational solution." p. 495
>
> Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 21 2001 - 12:46:46 EST