From: richard@biblewheel.com
Date: Thu Jul 24 2003 - 16:17:20 EDT
Re post: http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200307/0553.html
Hi Howard.
>I have always candidly acknowledged my use of aesthetic values in judging
>the merit of theories, both scientific and theological
Right - and I candidly agreed with you that this is an important aspect in
judging theories.
You wrote:
>A reminder from the philosophy of science: Whether or not some particular
>observation is "evidence" for or against theory T depends, of course, on
the
>nature of theory T and its accompanying presuppositions.
Agreed. But I am not talking about evidence "for or against a theory" - I'm
talking about evidence of a *phenomenon*. The phenomenon of biogenesis has
never been observed. There is no evidence for it as a natural physical
process.
Now I had written:
> Yes, we know that
> biogenesis happened at least once in the past, but we do not have any
> reason, outside of presuppositions like the RFEP, to believe it is a
natural
> phenomenon.
To which you replied:
>Nor do we have any reason, outside of theological presuppositions that
>entail episodic creationism, to believe that it is a supernatural
>phenomenon.
I think this is wrong. The fact that it has never been observed in nature or
the lab, despite great effort, seems like a very good reason to believe it
is not a natural phenomenon. The more science looks, the more it sees that
its not there.
This is not so much a lack of evidence as an evidence of lack.
We should not ignore the vast array of highly committed scientists who have
expended huge amounts of energy attempting to find a solution to this
question. The sense of urgency at the inability to find a standard
scientific understanding was such that one Nobel Laureate went so far as to
suggest space aliens as a solution. It seems to me that my contention that
naturalistic biogenesis is not a *normal* phenomenon is certainly justified,
and my further assertion that it is not a *natural* phenomenon is highly
probable *given* the validity of current scientific observation. Of course
it is possible that evidence will be found in some imagined future - but
that gives absolutely *no warrant* for believing in naturalistic biogenesis
before that time.
I had written:
> It seems clear that current scientific observations support my conclusion.
To which you replied:
>Not at all. The most you can say is that the state of empirical observation
>relevant to natural biogenesis is inconclusive. It does not support your
>"conclusion" (actually your presupposition that the formational economy of
>the universe is inadequate to make natural biogenesis possible) any more
>than it supports my RFEP thesis.
Granted we can not assert with absolute certainty that naturalistic
biogenesis didn't happen just because an army of highly committed scientists
found no evidence for it after a century of research.
But I do believe the evidence of lack gives a fairly strong warrant for
holding that it is not a natural phenemenon.
Richard Amiel McGough
Discover the sevenfold symmetric perfection of the Holy Bible at
http://www.BibleWheel.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jul 24 2003 - 16:14:15 EDT