From: brian harper (harper.10@osu.edu)
Date: Fri Jul 25 2003 - 14:32:07 EDT
At 01:17 PM 7/24/2003 -0700, Richard wrote:
[...]
>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.
Richard, do you believe that science and human reasoning
are all powerful?, i.e. do you believe that science is able to
understand any natural phenomena given enough time and
money?
>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 seem to recall Crick saying that he had written the little green men
theory mainly as a joke. Now I can't find the reference. Has anyone
else seen this?
I spent some time studying the origin of life a few years ago. This
army of dedicated scientists that you discuss does not exist as far
as I know. In any case, it is irrelevant to your point. It is entirely
possible that the problem is so complex that it surpasses the
capability of science and human reasoning to comprehend.
IMO, your argument contains a kind of disguised scientism.
Brian Harper
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jul 25 2003 - 11:27:54 EDT