From: Denyse O'Leary (oleary@sympatico.ca)
Date: Sat Jul 26 2003 - 08:04:11 EDT
Denyse butting in again:
"The fallacy of negative proof is a type of logical fallacy of the
following form:
"No one has produced an example of one; therefore it doesn't exist."
I could just as well advance a claim for ghosts on this principle, but I
won't.
The problem we are discussing isn't about logic. It is about evidence --
actually, about the lack of it.
Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evidence.
Right now, it is as much a statement of faith to say that you are sure
that life arose purely through naturalistic means as to say that you are
sure that it didn't.
Theology must take account of the claims of science when science has
relevant evidence; at present, we must make do with understandings based
on our overall view of life.
We might want to reflect on the quotations below:
* "[T]he mechanism of almost every major step ... is the subject of
either controversy or complete bewilderment"
"TAKE SOME matter, heat while stirring and wait...That is the
modern version of Genesis. The fundamental forces" of gravity,
electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces are presumed to
have done the rest. They made the elements form and then react to
produce the chemical building blocks of life: nucleic acids made of
sugars and bases, proteins made of amino acids lipids and carbohydrates.
Specific nucleic acids then began to direct the production of specific
proteins. Nucleic acids and proteins that acted together to enhance
their own multiplication thrived and continued to adapt. They became
surrounded by membranes and evolved into complex cells and eventually
into us. But how much of this neat tale is firmly established, and how
much remains hopeful speculation? In truth, the mechanism of almost
every major step, from chemical precursors up to the first recognisable
cells, is the subject of either controversy or complete bewilderment."
(Scott, Andrew [biochemist and science writer], "Update on Genesis," New
Scientist, Vol. 106, No. 1454, 2 May 1985, pp.30-33, p.30). [top of page]
* "[S]cientists certainly do not know how, of even if, life
originated on earth from lifeless atoms"
"Personally, I consider fundamentalist creationism to be a far
sillier idea than the craziest of all the crazy notions which scientists
have ever proposed; but as scientists gloat over the deficiencies of
non-scientific accounts of our origin and evolution, they should not
ignore the considerable deficiencies in their own account. At the moment
scientists certainly do not know how, of even if, life originated on
earth from lifeless atoms. They do have a few plausible ideas on the
subject, but many more rather implausible ones. (Scott, Andrew
[biochemist and science writer], "The Creation of Life: Past, Future,
Alien," Basil Blackwell: Oxford UK, 1986, p.112). [top of page]
Denyse
-- To see what's new in faith and science issues, go to www.designorchance.com My next book, By Design or By Chance?: The Growing Controversy Over the Origin of Life in the Universe (Castle Quay Books, Oakville) will be published Fall 2003.To order, call Castle Quay, 1-800-265-6397, fax 519-748-9835, or visit www.afcanada.com (CDN $19.95 or US$14.95).
Denyse O'Leary 14 Latimer Avenue Toronto, Ontario, CANADA M5N 2L8 Tel: 416 485-2392/Fax: 416 485-9665 oleary@sympatico.ca www.denyseoleary.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Jul 26 2003 - 08:00:08 EDT