RE: The Aphenomenon of Abiogenesis

From: Glenn Morton (glennmorton@entouch.net)
Date: Sat Jul 26 2003 - 12:14:31 EDT

  • Next message: Richard McGough: "RE: The Aphenomenon of Abiogenesis"

    Richard asks:

    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
    >Behalf Of Richard McGough
    >Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 11:49 PM

    >This is a strange kind of wisdom to be found coming from a
    >scientific view of origins. Can you name any established natural
    >phenomenon that occured exactly once in the history of the earth?
    >This idea seems to contradict the meaning of "natural phenomenon."

    To claim that we can't know because we can't observe the origin is similar
    to Kant's noumena and phenomena distinction. We see phenomena not the
    noumena. But it is inconsisstent to claim protection from scientific views
    by escaping to the noumena-world in origins when we don't do it with other
    phenomena-noumena pairs like those listed below. Unless you are willing to
    be consistent and reject all the following, then I would say you are
    engaging in special pleading when it comes to origins.

    The evolution of the tetrapods, radiolarians, foraminifera, dinosaurs etc.
    etc. all happened exactly once.

    The Big Bang happened exactly once. Unless one believes in multiple
    universes. :-)

    To our direct observational knowledge, the Maunder Minimum, a dearth of
    sunspots with the sun having no 11 year cycle occurred only once from the
    early 1500s to 1720.

    The formation of the microwave background happened exactly once at the end
    of the radiation era.

    The evaporation of the Mediterranean and its transformation to a desert
    happened only once.

    The rise of the Himalaya's happened only once. Indeed, we have absolutely
    no direct observational evidence of an orogeny--any of them.

    The formation of the oceans via outgassing from the earth's mantle happened
    only once. Indeed, we have no direct observational evidence that any other
    ocean exists today. Once can claim that oceans postulated to exist under the
    ice of some Jovian moons may not still exist. ( don't however.

    The formation of the banded-iron formations occurred in one period of the
    Precambrian and never again. We think they were either due to unique
    chemical or biochemical situations.

    The uraninite sands of the Precambrian:

    "Archaean and Palaeoproterozoic fluvial sediments are also notable because
    they contain detrital pyrite and uraninite, minerals that oxidize rapidly
    under present-day surface conditions-a further indication of the lack of
    oxygen in the early atmosphere." R. A. Strachan, "Early Earth History and
    Development of the Archaean Crust," in Nigel Woodcock and Rob Strachan,
    editors, Geological History of Britain and Ireland, (London: Blackwell
    Science, 2000), p. 45

    Which raises the fact that the earth without oxygen was a one time event,
    beyond direct observation.

    Related to this are many unobservables in physics which are accepted by
    everyone (noumena-type entities):

    Quarks:

    "The gluon field is so powerful and binds the quarks so tightly together
    that the quarks can never be torn away from one another. This is called
    quark confinement, and may explain why free quarks have never been seen
    experimentally." Michio Kaku, Hyperspace, (New York: Anchor Books, 1994), p.
    122

    Superstrings
    Other universes are not directly observable, but their conceptual status is
    on no worse a footing than superstrings (or even the more familiar quarks):
    these, too, are unobservable theoretical constructs whose manifestations
    help to account for the way the world is." Martin Rees, Before the
    Beginning, (Reading, MA: Perseus Books, 1997), p. 172-173

    Dark matter can't be observed.

    One can argue that black holes can't actually be observed. We observe a
    region giving off jets and lots of energy with matter having peculiar
    orbits. But the hole itself is unseen.

    I am sure others can add to this list.

    My advice is be consistent. Either accept that indirect phenomenological
    evidence can lead us to the correct view of origins or reject all noumena as
    unknowable and lapse into solipcism. One should be allowed to pick and
    chose his epistemological approach for various topics.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Jul 26 2003 - 12:15:05 EDT