From: Richard McGough (richard@biblewheel.com)
Date: Mon Jul 28 2003 - 16:09:42 EDT
Brian wrote:
>I hate to get too caught up in words. But let me try to further clarify my
>original question based on what you say above. Isn't it possible to have
>natural phenomena which cannot be directly observed or inferred from
>direct observation? I have to say again that you seem to have a disguised
>form of scientism in that you seem to want to define a natural phenomena
>in terms of what science is able to observe.
>
Good question. This is why I asked if my definition were adequate for Science. You ask if its "possible to have natural phenomena which cannot be directly observed or inferred from direct observation?"
Perhaps, but such "phenomena" could not very well be addressed by Science, now could it? Exactly what could science say assert about non-obervable "phenomenon"? I find it intriguing that typically skeptical scientists seem willing to embrace definitions they would see as near mysticism in other contexts. Its not unlike the idea of directed panspermia (aka space aliens).
I'm still open to alternative definitions. But unless I missed it, you didn't offer any.
<snip>
>Anyway, the important point here is the separation of fact and theory.
>This is what George was doing (in your quote below). Abiogenesis
>is a fact. You add to that *naturalistic* abiogenesis. i.e. you have
>added some type of theoretical qualifier about the way abiogenesis occurred.
>Of course, *naturalistic* abiogenesis is not a fact.
>
I encountered the term Abiogenesis in the discussion on the Talk.Origins site. It seems to me that they use it to mean "the origin of life from non-living matter through natural processes." I think that's a good definition. The phrase "naturalistic abiogenesis" actually seems to be redundant. Please correct me if my understanding is wrong. It seems obvious that given the near universal belief in methodological materialism, the definition I gave would be that which is implicit in the minds of all who speak of abiogenesis.
You wrote:
>The origin of life certainly is a phenomena that would fall under the
>inferred from other phenomena category.
Not necessarily. There's no reason, in principle, that it couldn't be as common as grass. (Or is there ...)
>The fact that the earth is
>not eternal is fairly strong evidence for the origin of life at some
>point in earth's history. But how? That's an interesting question.
>
>I think it is unreasonable to expect the origin of life to occur again
>as a purely natural phenomena, outside the lab. Wouldn't you
>agree?
Aboslutely NOT. If abiogenesis occurred, it resulted by natural processes (by my definition, which seems to be the common understanding). The key feature of *natural* processes is that they repeat and can be measured and replicated.
Of course, most natural phenomena only happen under certain conditions. That is what the lab is for - to produce conditions where the phenomenon can be observed.
Is there any reason whatsoever to believe that abiogenesis requires conditions that can not be met in the lab? I don't know of any. If you do, please share.
One could argue that abiogenesis is very unlikely so we would not expect to happen in the lab, even under optimal conditions (if we knew what those are). But that's another argument ....
>now. Trying to work out some reasonable path connecting the
>conditions on pre-biotic earth to the production of organic molecules
>to the production of self-replicators etc. This is an enormously complex
>problem.
>
>So with this in mind, let me go back to my question. Is it possible that
>such a path exists but that it is so complex that it might never be found?
>
Yes. That is possible. But it would be scientifically irresponsible to assert abiogenesis as fact, and this goes back to the beginning of this thread where I protested the assertion that the evolution of life should be seen as fundamentally equivalent to the evolution of elements, and that people who disagreed were being "highly inconsistent." But of course, this swrord cuts both ways, and I also assert it would be irresponsible to claim that supernatural forces were *required* since we don't know how it happened.
>Let me try to clarify my own position. The event of abiogenesis is a fact.
>Some really clever scientists are trying to explain that fact by developing
>physical theories. Their failure means only that they failed, it does not mean
>that the physical pathways do not exist.
Yes, but using your defininion of abiogenesis as meaning merely the "life started" in conjuction with the work of methodological materialistic science then slips naturalism back into the discussion unawares. That's why it is absolutely essential to clarify the word abiogenesis as I defined it above.
Again, make no positive claims from the "failure" of clever scientists in their efforts to find the pathways of abiogenesis. All this started merely in my effort to show people that the assumption of the abiogenesis as *fact* is false. This is why your reassertion of it is really rather frustrating. I admitted in my first note to George that Biogenesis in the sense of "life started" is totally obvious to everybody and therefore it should be equally obvious that that is not what I am talking about. When you say "abiogenesis is a fact" you appear to be saying that clever scientists should *expect* to find naturalistic pathways, and this proves that you implicity included *naturalistic* in your definition of abiogenesis, contrary to your definition above.
It seems indicative of the extremely effective indoctrination into methodological materialism that I have to continually belabour the point that naturalistic abiogenesis is not an established scientific fact.
Good talking Brian.
In service of Christ Jesus our Biogenesis,
Richard Amiel McGough
Discover the sevenfold symmetric perfection of the Holy Bible at http://www.BibleWheel.com
PS. Could we keep the posts a little shorter? Perhaps break them into smaller arguments. They are much easier to answer that way, and also we can avoid them being flagged and delayed because of size. Thanks.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jul 28 2003 - 16:15:35 EDT