192)This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
About Propeller | Frequently Asked Questions | Help
© 2003-2008 Propeller. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
"Could such an explanation (that there is a Creator) be true? Sure. Is it science? Hardly." Are you saying that science isn't about truth?
Well, I didn't say it the columnist did.
Science is about truth. However, that truth must be reproducible, falsifiable and quantifiable, therefore any discussion of a being called the "Creator" which can not be reproduced, can not be falsified and is, by definition (omniscient, omnipotent), unquantifiable is not science.
Am I being clear?
Can a living organism arise from non-living matter? (I may be mistaken but I think the term is "spontaneous generation".) Can that be reproduced or falsified? Yet that is the premise that non-theistic evolution is based upon. Evolutionists accept spontaneous generation of the first life form as truth even though that cannot be reproduced or falsified. Isn't that the question asked by Ben Stein? "Where did life come from?"
Is it possible to question the conclusions of scientific research without discussing the existance or non-existance of a higher power?
In regards to abiogenesis, there is little concrete. However, science is perfectly willing to admit, "We don't know yet. We're working on it."
MIT has recently constructed organic molecules that self-replicate--an important step in understanding how life may have arisen from non-living matter. An article in Discover magazine a couple of months ago speculates that ice may have contributed greatly to the formation of a range of organic molecular chains.
You didn't answer my question. Is it possible to question the conclusions of scientific research without discussing the existance or non-existance of a higher power?
Of course it is. Science does it all the time. I don't see your point.
There are competing theories about the origin of life. One of them is panspermia, where the 'seeds' of life arrived via meteors. Life may have been placed here by extra-terrestrials. Ultimately, it is up to the competing hypothesis to make its case.
Then why is evolution the exception?
It isn't. Evolution had Lamarckian as well as Darwinian evolution. Lamark's theory said that organisms passed on traits they gained during their lifetimes. Giraffe necks got longer and longer, the theory went, because giraffe indivuduals stretched their necks during their lives and passed those longer necks on to their progeny. No Lamarckian experiments ever worked as predicted (no matter how many generations of mice have their tails cut off, mice will continue to be born with tails).
There are people who posit 'guided panspermia'--that aliens are actively guiding the changes we see in organisms. The challenge is still the same: produce a better explanation that fits all the available evidence and provide predictions and confirming experiments. In short, do better science.
Oh, and I found the article you mentioned and I quote from it:
"It is not life itself, of course, but it is a kind of molecular model of how self-replication, a most fundamental life process, can occur."
As to your last sentence in the above post, I note the use of the words "speculates" and "may have." Not "conclude".
double post
Of course I use those words. It would be foolhardy for anyone to slam their fist down on the table and say, "It happened like this. (SLAM) Period."
I prefer to relegate 'truth' to the realms of logic, mathematics and, yes, religion. Science is the realm of 'fact'. I see it like this: All the evidence of science could consistently point to naturalistic origins and operation, yet there could still be a God behind it all fiddling with all the knobs. The former can indeed be 'factual' while that latter can be 'true'.
People tend to blur the epistemology when it is convenient to their argument. The facts of science are not 'proofs' against God, just as the faith in the miracles of the Bible are not 'facts' against science.
Deftly stated, tangent001.
While I am an atheist, I find little value in equating religion with 'crude superstition'.
That there is no evidence for religion is part of my point. Religion can never be factual. But then again, science can never be 'true', in the sense I've outlined above.
Ah yes, the ol' absence of proof is not proof of absence. That is true, however finding no evidence of Zeus or Watusi certainly does not suggest to a reasonable mind that they exist either. As much as one may want to believe such a thing, there is no logical reason to do so. Basically the shameful fallacy being presented here is a minor variation on the classic argument to ignorance. "If you don't know how something happened, Zeus musta did it!" If this obvious flawed line of thought were followed by science, there would be no science. Of course some probably feel that would be jus' ducky!!!