Is intelligent design scientifically superior to abiogenesis?

[Tisthammerw]

I moved part of a discussion from another thread because it was getting off topic (I'll move my responses here).

Anyway, there’s a question I’ve been meaning to ask anyway: why is abiogenesis scientifically superior to intelligent design?

Definitions (for this post)

Abiogenesis: the belief that life on Earth spontaneously arose from non-living matter (as through undirected chemical reactions)

Intelligent design: the belief that intelligent causes are necessary for the creation of life on Earth.

[Tisthammerw]

Moved response here:





You are not explaining anything.


Set up a plausible starting point, and don't interfere. Keep your hands off, and see if undirected chemical reactions create life. If they do, intelligent design theory is falsified. If you can't understand that, I'm afraid I can't help you.



You have to find the designer in order to prove Intelligent design.


Theories cannot be proven in science.

Perhaps you mean you need to find the designer to rationally accept a design inference. But that appears false. Consider for instance the scenario (I described earlier) of finding a stainless steel replica of Stonehenge on Mars. We haven’t found the designer, we don’t know where the designer came from. But we a design inference is still rational to accept here.



Stonehenge is designed, not by inference, but by direct evidence: We can see the marks on the stones, we have found the quarries where the stones came from, etc.


You're still making an inference (based on the marks on the stones). In any case, none of that applies to the scenario of finding a stainless steel replica of Stonehenge on Mars.




No, you stole the arguments from other sites, and presented them as your own.


I never claimed I originated those arguments. I paraphrased what I read years ago; hence I am not guilty of plagiarism (contrary to what you accused me of).



What natural causes could an Intelligent Designer have?


The same ones we have perhaps. Laboratories and mechanical equipment. I fully believe that scientists will find a way to artificially create life someday. Using such means is one way a designer could have created life via non-supernatural means.



Behe's claim was not testable wrt Intelligent Design.


Behe's ID claims (regarding irreducible complexity and the like) were obviously testable if they have failed such tests.




But Darwin didn't have the advantage of knowing DNA and proteins. We do. It's been more than fifty years since we found a way for undirected chemical reactions to get amino acids. It's been a strangely long time to get to the next logical step.


How do you know we know everything we need to know to get to "the next logical step"?


Well, I suspect there isn't a means for abiogenesis to create biologically functional proteins (though I am not as confident as this as I am with DNA)--and if my suspicions are correct we will never have everything we need to know to get to that step because there's no way to get there.



You are a liar, once again. It is obvious that you have stole sections of other people's words and claimed them as your own.


Really? Please provide evidence for that. Please show where I claimed that I was the originator of those arguments.




Rubbish. Just because we don't have enough information does not mean something is unfalsifiable.


I notice you didn't answer my questions. Please think about this. If abiogenesis is falsifiable, what conceivable experiment could falsify it? "Please think up an experiment that would falsify abiogenesis." You can't think of one can you? Doesn't that strike you as a bit odd? You can't think of any conceivable experiment to falsify abiogenesis? Do you still believe abiogenesis is a falsifiable theory?



Why this focus on abiogenesis?

That's what you've been responding too, remember? I pointed out that my following belief: ID is scientifically superior to abiogenesis (being agnostic when it comes to orthodox macroevolution).

[TobiasTheViking]

Simple
Abiogenesis is science
Intelligent design isn't science.

nothing more too it.

[TobiasTheViking]

Theories cannot be proven in science.

Sorry?

Do you know what a theory is? Because that sentence makes no sence if you know what a theory is.

But you are right. Gravity us just a theory, it isn't proven by science. That is why i intend to jump of this 10 story building now, because it is just a theory, so i won't fall.

Sorry if i sound mean, but.. been over this so many times.

Sincerely
Tobias :)

[JohnF_73]

Abiogenesis at least has several plausible natural mechanisms through which it could happen, as well as minor (not conclusive by any means) bits of evidence in its favour.

I.D. has NOTHING.

[Tisthammerw]

It's not clear that abiogenesis offers more answers than ID anyway.


But your argument fails on the first example. The entire point of abiogenesis research is to suggest ways in which natural forces can construct complex proteins.


And we have no known means how complex proteins could be made via undirected chemical reactions. So my first example:

Q: How could abiogenesis make proteins?
A: Beats me.

Still seems to hold.





On the final step, you simply beg the question. If all life requires intelligence to produce it, then where did the first intelligence come from?


I don't claim that all life requires intelligence to produce it. You unwittingly misconstrued my position.



Assuming that it evolved on Earth might be a stretch, but pretending you don't need to even address the question is a dodge.


My point is that not knowing the identity/origins of the designer is not at all grounds to reject a design inference. Think back to the stainless steel Stonehenge example.





I should have worded it more carefully: I am an agnostic when it comes to orthodox macroevolution.


I'm sorry, but that only deepens my confusion.

Are you asserting that it has not been demonstrated that genetic distributions in a population change over time?


No.



I repeat; evolution (in the sense of macro-evolution) is an observed fact. Dogs. Anti-biotic resistant bacteria.


That is micro-evolution, not macro. I mean "macro" in the sense of creating new organs etc. I accept mircoevolution, as even ardent creationists do.




ID predicts the existence of "serious and significant" obstacles for naturalistic means


But that, in itself, is inadequate to demonstrate ID, insomuch as other theories could also predict obstacles.


The underdetermination of theories is hardly unique to ID. Alternate theories will always exist no matter what the data; this has long been recognized in the philosophy of science (though probably not as long as the fact that theories cannot be proven).

Incidentally, what alternate theory do you have in mind?


(such as the theory that figuring this stuff out is, like, really really hard).


That sounds more like an ad hoc hypothesis for abiogenesis rather than an entirely different theory. Incidentally, that seems a bit too much like an all-purpose ad hoc hypthesis. No known way for natural processes to create the Rosetta Stone? Well, figuring this stuff out is, like, really really hard.




Let me ask you the same question regarding abiogenesis. What positive evidence could exist there?


You've already answered this. If scientists can create protiens from molecules using only naturally available forces, then there you go.


Precisely! A known mechanism. But what if, as is actually the case, ID has more of a known mechanism than abiogenesis does? On what grounds would you say abiogenesis is scientifically superior to ID?






But let me ask you this: suppose you encountered the same response regarding the stainless steel replica of Stonehenge on Mars (going back to this scenario). Someone says intelligent design is not the answer and we should wait until we have that Grand Unified Theory of physics until we infer design. What would your response be?


My response would be, that is wholly irrelevant. Stonehenge is obviously a product of design, because it bears the hallmarks of design.


My response (playing devil's advocate). No, it does not bear any hallmarks of design. Your belief presents no evidence that it was designed, it presents claims that it could not have been created in any other way.

Your belief is not scientific or rational.



You're saying ID is not falsifiable?


It is not falsifiable, because any observation you make is consistent with it.


I'll give you one that isn't: we create an experiment showing how undirected chemical reactions could have created life. That would prove that intelligent causes are not necessary to create life (confer the definition I am using).




Without knowing what the designer was made of,


Now your theory of design is requiring you to doubt not only chemistry, but physics.


What? Where did that come from? What I was saying was "Without knowing what the designer was made of, it seems difficult to confirm or deny theories regarding the origins of the designers." None of this requires me to doubt chemistry or physics.




You are willing to admit that life evolved on other planets, but not on Earth?


Life of a type other than our own. Some forms of complexity require artificial intervention (as automobiles) others do not (as snowflakes). Perhaps the same is true for life.

Think of it this way. Robot life forms may require an intelligent designer, but us (if abiogenesis and evolution are true) do not. Some kinds of complexity require a designer and some do not.



There is a scientific theory that already covers this; the idea that life got its start from a meteorite, which itself was from a planet where conditions were in fact right to evolve life. But note how this in no way requires an intelligent designer.

In other words, if you concede life evolved on other planets, you are conceding the argument.


You misunderstand. I am talking about our kind of life--not life in general (see above). Suppose we move the theory of abiogenesis to anotehr planet. So what? My point is that moving the place of origin changes nothing. Moving the origins of an automobile wouldn't change my belief that the creation of automobiles requires artificial intervention. And just because I think automobiles must be intelligently designed doesn't mean I think the same goes for snowflakes.

[Tisthammerw]

Abiogenesis at least has several plausible natural mechanisms through which it could happen, as well as minor (not conclusive by any means) bits of evidence in its favour.

I.D. has NOTHING.

Not true. ID has more of a known mechanism (as for RNA and DNA) than abiogenesis does. Scientists already have known means to artificially create biologically functional proteins, RNA and DNA. Abiogenesis does not.

[Tisthammerw]

Simple
Abiogenesis is science
Intelligent design isn't science.


But why is this true? What makes one "science" and the other not? (Remember, keep in mind the definitions I'm using.)

[TobiasTheViking]

But why is this true? What makes one "science" and the other not? (Remember, keep in mind the definitions I'm using.)
you didn't define science. So i assume we are going to use the standard definition of science.

With the standard definition of science there is no theory for ID. Without a theory it isn't science.

[CFLarsen]

Set up a plausible starting point, and don't interfere. Keep your hands off, and see if undirected chemical reactions create life. If they do, intelligent design theory is falsified. If you can't understand that, I'm afraid I can't help you.

I understand perfectly. You can't just say "don't interfere", because that means that you know who the Intelligent Designer is.

But, since you say that you don't know who the Intelligent Designer is, you can't know if he interferes.

Theories cannot be proven in science.

Perhaps you mean you need to find the designer to rationally accept a design inference. But that appears false. Consider for instance the scenario (I described earlier) of finding a stainless steel replica of Stonehenge on Mars. We haven’t found the designer, we don’t know where the designer came from. But we a design inference is still rational to accept here.

Again, you are merely repeating your claim.

You're still making an inference (based on the marks on the stones).

No, I am not making an inference, because those marks are evidence that these stones are man-made.

In any case, none of that applies to the scenario of finding a stainless steel replica of Stonehenge on Mars.

Show me one, and I'll get back to you.

I never claimed I originated those arguments. I paraphrased what I read years ago; hence I am not guilty of plagiarism (contrary to what you accused me of).

Wrong. You plagizarized those arguments. That's called theft.

The same ones we have perhaps. Laboratories and mechanical equipment. I fully believe that scientists will find a way to artificially create life someday. Using such means is one way a designer could have created life via non-supernatural means.

Perhaps? Are you saying that life evolved because man did it? Aliens? Who?

Behe's ID claims (regarding irreducible complexity and the like) were obviously testable if they have failed such tests.

No, it was merely a strawman. It's an appeal to ignorance. "Look, here is something I don't understand. Oh, God did it!"

Well, I suspect there isn't a means for abiogenesis to create biologically functional proteins (though I am not as confident as this as I am with DNA)--and if my suspicions are correct we will never have everything we need to know to get to that step because there's no way to get there.

Why not? Again, you are merely repeating your claim. You don't explain anything.

Really? Please provide evidence for that. Please show where I claimed that I was the originator of those arguments.

I did. You know that. Don't play innocent.

I notice you didn't answer my questions. Please think about this. If abiogenesis is falsifiable, what conceivable experiment could falsify it? "Please think up an experiment that would falsify abiogenesis." You can't think of one can you? Doesn't that strike you as a bit odd? You can't think of any conceivable experiment to falsify abiogenesis? Do you still believe abiogenesis is a falsifiable theory?

Why wouldn't it be? All we have to do is find a way of creating life, test it and see if it works.

That's what you've been responding too, remember? I pointed out that my following belief: ID is scientifically superior to abiogenesis (being agnostic when it comes to orthodox macroevolution).

Abiogenesis has nothing to do with how species evolved!

[Nyarlathotep]

Because the mechanisms involved in abiogenesis (self replicating proteins) can be shown to exist. So far, an "Intelligent Designer" has not been shown to exist. Until a suitable candidate for an intelligent designer is shown to exist, ID will belong in the realm of philosophy, not science.

[Tisthammerw]

Or else the designer never began to exist--an infinite regression is not necessarily true. Or perhaps the designer is a type of life radically unlike our own: possessing a type of complexity that could be made naturally. In any case the origins of the designer at this point seem untestable.


In which case ID is not scientific.


But does this really make sense? Suppose we find a stainless steel replica of Stonehenge on Mars. We have no idea where the designer came from, and any theories thereof are not yet testable. Does this mean we should pretend that it wasn't designed?




Still, none of that appears to be any good reason to reject a design inference. Consider for instance the scenario of a stainless steel replica of Stonehenge on Mars. We don't know where the designer came from, but we know how a designer could make it and a design inference would still be rational.



You have still to show that.


What would make you reject a design inference?



As I said, simply show a means how undirected chemical reactions could create life from non-life.



How will you guarantee that no intelligence interfered with the process?


Observe the process closely, and shoot anyone who tries to interfere. (Kidding, but you get the point.)



What natural causes could an Intelligent Designer have?

How do you know we know everything we need to know to get to "the next logical step"?


Asked in answered in a previous post of this thread.

[TobiasTheViking]

Wait, after CFLarsens post i'm confused.


What do you want to discuss, ID VS Abiogenesis, or ID VS Evolution?

Choose one or the other, please.

[Tisthammerw]

With the standard definition of science there is no theory for ID. Without a theory it isn't science.

Please explain exactly why ID is not science. (E.g. explain your definition of science and why ID fails to meet it.)

[Stellafane]

Hi Tisthammerw. To answer the question in your OP: No, I do not believe intelligent design is scientifically superior to abiogenesis. If life on earth is the result of some intelligent creator, it raises the inevitable question: who is that creator? If it's an advanced civilization, that just moves the question of life's origin one level higher: who created them? And if it's some eternal, all-powerful entity that for the sake of brevity I'll call God, then it moves the question completely out of the realm of science and into the areas of religion, mysticism, and the paranormal (unless you're going to argue that God is a physical entity that can be discovered and studied scientifically, a position I can't recall ever hearing about before).

Abiogenisis is scientific because it is not necessarily unknowable (although admittedly, given the time interval involved, scientists have a number of pretty tough challenges ahead of them for the foreseeable future). For example, continued discoveries about the composition and nature of the primordial ooze might eventually lead scientists to better replicate the conditions of early Earth, perhaps ultimately resulting in the spontaneous creation of a simple life form. This would be very powerful evidence for abiogenisis, wouldn't you agree? Or perhaps someday we'll discover a planet much like Earth was some 3.5 billion years ago, and watch life spontaneously arise there. All this would be within the laws of physics and chemistry, and would prove life doesn't necessarily need an intelligent creator; natural physical processes could do the trick.

As for falsifiability -- I'm not sure exactly how that word is defined in this context, so I'll leave that for others to debate. I do know that it's very hard, perhaps impossible, to prove a negative, if that's what "falsify" means. I suppose this holds equally true, whether the thing being falsified is Bigfoot, UFO's, or abiogenisis -- or ID for that matter.

In my view, ID ultimately fails because it's a scientific dead-end. Sooner or later you have to deal with a creative force that itself wasn't created -- i.e. God. And when you reach that point, all further inquiry into the nature of this creator/God must be done outside the realm of the physical sciences. Abiogenisis, on the other hand, offers all sorts of fruitful lines of scientific inquiry -- the nature of the primordial ooze, the physical events necessary to spark life in this ooze, what other forms of life could arise spontaneously, what other planets could host such life forms, and so on. There's plenty there to study and learn and speculate about to keep us busy for generations. ID, in contrast, kind of ends the discussion on the spot -- it's intellectually impotent.

[Tisthammerw]

Wait, after CFLarsens post i'm confused.


What do you want to discuss, ID VS Abiogenesis, or ID VS Evolution?

ID vs. abiogenesis (hence the title of this thread).

[Dagny]

This might be obvious....but what about the Miller/Urey experiment?

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html

[gnome]

But why is this true? What makes one "science" and the other not? (Remember, keep in mind the definitions I'm using.)

Tests can be devised for the conclusions and implications of abiogenesis.

Is there a test for an intelligent designer?

[TobiasTheViking]

ID vs. abiogenesis (hence the title of this thread).
Then why are you dragging evolution into it?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Please explain exactly why ID is not science. (E.g. explain your definition of science and why ID fails to meet it.)

For ID to be a scientific theory it needs to make a prediction of evidence that can be observed as supporting, or falsifying, the prediction. ID does not make a testable prediction.

[TobiasTheViking]

Please explain exactly why ID is not science. (E.g. explain your definition of science and why ID fails to meet it.)
Definitions of science on the Web:

Science refers to either:* the scientific method – a process for evaluating empirical knowledge; or* the organized body of knowledge gained by this process.

systemized knowledge derived through experimentation, observation, and study. Also, the methodology used to acquire this knowledge.


ID does not have "A process for evaluating emperical knowledge" in the way it is done. There is no experimentation, and no real observations done.

Also, ID doesn't follow a scientific methodology. In that it doens't have a theory.

It can't be science without a theory.

This is the third time i say why it isn't science. If you want to go on with this, you prove to me it IS science, show me scientific theory behind ID. The burden of proof is on you, not me.

[TobiasTheViking]

This might be obvious....but what about the Miller/Urey experiment?

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html
ah yes, i could remember that, just not enough to find it, thanks for the link :D

[Tisthammerw]

Then why are you dragging evolution into it?

I'm not really, CFLarson is (despite my wishes).

[Tisthammerw]

Background: there’s the experiment to falsify ID. Show a means how undirected chemical reactions could produce life from non-life. That would demonstrate that intelligent causes are not necessary to create life.


I understand perfectly. You can't just say "don't interfere", [with the experiment] because that means that you know who the Intelligent Designer is.


Well, if any intelligent life form tries to interfere, I'd shoot him. (Kidding, but you get the idea).

I’m really not sure I understand your objection. “What if someone or something interferes with the experiment?” Well, what if they don’t? Won’t the experiment disprove intelligent design theory? That would mean the theory can be conceivably falsified via experimentation. It is possible to falsify the theory via an experiment.



No, I am not making an inference, because those marks are evidence that these stones are man-made.


And from that evidence you are making an inference, get it? By "inferring" I mean "to derive as a conclusion from facts or premises." And that's exactly what you did.



Wrong. You plagizarized those arguments.


This is getting annoying. Can you provide any shred of evidence that I plagiarized anything?

I didn't think so. So stop making these accusations.



Are you saying that life evolved because man did it?


No, I'm just saying that designing life does not require the supernatural.




Well, I suspect there isn't a means for abiogenesis to create biologically functional proteins (though I am not as confident as this as I am with DNA)--and if my suspicions are correct we will never have everything we need to know to get to that step because there's no way to get there.


Why not?


Well, if there's no way for abiogenesis to get there our knowledge is irrelevant: because we even if we know everything that won't change the facts.




Really? Please provide evidence for that. Please show where I claimed that I was the originator of those arguments.


I did.


Where? Which post number? Where did I claim to be the originator of those arguments that I paraphrased?

You never did provide any evidence of me plagiarizing anything. That's why you won't provide any evidence here or elsewhere. This is simply an overreaction arising out of heated emotions.




I notice you didn't answer my questions. Please think about this. If abiogenesis is falsifiable, what conceivable experiment could falsify it? "Please think up an experiment that would falsify abiogenesis." You can't think of one can you? Doesn't that strike you as a bit odd? You can't think of any conceivable experiment to falsify abiogenesis? Do you still believe abiogenesis is a falsifiable theory?


Why wouldn't it be?


Well, because there's no possible experiment that would disprove the theory?

Now answer my questions please. Can you think of any experiment that would falsify abiogenesis? If not, doesn't it strike you as a bit odd that you can't think of any conceivable experiment to falsify abiogenesis? Do you still believe abiogenesis is a falsifiable theory?



Abiogenesis has nothing to do with how species evolved!

Fine, but so what? Read the title of this thread please.

[Tisthammerw]

This might be obvious....but what about the Miller/Urey experiment?

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html

The Miller-Urey experiment proved there exists a known means where undirected chemical reactions can create amino acids.

Unfortunately, the same isn't true of biologically functioning proteins, RNA and DNA (abiogenesis runs into chemical problems)--whereas ID does have known mechanisms for those.

[Tisthammerw]

For ID to be a scientific theory it needs to make a prediction of evidence that can be observed as supporting, or falsifying, the prediction. ID does not make a testable prediction.

Its makes two of them:

(1) We will never find a means for undirected chemical reactions to create life from non-life, because artificial intervention is necessary (note: if this prediction is falsified, ID is falsified)

(2) Because artificial intervention is necessary, we should find serious and significant obstacles to the naturalistic formation of life.

Significant barriers exists for e.g. getting functional proteins, RNA and DNA via undirected chemical reactions (though ID has a known means to create them) and the first prediction has been confirmed as well.

This might not seem like much on the surface, but what evidence does abiogenesis have? What confirmed predictions does it make that make it a better scientific theory than intelligent design?

Also, intelligent design is falsifiable, unlike abiogenesis.

[Tisthammerw]

Definitions of science on the Web:

Science refers to either:* the scientific method – a process for evaluating empirical knowledge; or* the organized body of knowledge gained by this process.

systemized knowledge derived through experimentation, observation, and study. Also, the methodology used to acquire this knowledge.

ID does not have "A process for evaluating emperical knowledge"...There is no experimentation


Theories by themselves are incapable of evaluating empirical knowledge, doing experiments etc.--that's what scientists do. Perhaps ID's adherents are guilty of not following proper scientific methodology--but that says something about the adherents, not about the theory (confer the ad hominem fallacy).

What makes the theory of intelligent design less science than abiogenesis? What makes abiogenesis scientifically superior to intelligent design?

[Dogdoctor]

There is a simple way to resolve this. Have god create some life out of nothing and doccument it. Case closed :)

[Tisthammerw]

Hi Tisthammerw. To answer the question in your OP: No, I do not believe intelligent design is scientifically superior to abiogenesis. If life on earth is the result of some intelligent creator, it raises the inevitable question: who is that creator? If it's an advanced civilization, that just moves the question of life's origin one level higher: who created them?


But why does that make intelligent design illegitimate?

Think of it this way. Suppose we find stainless steel replica of Stonehenge on Mars. We have no clue who the designer is or where it came from. Does that mean a design inference is irrational?

True, we may not yet be in a position to tell where the designer came from. Maybe the designer was an alien with a type of complexity radically unlike our own--one that could have been formed naturally. Maybe not. There's no way of knowing. But even if we can't identify the origins of the designer, that doesn't make a design inference illegitimate (confer the steel Stonehenge scenario).



Abiogenisis is scientific because it is not necessarily unknowable (although admittedly, given the time interval involved, scientists have a number of pretty tough challenges ahead of them for the foreseeable future).


Abiogenesis could still contain unanswered questions. For instance, ID might have the designer, abiogenesis has natural processes. Where did those processes come from? Perhaps X created those natural processes. Where did X come from? Y created X. Where did Y come from? And so forth.


For example, continued discoveries about the composition and nature of the primordial ooze might eventually lead scientists to better replicate the conditions of early Earth, perhaps ultimately resulting in the spontaneous creation of a simple life form.


Perhaps we will find a means how abiogenesis could have happened--but the same is true for intelligent design. In fact when it comes to having a known mechanism, ID has abiogenesis beat (e.g. when it comes to RNA and DNA).


This would be very powerful evidence for abiogenisis, wouldn't you agree?


I sure do. That would be powerful evidence. And if it existed not only would abiogenesis be scientifically superior to ID, ID would be downright falsified.

Problem is that evidence doesn't exist. What current evidence do we have that makes abiogenesis scientifically superior to ID?



As for falsifiability -- I'm not sure exactly how that word is defined in this context, so I'll leave that for others to debate.


In short, to prove false. How do prove that intelligent causes aren't necessary to create life? Conduct an experiment showing how life could be created via undirected chemical reactions. ID is falsified.

There's no experiment that can falsify abiogenesis. Even if abiogenesis was utterly horribly wrong, there's no way to prove that's the case. That doesn't mean abiogenesis isn't a scientific theory, but falsifiability is generally considered a good characteristic of a scientific theory (though to be fair, its importance has been exaggerated).



In my view, ID ultimately fails because it's a scientific dead-end. Sooner or later you have to deal with a creative force that itself wasn't created -- i.e. God.


Just because something was artificially created doesn't mean a deity did it. Life on Earth being intelligently designed is no different. There's always the chance that the designer is of a complexity radically unlike our own--a complexity that could have been formed naturally.



Abiogenisis, on the other hand, offers all sorts of fruitful lines of scientific inquiry-- the nature of the primordial ooze, the physical events necessary to spark life in this ooze, what other forms of life could arise spontaneously


All of which have landed in dead ends (at least so far). Despite more than half a century of research, we have yet to find any ooze that can spontaneously produce life (or even RNA) or any physical events that could do so in this said ooze.

Don't pick the fruit before it's ripe.



ID, in contrast, kind of ends the discussion on the spot -- it's intellectually impotent.

Not necessarily. We could do research on how life could be created artificially, examine the obstacles that make naturalistic formation infeasible, etc.

[Tisthammerw]

There is a simple way to resolve this. Have god create some life out of nothing and doccument it. Case closed :)

Note how I defined intelligent design (the first post); no gods required.

[Dogdoctor]

Note how I defined intelligent design (the first post); no gods required.
Ok so then pick the intelligent designer of your choice to participate in the experiment.

[athon]

I've skipped a lot of the posts here just to make a comment.

Where would you determine 'life' being formed? How complicated does a chemical reaction need to be for you to determine it to be living?

Nucleic acid reactions qualify as life if you look at the fact that they replicate and consume energy to do so, with mistakes being made in the process. While it is practically impossible to demonstrate the presence of nucleic acid in early-earth conditions, there are numerous reasons (a wealth of circumstantial evidence) to assume forms of nucleic acid polymers could form naturally in those conditions as a standard chemical reaction.

There are no other chemical reactions as complicated as those we describe as a collective living process. However, this does not mean simple chemistry cannot explain it. Hence the term 'abiogenesis' is misleading; there is no single boundary between chemistry and life.

Athon

[Suezoled]

Its makes two of them:

(1) We will never find a means for undirected chemical reactions to create life from non-life, because artificial intervention is necessary (note: if this prediction is falsified, ID is falsified)

(2) Because artificial intervention is necessary, we should find serious and significant obstacles to the naturalistic formation of life.

Significant barriers exists for e.g. getting functional proteins, RNA and DNA via undirected chemical reactions (though ID has a known means to create them) and the first prediction has been confirmed as well.

This might not seem like much on the surface, but what evidence does abiogenesis have? What confirmed predictions does it make that make it a better scientific theory than intelligent design?

Also, intelligent design is falsifiable, unlike abiogenesis.

1.) Have you looked in my fridge lately?
Means for non-directed chemical reactions... are you saying this is influenced by an outside source (say, lightening striking a beaker and setting off a reaction that will compose life) or that the attractive/repulsive forces of the molecules composing the chemicals is not sufficient to induce a reaction between elements to eventually form life? Did you take into account stability/instability of structures? Mutation? The sheer mathematical probability against humans coming about in the first place? The odds do appear to be against an organized life form ever coming about; the odds that it only took one try is even lesser.

2.) this is a postulate that assumes the first part is true.

[gnome]

Background: there’s the experiment to falsify ID. Show a means how undirected chemical reactions could produce life from non-life. That would demonstrate that intelligent causes are not necessary to create life.

That would not falsify ID--just because it could happen in other ways, would not rule out ID.

To argue that ID was falsifiable, you would need to describe a test that confirmed the implications of ID.

[athon]

Think of it this way. Suppose we find stainless steel replica of Stonehenge on Mars. We have no clue who the designer is or where it came from. Does that mean a design inference is irrational?

It is a rational hypothesis that requires evidence. Like Intelligent Design. If a proposition is made then it requires evidence for support. Not a difficult thing to grasp.

If Steel Henge is found on Mars, it could also be proposed that it is due to natural phenomena. Simply because it looks like somebody built it does not make it so (c.f. Giant's Causeway in the UK). If there are other examples of such a phenomenom existing in nature, and no other reason for intelligence can be described, then it falls aside as a rational explanation.

Abiogenesis could still contain unanswered questions. For instance, ID might have the designer, abiogenesis has natural processes. Where did those processes come from? Perhaps X created those natural processes. Where did X come from? Y created X. Where did Y come from? And so forth.

That's not Intelligent Design, though. That's Deisim. Could some intelligence have set up all the rules and just said 'go'. Sure; science has no say in the origins of laws at this stage. We can only observe them and speculate. So if it makes your heart glow warmly to think God established the laws to nature, go for it.

We are describing those laws, however. And ID describes interference, not establishment.

Perhaps we will find a means how abiogenesis could have happened--but the same is true for intelligent design. In fact when it comes to having a known mechanism, ID has abiogenesis beat (e.g. when it comes to RNA and DNA).

There is ample evidence for 'abiogenesis' (see my earlier post). There is zero evidence for intelligence.

Problem is that evidence doesn't exist. What current evidence do we have that makes abiogenesis scientifically superior to ID?

The problem is, the evidence you are asking for is 'show me in a test tube'. If it were a court case, it would be like asking 'show me the video tape of it happening'. Some forms of evidence are impractical. Physical evidence for abiogenesis relies on a whole range of evidence, not a single witnessed event (such as rapid recreation of the event).

We know that complicated organic chemicals do not require living processes to be produced, and can exist in a wide range of environments such as pre-biotic Earth.

We also know that many of these organic chemicals are interactive and can polymerise easily.

Many variations of certain organic acids have demonstrated chemical interactions in test tubes that are required for a replication process, not just amino and nucleic acids.

Chemical laws dictate that the more efficient a reaction, the more substrates it will produce, hence outcompeting other reactions which utilise the same reagents (i.e., competition is not biological, but chemical).

In short, to prove false. How do prove that intelligent causes aren't necessary to create life? Conduct an experiment showing how life could be created via undirected chemical reactions. ID is falsified.

ID cannot be falsified. As I said, it requires evidence for it to become the preferred model. As it does not even present a proper model to beging with, it is already at a huge disadvantage. Could the universe have been created by intelligence? Sure. How would we know the difference?

But that is not a scientific model.

All of which have landed in dead ends (at least so far). Despite more than half a century of research, we have yet to find any ooze that can spontaneously produce life (or even RNA) or any physical events that could do so in this said ooze.

That's a very pretty straw-man argument. Nice hat. Now, do you have any desire to put him to one side so we can discuss how science really works?

Not necessarily. We could do research on how life could be created artificially, examine the obstacles that make naturalistic formation infeasible, etc.

Again, define the point at which you would call it life.

Athon

[Stellafane]

But why does that make intelligent design illegitimate?

Think of it this way. Suppose we find stainless steel replica of Stonehenge on Mars. We have no clue who the designer is or where it came from. Does that mean a design inference is irrational?

True, we may not yet be in a position to tell where the designer came from. Maybe the designer was an alien with a type of complexity radically unlike our own--one that could have been formed naturally. Maybe not. There's no way of knowing. But even if we can't identify the origins of the designer, that doesn't make a design inference illegitimate (confer the steel Stonehenge scenario).

A steel Stonehenge on Mars would certainly raise the immediate question of who created it (and needless to say would shake the scientific community to its core searching for answers). But I'm sure you can anticipate my response: we haven't found steel Stonehenges in Mars, and I'd wager we never will. Life, on the other hand, is an obvious reality. And for me, the fact that life exists on Earth is eminently more explainable in naturalistic terms than a Stonehenge on Mars would be.


Abiogenesis could still contain unanswered questions. For instance, ID might have the designer, abiogenesis has natural processes. Where did those processes come from? Perhaps X created those natural processes. Where did X come from? Y created X. Where did Y come from? And so forth.

Here I think the argument turns philosophical. I'm comfortable with accepting that natural processes are simply characteristics of the material universe we happen to live in. To me, they don't require an intelligent creator, they just are, so to speak. If you believe that natural processes must be the products of an intelligent creator, then we probably must agree to disagree -- I don't think there's any way to prove our points scientifically (other than for me to say "Prove God did it" and have you retort "prove God didn't," resulting in an impasse).


Perhaps we will find a means how abiogenesis could have happened--but the same is true for intelligent design. In fact when it comes to having a known mechanism, ID has abiogenesis beat (e.g. when it comes to RNA and DNA).

I don't agree. ID has a postulated mechanism; abiogenesis has several in-progress theories. Neither has a known mechanism.


I sure do. That would be powerful evidence. And if it existed not only would abiogenesis be scientifically superior to ID, ID would be downright falsified.

Believe it or not, I don't agree. Spontaneous generation would only prove that an intelligent designer isn't a necessary part of the equation. ID still might be a viable option -- who can say it hasn't happened sometime, somewhere? This is why I stated ID is impossible to completely falsify. All you can do is prove it isn't the only way (although in doing so, some may find ID a far harder theory to support).


Problem is that evidence doesn't exist. What current evidence do we have that makes abiogenesis scientifically superior to ID?

Actually, we have quite a bit of evidence that organic molecules, the precursors of life, arise through naturalistic processes. We just haven't "gone all the way" yet and have something crawl out of the test tube (figuratively speaking). But ultimately, that's irrelevant. What makes abiogenesis scientific is that it allows us to theorize and test, using known physical laws. The reason I say ID isn't scientific is that it eventually runs up against a philosophical dead end -- God did it -- beyond which no further scientific inquiry is possible.


In short, to prove false. How do prove that intelligent causes aren't necessary to create life? Conduct an experiment showing how life could be created via undirected chemical reactions. ID is falsified.

As I stated previously, I don't agree. Randi bends spoons using conjouring tricks. It doesn't prove Uri Geller can't do it with his mind; it only proves that mind power isn't necessary to do it. The same is true for abiogenisis and ID.


There's no experiment that can falsify abiogenesis. Even if abiogenesis was utterly horribly wrong, there's no way to prove that's the case. That doesn't mean abiogenesis isn't a scientific theory, but falsifiability is generally considered a good characteristic of a scientific theory (though to be fair, its importance has been exaggerated).

I believe the same can be said for ID, as I've explained.


Just because something was artificially created doesn't mean a deity did it. Life on Earth being intelligently designed is no different. There's always the chance that the designer is of a complexity radically unlike our own--a complexity that could have been formed naturally.

But isn't that another form of abiogenesis? Perhaps life did not arise spontaneously on Earth, but was created elsewhere and sent here. (No less a figure than Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, promoted this theory, called "directed panspermia.") But even if that's true, and whoever or whatever created life on Earth was created via natural processes, then we're back to abiogenesis -- life arose where no life previously existed (or at a minimum, intelligence arose where none previously existed -- which raises the additional question of how intelligence can exist without life).


All of which have landed in dead ends (at least so far). Despite more than half a century of research, we have yet to find any ooze that can spontaneously produce life (or even RNA) or any physical events that could do so in this said ooze.

Don't pick the fruit before it's ripe.

Yes, but all this means is that we don't know everything yet. Abiogenesis still gives us many avenues to explore, and in bits and pieces it appears we're making progress towards figuring out how life began. That's what makes it scientific. ID, on the other hand, offers no such avenues -- God did it, case closed. Also, if you're implying ID serves as a stop-gap measure until we manage to produce life through abiogenesis, then that doesn't really say much for ID, does it -- it'll do for now until something better comes along. (Forgive me if I've misunderstood your point here.)

[Tricky]

Background: there’s the experiment to falsify ID. Show a means how undirected chemical reactions could produce life from non-life. That would demonstrate that intelligent causes are not necessary to create life.
So is this the only way you will accept falsification of ID, by having abiogenesis happen again without any sort of experimental modeling?

Well sure. Just wait around for a few hundred million years and make sure you observe every protein on the planet for that whole time. I'm sure that will convince you.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Its makes two of them:

(1) We will never find a means for undirected chemical reactions to create life from non-life, because artificial intervention is necessary (note: if this prediction is falsified, ID is falsified)

(2) Because artificial intervention is necessary, we should find serious and significant obstacles to the naturalistic formation of life.

Significant barriers exists for e.g. getting functional proteins, RNA and DNA via undirected chemical reactions (though ID has a known means to create them) and the first prediction has been confirmed as well.

This might not seem like much on the surface, but what evidence does abiogenesis have? What confirmed predictions does it make that make it a better scientific theory than intelligent design?

Also, intelligent design is falsifiable, unlike abiogenesis.

Allow me to restate your reasoning, but in a different context:

(1) We will never find a means for detecting the dragon in my garage, because the dragon is invisible, flies, and whose fire does not give off heat (note: if this prediction is falsified, ID is falsified)

(2) Because the dragon is invisible, flies and has fire that does not emit heat, we should find serious and significant obstacles to the detection of the dragon in my garage.

[Wowbagger]

Pardon me for butting in here, but I theorize this whole thread could save itself a lot of grief if everyone understands a few things:

First a common cliché:
All models are inaccurate. Some models are merely more useful than others.

As a model for describing the origins of life, evolution (and one of its original "cranes*", named on this thread as "abiogenesis") may not have all the answers to every question, yet. Although, in principal it could. So far, such models have been extremely useful in describing how life forms could have originated. And such information is thus useful for understanding and preserving life.

Intelligent Design, on the other hand, offers nothing useful. It basically says, (to partly paraphrase Tisthammerw) "We'll never figure out how life began, therefore we shouldn't even try." That is not science. That is an excuse for not doing science.

Could another model possibly be developed in the future that will make "abiogenesis" and "natural selection" seem quaint and inaccurate? Maybe. But, for such a model to come along, it has to be scientifically accurate (thus "useful") in the extreme! And skyhook* shortcuts such as I.D. won't cut it.

* Read Darwin's Dangerous Idea, by Daniel C. Dennett for an explanation of the crane / skyhook analogy. In fact, you should read the book, anyway, even if you don't care about the analogy.

[bobdroege7]

What if you did an experiment, took a beaker and added the primordial ooze, waited awhile, and found life in there?

Which would this validate?

Intelligent Design or Abiogenisis?

Only IAMME knows

[Mojo]

And we have no known means how complex proteins could be made via undirected chemical reactions. So my first example:

Q: How could abiogenesis make proteins?
A: Beats me.

Still seems to hold. And there you have the whole argument for ID in a nutshell: "beats me".

[Mojo]

I don't claim that all life requires intelligence to produce it. But the basic argument from incredulity/ignorance behind ID kind of requires it, doesn't it?

[CFLarsen]

Intelligent design: the belief that intelligent causes are necessary for the creation of life on Earth.

This is not the definition of ID other people use. Call it "Intelligent Abiogenesis Design".

But does this really make sense? Suppose we find a stainless steel replica of Stonehenge on Mars. We have no idea where the designer came from, and any theories thereof are not yet testable. Does this mean we should pretend that it wasn't designed?

I don't care if you don't think it makes sense.

As I said, simply show a means how undirected chemical reactions could create life from non-life.

But they have. All scientific evidence points in this direction. We have no reason to introduce an intelligent designer, because we have seen no evidence of one such.

Observe the process closely, and shoot anyone who tries to interfere. (Kidding, but you get the point.)

No, I don't get the point. Because we have observed natural processes closely and we have not found evidence of any intelligent designer. You postulate that one exists. How will you guarantee that he doesn't interfer?

You can't.

Therefore, your argument is invalid.

Asked in answered in a previous post of this thread.

What is the post number?

But why is this true? What makes one "science" and the other not? (Remember, keep in mind the definitions I'm using.)

It is futile to discuss your made-up definitions. Either you discuss from commonly accepted definitions, or you don't discuss at all.

Not true. ID has more of a known mechanism (as for RNA and DNA) than abiogenesis does. Scientists already have known means to artificially create biologically functional proteins, RNA and DNA. Abiogenesis does not.

It is not a known mechanism. It is a postulated mechanism, namely an intelligent designer. Which nobody can test for.


I’m really not sure I understand your objection. “What if someone or something interferes with the experiment?” Well, what if they don’t? Won’t the experiment disprove intelligent design theory? That would mean the theory can be conceivably falsified via experimentation. It is possible to falsify the theory via an experiment.

The question is not if they interfere or not. The question is, how will you test if they interfere? You can't.

And from that evidence you are making an inference, get it? By "inferring" I mean "to derive as a conclusion from facts or premises." And that's exactly what you did.

If that's your take on it, what do you base your inference on? That there just has to be an intelligent design, because you can't see it any other way?

This is getting annoying. Can you provide any shred of evidence that I plagiarized anything?

I didn't think so. So stop making these accusations.

Here you go. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1633500#post1633500)

No, I'm just saying that designing life does not require the supernatural.

If you introduce an intelligent designer, it does. Because then, you won't have any need for natural laws to explain the universe. All you need to do is say "Hey, here is something I don't understand. It must be the Intelligent Designer who dood it!"

Well, if there's no way for abiogenesis to get there our knowledge is irrelevant: because we even if we know everything that won't change the facts.

How can you be so sure? We discovered genetics and a loooot of other things. Why are you so sure we won't discover this?

If your argument is simply "It can't, because I say so", well...it's not really convincing.

Where? Which post number? Where did I claim to be the originator of those arguments that I paraphrased?

When you don't tell us that you have gotten your arguments - even whole lines - from somewhere else, then you are plagiarizing.

You never did provide any evidence of me plagiarizing anything. That's why you won't provide any evidence here or elsewhere. This is simply an overreaction arising out of heated emotions.

Go look at the link I just provided.

Well, because there's no possible experiment that would disprove the theory?

This is your whole argument: Appeal to ignorance. You can't fathom it, so it can't be possible.

Fine, but so what? Read the title of this thread please.

It is futile to discuss your own definitions. Stick to the commonly accepted definitions.

[Darat]

Not as an appeal to authority but simply as a clear and precise example of the arguments you need to overcome if you want to establish or make the claim that "Inteliigent Design" is a scientific theory can be found in this document: http://forums.randi.org/dovertrial/decision.pdf in particular see page 64, section 4

....snip....

4. Whether ID is Science
After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that
while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.
...snip...

[clarsct]

Wow.

Ok, so who designed the designer that designed the designer that designed the designer that designed the designer...etc. ?

Simple sugars CAN arise from random reactions. Ribose isn't THAT complex a sugar. Ribose polymerization isn't difficult science, either.

We KNOW amino acids can arise from simple chemical reactions.

Is it really that hard to believe?

ID makes no testable predictions. This is a hallmark of science. Einstein made testable predictions. Newton made testable predicitions. ID make none, nor do the proponents of ID. I can measure the gravitaional field of a body, and it conforms to certain laws. We can measure the increase in mass an object has as we accelerate it to near-light speeds. We have, and indeed do, so.

Abiogenesis predicts that complex molecules can arise through sheer chemical reaction.

This is TRUE, and shown to be true. We can study and measure this, and we have before.

What does ID predict that we can show to be true, that we can measure and study?
Anything at all?

I will await your answer with anticipation.

[asmodean]

One thing hit me, the statment that "abiogensis is not falsifiable". Which I'd say is true since Abiognesis is, to use a bit of sloppy language, the name of the set of theories dealing with the origin of simple self-replicating molecules. The different theories (and hypothesis) that would be classified as Abiognesis theories may indeed be falsifiable.

Urey-Miller might be flawed in some way, but there's been a little bit of progress since than, and they did show that chemical processes was enough to form amino acids, which IMO is a good first step.

[Anacoluthon64]

A few comments:

Tisthammerw, your repeated insistence on the hypothetical case of finding a stainless steel replica of Stonehenge on Mars is just William Paley's Argument from Design dressed up for modern times. It has no weight. It has been refuted many times. It is based on a false analogy. It is entirely unconvincing. Why? Mainly because life (whatever its defining characteristics may be) is nothing like a stainless steel replica - there is no functional basis for comparison between the two.

Your "testable predictions of ID" are ably shown to be hollow by Arkan_Wolfshade, but let me add a point or two. The first prediction, i.e. that "[We] will never find a means for undirected chemical reactions to create life from non-life," isn't testable at all in any practical sense because "never" is a really long time. As for "[b]ecause artificial intervention is necessary, we should find serious and significant obstacles to the naturalistic formation of life," I think we would rather find insurmountable obstacles. But how would these obstacles manifest themselves? How would we know that they are insurmountable? At best, such terminal impediments can only inferred on the basis of other knowledge, which itself may be flawed or incomplete - witness, for comparison, current speculations about tachyons, which, if true, would point to the incompleteness of relativity. The point here is that both your "predictions" assert an effectively untestable negative.

Also, you repeatedly pose the question, "Can you think of any experiment that would falsify abiogenesis?" As it stands, this is like simply asking for ice cream without specifying anything about the desired flavour. For example, a specific instance of a Miller-Urey type experiment has the potential to shed light on the factors or mechanisms that prevent life from being formed in the particular configuration being investigated. In other words, it can falsify a proposed hypothesis that abiogenesis can occur in such-and-such circumstances. Without comparable restrictions, you might as well ask if there's any feasible experiment that would falsify solipsism.

Finally, even if ID and abiogenesis were equally plausible in all other respects, abiogenesis would still be scientifically superior. Again why? Because it makes fewer prefatory assumptions, and therefore is easier to slice up with Occam's Razor. As others have pointed out more than once, ID requires that you first demonstrate the existence of an entity with the capacity for appropriate design before you can begin crediting such an entity with the ability to actually produce life.

'Luthon64

[Dr Richard]

[QUOTE=Tisthammerw;1633034]But why does that make intelligent design illegitimate?

In short, to prove false. How do prove that intelligent causes aren't necessary to create life? Conduct an experiment showing how life could be created via undirected chemical reactions. ID is falsified.


/QUOTE]

This statement is obviously false, but it goes to the heart of why ID is a non-theory and therefore scientifically invalid.

Please explain why, according to you, the demonstration of abiogenesis would falsify ID?

Why cannot the ID proponent simply claim that *in the instance of Earth* the (Flying Spaghetti Monster/insert other intelligent designer as required) did indeed create life. The demonstration of abiogenesis does not falsify this claim.

Indeed, given the omnipotence proposed by FSM theory, it is quite possible for the FSM to (undetectably) interfere with a a scientific abiogenesis experiment and produce life within it unknown to the observers.

Can you see the problem with hypothesising unknown designers of unknown powers? Can you see why this results in logical absurdities?

[Mojo]

ID has more of a known mechanism (as for RNA and DNA) than abiogenesis does.You say this, but your proposed mechanism seems to require the existence of living scientists. Can you suggest a mechanism that would allow ID to play a role in the origin of life?

[Harlequin]

I don't claim that all life requires intelligence to produce it. You unwittingly misconstrued my position.
****SNIP****
Life of a type other than our own. Some forms of complexity require artificial intervention (as automobiles) others do not (as snowflakes). Perhaps the same is true for life.

Hold on, you admit that life can form without an intelligent designer, right?
How is that different from abiogenesis?:confused:

So, you claim that our type of life is some how different from other types of life because we need to be created?

Aren't we special.:rolleyes:

[CFLarsen]

I have a feeling tisthammer is going to be really busy in the near future...

[rocketdodger]

Anyway, there’s a question I’ve been meaning to ask anyway: why is abiogenesis scientifically superior to intelligent design?


Wowbagger is actually the first person in this thread to offer you a valid explanation. He beat me to the punch.

All of the criticisms of ID made thus far are irrelevant to your question, which I am sure you know. You have made a very good case and except for wowbagger nobody has given you an argument winning answer.

It is impossible to prove that we are the result of either ID or abiogenesis in a philosophical sense, so it is pointless even arguing about it. Unfortunately, most of the posts in this thread have been about that.

To answer the question that CFLarson has been dodging: no, it is not possible to disprove abiogenesis from either a theoretical or empirical standpoint. The best we could do is "find out that it is very unlikely given what we know." Thus, from the standpoint of being proven false, abiogenesis is no better than ID. Only with regards to being proven true is abiogenesis likely to be better off.

But in any case the best we can do is show that it is possible that we are the result of either ID or abiogenesis in a scientific sense. I say this is the "best" because both since both theories are impossible to disprove this is where science becomes philosophy.

It is known that we cannot have all the answers regarding our existence. I don't know why everyone against ID keeps repeating this "who is the designer of the designer" question because abiogenesis suffers from the exact same problem.

What wowbagger brings up, and many scientist-philosophers know, is that science is NOT concerned with being right in an absolute sense. Indeed, it can be shown that in our logical system such truth is impossible to achieve. Rather, science is simply concerned with offering an honest person the most utility.

In our current world, an honest person can get the most utility out of a model that explains existence well enough for that person to predict and shape the future. The better the model lets us predict and shape, the more useful. So the bottom line is, a "better scientific theory" only means "a theory that we find more useful in predicting and shaping the future."

In this respect, as wowbagger says, abiogenesis *is* superior to ID. This doesn't have to do with the theories, however. It has to do with how people go about interpreting them.

Abiogenesis is very useful because, in pursuit of a scientific proof of it, we are learning all sorts of stuff about biological chemistry.

ID, on the other hand, is not useful in the typical way the theory is used. There are a few reasons for this. One is that general ID is already known to be possible insofar as we have observed it, which is actually (as you point out) farther than abiogenesis has made it. But we have NOT observed any other designers besides ourselves, and this is a huge obstacle. Another is that usually ID is unfortunately (as the skeptics here point out) simply an "I don't understand, so lets say god did it" argument. Because of all this, in our current society we simply do not gain as much utility from ID as we do from abiogenesis.

As a final note, however, I would like to say that if there were more people like you this might change. If many intelligent people, instead of simply regressing to the "god" idea, pursued evidence for our ID in a scientific way, it is quite possible and quite probable that we would learn many new things of great utility.

In fact I could make the claim that pursuing scientific evidence of our ID would now be of more utility than pursuing further evidence of abiogenesis. This is because abiogenesis is nested in between other areas of science. As soon as we get an experiment to show it occuring, we are done. End of discussion. The questions of "where did the chemicals come from" and "how did basic biochemicals macro-evolve into my consciousness" are for other branches of science, and they may or may not decide to pursue them. ID, on the other hand, is at the fringe and can only push the envelope -- there are no other areas of science that it can "pass the buck" to. A legitimate pursuit of answers in the ID realm would involve much more radical and thus possibly beneficial endeavors. Unfortunately, there are very few ID supporters intelligent enough to do it.

[Darat]

...snip...

It is impossible to prove that we are the result of either ID or abiogenesis in a philosophical sense, so it is pointless even arguing about it. Unfortunately, most of the posts in this thread have been about that.

...snip...

However the question he asked was not a philosophical question so whether it has a "philosophical" (I believe you really mean metaphysical) answer of not is irrelevant to that question.

[rocketdodger]

However the question he asked was not a philosophical question so whether it has a "philosophical" (I believe you really mean metaphysical) answer of not is irrelevant to that question.

I agree but this is actually my point -- the arguments people have been using against ID as a scientific theory are in my opinion more philosophical (metaphysical) than scientific.

[Darat]

...snip..


It is known that we cannot have all the answers regarding our existence.


...snip...

That is nothing more then an assumption.


What wowbagger brings up, and many scientist-philosophers know, is that science is NOT concerned with being right in an absolute sense.


I think you will find most if not all the participants in this thread on this forum are well aware of this.


Indeed, it can be shown that in our logical system such truth is impossible to achieve.

...snip...


A contradictory statement.


In our current world, an honest person can get the most utility out of a model that explains existence well enough for that person to predict and shape the future. The better the model lets us predict and shape, the more useful. So the bottom line is, a "better scientific theory" only means "a theory that we find more useful in predicting and shaping the future."


I don't think anyone in this thread (except perhaps Tisthammerw) would argue for anything else.


In this respect, as wowbagger says, abiogenesis *is* superior to ID. This doesn't have to do with the theories, however. It has to do with how people go about interpreting them.


No it isn't. If your point is correct you will be able to tell me what predictions ID actually makes; one of its failings (in being considered a scientific theory) is that it is a "theory" that does not lead to making any predictions about the world. It is nothing more then a statement.


...snip..

ID, on the other hand, is not useful in the typical way the theory is used.
...snip..

You contradict yourself - here you are saying that it is a "weaker" theory then abiogenesis using the standard you gave just a couple of paragraphs above.


There are a few reasons for this. One is that general ID is already known to be possible insofar as we have observed it, which is actually (as you point out) farther than abiogenesis has made it.


Please show me a life form that we have created. To date we have not created life in a laboratory by any method. (And by life I use the standard scientific definition e.g. the one that means it is a blurred line wether virus should be classed as "alive" or not.)


But we have NOT observed any other designers besides ourselves, and this is a huge obstacle. Another is that usually ID is unfortunately (as the skeptics here point out) simply an "I don't understand, so lets say god did it" argument. Because of all this, in our current society we simply do not gain as much utility from ID as we do from abiogenesis.


No we gain no "utility" from it because according to your definition it makes no predictions so it has no utility. To refute this you will need to tell me what predictions ID makes.


As a final note, however, I would like to say that if there were more people like you this might change. If many intelligent people, instead of simply regressing to the "god" idea, pursued evidence for our ID in a scientific way, it is quite possible and quite probable that we would learn many new things of great utility.

...snip...


How since it is not a theory that makes any predictions?

[drfrank]

Anyway, there’s a question I’ve been meaning to ask anyway: why is abiogenesis scientifically superior to intelligent design?
Ooh, ooh, I think I have a good answer!

...because abiogenesis actually has a f***ing research budget that people do research with, rather than only a PR budget designed for pushing their `theory' into schools.

Until anyone involved with ID does some peer-reviewed research then this entire discussion is a little moot.

[rocketdodger]

That is nothing more then an assumption.

It is not an assumption it is a provable logical statement. I will tell you what someone else in these forums once told ME -- see Godel's theorem.


I think you will find most if not all the participants in this thread on this forum are well aware of this.

For further reference, I know. I am one of YOU guys Darat! I was directly addressing tist' here. Whenever I make a similar statement (something that is obvious to most of us), you can assume that I am addressing the thread starter.


A contradictory statement.


I see how you can consider the statement contradictory, but actually I don't think it is. I mean that we can prove using our logical system that we can't ever know the whole truth outside our logical system. Basically Godel's theorem.


Please show me a life form that we have created. To date we have not created life in a laboratory by any method. (And by life I use the standard scientific definition e.g. the one that means it is a blurred line wether virus should be classed as "alive" or not.)

I could be mistaken but I thought abiogenesis refers only to the evolution of biomolecules from basic chemicals. That is what I am talking about here. Certainly I don't make the claim that we have created what we consider to be "life."



No we gain no "utility" from it because according to your definition it makes no predictions so it has no utility. To refute this you will need to tell me what predictions ID makes.

Well this is what I meant when I said the main obstacle for ID being useful in any way is the way people think about it. Certainly simply accounting for life via a "creator" is pointless to you and me and offers no utility except delusional peace of mind, which you and I are not concerned with anyway.

You could, however, come up with maybe an "instanced" version of ID which (yes this is completely contrived but it illustrates my point) postulates that the "designer's" form was not similar to ours but instead used carbon tetrachloride where we use water. In order to prove this we would then need to figure out if this is even possible and research into something like that would be both very interesting and possibly very fruitful. Or we could postulate that this "designer" was possibly located at the galaxy center, so in order to prove it we would need to figure out how to get there. Or that the "designer" was an abstract being, so we would need to figure out how the hell an abstract being could even exist never mind interact with the real part of our universe.

Now, of course from a pragmatic view, such pursuits would probably be wild goose chases. And you could make the claim (which I would totally agree with) that here and now we are much better off having what few resources we can muster allocated to something like abiogenesis which can offer us direct and certain utility.

From a visionary's view, however, you could say that the increase in rate of scientific advancement from everyone madly pursuing "scientific" proof of any kind of ID that would (scientifically) explain our existence would be much more beneficial to mankind in the long term. You could say the same thing about the zealous pursuit of a scientific proof of a "god." If everyone did nothing but try to figure out how to get to the answer of the current question, then the next, and the next, our species would be much further along technologically than we are now.

Certainly I would not expect humans to ignore the present and focus only on advancing their species for the possible benefit of a far future version of it (I certainly wouldn't, I enjoy wasting my time playing computer games and making love with my girlfriend rather than zealously researching quantum physics so we can develop a faster than light mode of transportation just to look for our "designer" all over the known universe), but it is true that we would progress much faster in a scientific sense.

[Darat]

It is not an assumption it is a provable logical statement. I will tell you what someone else in these forums once told ME -- see Godel's theorem.

...snip...


The assumption you make is that somehow logic "itself" is absolute or correct. We don't know that.



I see how you can consider the statement contradictory, but actually I don't think it is. I mean that we can prove using our logical system that we can't ever know the whole truth outside our logical system. Basically Godel's theorem.


Only if we make the assumption that logic is correct, that somehow it describes reality in some fundamental manner, in other words that reality really is constrained in a way we can describe with "logic".


I could be mistaken but I thought abiogenesis refers only to the evolution of biomolecules from basic chemicals. That is what I am talking about here. Certainly I don't make the claim that we have created what we consider to be "life."


If you wish to use such a definition you need to state what constitutes a "biomolecule" and a "non-biomolecule".


Well this is what I meant when I said the main obstacle for ID being useful in any way is the way people think about it. Certainly simply accounting for life via a "creator" is pointless to you and me and offers no utility except delusional peace of mind, which you and I are not concerned with anyway.

You could, however, come up with maybe an "instanced" version of ID which (yes this is completely contrived but it illustrates my point) postulates that the "designer's" form was not similar to ours but instead used carbon tetrachloride where we use water. In order to prove this we would then need to figure out if this is even possible and research into something like that would be both very interesting and possibly very fruitful. Or we could postulate that this "designer" was possibly located at the galaxy center, so in order to prove it we would need to figure out how to get there. Or that the "designer" was an abstract being, so we would need to figure out how the hell an abstract being could even exist never mind interact with the real part of our universe.

...snip...



But what you are now describing is not what is known as "Intelligent Design" - Intelligent Design is "... Intelligent design is a scientific theory which states that some aspects of nature are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected cause such as natural selection. .... (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3093)"

That is it - nothing more and of course nothing less. It's a statement, an article of faith not a theory.

[rocketdodger]

How since it is not a theory that makes any predictions?

I just realized what you are trying to tell me, sorry it took this long.

I agree -- ID is not a theory that makes any non-arbitrary predictions. Thus it is not a theory with any scientific utility. I am just saying that the pursuit of proof of ID would offer alot of scientific utility and probably do very little harm (well, no more harm than religion already does).

[rocketdodger]

Only if we make the assumption that logic is correct, that somehow it describes relaity in some fundemetal manner, in otherwords that reality really is constrained in a way we can decribe with "logic".


You are on your way to being held in very high regard by me...

I completely agree with all of this, and in fact I posted the suggestion that maybe there is another logic that actually can develop some form of absolute truth in another thread. Lets just stop this argument here because I think we are on exactly the same page (although you may reply ONCE more regarding the issue because I like to let others have the last word :) ). Of course I would be happy to discuss the implications of our head-exploding brain-melting ideas...



If you wish to use such a defintion you need to state what constitutes a "biomolecule" and a "non-biomoleclue".


I don't know what the standard definition is, but I guess just the basic molecules involved in life as we know it, such as amino and nucleic acids, lipids, sugars, etc.

I wouldn't try to argue that basic chemicals could evolve into something greater than those, like an entire protein, without first proceeding through one of the above listed molecules.


But what you are now describing is not what is known as "Intelligent Design" - Intelligent Design is
...

That is it - nothing more and of course nothing less. It's a statement, an article of faith not a theory.

Don't you hate it when you try to argue rationally for an idea and then it turns out to do so you have to change the idea from its original form...

I cannot be held responsible for the fact that the people that thought up ID didn't think it up right! :)

Its like the nazis. I have always thought that the swastika under the German eagle is a damn good looking symbol overall. Why did they have to go ruin it!?!

[drkitten]

Please explain exactly why ID is not science. (E.g. explain your definition of science and why ID fails to meet it.)

The simplest criterion is just that science is evidence-based.

There is no evidence whatsoever for ID. I'm using "no evidence" here in the strongest possible sense, a sense that includes blurry photos as "evidence" for Bigfoot, crop circles as "evidence" for space aliens, and first-hand testimonials as "evidence" that Sylvia Browne can talk to the dead.

Even under this relaxed definition, there is absolutely no evidence to support the conclusions of Intelligent Design.

[hgc]

What if you did an experiment, took a beaker and added the primordial ooze, waited awhile, and found life in there?

Which would this validate?

Intelligent Design or Abiogenisis?

Only IAMME knowsI think I saw that on 30-minute Meals on the Food Network.

[drkitten]

It is not an assumption it is a provable logical statement. I will tell you what someone else in these forums once told ME -- see Godel's theorem.

I'm afraid that you are badly, badly, misinterpreting Godel's theorem.

Godel's theorem is absolutely silent on the question of, as you put it,


It is known that we cannot have all the answers regarding our existence.


...unless you can first prove that humans are formal systems of reasons (hint: they aren't), that humans operate strictly from a finite set of axioms (hint: they don't), and that they never make mistakes in reasoning (hint: they do).

In particular, our knowledge of the world is not restricted to inferences from axioms, but is also grounded in empirical observation. If you have a sentence that cannot be proven via deduction to be true or false, just run an empirical test.

[Kimpatsu]

And we have no known means how complex proteins could be made via undirected chemical reactions. So my first example:

Q: How could abiogenesis make proteins?
A: Beats me.
That is an argument from personal incredulity. It has nothing to do with science.

[Nyarlathotep]

Unfortunately, the same isn't true of biologically functioning proteins, RNA and DNA (abiogenesis runs into chemical problems)--whereas ID does have known mechanisms for those.


No it doesn't. Unless you can demonstrate the existance of an intellignet designer, it has a SPECULATION for those.

[Jekyll]

I'm afraid that you are badly, badly, misinterpreting Godel's theorem.

Godel's theorem is absolutely silent on the question of, as you put it,



...unless you can first prove that humans are formal systems of reasons (hint: they aren't), that humans operate strictly from a finite set of axioms (hint: they don't), and that they never make mistakes in reasoning (hint: they do).

Still we should be able to put some kind of bound on our reasoning.
Assuming the universe can be accurately modelled within an axiomatisable system, then Godel statements of any such system would be non-determinable from within our universe.

In practice this isn't likely to impinge much, unless you are looking for experimental verification of the existence of infinite sets of particular cardinality. Like one between alph0 and 2^alph0.:D

[Mojo]

It is known that we cannot have all the answers regarding our existence. Science doesn't claim to have "all the answers". It is by definition a work in progress, and it is generally accepted by scientists that we will never have "all the answers".

This is another reason why ID is not science: ID does claim to have the answer to our existence, albeit a highly facile one: "God an unnamed designer did it".

I don't know why everyone against ID keeps repeating this "who is the designer of the designer" question because abiogenesis suffers from the exact same problem. No it doesn't: if life can arise spontaneously from non-life, it doesn't need an "abiogenitor" to start it off.

But if, as the basic principle of ID theory states, complexity cannot arise spontaneousy, then any designer must be at least as complex as (and in practice more complex than) anything they design. So if, as ID claims, life is so complex that it must have been designed, then the designer, according to ID, must themselves be so complex that they must have been designed.

[drkitten]

Assuming the universe can be accurately modelled within an axiomatisable system, then Godel statements of any such system would be non-determinable from within our universe.

And assuming that the universe is a peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwich, we should find an extremely large piece of bread if we travel far enough away.

I see no reason whatsoever to make that assumption, especially since it flies directly in the face of quantum uncertainty. The "axiomatizable universe" was the dominant philosophical paradigm for about 200 years (it's basically the Deists' "God-the-watchmaker"), and has been experimentally rejected.

[hammegk]

As most of us have figured out, science can never adaquately address this question. Life crawling out of a random chemical/etc mix says nothing about 'what actually happened'.

In 1874, theologian Charles Hodge asked what is the Question (think Jeopardy) if Darwinism -- or, if abiogenesis-- is the Answer?

"How must creation have occurred if we assume that God had nothing to do with it?"

Looking at it another way, is it true that the only questions worth asking are the ones that assume that naturalism is true?


Logically, this is the same question deists -- or more correctly "those-who-are-not-100%-naturalists" -- (who in today's world get lumped into the ID proponent position) are asking.

[drkitten]

In practice this isn't likely to impinge much, unless you are looking for experimental verification of the existence of infinite sets of particular cardinality. Like one between alph0 and 2^alph0.:D

Well, that's a good example for historical reasons. Godel himself was a confirmed Platonist, and used that very example a number of times of something that may (before Cohen's proof) and later was known to be independent of the then-current axioms of number theory.

His argument was that this meant that we didn't really understand the objects we were operating on in the system, and that we needed more empirical observation of the underlying objects like th real numbers. I'm not sure how one observes "real numbers" empirically, but I'm also not a Gibbs medalist, and I'm willing to believe that Godel was a better mathematician than I will ever be.

[Mojo]

Looking at it another way, is it true that the only questions worth asking are the ones that assume that naturalism is true?What's this got to do with whether ID is "scientifically superior to abiogenesis"?

[Dr Adequate]

I agree -- ID is not a theory that makes any non-arbitrary predictions. Thus it is not a theory with any scientific utility. I am just saying that the pursuit of proof of ID would offer alot of scientific utility and probably do very little harm (well, no more harm than religion already does). But if ID makes no predictions then we cannot pursue proof of it, because the only way we have to test a theory is to compare its predictions with reality. If it makes no predictions there's no way to pursue proof.

Re abiogenisis, it's been done. You just have to stir together some amino acids with Q beta replicase, and eventually you get RNA which catalyses its own synthesis. In the end, you get the evolution of Spiegelman's monster. There you go.

[Anacoluthon64]

In 1874, theologian Charles Hodge asked what is the Question (think Jeopardy) if Darwinism -- or, if abiogenesis-- is the Answer?

"How must creation have occurred if we assume that God had nothing to do with it?"

Not necessarily. Science is loath to use words like "must," and almost invariably focusses far more attention on its assumptions than people would do in ordinary conversation. I think a more likely question would be, "In terms of our current knowledge about the world, what is the most likely mechanism by which life arose on Earth in the past?" (As you probably know, Darwinism is silent on the question of the origin of life)

Looking at it another way, is it true that the only questions worth asking are the ones that assume that naturalism is true?

If one equates "worth asking" with pragmatism, then the history of science and mankind is replete with examples that seem to support affirming such a position, and very few that refute it. Conversely, much harm has come about from the contrary position. Just ask any heretic who got burned at the stake for asking the wrong questions.

Logically, this is the same question deists -- or more correctly "those-who-are-not-100%-naturalists" -- (who in today's world get lumped into the ID proponent position) are asking.

Perhaps, but each one considers the question with certain unstated presuppositions in mind. Again, whose are simpler, and have brought about greater benefits to mankind in general?

'Luthon64

[blutoski]

"How must creation have occurred if we assume that God had nothing to do with it?"

Looking at it another way, is it true that the only questions worth asking are the ones that assume that naturalism is true?

That is probably correct, but the statements aren't equivalent. Here are other corollaries to the first statement, as exemplified by Hodge's model:

How must creation have occurred if we assume that Baal had nothing to do with it?
How must creation have occurred if we assume Raelians had nothing to do with it?
How must creation have occurred if we assume it was not extraterrestrial?
How must creation have occurred if we assume the Greek pantheon had nothing to do with it?
How must creation have occurred if we assume the Roman pantheon had nothing to do with it?
How must creation have occurred if we assume the Egyptian pantheon had nothing to do with it?
How must creation have occurred if every non-biblical culture's explanation had nothing to do with it?
How must creation have occurred if we use revelation as our starting point, instead of objective observations?


&c. Granted, this is not the ID argument. That's a different discussion.

I have many friends who went through a theological education, and it's possible to tie anything to God if you try hard enough. For example, my friend's undergraduate thesis was "Jesus' sacrifice and the backhand" (she's referring to a tennis backhand swing).

I have a mechanic who uses prayer to diagnose frustrating problems.

I'm not sure, though, that the other tennis players and mechanics could be described as "formally assuming that god has nothing to do with it" so much as just plain not needing to invoke the supernatural when there is a natural approach that satisfies all requirements.

This is just ordinary common-sense; it's not applied metaphysics.

A lot of the formal philosophy of science (that is: philosophers who study science and discuss its methodology) is an act of discovery. Science seems to work. How does it work? Where does science end and philosophy or engineering begin? How can we formalize the process of understanding the natural world?

One of the quick definitions of science that I use with my students is: "formalized common-sense" and it's workable in most situations.

To answer the question: scientists are unable to answer your question as scientists, because it is a value question, but as people every scientist I know would answer "no". What they can say is: "today, scientific questions are the ones that assume naturalism is true. That's pretty much the definition of a scientific question."

[fishbob]

Its makes two of them:

(1) We will never find a means for undirected chemical reactions to create life from non-life, because artificial intervention is necessary (note: if this prediction is falsified, ID is falsified)

(2) Because artificial intervention is necessary, we should find serious and significant obstacles to the naturalistic formation of life.

Significant barriers exists for e.g. getting functional proteins, RNA and DNA via undirected chemical reactions (though ID has a known means to create them) and the first prediction has been confirmed as well.

This might not seem like much on the surface, but what evidence does abiogenesis have? What confirmed predictions does it make that make it a better scientific theory than intelligent design?

Also, intelligent design is falsifiable, unlike abiogenesis.

Rhetoric games. Not conclusive, but typical for creationists and IDoids.

1 above - 'undirected chemical reactions to create life from non-life' is 'abiogenesis' using different words.

2 above - if you can't document ID without dragging abiogenesis into it, then you have no theory. You can't develop an idea by only showing what it is not. At some point you have to describe what it is.

lastly - 'ID has a known means to create them'. ID again fails as science because although claimed many times, this has never been shown.

[Jekyll]

And assuming that the universe is a peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwich, we should find an extremely large piece of bread if we travel far enough away.

I see no reason whatsoever to make that assumption, especially since it flies directly in the face of quantum uncertainty. The "axiomatizable universe" was the dominant philosophical paradigm for about 200 years (it's basically the Deists' "God-the-watchmaker"), and has been experimentally rejected.

Accurate is probably not the word I should have used.

Whilst Heisenberg's uncertainty principle guarantees that we can not initialise the model correctly for predictive purposes, that does not mean that such a model can not be stated under an axiomatisable system.

Hence my previous statements should still hold (I think).

[Dr Adequate]

I have many friends who went through a theological education, and it's possible to tie anything to God if you try hard enough. For example, my friend's undergraduate thesis was "Jesus' sacrifice and the backhand" (she's referring to a tennis backhand swing). Jesus serves!

[Anacoluthon64]

Jesus serves!

You wicked man, you!

Utterly [Rule 8]ing brilliant riposte!

'Luthon64

[CFLarsen]

Jesus serves!
But does he score?

[Yahzi]

I don't claim that all life requires intelligence to produce it. You unwittingly misconstrued my position.
I did not unwittingly misconstrue your position. You misrepresented it (whether deliberatly or accidentally is not my place to judge).

If you are arguing that life did not arise spontaneously on Earth, but could have arose spontaneously on other planets, then you are not arguing against abiogensis, you are arguing for it. You are arguing for the mechanism while disputing that it applies in this narrow case. But as I already pointed out, science already covers this position, and nobody cares. The accident of how life came to be on Earth is less interesting than the mechanism by which life comes to be in general.

So, if you merely want to argue the narrow point that you think Earth was not the first abiogenetic event, we are done. Because a) nobody cares, and b) you do not have the evidence or arguments to make this case (go look up the stuff the meteorite people talk about and you will see what I mean).

My point is that not knowing the identity/origins of the designer is not at all grounds to reject a design inference.
Except we are not talking about the narrow example of life on Earth, we are talking about life.

That is micro-evolution, not macro.
I conceded in the other thread that I had reversed the meanings of those phrases.

Here is my standard argument against the notion that evolution occurs in micro and macro scales:

What is evolution? It is a change in genes. What is speciation? It is the creation of creatures that cannot interbreed. What prevents creatures from interbreeding? Their reproductive equipment. What controls the shape of their reproductive equipment? Their genes.

So the question is: what magic defense prevents the genes for sexual reproduction from changing even while the rest of the genes are changing?

I mean "macro" in the sense of creating new organs etc.
I could swear macro just meant speciation, but whatever. The same argument applies. The idea that genes come in little boxes that never change is just a deep misunderstanding of how genetics work. There isn't a gene for an organ; there are many genes that work together. And those genes don't all appear in each organ. Change just one of them, and you will change the organ beyond recognition. Usually this is fatal, but not always.

In any case, the same argument applies: what allows some genes to change but not others? What is the mechanism by which some genes are prevented from changing, but others are free to? Can you identify these genes in advance by some kind of marker or position?

The underdetermination of theories is hardly unique to ID.
But it is not justification to assume a theory. Just because a theory is underdetermined does not mean some other theory is true.

But what if, as is actually the case, ID has more of a known mechanism than abiogenesis does?
ID has a known mechanism? What is it? Are you going to suggest that the mysterious phrase "Intelligent Designer" is a known mechanism? By that logic, "Anoynmous" is a known author.

Simply stating, "some unknown designer did this" is not postulating a known mechanism.

No, it does not bear any hallmarks of design.
I'm not even going to try to explain the difference between designed and undesigned.

I'll give you one that isn't: we create an experiment showing how undirected chemical reactions could have created life. That would prove that intelligent causes are not necessary to create life (confer the definition I am using).
But you have already conceded this point, when you admit life may have arisen this way on other planets.

What I was saying was "Without knowing what the designer was made of, it seems difficult to confirm or deny theories regarding the origins of the designers." None of this requires me to doubt chemistry or physics.
What else is the designer made of besides chemicals and matter? Or are you suggesting that copper-based life can spontaneously evolve? Is your mysterious designer a Vulcan?

Life of a type other than our own. Some forms of complexity require artificial intervention (as automobiles) others do not (as snowflakes). Perhaps the same is true for life.
This is very confused. The forms of complexity that require artificial intervention are called "non-replicating." Objects that do not replicate do not replicate.

Life is defined (in part) by its self-replication.

You misunderstand. I am talking about our kind of life--not life in general (see above). Suppose we move the theory of abiogenesis to anotehr planet. So what? My point is that moving the place of origin changes nothing.
At this point, I have no idea what you are talking about.

The problem with asserting that our form of life requires design, but other forms of life don't, is that this does not address the larger picture. And once you have conceded that life can arise spontaneously, then the burden is on you to show why that could not equally well apply to here.

If your argument is that intelligent life spontaneously arose on other planets from natural forces, but not here, then you have a lot of explaining to do, no data to do it with, and no particular victory when you are done, insomuch as you've merely proved a historical accident rather than a general principle. In any case, you've refuted the claim that life requires design.

In other words, as you have pointed out, moving abiogenesis to another planet changes nothing. So perhaps you are trying to assert that different life forms can evolve, just not ours. But you have no example of these different life forms, or any explanation why they are more reasonable to assume evolution for. You are reduced to postulating unknowns.

Either you are having a philosophical argument (in which case any life will do, and you must retract your claim that life cannot evolve) or you are having a biological argument (in which case you need to explain what is different between viable self-evolved creatures and non-viable ones - a feat I am quite positive you lack the biological education to perform).

In other words, either you admit you are wrong, or admit you are speculating on things beyond your competency (and indeed, beyond the competency of anyone, insomuch as we have only this planet to study).

Please pick one.

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

ID has more of a known mechanism (as for RNA and DNA) than abiogenesis does.

The mechanism for ID seems to be... *POOF*! The IDer waved a magic wand, said a few words... and it was so!!!

Abiogenesis is really the only concievable naturalistic way to arrive at life. All life is chemical and inorganic and organic chemistry are the same, based on those two basic chemical facts; it is only reasonable to conclude that life arose as a result of chemical reactions. Furthermore, scientists have made some of the basic building blocks of life. All you need are the right environmental conditions and life will probably arise quite readily.

Abiogenesis is scientific because it has experimental evidence and it is naturalistic. Science is naturalistic by necessity not choice, anything non-natural is untestable by definition. If there is a God, there's no way we can know anything about it, at least until it starts talking to us.

[rocketdodger]

I'm afraid that you are badly, badly, misinterpreting Godel's theorem.


I could be misinterpreting it since frankly every definition I have seen seems to be purposefully opaque to the point of confusing a dimwit like myself.

But my entire point was that to me, given the current state of logic, it doesn't seem possible to ever know all the answers. I interpreted Godels theorems to basically say that you can't prove everything in a closed logical system as far as we know.


In particular, our knowledge of the world is not restricted to inferences from axioms, but is also grounded in empirical observation. If you have a sentence that cannot be proven via deduction to be true or false, just run an empirical test.

Yes, thank Newton, because this is what keeps my head from exploding. But, the history of science has been exchanges between leaps forward using inferences and collecting data. I don't see how we could make any sustained progress without those axiomatic leaps. Otherwise we would just be counting berries in our wig-wams. We would know alot about integer number theory, for sure, but not much about quantum physics.

[rocketdodger]

No it doesn't: if life can arise spontaneously from non-life, it doesn't need an "abiogenitor" to start it off.


I didn't mean it that way. I meant that all explanations for our existence face the same seemingly insurmountable problem of explaining how something can come from nothing. Certainly just the theory of abiogenesis, when severed from the entire existence question, does not have to worry about that problem (it passes the buck to quantum physics), so you are right.

Sorry I should have worded it differently.


But if, as the basic principle of ID theory states, complexity cannot arise spontaneousy, then any designer must be at least as complex as (and in practice more complex than) anything they design. So if, as ID claims, life is so complex that it must have been designed, then the designer, according to ID, must themselves be so complex that they must have been designed.

I don't even know why I am arguing since I guess I don't know what the formal theory of ID is. I was not aware it stated such a thing, and certainly I would not agree with such a principle.

I am just gonna stop talking about ID because it seems like they screwed up any chance of it being a legitimate idea when they first thought it up.

[hammegk]

To answer the question: scientists are unable to answer your question as scientists, because it is a value question, but as people every scientist I know would answer "no". What they can say is: "today, scientific questions are the ones that assume naturalism is true. That's pretty much the definition of a scientific question."
I agree. Yet a request to specify this -- to you -- minor point when discussing teaching a hot-button topic like evolution, or abiogenesis, draw screams of anguish from naturalists. Why is that? :)

[kevin]

I meant that all explanations for our existence face the same seemingly insurmountable problem of explaining how something can come from nothing.

No, to prove that something came from nothing is not what abiogensis therories attempt to explain. Abiogensis therories attempt to explain how replicating molecules arise from non-replicating molecules. There is no "nothing" involved.

[CapelDodger]

A Possible Primordial Peptide Cycle
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/301/5635/938?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&titleabstract=peptide+metabolism+colloid&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&fdate=10/1/1995&tdate=4/30/2004&resourcetype=HWCIT

Amino acids can undergo peptide formation by activation with carbon monoxide (CO) under hot aqueous conditions in the presence of freshly coprecipitated colloidal (Fe,Ni)S. We now show that CO-driven peptide formation proceeds concomitantly with CO-driven, N-terminal peptide degradation by racemizing N-terminal hydantoin and urea derivatives to http://www.sciencemag.org/math/alpha.gif-amino acids. This establishes a peptide cycle with closely related anabolic and catabolic segments. The hydantoin derivative is a purin-related heterocycle. The (Fe,Ni)S-dependent urea hydrol