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:

Originally Posted by CFLarson

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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).

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Tisthammerw

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]

Originally Posted by Yahzi

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Quote:

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?

Quote:

(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.

Quote:

Quote:

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?

Quote:

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Quote:

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).

Quote:

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by TobiasTheCommie

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]

Originally Posted by Tisthammerw

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]

Originally Posted by Tisthammerw

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.

Originally Posted by Tisthammerw

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.

Originally Posted by Tisthammerw

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.

Originally Posted by Tisthammerw

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.

Originally Posted by Tisthammerw

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.

Originally Posted by Tisthammerw

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?

Originally Posted by Tisthammerw

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!"

Originally Posted by Tisthammerw

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.

Originally Posted by Tisthammerw

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.

Originally Posted by Tisthammerw

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.

Originally Posted by Tisthammerw

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]

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

Quote:

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?

Quote:

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.)

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by TobiasTheCommie

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]

Originally Posted by TobiasTheCommie

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...gy/miller.html

[gnome]

Originally Posted by Tisthammerw

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]

Originally Posted by Tisthammerw

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

Then why are you dragging evolution into it?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Originally Posted by Tisthammerw

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]

Originally Posted by Tisthammerw

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]

Originally Posted by Dagny

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

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise...gy/miller.html

ah yes, i could remember that, just not enough to find it, thanks for the link

[Tisthammerw]

Originally Posted by TobiasTheCommie

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.

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Are you saying that life evolved because man did it?

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

Quote:

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Quote:

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?

Quote:

Abiogenesis has nothing to do with how species evolved!

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

[Tisthammerw]

Originally Posted by Dagny

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

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise...gy/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]

Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade

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]

Originally Posted by TobiasTheCommie

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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).

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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).

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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).

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Dogdoctor

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]

Originally Posted by Tisthammerw

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]

Originally Posted by Tisthammerw

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Tisthammerw

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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).

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Tisthammerw

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.

Quote:

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).

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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).

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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).

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Tisthammerw

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