Will Proving Abiogenesis Prove ID?

[sandy whitelinger]

It seems to me that science cannot prove abiogenesis without using ID. Whatever experiment they use to show the progression where life springs from non-life is going to be done using an intellegently designed method. A catch-22 I think.

What say you?

 

[painted wolf]

replicating natural processes is ID?
How does this prove that the natural process was unnatural to begin with?

wa:do

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

This will never be proven.

Virus particles are coming to earth from outer space all the time, as are complex hydrocarbons.

Life probably did not start on this planet but somewhere in space.

neither of these statements helps or hinders the argument, just adds the notion we were not the first.

 

[Random]

It seems to me that science cannot prove abiogenesis without using ID. Whatever experiment they use to show the progression where life springs from non-life is going to be done using an intellegently designed method. A catch-22 I think.

Yes. Now, a couple of points:
1) Science cannot prove aboigenesis empirically @ all, in a laboratory or anywhere else, since the theory states that these natural processes by which life is alleged to have arisen from Non-life occured randomly and spontaneously. One cannot test a random Uncaused naturally occuring process under controlled conditions, because obviously then it isn't random: its simulation, which is to say artificial and thus un-natural.
2) IF abiogensis IS proven under controlled conditions, this is proof of agency in one form or another (ie. in that case, agent or ID = The Scientists themselves). If, however, it is somehow witnessed live, occuring without Cause in Nature, this is or would be then nothing short of miraculous: it would be proof not only of ID, but perhaps to some of GOD.
3) Science is always aware that it is in dangerous territory trying to prove randomness and spontonaeity: because, as above, if the assumed distinction between natural and un-natural (artificial) collapses, and if abiogenesis is proven emphatically it might reveal more than just Cause and Intelligent Design, it would prove nothing Uncaused happens in Nature @ all: thus, impacting its own Quantum view of Reality in a very threatening way. Meaning what? Meaning, we are living in a Simulation: the Matrix of which Nature is just a program like any other.

The consequences of such a discovery, if it hasn't already been made, would be enormous and potentially catastrophic for civilisation @ this point, so I think it would be kept quiet. That's why we are here debating a theory, not a fact.

 

[Yerda]

It seems to me that science cannot prove abiogenesis without using ID. Whatever experiment they use to show the progression where life springs from non-life is going to be done using an intellegently designed method. A catch-22 I think.

What say you?

Evidence that life arose from non-life (or that chemical systems started to behave in the odd fashion we call 'alive') needs not support anything like ID, and I frankly doubt it would. I think your reasoning is rather bare and seems confused. Can you go into more detail?

 

[Yerda]

Virus particles are coming to earth from outer space all the time, as are complex hydrocarbons.

Crikey! Viruses! As in intact viriods? Capsid, genome and all? Where have you read this?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It seems to me that science cannot prove abiogenesis without using ID. Whatever experiment they use to show the progression where life springs from non-life is going to be done using an intellegently designed method. A catch-22 I think. What say you?

Your reasoning is flawed. The intelligent replication of a natural process in no way suggests that the process being replicated was designed.

 

[Random]

The intelligent replication of a natural process in no way suggests that the process being replicated was designed.

Why not? Explain how the intelligent replication of a natural process in no way suggests the process being replicated was designed. While you're @ it, define "natural process" in terms of cause.

 

[Yerda]

1) Science cannot prove aboigenesis empirically @ all, in a laboratory or anywhere else, since the theory states that these natural processes by which life is alleged to have arisen from Non-life occured randomly and spontaneously.

Randomly?

One cannot test a random Uncaused naturally occuring process under controlled conditions, because obviously then it isn't random: its simulation, which is to say artificial and thus un-natural.

Uncaused?

Abiogenesis is not a single unified theory. It's loose. Several hypotheses about where life originated are out there. I've never encountered one that supposes random appearance of living systems or any scientific theory that proposes uncaused events (even with capital 'U's) for that matter.

2) IF abiogensis IS proven under controlled conditions, this is proof of agency in one form or another (ie. in that case, agent or ID = The Scientists themselves).

That's not true. Why should experimantal verification of the hypothesis that life arose naturally have anything to do with intelligence?

...if abiogenesis is proven emphatically it might reveal more than just Cause and Intelligent Design, it would prove nothing Uncaused happens in Nature @ all:

Nonsense.

 

[Random]

That's not true. Why should experimantal verification of the hypothesis that life arose naturally have anything to do with intelligence?

Geez...that says it all, I think.

 

[fantome profane]

Science cannot prove aboigenesis empirically @ all

I think we are still having a problem with the meaning of certain words in a scientific context. What exactly do you mean by “Science cannot prove aboigenesis”? If you are saying that it cannot be shown definitively that life emerged in a certain way billions of years ago, the I think you are absolutely correct. But you cannot dismiss the possibility that science may discover evidence that tends to support an abiogenesis theory.

I think you need to abandon this concept of “absolute proof” and start thinking about “proof” as “supporting evidence”, nothing more. Science can find supporting evidence.

IF abiogensis IS proven under controlled conditions, this is proof of agency in one form or another

It could very well be. But again remember we are not talking about absolute certainty, but simply talking about evidence. And I think it would really have to depend on how abiogenesis is demonstrated as to whether a convincing case can be made for a natural causation or not.

The consequences of such a discovery, if it hasn't already been made, would be enormous and potentially catastrophic for civilisation @ this point, so I think it would be kept quiet. That's why we are here debating a theory, not a fact.

I think you are just having too much fun imagining a fantastic conspiracy theory. Civilization would not collapse, people would still go about their business making a living, eating, sleeping, going out, whatever. Nothing would change.

 

[Fluffy]

We explain the fall of the apple with the theory of gravity therefore God designed gravity?

Perhaps a better analogy would be "I can create fire therefore a naturally occuring fire such as a forest fire must have also been created by an intelligence".

 

[Random]

I think you need to abandon this concept of “absolute proof” and start thinking about “proof” as “supporting evidence”, nothing more. Science can find supporting evidence.

But what if the evidence could be interpreted in different ways? Whose interpretation do we uphold? "Supporting evidence" is too weak. How can one base principles and facts on that which cannot be definitively proven?

I think you are just having too much fun imagining a fantastic conspiracy theory. Civilization would not collapse, people would still go about their business making a living, eating, sleeping, going out, whatever. Nothing would change.

I find conspiracy theories amusing and nothing more. There is much supporting evidence for many conspiracy theories, but I still don't necessarily take them as fact. Maybe you're right about civilisation: but the morality of the situation would surely elude people in general @ first were it proven to be a simulation.

 

[lamplighter]

I fail to grasp the reasoning that replicating hypothesised enviromental conditions, based empiracil evidence found in the oldest rocks we can find, to test the possibleties of life coming from non-life, some how proves that it was ID? Even though they are just atempting to recreate CONDITIONS that might have EXISTED on earth, where with ID it would mean that we actually build them ourselves and the eviroment or anything else has nothing to do with creation. So how then does lab testing prove ID?

 

[Random]

I fail to grasp the reasoning that replicating hypothesised enviromental conditions, based empiracil evidence found in the oldest rocks we can find, to test the possibleties of life coming from non-life, some how proves that it was ID? Even though they are just atempting to recreate CONDITIONS that might have EXISTED on earth, where with ID it would mean that we actually build them ourselves and the eviroment or anything else has nothing to do with creation. So how then does lab testing prove ID?

It proves agency, which, by default, proves Design. You cannot create the conditions in a lab, which are controlled, to simulate a natural process like abiogenesis because this is not then random or uncasued where the tested hypothesis, abiogenesis, was supposed to be. If you do, it proves something else entirely: because where there is simulation, there must be a simulator. So, Design, and Intelligent design @ that.

 

[fantome profane]

But what if the evidence could be interpreted in different ways? Whose interpretation do we uphold? "Supporting evidence" is too weak. How can one base principles and facts on that which cannot be definitively proven?

Supporting evidence is all we have, and all we can ever hope to have. That may not be very pleasant, but it is the truth. There may be some cases where the evidence clearly weighs in one direction or the other, but in may cases it is far from clear.

I am not sure what principles you are hoping to uphold on the basis of proving or disproving abiogenesis, but I think you may be expecting too much from science.

I find conspiracy theories amusing and nothing more. There is much supporting evidence for many conspiracy theories, but I still don't necessarily take them as fact. Maybe you're right about civilisation: but the morality of the situation would surely elude people in general @ first were it proven to be a simulation.

I am not sure how to address this concept. The only think I can say is that I try to remember that suffering is real, even if the cause turns out to be illusory. (does that make sense? Does that address the issue you are trying to raise?)

 

[Random]

Supporting evidence is all we have, and all we can ever hope to have. That may not be very pleasant, but it is the truth. There may be some cases where the evidence clearly weighs in one direction or the other, but in may cases it is far from clear.

But then we are left @ the mercy of "peer-reviewed consensus" for our scientific truths, and I fear human weakness and agendas may well corrupt what current and future generations believe completely. Should I reasonably have "faith" then, in the Word of the Scientists? I am not being sarcastic. A situation may well develop in this vein very soon.

I am not sure how to address this concept. The only think I can say is that I try to remember that suffering is real, even if the cause turns out to be illusory.

An excellent point. Frubals.

 

[fantome profane]

But then we are left @ the mercy of "peer-reviewed consensus" for our scientific truths, and I fear human weakness and agendas may well corrupt what current and future generations believe completely. Should I reasonably have "faith" then, in the Word of the Scientists? I am not being sarcastic. A situation may well develop in this vein very soon.

No, you should not have faith; it is not about faith. I am trying to say that we need to recognize and accept the limits of science; perhaps even the limits of human knowledge itself (although these are not necessarily the same thing). Science can only provide us with provisional truths, not absolute truths.

It proves agency, which, by default, proves Design. You cannot create the conditions in a lab, which are controlled, to simulate a natural process like abiogenesis because this is not then random or uncasued where the tested hypothesis, abiogenesis, was supposed to be. If you do, it proves something else entirely: because where there is simulation, there must be a simulator. So, Design, and Intelligent design @ that.

Consider an analogy. A person is accused of murder, his defence is that the gun was dropped and went off by accident. Experiments are conducted to show if such a thing is actually possible. In this case controlled experiments would be used to support or refute the possibility of an uncontrolled unintended discharge of the weapon. There might not provide definitive proof either way, but clearly a controlled experiment could conceivably provide supporting evidence of an unintentional event. Notice I did not say uncaused, but simply unintended, and therefore not designed. A designed experiment could support the concept of an un-designed occurrence.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Why not? Explain how the intelligent replication of a natural process in no way suggests the process being replicated was designed. While you're @ it, define "natural process" in terms of cause.

Replicating abiogenesis would no more substantiate ID than would replicating wind damage validate Boreas and Notus.

 

[JerryL]

Any attempt to create abiogenesis in the lab is an attempt to establish and understand possible mechanisms for it to have occured.

Right now, rocesses for aboigenesis are rather speculative, and this would move them into an experimental stage. It's possible that a particular method of abiogenesis would lead to the ability to form and test predictions (wich would allow a reasonable level of proof), but I suspect it's more likely all w'll have is "here's a way which seems experimentally likely". I doubt there is enough evidence as to which method of abiogenesis actually occured 4 billion years ago, and I doubt we'll end up difinitively saying only one method is possible.