sandy whitelinger said:
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.