The Value of Doubt
by BradfordMeteorites Delivered The 'Seeds' Of Earth's Left-hand Life, Experts Argue is a Science Daily article peppered with a tale about space travel. The travelers were amino acids and the vehicles meteors. The crash landing may explain one of life's unusual features- chirality. As the author explains with rare exceptions "left-handed "L-amino acids" dominate on earth." A five to ten per cent excess in L-amino acids, observed on surfaces of meteorites, inspires confidence in this chirality explanation. Add some meteorite amino acids to the much famed primordial soup, cook in some desert like temperatures, add some water and presto- you get ingredients for a cell.
Given a spate of recent comments advising on the wisdom of doubting the religious persuasions of one's parents and even getting the parents themselves to indulge in this doubt-fest, I thought it might be a good opportunity for some to practice what they preach. After all most religions have an origins story to go with their value systems and other religious matters. Religious critics have their own origins story. Life emerged through tentative but unidentifed processes, formed an initial cell and evolved from there. So this is an opportunity for abiogenesis enthusiasts to weigh in with their own doubts. If you don't have them express them anyway. If doubting one's own religious convictions is healthy, doubting an origins story, which does not live up to its empirical billing, is healthier still.
June 15th, 2008 at 1:21 am
Hey, Bradford! I saw this today and was curious if you'd find it, much less how you'd react.
Glad to know I'm not the only one who apparently keeps a close eye on news like this.
Comment by nullasalus — June 15, 2008 @ 1:21 am
June 15th, 2008 at 2:46 am
Bradford wrote:
We should clarify up front what I and others mean when we advocate doubt. As I explained to Mike on another thread:
It is to regard nothing as being "beyond all doubt".
This kind of constructive doubt pervades science. Even now, we continue to spend billions of dollars testing the Standard Model and general relativity, two of the best-established theories in the history of science.
So of course we should doubt our OOL hypotheses, just as we doubt every other scientific hypothesis. A hypothesis that outcompetes the others under this kind of scrutiny by conforming best to the evidence earns a favored status. After a while, if it continues to do a better explanatory job, it becomes a provisional truth.
Bradford, if you can come up with a theory that explains how your putative designer went about creating life, I'd be happy to help you evaluate it against some of the other OOL hypotheses out there.
May the best hypothesis win — and be doubted.
Comment by robin — June 15, 2008 @ 2:46 am
June 15th, 2008 at 5:43 am
There is evidence that the planet Earth started out molten and was possibly remelted by the impact that led to the formation of the Moon. It seems reasonable to conclude that the Earth would be sterile (of terrestrial organisms with a carbon based structure) after these events. There is evidence that life appeared on Earth at some time after liquid water condensed on the surface. There is evidence that all life forms that exist or have existed show remarkable similarity at the cellular and sub-cellular level (chirality, DNA code, metabolic pathways).
It seems reasonable to propose that life began once on Earth and all subsequent organisms link to that event. There would appear to be two ways of progressing further.
1) Attempt to reproduce the conditions that may have allowed life to develop, such as undersea thermal vents where you have heat, cold and reactive chemicals in a chaotic mix.
2) Look for life elsewhere.
Until 1 or 2 produces results, OOL theories will always remain speculative at best.
Comment by Alan Fox — June 15, 2008 @ 5:43 am
June 15th, 2008 at 9:09 am
There is a fine line between skepticism and naysaying, Bradford. Here is your chance to demonstrate that you can put forward reasonable arguments against Breslow's theory.
Keep in mind that Breslow's work addresses not the origin of life but the handedness found in its building blocks—the amino acids. Let us know which aspects of their work you find troubling.
Comment by olegt — June 15, 2008 @ 9:09 am
June 15th, 2008 at 9:45 am
The work does not trouble me nor does Breslow et. al. That's another one of many reactions meriting more attention- that doubts about the overarching theory, within which the work of Breslow et. al. is assessed, is in any way denigrating of the individuals involved in the research itself. It is not.
The chirality of amino acids is comprehended within a OOL context. It is observed within living organisms. If a preponderance of L-amino acids explains chirality, it is a very limited explanation because the plausibility of homo-chiral peptide formation is dependent on a generating mechanism, a means of ensuring that formations do not degrade as quickly as they form (some form of homeostasis however primitive) and most importantly an explanation as to why protein formation is a chemically preferred outcome. It is of course within the world of living organisms because of another concept we call function. The function of L-amino acid polymers within biological units enables replication capacity.
The factors accounting for plausible continuity of homo-chiral peptide formation provide a causal framework which makes the expectation of such formations rational. Without such factors you have parts in need of assembly but no means of assembly. You have an argument for production without a factory allowing for the processing of raw materials. In short you have identified the primary weakness of overarching theory- a lack of causal specificity.
Comment by Bradford — June 15, 2008 @ 9:45 am
June 15th, 2008 at 10:00 am
nullasalus:
Summary services like Science Daily cover much territory and allow for quick locations of topic specific items. You can always look at the original papers but SD hones the search process. I suspect a secondary reason some follow blogs like TT is the almost effortless way of coming upon information not directly related to one's work.
Comment by Bradford — June 15, 2008 @ 10:00 am
June 15th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Hi Bradford,
I think that is an excellent opening post.
It is thought provoking.
However, I suggest you have some people confused as to your purpose for bringing these particular facts up.
My suspicions are that this plays a role in an "overarching theory" that you have but still hesitate to present.
Come on, you can do it!
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 15, 2008 @ 10:01 am
June 15th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Thanks. I try to promote your internet moniker with excellent posting.
Nullasallus has indicated that you may be a ninja fighter so I'll use a MMA metaphor to illustrate the approach of a teleologist. OOLers and teleologists would both like to get to the pound and ground stage. But this does not happen without intense training and study. You prepare for a match like you would prepare to present an alternative view of life's origins. You learn science basics from fields like chemistry and physics and learn details about cellular biology and cellular structures just like you would learn varieties of submission moves and striking. Takes time but even when you have a background putting forth a plausible theory about what took place in geologic time requires a whole new set of dynamics because it necessitates pitting your knowledge and ideas into an interactive environment. You get past the guard before you ground and pound. Full guard then half guard- it's like removing misconceptions guiding mainstream thinking and like a good ground game entails responding to the strategies of opposing views.
Before attempting to pass the guard though one tries for a take down. That's the stage I'm at now. You don't move past the guard of mainstream thinking without getting a grip on what it is that keeps mainstream thinking on its feet. You need to upset his balance and take the opponent or opposing theory down. There is always the possibility of a knockout of course. We have witnessed those too in the world of ideas but my opponent is skilled at parrying blows and the judges are not inclined to take his title from him in the absence of a tap out.
To borrow Mike's idea, as a detective story ID can make some credible claims by linking physical evidence, like natural coding systems, to suspects known to design them. However experimental evidence is another matter- the ground and pound. Experimental evidence supporting credible origins theories has been problematic for many decades. I know the fans are yelling for action but I'll strive for the G & P systematically. I like the progression of the process.
Comment by Bradford — June 15, 2008 @ 11:57 am
June 15th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Bradford wrote:
If you don't have any problem with Breslow's work, why the heck did you even bring it up? Why not skip to the chase and say Hey people, let's be open-minded and bash the natural theory of OOL for a change?
Comment by olegt — June 15, 2008 @ 12:31 pm
June 15th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Hi Bradford,
Would it be fair, then, to suggest you are intentionally and indirectly sowing seeds of doubt?
innuendo /ˌɪnyuˈɛndoÊŠ/"“noun, plural -dos, -does. 1. an indirect intimation about a person or thing, esp. of a disparaging or a derogatory nature.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 15, 2008 @ 12:35 pm
June 15th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
TP,
Wha? Bradford says it right in the OP: If people believe doubt on the basis of insufficient evidence is laudable, then surely doubting abiogenesis at this point is same. I think he's having a bit of fun, in the most innocent way possible.
And for the record, I'm not innately hostile to abiogenesis theories. Primitive ET life, RNA world, Gold's theory - why, I can see a Designer deciding to initiate any of these options.
Comment by nullasalus — June 15, 2008 @ 4:10 pm
June 15th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
olegt:
Bash the theory? Did you see any derogatory remarks in my comment? I thought my comments were fair and dispassionate. The quality of the work itself can be good. That does not mean attached interpretations of its relevancy to origins are real.
Comment by Bradford — June 15, 2008 @ 4:44 pm
June 15th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Nullasalus,
You're making a habit of giving ID proponents the benefit of the doubt.
I have been impressesd with your activities on Uncommon Descent.
You have shown yourself to be a piller of patence and restraint.
However, I suggest you aren't doing Bradford any favors by making excuses for him.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 15, 2008 @ 4:51 pm
June 15th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Hi Bradford,
Ok, you put the bait out and Oleg took it. Are you happy now?
I did not take your presentation of Breslow's work to be derogatory.
Quite the opposite.
Come on, you can do it.
You can present a positive proposal.
Don't let pride get in the way.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 15, 2008 @ 4:56 pm
June 15th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
nullasalus wrote:
In other words, the theories that evoke your "innate hostility" are those that challenge your theological preconceptions. How scientific.
Comment by robin — June 15, 2008 @ 4:57 pm
June 15th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
This is hilarious TP. I read critiques of my unwillingness to sew seeds of doubt into my own children on another thread. The issue is personal both with respect to my religious convictions and the manner I raise my kids yet that did not derail the doubters. Now, on a thread centered around a public issue whose supporting and detracting evidence can be empirical, I read of critiques based on me sewing seeds of doubt. Your comments are reinforcing the theme of the blog entry.
Comment by Bradford — June 15, 2008 @ 5:02 pm
June 15th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
He can see the designer deciding to initiate any of those options and based on his previous comments one can infer doubt as to the plausibility of their initiation without a directing agent. Logically consistent.
Comment by Bradford — June 15, 2008 @ 5:07 pm
June 15th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Do I take this to mean you are tapping out and acknowledging the insufficency of chemical determinism? Are we past the take down stage?
Comment by Bradford — June 15, 2008 @ 5:10 pm
June 15th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
robin,
Hey look, it's robin - the person who makes up statistics and blatantly twists others' words and/or displays a shocking lack of basic reading comprehension, all while evangelizing in the name of reason!
Anyway, there you go again. I mention that I'd be quite comfortable with the whole slew of abiogenesis theories, to which you magically deduce that I'm hostile to theories that 'challenge my theological preconceptions'. I'd love to hear what those theories are. Hell, what my theological preconceptions are, for that matter. Especially considering my repeatedly stated stance that questions of God, design, and otherwise are not only the stuff of philosophy, but cannot be settled by science.
Have you noticed the funny little pattern where your attempts to rephrase someone else's words results not just in an exaggeration, but a clear butchering of what they said to begin with? I mean, you're talking to someone who is entirely comfortable with mainstream evolutionary theory, OoL, and really, would be comfortable with MWI or Bohm or other QM interpretations. But, you know.. clearly I'm hostile.
TP,
Excuses? Just giving my take on things. Bradford, naturally, can and will speak for himself. But I threw out what I thought was clear about this.
Comment by nullasalus — June 15, 2008 @ 5:37 pm
June 15th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Robin, those are not only "other words;" those are a whole 'nother thought! How genial…
Comment by Lutepisc — June 15, 2008 @ 5:38 pm
June 15th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Hi Bradford,
Have you missed my positive suggestions concerning exogenesis (or panspermia)?
Here is something I posted yesterday.
You miss half the fun of debating if you wait for your opposition to come to the conclusion on their own.
I want my opponents kicking and screaming as they forced to recognize the logic and evidence of something they reject.
Otherwise, I can't be sure they aren't engaging in another Group Think concession just to avoid conflict.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 15, 2008 @ 5:44 pm
June 15th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Lutepisc wrote:
Lutepisc,
I don't understand what you're saying here. Could you rephrase it?
Also, you enclose "other words;" in quotes. Who are you quoting?
Comment by robin — June 15, 2008 @ 6:01 pm
June 15th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Robin, please look just above my words, and there you will see that I am quoting you.
You had quoted nullasalus, and then you said, "In other words…" However, you didn't simply rephrase nullasalus' thoughts using other words. Instead, you put words into his mouth. That's why I remarked that you not only used "other words," you expressed a different idea, which you attributed to nullasalus. And then you criticized him for it by saying, "How scientific."
And that's why I said, "How genial…"
Comment by Lutepisc — June 15, 2008 @ 6:20 pm
June 15th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Nullasalus,
Look carefully at what you wrote:
Let's parse it.
As a native, fluent speaker of English, I interpret that as meaning that you are not hostile to the idea of abiogenesis per se, but the "innately" qualifier tells me that your benign regard is not unconditional. I read on to see if you will explain which theories do, and do not, evoke your hostility.
You continue:
As a native, fluent speaker of English, I think "Ah — he is not hostile to these because he can imagine a capital-D Designer — aka God — initiating them." I logically conclude that the theories to which you are hostile are ones that exclude the possibility of being initiated by God.
You evidently dispute my interpretation of your statement. Why? Starting with the words you wrote, please show us why you believe my interpretation is incorrect.
Comment by robin — June 15, 2008 @ 6:56 pm
June 15th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Lutepisc,
Thanks for the clarification. See my reply to nullasalus, above.
Comment by robin — June 15, 2008 @ 7:03 pm
June 15th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
robin,
My pleasure - who doesn't enjoy being pedantic now and then?
For the hell of it, here's the quoted portion again.
And for the record, I'm not innately hostile to abiogenesis theories. Primitive ET life, RNA world, Gold's theory - why, I can see a Designer deciding to initiate any of these options.
Well, here's your screwup right out of the gates. I say I have no innate (As in essential, native, natural) hostility to abiogenesis. Somehow, the presence of the word innate - used to describe my (utter lack of) hostility towards abiogenesis - indicates to you I AM hostile to other scientific theories. Care to explain how you made that jump, especially in light of my making no reference to any other science at all? Even better, in light of your saying that you came to this realization before even reading my take on a Designer's possibility? Could it be that I'm not hostile to abiogenesis, but I may be hostile to some people's philosophical extrapolations OF an event of abiogenesis?
Wonderful. Care to tell me which scientific theory does that? Or better yet, which scientific theories *I* think do that? Richard freaking Dawkins himself won't argue that any scientific theory rules out design. He'd argue such theories make no appeal to a designer, at most. With the possible exception of OoL, oddly enough.
This is, what.. the third or fourth time you've mangled a reading of someone else's words in the short time you've been contributing here? And what a surprise, it's usually connected to you wanting to smirk at someone for being less than optimally rational. There's a lesson to be learned there, but sadly, you'd have to wield some reason to extract it.
Comment by nullasalus — June 15, 2008 @ 8:01 pm
June 15th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
nullasalus,
This may be a waste of time, as I've seen how you generally handle disputes over language. Nevertheless, here goes:
You have jumped to the conclusion that I am talking about your hostility to other theories besides those concerning abiogenesis. I'm not. My entire point concerns your attitudes toward various theories of abiogenesis.
If you had written
… then the reasonable interpretation would be that you are not hostile to abiogenesis theories, period.
However, you added the qualifier "innately":
There is a difference between "not hostile" and "not innately hostile", and a reasonable person would infer that the word was there for a reason: to distinguish "innate hostility" from hostility that was not innate.
That raises the question, "What would make nullasalus hostile to a theory of abiogenesis if he is not innately hostile to abiogenesis theories per se?"
Lo and behold, I continue reading and find an explanation:
Having read that, I now understand why you aren't hostile to those particular theories of abiogenesis: as you tell us, it's because you can imagine a capital-D Designer — God — initiating any of them.
Struck by the fact that you are not hostile to these theories because of the possibility any of them could be initiated by a Designer, I conclude that you are allowing your theological beliefs to determine whether or not you are hostile to particular theories of abiogenesis. This is obviously unscientific, as I point out.
If you still dispute my interpretation, then here's an exercise for you:
Please fill in the blank below. I'm genuinely interested in seeing what kind of paraphrase you will offer for your own statement.
When I (nullasalus) said this…
…what I meant was this:
Comment by robin — June 15, 2008 @ 8:52 pm
June 15th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
robin,
Please.
I said "I am not innately hostile to abiogenesis theories." Notice the period, the full stop, right after theories. Now, if I qualified it as 'most' abiogenesis theories, or 'some', you'd have a point. I illustrated my view by throwing out three (from many) examples of abiogenesis theories, including what passes for the mainstream choice, and asserting nothing precludes design being in play.
I did not throw in any 'per se'. I did nothing to indicate that I was hostile to some, or even one, abiogenesis theory.
You keep doing things like this. From an assertion of no hostility to abiogenesis theories, period, and 3 examples of specific theories I'm not hostile to, you divine 'Well, he's obviously hostile to some abiogenesis theories, because he said he had no 'innate' hostility instead of just 'hostility', and innate means 'inborn and native'! How unscientific of him!'
Gee, I wonder what's going on here. Could it be that if I offer any paraphrase, you'll curtly reply that the paraphrase is more clear, and blame me for your inept interpretation of my words? Do you think I don't know when someone is trying to squirm away after being caught making a dumb move?
What's more, I notice you didn't answer my own questions, including the choicest of the lot: Can you tell me a single abiogenesis theory where a designer could not have somehow initiated the process? Because your only remaining out here is 'Nullasalus thinks God can make use of RNA-world abiogenesis, primitive life delivered by meteors, and deep microbes, but theologically he can't commit to God using polyphosphates and deep sea vents!'
Maybe you should just bite the bullet, and stop 'interpreting' and regurgitating what you think people are saying. I'm not the only one here noticing it's not something you have a knack for.
Comment by nullasalus — June 15, 2008 @ 9:42 pm
June 15th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
nullsalus wrote:
Are you really that frightened of what my judgment might be? Why? The readers of this thread are perfectly capable of making their own judgments.
In any case, since you claim that my interpretation of your words is ridiculous, then surely you have an interpretation of your own words that makes much more sense than mine, so that readers of this thread will see it and say "Of course that's what he meant! How could Robin have thought otherwise?"
Please fill in the blank:
When I (nullasalus) said this"¦
"¦what I meant was this:
Comment by robin — June 15, 2008 @ 10:10 pm
June 15th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
robin,
They already have.
Why would I be concerned what people think? I regularly, if politely, disagree with many people on here on both sides of the ID line. I'm certainly not concerned about your demonstrably bad judgment. I'm trying to help you - the sooner you realize the mistakes you're making, the sooner you can start using some of that reason and rationality you say you're fond of. Right now, yours is crippled to say the least. As I said, this is the third or fourth incident in a very short spread of time.
You know what? I've already pointed out your flawed explanations, in detail. All while you dodge so many of my questions, whether it's 'Name me a theory of abiogenesis that is not compatible with a designer's initiation' or 'Tell me where you found out that millions of people believe in Luther's definition of faith'.
But here's the difference between you and me. You respond to my questions with silence and evasion. Me? I'll happily provide answers.
And for the record, I'm not innately hostile to abiogenesis theories. Primitive ET life, RNA world, Gold's theory - why, I can see a Designer deciding to initiate any of these options.
Paraphrases to..
Personally, I have no real concerns re: abiogenesis theories. Take your pick of them - the designer question isn't settled by any of them.
Now, robin: Name me a single abiogenesis theory that is not compatible with a designer initiating it. Or admit that you can't, which amounts to admitting your strained defense of your word-twist to this point fails by your own reasoning. And, naturally, at this point - silence means you're admitting as much.
Comment by nullasalus — June 15, 2008 @ 10:38 pm
June 15th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Nullasalus wrote:
Really, Null. You're asking us to believe that your second sentence:
…has nothing to do with your reason for not being hostile to theories of abiogenesis?
Please. That's as ridiculous as making this statement:
…and then claiming:
Yeah, right. You just happened to mention two unrelated facts, one after the other, in consecutive sentences within the same paragraph.
It won't wash, Null.
Comment by robin — June 15, 2008 @ 11:41 pm
June 16th, 2008 at 12:17 am
Robin,
Well, that's interesting. Before you were arguing that I clearly had theologically-based hostility to some scientific theories based on my reply. Then you hedged that to hostility to some abiogenesis theories. Now you've stepped back to 'Well, clearly your second sentence is related to your first sentence, and that's why you're not bothered by any theories'.
Well, duh. You'd think when I said..
I mention that I'd be quite comfortable with the whole slew of abiogenesis theories, to which you magically deduce that I'm hostile to theories that 'challenge my theological preconceptions'. I'd love to hear what those theories are. Hell, what my theological preconceptions are, for that matter. Especially considering my repeatedly stated stance that questions of God, design, and otherwise are not only the stuff of philosophy, but cannot be settled by science.
And later added..
Could it be that I'm not hostile to abiogenesis, but I may be hostile to some people's philosophical extrapolations OF an event of abiogenesis?
..That would have been crystal clear. Ask Bradford. Hell, ask some of the resident atheists/agnostics. Go ask UD regulars if you like while you're at it. I repeatedly, clearly state that while I believe in design and God, I suspect that neither their existence or non-existence can ever be demonstrated (at big-d Design level) by science in either direction. It's the stuff of philosophy/theology.
And as I thought, you won't answer my question - because you belatedly realize that 'an abiogenesis theory that isn't compatible with a designer' doesn't exist. You were wrong to accuse me of rejecting scientific theories due to theological commitment. And frankly, you were - let's be nice - amazingly ignorant to make reference to scientific theories "that exclude the possibility of being initiated by God." The fact that you thought there were any to begin with - that there COULD be any - says a lot about your grasp of "reason" and "rationality" and "doubt".
Comment by nullasalus — June 16, 2008 @ 12:17 am
June 16th, 2008 at 12:47 am
nullasalus:
I'll say. You've completely avoided the entire point of my previous comment, which is that saying this:
…is like saying this:
In both cases, the second sentence gives a reason for the first.
Spin all you want. The point remains obvious.
P.S. I'm not ignoring your challenges on the the other issues, but I can see that you're desperately trying to change the subject away from this issue. Deal with this one first — it is, after all, the whole point of the dispute.
Comment by robin — June 16, 2008 @ 12:47 am
June 16th, 2008 at 1:30 am
There isn't really 'an' origins story. There is no model of abiogenesis which is considered solid yet. There's a lot of rough notions like PAH, polyphosphates, RNA world, Lipid world, the clay theory (I know a guy who worked on that at Stanford), etc etc etc but it's still very young and nothing's been put forth confidently enough to make doubting it all that meaningful. Scientists know that most of the discussion on this subject will be proved wrong in the future, so you could say that they currently doubt most of it. Scientists argue about the merits and drawbacks of the different possibilities all the time. Now, if you're asking us to express doubt that a materialistic explanation will be found, and instead take the empty position "God did it", well, the history of science suggests that's never been the productive course of action.
Comment by steve — June 16, 2008 @ 1:30 am
June 16th, 2008 at 1:39 am
robin,
Let's recap.
and later
Your 'logic' (And let's be frank - there was no logic here. There were only bad, poorly thought out hunches) has failed you horribly, multiple times, in this very thread. Again, I wasn't the only one noticing you were doing this. There's nothing in my response to TP to indicate my hostility to any scientific theories, especially under an abiogenesis heading. Hell, the exact opposite is there - me asserting my utter lack of hostility to abiogenesis in general, a sample of the various forms, and mentioning my beliefs are completely compatible with them. You made a clumsy dive for 'Well, by including an adjective before hostile, I'm going to take that to mean you reject abiogenesis theories that exclude a designer'. Speaking of that..
Yes, I'm writing long, drawn-out replies about the true meaning of my throwaway two sentences in order to change the subject. Because a question about one of these so-called 'abiogenesis theories that exclude instigation by a Designer' isn't on-topic, and there can never be more than one question answered in a comment thread.
Really, robin. When I said outright that I have no problem with abiogenesis, and proceeded to name RNA World, primitive ET, and Gold's theory as entirely in sync with a Designer, that should have made it abundantly clear that abiogenesis isn't an issue with me. Why you thought it was a good idea to try and accuse me of 'rejecting other theories due to faith', then NARROWING the field to abiogenesis theories, is incredible. I can only assume you really thought there were scientific abiogenesis theories out there that exclude a designer's involvement. Which says a lot about just how much thought you've given this subject.
Comment by nullasalus — June 16, 2008 @ 1:39 am
June 16th, 2008 at 1:45 am
Nullasalus,
Still avoiding the issue, I see.
Comment by robin — June 16, 2008 @ 1:45 am
June 16th, 2008 at 1:52 am
robin,
Run, rabbit, run.
Comment by nullasalus — June 16, 2008 @ 1:52 am
June 16th, 2008 at 7:01 am
Steve:
Why not instead begin by doubting your own stereotypes. Theists know that God acts through nature and that the "God did it" tagline is therefore a thoughtless response. The issue is what is the nature of causes which brought about life and what evidence is linked to the conclusion?
Comment by Bradford — June 16, 2008 @ 7:01 am
June 17th, 2008 at 4:29 am
You omitted "philosophical" in the above statement. I.e.:
Socrates does science
Comment by Alan Fox — June 17, 2008 @ 4:29 am
June 17th, 2008 at 4:49 am
No. I meant what I wrote. But since you apparently think the need to identify physical causes is superfluous why not enlighten us by identifying the nature of the causes that resulted in life and the objective evidence.
Comment by Bradford — June 17, 2008 @ 4:49 am
June 17th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
But, I don't know, Bradford. There are no certainties. If I did know, I suspect I might write a book and suggest everyone buy it.
And please stop assuming what I think. If it interests you at all, you can always ask me.
Comment by Alan Fox — June 17, 2008 @ 2:52 pm
June 17th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
I included earlier quotes for context. If you do not know why would you suggest the insertion of the word philosophical when my reference was to physical causality?
Comment by Bradford — June 17, 2008 @ 4:17 pm