Actually, your last statement gives ID proponents too much credit. Any standard theistic evolutionist caould make the same claim without ever challenging or opposing any of the scientific papers presented on evolution. My personal belief is that God set the cosmos in motion with rules that would lead to some intelligent species arising in (at least) one world. However, there is no point on the continuum of life on earth where I have seen any indication that we have a discoverable event where God intervened and tinkered with the process.
The ID people (most of whom long to place a Deity into the equation), do attempt to drag abiogenesis inappropriately into discussions of evolutionary theory. However, they explicitly maintain that the Designer has interfered with the undirected process of evolution at specific and observable points in development. At this point they wander away from science into some pseudo-philosophical realm that does nothing to promote scientific knowledge. (And, as can be seen by studying Behe’s ever shrinking gaps, they are not even providing good challenges to evolutionary theory.)
Whoa, Nelly. The probability that the laws of physics are “just anything” is undefined; trying to compute the probability of the laws of physics being the way they are is like trying to compute the scent of pointillism.
Probability, mathematically speaking, is only defined in situations in which an experiment can take place: flipping a coin, rolling a die, or phoning up a random resident of Arkansas and asking them what they think of flouridation. There has to be a space of possible outcomes whose relative likelihood we can determine, and there has to be the possibility of repeating the experiment numerous times. Since we can’t poll a large selection of multiple universes and determine the laws of physics in each one, assigning a probability to the likelihood of our laws of physics being the way they are is mathematically non-sensical. We can’t repeat the experiment, and we can’t assign relative likelihoods to the different outcomes in any meaningful way.
In other circumstances I would write this off as sloppy use of mathematical language and not comment. But since we’re talking about “Intelligent Design” and since Dembski seems happy to make this exact same mistake at the very core of his irreducible complexity arguments, I think the point needs to be made.
MTGman thanks for your lengthy post. Unfortunately it doesn’t actually adress my request. Can you reference any abiogenesis hypothesis published in scientific literature that can actually be falsified?
Since you apparently can;t it appears that we have to accept that all so-called scientific theories are no more scientific than Greinspace’s theory.
How do you jump from there not (yet) being any theories of the mechanics of abiogenesis (there are several nascent hypotheses, but none have sufficient maturity to be tested to the point of becoming a theory), to “all so-called scientific theories are no more scientific than Greinspace’s theory.”
grienspace’s OP conflated abiogenesis (for which there are hypotheses but no theory) with evolutionary theory (for which we have substantial evidence and several areas of falsifiable hypotheses, leading to a very solid theory) while using a non-standard definition of Intelligent Design. He has not yet responded to the posts that pointed out those areas of confusion, so we do not know his current thoughts on the clarified definitions, but nothing in this thread supports your claim that “scientific theories” are not “scientific” (particularly when you attribute that idea to grienspace who has not made such a claim).
Let’s spell out the talking points one more time for clarity:
Abiogenesis is the statement that life did not originally exist on Earth and that life now exists on Earth, so there has to be a point at which life arose from non-living matter. (Nothing in that statement addresses either How? or What?.)
So far, there are several guesses and somewhat fewer hypotheses regarding the events that resulted in abiogenesis. None of the guesses nor the hypotheses have currently been supported by sufficient information to permit the construction of a falsifiable proposal. Thus, we do not have anything yet resembling a theory to explain the mechanism of abiogenesis.
Evolution is the process by which living organisms alter through successive generations, giving rise to new species and genera. The issue of the origin of the first living organisms is outside the purview of evolutionary theory. Regardless whether life arose from the fart of a volcanic vent, as a byproduct of a random lightning strike, or was placed delicately into the geosphere by the hand of God, evolutionary theory only begins after there is a living organism present to evolve.
Intelligent Design is the claim that specific events in the process of evolution can only be attributed to the direct intervention by an outside intelligence. ID suffers from several problems:
a) there is no way to test such a proposal (how would we know when we found the hand of God?);
b) by its very nature it steps outside the realm of science, since it relies (literally) on a deus ex machina to intervene, leaving us with a blind alley beyond which we can pursue knowledge no farther;
c) so far, the events that have been proposed as examples of ID events have been shown to not actually be the irreduceably complex events that their authors have proposed, with previously unknown steps being discovered for each of the “gaps” into which ID and IC were supposed to be the only possible filler.
Well, atheistic abiogenesis, biogenenesis by intelligent design, and 6-day Biblical creation make 3, but anyway, the course of evolution is a major part of the story and there are some divergent scenarios that we can bait people into saying they support.
Scenario #5 accepts the historical record as read by science, but supposes supernatural intervention in the gaps, both in terms of the first strand of DNA and the genetic mutations which drive evolution. Puntuated equilibrium argues rapid evolution taking place in small, localized areas, and this strains the likelihood of random mutations and creates an opening for alternate explanations.
How does Punctuated Equilibrium “strain[s] the likelihood of random mutations”? If mutations occur at an even rate throughout a population, any event that would reduce the size of an interbreeding population would magnify the effect on that population by any mutation, especially since the population would no longer be so large as to subsume and annihilate all mutations.
All scientific theories of abiogenesis fail to met MTGman’s standards of falsification.
MTGman has said that “If the hypothesis was not falsifiable … it would be unscientific.
Ergo all scientific theories of abiogenesis are unscientific.
Greinspace’s theory of abiogenesis fail to met MTGman’s standards of falsification.
MTGman has said that “If the hypothesis was not falsifiable … it would be unscientific.
Greinspace’s theory of abiogenesis is unscientific.
Therefore Greinspace’s theory of abiogenesis is neither more nor less unscientific than the so called scientific theories presented in journals. Unscientific.
That’s pretty much it. A scientific hypothesis includes, by definition, falsifiability. If it is so vague as to encompass an infinite number of ways to construct experiments then it is a crappy hypothesis and not likely to be useful for much of anything. Miller/Urey happened to be based on a very detailed hypthesis put forth in the 1920’s by AI Oparin and JBS Haldane. AI Oparin wrote a whole book detailing what he believed the conditions necessary for synthesis of organic compounds from non-organic compounds would be. These formed the backbone of the Miller/Urey experiment. The composition of the “soup” and how it was to be heated(which was Haldane’s contribution) as well as the atmosphere contents were described in detail. This forms a complete hypothesis which is falsifiable by exactly the method Miller and Urey used. It turned out not to be false, organic compounds DO arise from non-organic compounds just as Oparin and Haldane had hypothesised. The part which makes it less relevant today is that we now believe the atmosphere was different than Oparin and Haldane believed it to be, so this mechanism, while proven to work, probably did not play a significant part in the origin of organic matter on primordial Earth.
The hypothesis was scientific because it was specific enough in the details of the composition of the proto-seas, their boiling mechanism, the primordial atmospheric content, and likely energy levels to be testable(and therefore falsifiable) within those narrow bounds.
Enjoy,
Steven
On Preview: Blake, there are no scientific theories of abiogenesis. There are hypotheses which are working their way through the process and may someday reach theory status, but those individual hypotheses, just like Oparin-Haldane’s, are falsifiable.
MTGMan you still haven;t provided an example of a hypothesis with a deignated runtime that could actually be falsified. Miller’s experiemt tested the idea fr the positive, but if no results were obtained within 10 years that would bot have falsified it.
Can you please adress the question I have now asked twice? Can you provide any reference to any hypothesis of abiogenesis in the scientific literature that give a runtime or that would otherwise allow actual falsification rather than simple confirmation?
You’ve already said that it’s falsifiability that important, not positive testability. Can you in fact name provide any ‘scientific’ hypotheses that arefalsifiable? And if not can you at least acknowdge that?
And let’s not play the theory hypothesis game. Those terms aren’t rigidly applied and distinct in science or elsewhere and are routinely interchanged.
Actually, I can’t figure out what you are driving at.
On the one hand, the OP contained two errors of definition that have not yet been addressed by grienspace, so we do not know where he currently stands on the issues.
On the other hand, I do not know of anyone in the scientific community who has put forth anything resembling a declaration that they think they know how abiogenesis occurred, whatever you want to call that declaration. So you seem to be looking for an “admission” that an error-backed claim for one opinion is “no worse” than a claim that has never been made for other opinions.
My point tomndeb is exactly what was stated wuite clearly. Neither more nor less. I can’t really help how it appears to you, but what I actually said was quite simple. Grienspace’s tehory is neither more nor less scientific than any alternative presented in scientific literature.
That is the case as far as all the evidence presented so far has revealed.
That’s all I ever said an I said it quite succinctly and clearly multiple times.
How you managed to think I was driving at anything else is beyond me.
I’m sorry. I have no interest in continuing this conversation. Being held to your standards of what I must produce to avoid your false dilemma while simultaneously being told I have to cut you slack when you misuse basic terms is not appealing. Have a nice day.
Tranlation: I’ve painted myself into a corner and now I’m going to to make some unsupported assertions and bug out.
Firstly you aren’t being held otmy standards, You are being held to forum standards. You claimed that abiogenesis hypotheses presented in scientific literatureare falsifiable and have designated run times. I’m asking for a reference. That’s forum standard, notmine.
As it is you can’t back up your assertion. You could have just said that.
Secondly I never asked you to cut me slack. And moreover I have never misused a term. As I have said the terms ar used interchangeably in science and elsewhere. Unlike you when I make acclaim like that I can support it with actual refernces. I’m not just making shit up.
But hey, so your argument has no basis. S’ OK. You’ve conceded that you can’t continue it, that’s all we required.
Let me clarify. Perhaps you meant that Earth, when considered as the sum of all its physical properties, including those of the organisms living upon it, is unique in the universe. If that is what you meant then I agree; the probability of another planet existing which is identical in all respects to ours is so small as to be easily dismissed. However that is not what I meant by my statement. I thought this would be clear by the context, but I was referring to the property of bearing life. Therefore, my statement should read: No one knows whether our planet is the only place in the universe that bears life. If you claim to know for a certainty that Earth is unique in this respect, you are deluding yourself.
Well I thought my second post made it clear that I accepted the terms that better describe my question. Regardless, I have no stand on the issue I brought forward regarding the relative scientific validity of intelligent design particularly at point of abiogenesis as opposed to accidental abiogenesis.
Actually, Hoodoo Ulove pretty well subverted the issue for me in post #2. If the OP presents two scenarios of origin that are expressed identically then there isn’t really anything to debate scientifically. I pretty much goofed on that one. In any case the responses in this thread have been enlightening.
