I listened to your recent conversation on Jonathan’s program Apologetics Academy. I want to say that I heartedly agree with what you’re saying about being honest and straightforward in discussions. I wish that was always the case with everyone whatever the topic. Unfortunately as humans, whether unintentionally or not, that is not often the case. This is something that I guess we all have to deal with.
One question I have is, at the end of the conversation you were discussing abiogenesis and how “we just don’t know” how it happened. What I have a hard time with is the fact that it seems that science has discovered quite a lot of things that arguably would indicate that, at least from “what we do know”, it is extremely unlikely that it happened by natural processes.
Here is one such argument by Dr. James Tour a world renowned synthetic chemist who among other things does work in synthesis of single-molecule nanomachines . He makes a case based on evidence from the decades of scientific research into the subject of abiogenesis. Now to say as you did, that we “lack knowledge” which seems to imply that therefore we cannot make a judgment, doesn’t seem quite right to me if indeed there is enough scientific evidence available, which there seems to be, to make a convincing case that it is highly improbable that natural causes can account for the beginning of life from nonlife.
Wouldn’t it be more precise to say that as science has progressed in this area of study the more problems it has uncovered. And from the “knowledge” we have from quite a considerable amount of scientific investigation to date it seems to be saying that it is highly improbable for natural causes to account for the origin of life.
Now this may seem like being nitpicky, but I think it’s important to note that, rather than the argument and it’s tentative conclusion (subject to change in lieu of new evidence) being based on a “lack of evidence,” i.e., a god of the gaps argument from ignorance; as I see it, it is in reality an argument based on quite a significant amount of scientific knowledge/evidence that we do have, and sound reasoning. I’m suspecting you might disagree with me on this. If so, why? Either way, I’d be grateful for your response to the issue I’m raising here.