Joshua, thank you for a very thoughtful reply. I hope that my answers give you something to think about and discuss.
You write:
If Tour can’t prove ID, what makes you think you can? I think one reason is that you’ve missed a critical point about what abiogenesis is. It is not a hypothesis, it is an axiom. Science looks at different hypothesis of abiogenesis, and weights between them, but it does not consider things other than abiogenesis.
First, I have no connection to Discovery Institute, nor does James Tour or Perry Marshall. I’m certain that some of the work that comes out of Discovery Institute is good, but I don’t wish to be colored with the ID brush. It raises negative emotions in me.
Tour leaves open the possibility that a purely natural explanation for origin of life may be found, but he estimates it will take at least 350 years to do so. I think he’s being overly optimistic.
You call abiogenesis an axiom, but it is only an axiom to one who is committed to Philosophical Naturalism, that is, the belief that God does not exist or cannot be known to act in the material world. (Philosophical Naturalism is often confused with Methodological Naturalism, but Methodological Naturalism would never call abiogenesis an axiom.) I see no reason to hold such a view. In fact, I believe Philosophical Naturalism should be rejected because it is preventing science from making progress where progress is possible.
In place of Philosophical Naturalism, I propose (although I’m not the first to do so) the use of Regularism. Regularism is the belief that nature will always behave in the same way given the same situation. It is completely unbiased regarding the question of God’s existence or man’s ability to identify God’s activity in cosmological history. Because it is unbiased, it is able to pursue truth wherever it may lead.
You quote Pascal and I respect him, but science and philosophy have come a long way since the days of Pascal. We have Newton now and the law of cause and effect. Despite Hume’s skepticism regarding cause and effect, science is all about describing and quantifying causes and effects. By studying causes and effects, we have been able to determine a number of laws of nature. As a result, we can determine what nature is can do and what nature cannot do.
Philosophical Naturalism leads to the view that nature is all-powerful. But, if you think about it, that simply isn’t true. Nature is bound by natural laws. This should be obvious.
Let’s say for a moment that at some point in the future science is able to prove that nature is incapable of creating life through natural processes. In such a case, the “axiom” of chemical evolution is wrong but science has been hindered by the falsity of Philosophical Naturalism. In other words, science is stymied in origin of life studies rather than progressing. But there is a way to progress using Regularism and Laws of Nature.
If we can look at a particular effect somewhere in the cosmos and determine that natural processes could NOT produce that result (or that the result is unnaturally unlikely), well, I have a name for that. I call it a counter-natural cosmic event.
As I study cosmological history and the history of life, I see a number of counter-natural cosmic events. I intend to write a series of philosophy of science papers describing them. I can only see one explanation for them. If something isn’t natural, then it must be supernatural. I simply don’t know any viable third option.
Admittedly, there is a difficulty is charting a path to falsify the hypothesis of abiogenesis. But it is possible. If it isn’t possible, then abiogenesis should not even be considered a scientific hypothesis.
One of the first steps toward falsification might be to determine what level of odds would put the hypothesis beyond the realm of credibility. Do you think it would be possible for scientists to come to agreement on this? I’ve read one scientist who said one chance in 10^50 means it is theoretically impossible no matter how big the multiverse is. I’m not certain other scientists would agree, but I would be interested to know what other scientists think on this subject.
Another step would be more transparency in origin of life research. The research needs to be conducted in a natural setting, not just a lab. In a letter to a friend, Charles Darwin was the first to suggest that life arose “in a warm little pond.” At the time, the idea didn’t seem far fetched. No one knew how complex life is. But I think researchers would have a difficult time conducting their experiments in a watery pond-like setting. But it should be tried, both in fresh water and salt water. I think the water would dilute the chemicals and reactants and make the reactions far less efficient. And separations of the products and by-products would be very difficult in such a setting. As would the just in time delivery of the new chemicals for the next reaction. But if the reactions don’t work in a natural setting, then they really are not explanatory.
Do you see the point? The second step towards falsification would be to determine where these reactions and purifications could happen in a natural setting allowing only reasonable changes in temperature and atmospheric pressure. The types of reactions reported in the literature are only possible in well-controlled laboratories.
Then, of course, we still have the problem of the rise of a communication system. You claim that Perry Marshall has changed his view. Do you have a link for that? Because the website offering up to $5 million is still up and running. It appears to me that the challenge is still on. But if you are right, I would love to read where Perry has said that he has changed his mind and no longer sees DNA as a code.