Is Abiogenesis an hypothesis in distress?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Ronald_Cram

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.

Interesting. Okay, so you are not ID associated. James Tour, however, still is ID associated. Perry was, but no longer is (as I understand it). Also, the articles you linked to are from an ID associated publication by the way. But I’ll take your word for it. Sometime I want to know the story here.

@Ronald_Cram

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.

Yup maybe he is.

@Ronald_Cram

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.

Not true. I’m the counter example. I have no problem with God’s action in the world. I am not a philosophical naturalist. I even just argued for the de novo creation of Adam. In my scientific work, however, I rely on the long Christian theological tradition of methodological naturalism, though its called the wrong thing. I just know that science is not the whole story.

You work with students. It is critical you help them understand these distinctions, you could lead them into a whole ton of avoidable conflict. It does not appear you read the links I gave you. I hope you do. Three of the key ones:

The Rules of the Game

Methodological Naturalism, So Falsely Called

Dr James Tour and the Great Pascal

Do you mind taking a look at those? To be clear, I see your proposals:

@Ronald_Cram

In place of Philosophical Naturalism, I propose (although I’m not the first to do so) the use of Regularism.

Except none of us have the authority to change the rules of science. It seems to be doing just fine as it is.

@Ronald_Cram

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.

Except that is not philosophical naturalism.

@Ronald_Cram

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

Except that is not how science works. I can’t imagine how it could possibly do this.

@Ronald_Cram

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.

Except, as a scientist, I cannot see how that is the case. That is just not what we do in science.

@Ronald_Cram

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.

I know of no agreed upon case that satisfies that criteria.

@Ronald_Cram

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.

The viable third option: “we have not yet understood or learned the explanation.” In a word, “ignorance.”

@Ronald_Cram

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?

Nope. It is not possible to estimate the odds of an unknown process.

@Ronald_Cram

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.

How much do you know about OOL of research? This does not make much sense. Our current “natural setting” is nothing like the “natural setting” billions of years ago on earth. Why would we try and run OOL experiments in the wrong setting?

@Ronald_Cram

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.

Not really. I’m just not sure you know how science works. This is not how we do it.

@Ronald_Cram

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.

Just ask him directly. He is very optimistic that someone will collect.

@Ronald_Cram

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.

Oh, he still thinks DNA is an “information system.” He is wrong, in my view, but he still thinks that. The change is that he now thinks someone will eventually collect on his prize. He thought it was unsolvable, but now no longer.

@Ronald_Cram

(Philosophical Naturalism is often confused with Methodological Naturalism, but Methodological Naturalism would never call abiogenesis an axiom.)

Methodological naturalism does call abiogenesis an axiom. I’m not sure why you would disagree. In scientific work, we only consider natural processes. We only consider abiogenesis, not God’s creative act. Panspermia, sure, but that just postpones the abiogenesis question, as you rightly pointed out. By definition, no one is around to make that cell but God, and science does not consider God’s action. It is designed to study creation (that which is created) not the Creator.

---

@Ronald_Cram you seem like a smart guy who is well read. I appreciate that. I just think that science works differently than you know. You may really like the upcoming discussion on Divine Action with @rcohlers (Clinton Ohlers: Two Parables on Divine Action). This may clarify why exactly science can’t give you what you want, and why I’m not appealing to philosophical naturalism. Rather, I’m solidly in a theological tradition. It is the same tradition as Francis Bacon, James Tour, and Blaise Pascal. Maybe you can join us…

@Ronald_Cram

You quote Pascal and I respect him, but science and philosophy have come a long way since the days of Pascal.

I suppose I haven’t come a long way from him. He is focused on Jesus. He sees Jesus as the center to which all tends, and all truth is found.

We know God only by Jesus Christ. Without this mediator all communion with God is taken away; through Jesus Christ we know God. All those who have claimed to know God, and to prove Him without Jesus Christ, have had only weak proofs. But in proof of Jesus Christ we have the prophecies, which are solid and palpable proofs. And these prophecies, being accomplished and proved true by the event, mark the certainty of these truths, and therefore the divinity of Christ.

I’m pretty happy with that view. All those who have claimed to know God, and to prove Him without Jesus Christ, have had only weak proofs. Now that I have the strong proof that God offers in Jesus, I have no need for weak proofs. Do you?