If you thought that was true, you would have listed them instead of using the deliberately vague “certain ID claims,” Bill.
Also, we’re talking about actual ID hypotheses, not the straw-man evolutionary hypotheses that are the subject of the pathetically tiny amount of empirical work done by the ID movement.
Too generic also an incomplete explanation.
That’s secondary by miles.
Better than anything you creationists have come up with.
A mind can arrange specific chemical reactions and create information from scratch.
“A mind.” You need to be more specific. What brain is producing this “mind”? Where did it come from?
We have the Abrahamic religions that will give a high level of specificity.
ALL SCIENCE SO FAR! 
The intersection where science ends a religion take over.
Nice to see you admit your ID-Creation position is religious, not scientific.
Is a useless statement. It doesn’t assert anything but mere possibility. A useful statement, scientifically, would include a proposal for how life could have arisen by unguided chemical combinations.
I have no objection to anyone who says that life could have arisen by unguided chemical combinations. Such a statement is not easy to falsify, but it’s not very informative. But if someone thinks that life did arise in that way, and expects me to accept that, he has to provide a scenario that I deem plausible.
They’re not obliged to prove that it would violate natural laws, in order to express doubt about its plausibility. The person who claims it can be done is obliged to show how. The onus is on the asserter, not the skeptic. Always.
I’ve made no claim that life was so created. I was discussing the claim that life arose by accident. That is a positive claim. As such, it requires evidence and argument. No one is required to prove that it couldn’t possibly have happened that way. Those who think it happened by accident are required to give realistic scenarios.
Really? And how many times have T. aquaticus and other scientists here chided some ID people for mixing up two different questions, the origin of life, and the evolution of life once it originated?
Further, even if evolutionary theory is important for origin of life study, other things are important for it, too, such as chemistry. Tour is a world-class expert in chemistry, and particularly on the way smaller and simpler molecules are brought together to form larger and more complex ones. If you can’t see the relevance of that for origin of life, you shouldn’t be offering an opinion on the subject.
Right. The field in which Tour is a respected, world-class scientist. And a field which is not your area of competence. So you would be wise not to belittle Tour, until you have the accomplishments in chemistry that he does.
Science is not very good at sorting out origins discussions.
It’s a whole heck of a lot better than ID-Creation’s oogity-boogity!
There are 2 footnotes that will never be solved, and contribute to divisiveness, and worst of all, have no bearing on the issue of Genealogical Adam:
1) Whether Evolution can work in an un-guided Cosmos is completely irrelevant to Geneal.Adam.
and
2) Whether Guided Evolution can ever be demonstrated by Science is also completely irrelevant to Geneal.Adam.
And yet, as we all know, most of the debates here at PeacefulScience.org are focused
on these two specific and irrelevant footnotes.
George:
Is the whole purpose of Peaceful Science to market the idea of Genealogical Adam? I would not get that impression from reading its mission statement. I thought that PS was interested in the whole range of issues regarding science and faith that are connected with origins questions.
Genealogical Adam is not my issue. I’m neither for nor against it. So I don’t talk about it, except glancingly, when it touches on some other topic that interests me. But it seems to be your big issue. And that’s fine. You have a right to emphasize what you find most interesting. But the rest of us may be less interested in some of the issues that are dearest to you.
Of course, I’ve never figure out why a Unitarian, and in particular a Unitarian who thinks that Adam and Eve never existed, is so fired up to defend Genealogical Adam as a serious possibility. But who can figure out the motives of anyone on these debating sites?
No it isn’t.
Because he rightly sees ita value to the church. It is also likely to be how we become most widly known at first. The GAE is just part of our story, but it may be what makes us famous.
Of course, one can take the statement that life arose through unknown chemical processes and attach the label “science” to it. But it’s not obvious that in doing so one has learned a great deal about how life arose.
Yes, he sees its value to the church – the church whose doctrines he personally rejects! What a strange world we live in, when champions champion something not because they think it is true, but because they deem it not as bad as something they don’t want people to believe in (in this case, creationism).
It reminds me of Francisco Ayala, who made many indignant public statements about how ID is offensive to Christian teaching because it makes God responsible for evil – when Ayala himself had more or less quietly abandoned Christianity for something like pantheism (at best) years earlier. (He of course never admitted his apostasy out loud on BioLogos when he wrote for them, or in any place where he was attacking ID.) All that indignation to make sure the doctrine of Christianity was upheld – when he himself didn’t uphold it!
I’m a very old-fashioned kind of guy, I guess. It strikes me that people should defend something they believe in personally, rather than something they don’t believe in but that serves some tactical, culture-war end. I remember when religious debate was between people like Father Copleston and Bertrand Russell, each of whom argued for exactly what they believed. Then religious debate made sense. The modern world, particularly the American religious world, appears to have have gone stark, raving mad.
Only if you are ignorant of the work that has been done. Here is what has come out of just one lab. Please explain why this is not science.
I’m so glad you asked that question!
The whole purpose of PeacefulScience is to render Science as a pacifying bridge maker-amongst Christians … not as an instigator of further division. There are no doubt many other ways of describing this general mission, using different wording - - perhaps wording that is better than what I have chosen today.
But the one thing I know PeacefulScience.org is not supposed to become is a new iteration of eternal argument and debate over something that may be impossible for any mortal to determine.
There will be no peace … as long as people think we are supposed to be arguing the unanswerable questions like:
the epistemology of Intelligent Design (when “i.d., no caps” has already been accepted),
or
the scientific aspirations of Intelligent Design that evolution cannot work without a designer (when “i.d., no caps”) has already been accepted.
If debate on these 2 footnotes of history is really desirable, then I would expect that the Discovery Institute would support debate on such fringe issues.