Is U.S. Becoming Hostile to Science?

Maybe they learned it from Christ.

Ha! You've never met my parents - both are non-believers, Kevn - but nice try.

You don't need to believe in Christ or any other mythical being to be a good, respectful person.

Now change the ID to abiogenesis in that post. See how it also isn't built on a previously tested theory, but relies on the religion of science.


no evidence that abiogenesis actually happened.

abiogenesis can't be tested or falsified.

Asserts certainty



The point I have made several times, which you ignore each time is .... If abiogenesis is science, so is ID. Now do you understand?

Both are accepted on faith. There is no solid evidence of either.

Careful, Juro. Some might seek to ban you for saying that their god is mythical.

Being good isn't the same as being Christ-like. A good person loves those who love him. A Christ-like person loves his enemies.

Why would anyone be banned for stating an opinion?

Your asking me?

Yes, I never heard of such a thing. Were you banned for stating an opinion?

Edit: You can call my God mythical. He's big enough to defend Himself.

I read Bibles I find in hotel rooms.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

I suppose, in large part, I am a de facto 'follower' as well - many of my values align with Christian teachings. Yet, there are differences. Specifically:

- 'Burning for eternity' and/or related.

- Blood sacrifice... Much like Dark Korvin struggled with this, so do I.

- Sexuality=sin, condemnation of homosexuality and so forth - no live and let live?

- I know many smart women married to foolish men, yet... they must obey the male?

- This may sound odd, but... a big issue with me are... praying mantises.


Why praying mantises? They are horrific, the very definition of monstrous. The way they stalk, and eat, and mate - what is this!? The implication regarding an Intelligent Designer is suddenly... terrifying.

Even if I managed to ascend to the Christian Heaven on my own accord I could never forget my brothers and sisters, burning eternally, for things that just don't seem all that bad to me.


Sympathy for the devil, I guess...

- Desmond Shang

Thanks Kendra, but hopefully they realize that it is strictly my opinion and they are free to disagree. I see little difference between Christ and Santa Claus - except most people quit believing in one by the time they are teens.

So are you suggesting that I am not as 'good' of a person as you because I don't believe in Christ?

My parents taught me that you should treat everyone in a manner in which you would like to be treated - with respect, kindness and fairness - even people you don't like. They also taught me that it is impossible to hate someone you don't know.

OMG!!!! UR P4R3NT5 W45 TEH CHRI5T!!!!

ROFL. It's really funny when you think about it. Me, the athiest liberal - the spawn of Christ.

Odd we buddhists have has the same notion. Its called compassion. We got there with out Chirst. Though he would have been a good Buddhist if he had chose that path.

First, disproving another theory does not validate your own. But i will humor you, i'm not an expert on the origins of life, but I'll take a stab at it:

1. depending on the version, based on organic chemistry (what reactions are possible), geology (to understand the conditions at the time of the dawn of life), physics to explain what processes were occuring at the time.

2. early experiments using basic elements known to have been present in the early earth atmosphere scientists were able to synthesize organic compounds that are the building blocks of life by adding electricity such as would occur in a lightening strike. Similar organic compounds are found in other parts of the solar system which suggests that these processes are not uncommon. In addition, the existance of other self-organizing systems suggests that the life could have arisen in a complex system.

3. I'm not sure what critical tests have been done so far, but it is a field of ongoing research and i'm certain that no theory is going unchallenged.

4. all theories of abiogenesis postulate some mechanism to move from organic molecules to a living creature. If these mechanisms are shown to be incapable of moving toward a living organism then that would prove them false.

5. All theories about abiogenesis are tenative

6. All theories of abiogenesis attempt to construct the simplest mechanism that will explain the origin of life.

Perhaps you fail to understand that Abiogenesis is not a single theory. There are several theories of abiogenesis. None of the existing theories may be right, but that doesn't make them unscientific. They take what is known and proven: chemistry, biology, geology, astrophysics, atmospheric science etc. and attempt to explain how life arose out of the conditions that existed on earth at the time of the origin of life. These theories are all testable and all make predictions that could prove them false.



It is certainly possible that people accept abiogenesis on faith, this would be unscientific, just as ID is since at this time there is no solid evidence of either.

What you have is a logical fallacy:

Some theories of abiogenesis are scientific.
Some people accept abiogenesis on faith.
ID is accepted on faith.

from this you can not conclude that ID is scientfic. its exactly the same as saying:

Some candy is made with chocolate
Some candy is round
A hockey puck is round

You can not conclude from this that a hockey puck is made from chocolate. It could be, but you need some other criteria to assess that.

I never said anyone is better than anyone else, except in their own mind maybe. I told you the difference between a good man and a man trying to be Christ-like.

I didn't say one is a better person.

Actually, I believe any good thing a Christ-like person does is because God is using him/her. I don't credit the person for anything other than being a good tool. They have no reason to be self-rightious, they are fortunate to be used by the hand of God.

I hope I never presume to be better than anyone else.

TY or your thought out response.

Everything you said is very interesting. Let me try to reduce this to the basics of your points.

4. Since none of the theories have offered the mechanism to move from organic molecules to a living creature, it would be a leap of faith to accept it actually happen.

5. Yes, any theory that can't be recreated/tested will always be tenative. If it is ever accomplished, it will be because man made the elements and condition perfect. If these elements were perfect for the creation of life it might be suggested only intelligence could apply so many variables at once.

6. I know these theories are meant to construct a simple mechanism. But it's all still a matter of faith.

"The first assumption was that non-living things gave rise to living material. This is still just an assumption. It is conceivable that living material might have suddenly appeared on this world in some peculiar manner, say from another planet, but this then raises the question, "Where did life originate on that planet?" We could say that life has always existed, but such an explanation is not a very satisfactory one. Instead, the explanation that nonliving things could have given rise to complex systems having the properties of living things is generally more acceptable to most scientists. There is, however, little evidence in favour of abiogenesis and as yet we have no indication that it can be performed. There are many schemes by which abiogenesis could have occurred but these are still suggestive schemes and nothing more. They may indicate experiments that can be performed, but they tell us nothing about what actually happened some 1,000 million years ago. It is therefore a matter of faith on the part of the biologist that abiogenesis did occur and he can choose whatever method of abiogenesis happens to suit him personally; the evidence for what did happen is not available." (Kerkut, Gerald A. [Emeritus Professor of Neuroscience, University of Southampton, UK], "Implications of Evolution," in Kerkut G.A., ed. "International Series of Monographs on Pure and Applied Biology, Division: Zoology," Volume 4, Pergamon Press: New York NY

Ty for the open-minded discussion

Correct me if I'm getting this wrong, but I think what you're saying is that there is a difference between a good Christ-like person and just a regular old good person (like me). Is that right?

The only difference is one follows Christ, the other doesn't. One may be good, one may be honest. But that isn't following Christ.

I believe we are predestine to do whatever it is we do. So I'm not making a moral judgement on anyone's reality. If one is ever to do God's will, it's because God chooses to use him/her, imho.

We are all family, according to the Bible.

Good to know. Glad to hear that one can be a non-follower and still be considered a good, honest being.

We are, afterall, family according to science.

Praise God and omnipotent chance, brother

no comments on 1-3, so you accept my explanations?



Many different mechanisms have been proposed and all of them are testable given suffienct time, money and effort. If the theory is demonstrated to create life from organic molecules then it doens't require a leap of faith.

Would you say that most theories of abiogenesis meet #4?



Most scientific theories can never be definitively proven. For a theory to be widely accepted it should supported by as much evidence as possible and should not be contradicted by any observed evidence.
A theory of abiogenesis should strive to show:
1. the described mechanism can produce life from organic molecules
2. the conditions on the earth at the time of the start of life meet the requirements for the mechanism in 1. to as well as we can discover

The conditions on the earth vary over a huge parameter space and don't require an external intelligence to do so.

Would you say that most theories of abiogenesis meet #5?




#6 is sort of a way of doing a tie-breaker (if that helps you understand it). It can be stated as: if two theories are shown to be equally valid then the one that provides the most simple explanation is more likely to be true. Before you get too excited, "simple" includes the least assumptions. At this point the field is still too far from a definitive solution to apply this.



I don't see anything in that quote that I would disagree with.


Let me summarize where we are and see if you agree:

1. Accepting that abiogenesis definitely did occur is an act of faith.
   
2. Accepting that life was created by god is an act of faith.
   
3. There are theories that attempt to explain abiogenesis and they meet the definition of a scientific theory.
   
4. There are theories of Intellegent Design that attempt to explain creationism, but they do not meet the definition of a scientific theory.
   

Translateth the Lord:

The confusion comes from Kevin's singular focus on the initial assemblage of life from non-life. If you talk about natural selection, he is led to think that you are talking about something that temporally succeeds the event that is the lynchpin of his mental existence. Attack the lynchpin without using the word "natural" or "selection," and you'll be on your way to speaking his language.

Btw, you rock- God style!