It is probable Life arose from Naturalistic Processes

This round will be a brief overview of my position on the subject. Later rounds will be more in depth depending on the points my opponent finds to be weakest. First, some definitions: Abiogenesis- the origin of life from non-life Methodological Naturalism- Commitment to a methodological principle within the context of scientific inquiry; namely, the principle that all hypotheses and events are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events. To introduce a supernatural or transcendental cause within science is to depart from naturalistic explanations. [1] Philosophical Naturalism- Commitment to the premise that nature is best accounted for by reference to material principles, i. e. , by mass and energy and physical-chemical properties as encountered in diverse contexts of inquiry. [1] My argument here will be mainly inductive. In the past 200 years, our knowledge, along with our populations and our standard of living, have improved drastically. All of this can be chalked up to science, specifically to methodological naturalism combined with the scientific method. Science is now able to explain things in great detail that 100 years ago weren't even thought about. This is because science never accepts the conclusions "we can't know" or "god did it" as legitimate explanations. This means that, never content with our current level of knowledge, every new discovery raises new questions. When you combine this with the rigorous standards of the scientific method [2], over time a reliable body of knowledge is built up. I mention this because the numerous successes of the scientific method in the past suggest (though do not prove beyond a doubt) its further success in the future, in the same way the thousands of sunrises we've all observed over our lifetimes strongly suggest that the sun will indeed rise again tomorrow. This, of course, runs counter to the utter and complete lack of evidence for any external agency, supernatural or otherwise, acting in the world. Through induction, then, we arrive at philosophical naturalism. Again, we cannot guarantee that material things are all there is; however, given the evidence we have, this seems most likely. Combining this with Occam's Razor (that the explanation employing the fewest unsupported and/or unncessary assumptions is most likely true)[3], we can build a reasonably strong case for philosophical naturalism. And of course, given philosophical naturalism, the resolution follows. This sort of general support is not the only evidence out there however. I'm sure my opponent has heard of the Miller-Urey experiment, in which scientists attempted to mimic the conditions of early earth in an artificial lab set up, and found that amino acids formed spontaneously in the mixture [4] Its also been shown that complex organic molecules are fairly common in space [5], meaning that there would be plenty of opportunity on early earth for them to combine in various ways. The current leading hypothesis for how life could have formed on earth is known as the RNA World Hypothesis. Because RNA can act both as a carrier of genetic information and as an enzyme that catalyzes reactions, in early cells it could have served the functions of both proteins and DNA, the two most crucial classes of biological molecules in modern cells. [6] Once a self-contained, self-replicating object existed, it could be acted on by natural selection, and evolution could take place. The fact that we cannot detail exactly how it happened is not a weakness, as we have evidence both that it is possible and that life arose somehow (we're here). Given that, a naturalistic explanation for abiogensis best fits the available evidence with the fewest unnecessary assumptions. Therefore it is the most probably correct explanation. 1. . http://www.infidels.org... 2. . http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu... 3. . http://www.skepdic.com... 4. . http://www.chem.duke.edu... 5. . http://www.space.com... 6. . http://nobelprize.org...