From: ccw@prefect.cc.bellcore.com (wood,christopher)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 23:33:36 GMT

In article <P0kFuB12w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:

>Yes, this seems fair to say, with the added assertion that not only is
>there no plausible mechanism for abiogenesis, but there is no
>observational evidence either. No one has ever seen life arising from
>non-living matter.


One can observe the fossil record.  When one examines rocks that are
sufficiently old (in those few places that such rocks still exist...)
one does not find fossils.  If one has looked carefully enough, one
would be led to the conclusion that before a certain point in time,
there was no life on earth.

There is life on earth now.  Therefore, at least once non-living matter
became living.

Kalki, do y'all dispute any of this?

>To us the origin of life is also a scientific problem, but we propose
>that it is not reducible under any of the current mechanistic or
>materialistic concepts of science. The origin of life, we claim, will
>not be solved until science enlarges its paradigm to include nonphysical
>but nevertheless real entities, including the soul, the Supersoul and
>consciousness.

That's the old spirit.  Noone can figure out how it happened, so it must
be impossible to know what happened.  Before 1903, no one knew how to
make a flying machine.  Lucky the Wright Brothers didn't take your
approach.

Please define "nonphysical".  To avoid word games, also define
"physical", without being circular.  Or point me to a reference book in
a library that contains such definitions.  Now define "real".  Now
define the soul, the Supersoul, and consciousness, and provide evidence
for these claimed entities.

>skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger) writes:
>> I would argue that it is Kalki and other creationists who should be
>> challenged.  It's a question of burden of proof.  One important aspect on
>> burden of proof is that you should base a controversial proposition on
>> something that is controversial as well.  They say that life can only have a
>> supernatural explaination.  This is based on the controversial assumption 
>> that the supernatural (ie., God) actually exists.  Thus, the burden of proof
>> falls more heavily upon the C'ists than the scientists.  (And, if God does
>> exist, there's still nothing to say it must be a supernatural explaination.
>> God could just hang back and let life come about by itself, a Deist's
>> viewpoint)

(Kalki again:)
>The problem with proving our alternative explanation of the origin of
>life is as follows:

>Our hypothesis (that God is the origin of life) is not accepted by
>materialistic science, which claims that the existence of God is not
>within the realm of observation. This is false. God can, and has been,
>observed. When we describe specific methods for observing the existence
>of God, materialistic science refuses to adopt those methods, and
>thereby never succeeds in observing God. 

Because your methods prove nothing!  They are not objective, and not
repeatable. 

>Not caring to admit that it has
>not tried our methods, materialistic science instead claims that we are
>simply making unfalsifiable assertions about the existence of a
>nonmaterial entity. 

"materialistic science" is calling a spade a spade.

>We therefore have no other choice than to conclude
>that materialistic science has made up its mind that it does not want
>God involved in its program, but prefers to try to explain all phenomena
>as the products of matter and mechanism alone.

It's worked really well so far.

>This program is unfortunately doomed to failure, since it is not
>possible to both explain all phenomena and omit some of them at the
>same time. 

I rewuested some definitions to help me understand what y'all were
talking abou at the top of this post, and I need another one here...
please provide a definition for "failure".

"materialistic science" is there to explain the products of matter and
mechanism.  Should it arrise that these are not sufficient to explain
the world that we live in, then additional entities will be introduced. 
No sooner.

>Sincerely,

Not!

>Kalki Dasa


Chris Wood
-- 
Chris Wood     Bellcore     ...!bellcore!prefect!ccw
                         or ccw@prefect.cc.bellcore.com