From: jjh00@outs.ccc.amdahl.com (Joel J. Hanes)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: To Joe Duffy and T.O. et al.  - re: Abiogenesis (fwd)
Summary: better evidence yields increased scientific certainty
Date: 3 Sep 92 18:25:12 GMT
Reply-To: jjh00@OUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Joel J. Hanes)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

>  I wrote:
>>
>> God must be outside science, not because God has limits,
>> but because science has limits.
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Scientific explanation is, and _must_ be, limited to those
>> agents and mechanisms that can be investigated and described
>> by the scientific method.
>>
>>
>> Perhaps the Hand of the Judeo-Christian God deliberately
>> and with malice aforethought built the first cells.
>> If so, the scientific theory of biogenesis will always
>> be wrong, and so be it.


  duffy@aslss02.asl.dl.nec.com (Joseph Duffy) responds:
>
> Could it be then ...
> that since initial origin or abiogenesis
> is not regular and predictable
> that it is across the line and into the realm
> where science should not tread?

A problematic question.
I'm worried by your phrase "across the line and into the realm
where science should not tread", since it makes me think
you haven't understood all of a posting I labored to make
quite clear.

It's possible, though unlikely, that _direct_evidence_ for
biogenesis by the Hand of a Creator could turn up, though
I personally have a hard time figuring out what form such
evidence could take.

  (There are rocks of the correct age and provenance in
   several places --  maybe gigantic Hebrew characters
   spelling out "I am that I am" in a heavily metamorphosed
   Archaean mudstone?  A titanic mezuzah in a mountain core?
   But I digress.)

If such evidence turns up, science has a boundary right there.
(I'm not holding my breath waiting for this to happen, though.)

If, on the other hand, _no_ evidence for direct creation shows
up, and the search for evidence of biogenesis by
spontaneous development from non-living chemistry (the theory
of abiogenesis) continues to bear interesting fruit ---
Why, then, the natural laws of physics, chemistry,
thermodynamics, and the behavior of non-linear systems should
be enough to explicate one or several possible mechanisms,
eventually.  If evidence can be found that supports one of
these proposed (hypothesized) mechanisms, and eliminates the
others, the theory will seem more certain to those look to
science to explain the world.

> Even if a natural explanation for abiogenesis
> were arrived at it seems as though science would not be able to make the
> statement that "this *is* how life began".

It depends on the quality of the supporting evidence.
If some lab gets a spontaneous replicator going from
clay or sulphur chemistry (which I expect within my lifetime),
and based on these results they make predictions that are
borne out by examining ancient deposits, then the theory
will gain strength.

If many independent lines of evidence support
one particular theory, it may achieve the status of "superb
theory", one which scientists may effectively treat as fact.
( I don't, myself, expect this for abiogenesis -- rocks recording
  the right period are rare, usually heavily deformed and
  metamorphosed -- the record we'd look to for confirmation is poor. )


Of course, the Creator could be leaving deceiving evidence, or may
have concealed the evidence of his direct handiwork, etc. --
but these can never be _scientific_ theories, because they lead
to no fruitful investigations, and offer equal support
to "theories" like Last Tuesdayism.

---
Joel Hanes
Newsgroups: talk.origins