Indeed, there is a great deal about abiogenesis that is unknown, but
investigating the unknown is what science is for - and it is not
stated as fact. Speculation is part of the process. As long as the
speculations can be tested, they are scientific. Its only the sad
sniping of the religionists that try to distort - not to mention the
great humor in a religionist quoting British biologist Joseph Henry
Woodger "simple dogmatism--asserting that what you want to believe did
in fact happen." As, of course, that is the entire platform of
religion.
So rather than speculate or admit "I don't know," the religionist
fills in "God did it." And takes themselves as scientific... ha!
Criticize others on scientific method while maintaining the
unfalsifiable stance "God did it" for everything. Thank you for
shining some light on the scientific method!
Lastly, let's recognize the suppression of science and thought that
has occurred for centuries by religionists. Many centuries ago, if
someone got wind of thinking that the solar system was not geocentric
- they would immediately respond just as Keima has here... with
ridicule. "How can you test the hypothesis that the earth is not the
center? Look at this unscientific fool... etc"
Fortunately, we moved beyond the repressive religionists in that
regard - as eventually, we will in this regard.
On Jan 27, 5:08 am, Keima Sente <Sho...@weiqui.org> wrote:
If a spontaneous beginning for life is to be accepted as scientific
fact, it should be established by the scientific method. This has been
described as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations,
form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further
observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions
based on the theory are fulfilled.
In an attempt to apply the scientific method, it has not been possible
to observe the spontaneous generation of life. There is no evidence that
it is happening now, and of course no human observer was around when
evolutionists say it was happening. No theory concerning it has been
verified by observation. Laboratory experiments have failed to repeat
it. Predictions based on the theory have not been fulfilled. With such
an inability to apply the scientific method, is it honest science to
elevate such a theory to the level of fact?
On the other hand, there is ample evidence to support the conclusion
that the spontaneous generation of life from nonliving matter is not
possible. "One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task,"
Professor Wald of Harvard University acknowledges, "to concede that the
spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible." But what
does this proponent of evolution actually believe? He answers: "Yet here
we are--as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation. Does that
sound like objective science?
British biologist Joseph Henry Woodger characterized such reasoning as
"simple dogmatism--asserting that what you want to believe did in fact
happen."28 How have scientists come to accept in their own minds this
apparent violation of the scientific method? The well-known evolutionist
Loren Eiseley conceded: "After having chided the theologian for his
reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable
position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the
assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take
place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."
Based on the evidence, the spontaneous generation of life theory appears
better to fit the realm of science fiction than scientific fact. Many
supporters apparently have forsaken the scientific method in such
matters in order to believe what they want to believe. In spite of the
overwhelming odds against life originating by chance, unyielding
dogmatism prevails rather than the caution normally signaled by the
scientific method.
.
|
