It has been pointed out to me many times before that abiogensis was not
properly a part of evolution theory but I don't recall anyone telling me
the reason. I should remind you that I still think that that abiogensis
should be a part of evolution theory since without life there could be no
evolution.

In article <GvYwf.1206$ee6.488@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, cactus
<bml@ubadlands.edu> wrote:

As has been pointed out here, there cannot be evolution without life, so
abiogenesis is not properly a part of evolutionary theory.

I believe that this has been mentioned several times before.

It has been pointed out to me many times before that abiogensis was not
properly a part of evolution theory but I don't recall anyone telling me
the reason. I should remind you that I still think that that abiogensis
should be a part of evolution theory since without life there could be no
evolution.

In article <8bXwf.1248$Hd4.306@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, cactus
<bml@ubadlands.edu> wrote:

Jason wrote:

In article <7u28s1lfslge1dpku2tj1lbpjeg5b03hft@4ax.com>, John Baker
<nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 05:25:47 -0800, Goober <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote:

Ash wrote:

They did that. They hadn't got a case because ID doesn't do science,
their own witnesses admitted that. Of course, they could get lucky and
find a judge who was willing to make up a deffinition of science and
not use the one accepted by the NAS.
What validity do you think ID has? What are the predictions it makes,
how can it be tested and falsified? What data do you think they could
mention that they didn't mention in the Dover case?

I've seen this issue bounced around a lot and I think it is important to
step back from the Dover case and make some general points.

1) the motivations of this or that person or group is *completely
irrelvant* to assessing the quality of the arguments that they put
forward. Someone might be a KKK racist bigot, but if they present
arguments as to differences in behaviour or abilities of notional racial
kinds then such arguments need to be addressed on their own terms. If a
man-hating radical feminist wants to claim that women are physically as
strong (or stronger) than men, it will not do to dismiss it in virtue of
the person's motivations. Its merits as a claim are to be assessed in
its own terms and on rational grounds. Likewise, it does not matter
whether the supporters of ID are religiously motivated or not - the
issue of the standing of ID as a science is orthogonal to such issues.

2) The hypothesis of intelligent design - that is, the hypothesis that
the fit of form to function observable in much of the natural world was
brought about by an intelligent designer (ID) - does not satisfy one of
the most important criteria for being a science, as that term is usually
understood by most people today working in the nominal sciences today.
Namely, it does not make any testable (or falsifiable) predictions.

3) However, simply because a hypothesis is not scientific, by whatever
criterion you use for that term, does nothing to suggest that it is not
a perfectly good hypothesis. Science is not the only appropriate
methodology for explanation. Indeed, most perfectly adequate explanation
is not scientific by the criterion most often vaunted - making testable
predications. (Most perfectly good historical explanation, for example,
does not make testable predications.)

4) There is, it seems to me, plenty of evidence for both the theory of
evolution and ID, and this is because, to a relatively large extent,
they draw on *precisely the same* body of evidence - namely, the
manifest fit of forms to functions observable in the natural world. The
heart is well fitted to pumping blood, the eyes are well fitted to
seeing, etc. This is evidence for both evolutionary theory and ID
inasmuch as both purport to provide the best explanation for such
phenomena. The question concerns the quality of the proposed
explanations for that evidence.

5) ID, as I have identified it above, is *not* a religious claim. It is
a hypothesis that remains *entirely open* as to whether the putative
designer was an alien, a pan-galactic hyperdimensional being, a
super-powerful computer, or an entity mentioned in this or that
religion. For comparison, it is as open on that score as Darwin's theory
of evolution is on whether traits are passed from generation to
generation by DNA or XYZ or whatever. ID is no more a religious claim
about God than evolutionary theory is a biochemical claim about DNA.

So I find the question of whether ID is a science all rather irrelevant
- the question that seems to me to be central is whether or not it is a
good explanation. That is not the same as whether it is a good
*scientific* (meaning, say, predictive and empirically testable)
explanation.

The question of whether ID is a science is, of course, entirely relevant
to whether it should be taught in a *science* class. But that question
in its turn is really a question about what we take to be the point of
the class. Is it exclusively to teach a *science* or is it to consider
and evaluate putative explanations of biological phenomena? The two are
not the same. It is a question of whether a class labelled "biology"
should be styled as a *science* class (a "biological science" class) in
the first place - meaning that only *scientifically* acceptable
hypotheses (meaning, say, those that make empirically testable
predications) are to be presented and considered as candidate
expanations - or whether it is to be considered a class where putative
explanations of biological phenomena, without prior prejudice to being
necessarily scientific, are to be presented and considered. Stylised in
the latter terms there is no *rational* grounds not to admit ID to such
a class. (This is not, let me emphasise, to suggest that ID would be
given equal time, anymore than Lamarkian evolutionary theory will be
given equal time with Darwinian evolutionary theory. Weak hypotheses can
be presented and rejected according to the evidence against them.)

There may, of course, be *political* grounds for not admitting this or
that theory into a classroom, depending on your preferred constitution
and political leanings, but we must not confuse political requirements
with rational requirements. For comparison, there were political grounds
not to teach Marxist economics in the west, (and parallel political
grounds not to teach capitalist economics in Marxist dominated
countries), but such grounds do not constitutes argument against the
viability of either of these economic theories.

That's all well and good, but ID still isn't science, and it's far

from a "perfectly good hypothesis."

As soon as you uncover some *objective* evidence for the existence of
any "designer", feel free to pop back around and let us know.

Goober.

Several posters have told me that evolution theory has been tested and
falsified. I agree that the testing and falsifying of theories and
predictions is very important. Has this been done in relation to a living
cell evolving from non-life? Without life--there is no evolution so please
don't try to convince me that this issue is not related to evolution.

Wishful thinking, Jason. A genuine scientific theory is falsifiable,
that is, proven wrong in some scientific fashion. This is one of the
many reasons that "intelligent design" and creationism are not theories
- they cannot be proven wrong by experiment or other means.

The luminiferous aether was a scientific theory that ultimately was
falsified, proven wrong by the Michaelson-Morley experiments.

And evolutionary theory has yet to be proven wrong in general. There are
some particulars that change as knowledge increases. But that's science.

You have a second problem - your fond hope that abiogenesis will be
disproven hasn't happened yet. No one has been able to come up with an
experiment that will definitively disprove it. You'll just have to wait,
until it actually happens or maybe a creationist fakes some data or
something.

Is this the reason that evolutionists claim that abiogenesis is unrelated
to evolution theory?

In article <8bXwf.1248$Hd4.306@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, cactus
<bml@ubadlands.edu> wrote:

You have a second problem - your fond hope that abiogenesis will be
disproven hasn't happened yet. No one has been able to come up with an
experiment that will definitively disprove it. You'll just have to wait,
until it actually happens or maybe a creationist fakes some data or
something.

Is this the reason that evolutionists claim that abiogenesis is unrelated
to evolution theory?