Wednesday, 31 March 2021

Abiogenesis requires Proof


First of all, thank you for this community where we can have these debates and your openness to exchange ideas. My goal in posting this is to eitherChange my mind about this issue orCome away with a greater knowledge of an atheist view on this issue.What I'm NOT debating is Young Earth Creationism (I reject it) or a specific religion/deity (this is a philosophical issue that is broadly theistic). I also will not post links (per the rules) unless a poster wants more resources for the sources (most can be found on Wiki anyways).Basically, I think it is reasonable to put the burden of proof on those who believe that abiogenesis is true. This requires proof - not facts that are consistent with abiogenesis, but hard tangible proof. Ultimately, since I believe that abiogenesis is impossible to prove and not remotely reasonable to even believe, the theistic argument for design is powerful and compelling.To begin, I am trying to steelman the argument for abiogeneis and looked to TalkOrigins. After investigating the scientific articles, I found that the reply is that primitive life is much different than current life (even "simple" organisms like prokaryotes). However, we know for a fact that photosynthesis appeared in the Archaen time period (perhaps as early as 3.5 billion years ago per Wikipedia) and to call this process simple is to misunderstand it. Life is about 4 billion years old, so there is the issue of this appearing relatively soon after earth was formed. That means that at the very least membranes, DNA or RNA, proteins, carbohydrates, and scores of other organic molecules must spontaneously form and spontaneously self organize - in other words, something so demonstrably unlikely that it defies calculation. It is the difficulty of saying that life simply evolved from non-life that led even Richard Dawkins and others to suggest panspermia as an alternative theory.So far I haven't made a positive argument for a deity or creator (nor will I here), however I think it reasonable that the burden of proof lies on a naturalistic explanation in light of the fact that the probability of life randomly evolving from non-living material CAN be calculated and is extremely unlikely.The Wikipedia article on Abiogenesis mentions that some of the experiments used to investigate abiogenesis are woefully inadequate to explain life and are only very basically consistent with abiogenesis. In no way can it reach the level of proof. Another example is Miller-Urey, which is debated and would be akin to demonstrating that because two bricks might land on top of each other when thrown randomly, then the Taj Mahal was built by this process.Simply put, with all of the resources scientists have to generate life in a lab, nobody is able to do it despite a naturalistic worldview being critically dependent on it. Thank you for reading!Some objections:A creator is just as complex and unprovable as abiogenesis. - Response: Agreed. However, a naturalist is still putting forward the view that abiogenesis COULD and DID happen in space and time and cannot rely on "science of the gaps" to prove it. If the religious person must provide evidence for claims (as they should), then naturalism must as well. It isn't the default assumption and might even contain religious elements.This could be used (and probably was used!) to prove Zeus as deity. - Response: Agreed. However, if true, it suggests a direction to look for explanation and doesn't constitute a proof.Why would a creator create using such a bizarre and wasteful process? Response: This is up for debate, for sure, but it isn't my goal to debate theology or try to provide a theodicy. This is a question for philosophers, not scientists.Some structures such as micelles can form spontaneously. Response: A phospholipid bilayer is a complex structure that consists of lipids, cholesterol, glycoproteins, protein channels, etc. Even if early life lacked most of these structures, it is still orders of magnitude more complex than a micelle. If mRNA, rRNA, and tRNA, amino acids, cell membrane and metabolic pathways all formed at the same time and spontaneously organized then I could understand.What is your religious belief? Answer: Leaning Reformed Jewish.Looking forward to discussing the issue!

No comments:

Post a Comment