<

Having gathered all the "relevant" evidence, the scientist may proceed to the second part of scientific methodology, making a hypothesis. In doing this, two rules must be followed: (a) the hypothesis must explain all the observations

and (b) <<< the hypothesis must be the simplest one that will explain them.>>> These two rules might be summed up in the statement that a scientific hypothesis must be adequate and it must be simple.

Once again let us confess that these two rules are idealistic rather than practicable, but they remain, nevertheless, the goals by which a scientist guides his activities. When we say that a hypothesis must be adequate, and thus must include all of the relevant observations, we are saying something simple. But carrying out this simple admonition is extremely difficult. It is quite true that every scientific hypothesis suffers from inadequate evidence—"

>

Are there challenges to this "premise"?

Please inform me if this brief definition is valid or not, and how it applies to assertions alike "The Fact of Evolution" and its Darwinian keystone claiming Phenotypic adaptation acting upon gradual.... Ok - you know the drill ;))

I think it is extremely important to define Science and the Scientific method, and the sharpness of the knife or scalpel that is used here, because it's in my opinion one of the main vehicles wielded in the emotionally driven open figh between the Creationist and Atheistic scientists and their their relative backing groups.

I think we are doing well to disconnect from that, and should solely busy us with what it is Science aims to clarify and achieve, and what not, and how and why (Philosophy of Science), and adopting a more humble stance while taking position. Do NOT let others from your PEERGROUPS do ANY of the thinking for you.

<“I pray not only for these,

but also for those who will believe in me through their word,

so that they may all be one,

as you, Father, are in me and I in you,

that they also may be in us,

<that the world may believe> that you sent me.>

<And I have given them the glory you gave me,

so that they may be one, as we are one,

I in them and you in me,

that they may be brought to perfection as one,>

that the world may know that you sent me,

<and that you loved them even as you loved me.>

<Father, they are your gift to me.

<I wish that where I am they also may be with me,

that they may see my glory that you gave me,>

because you loved me before the foundation--> of the world.

<Righteous Father,> the world also does not know you,

but <I know you, and they know that you sent me.

I made known to them your name and I will make it known,

that the love with which you loved me

29 "Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS.

<<YouRang: Actually this is not my position regarding the issue of life from nonlife....IMO, the life from nonlife issue is still in the research phase.>

OCF: I stand corrected and am sorry to have misrepresented your position. I haven't kept a scorecard but will try to keep your position straight. I will tread lightly here and say I have no memory of you affirming <whatthefat> is wrong to call that a theory. Perhaps I don't remember it. We agree it is an assumption and not a theory.>

I'm glad that you finally agree that I call it an assumption. As hard as I try, I can't resist mentioning that I've been calling it an assumption since April 11. ;-)

Okay, I recall the time you used the chess analogy. (BTW, here is your chess analogy post: OhioChessFan chessforum).

I opposed your use of the analogy because it was faulty. I'll explain:

You used the chess analogy in the context of carrying out science. The point of your analogy was that evolution is like a chess game that is invalid because it started out with an illegal opening move -- namely, that life can't come from nonlife, which [you assert] is impossible [i.e. illegal].

However, you falsely assume that science must find a complete natural explanation for abiogenesis before evolution theory can be accepted. Apparently, you think so only because abiogenesis must have occurred first chronologically.

But would you feel the same way if we were discussing the evolution of languages?

Would you be shocked if language researchers figured out how various languages evolved from 100 years ago *before* they understand the earlier (and often common) forms of those languages 1000 years ago and 4000 years ago?

Would you insist that they find the very first instance of a language before you accept the legitimacy of their more recent findings about language evolution?

The order in which science make progress in terms of *understanding* past events is not necessarily in the same order that those events *occurred*. In fact, I would expect the reverse order to be more likely, as is the case with both language evolution and life evolution.

BTW, when I explained this earlier (April 11), your response was to resort to a characteristically sarcastic misrepresentation of what I said:

<OCF: I see. Assume in a miracle, and then work backwards to it. I lack the scientific mind to understand that brilliance. And you have a problem with my assumption of how it all started?>

Headline: <Breakthrough as artificial life is created>>

Interesting article, although I don't think it pertains to abiogenesis (nor do I think you claimed that it did).

<nothing new under the sun> physically speaking

<Interesting article, although I don't think it pertains to abiogenesis (nor do I think you claimed that it did).>

I would have expected a statement about the hypothesis being testable.

The bit about simplicity seems to be more of a natural preference. It makes a hypothesis easier to understand and apply -- it doesn't necessarily make it a more accurate representation of reality.

Also, there may be more to the scientific method that described in this blurb.

<I'll cut to the chase here.>

Agreed. Given two equally good explanations for the same phenomenon, the more parsimonious is typically favored unless there is good reason not to, e.g., the explanation is part of a broader theory that explains a bunch of other phenomena that the simpler explanation can't.

Does that sound like "potential theory" to you?>

No. But if you take that (May 1st) post *in context*, there can be little doubt:

<whatthefat:

(1) The idea that life came from non-life <<is not a scientific theory at all>>. It is a fact, deduced from the following two trivial facts: (i) there was a time when there was no life, and (ii) there is now life.

(2) The idea that this can be accounted for naturally (i.e., not invoking any miracles) <<is not a scientific theory either>>. It is the central tenet of science that all observations can be naturally explained, and all scientific theories must be developed within this framework *by definition*. Theories which break this rule no longer fall within the ambit of science.

(3) The specific theory of how life generated from non-life is known as abiogenesis, and it involves the study of how the chemical structures associated with life might form from those already present. It has been the subject of many repeatable experiments, and been refined along the way based on the results of these experiments (i.e., certain elements of the theory have been undermined or supported).>

In view of paragraphs (1) and (2), I don't see how the 'theory' referenced in paragraph (3) can be seen as a <existing scientific theory> at all.

However.... I'll grant that I can see how someone might see this as contradictory. Personally, I would not have worded it that way given the potential for confusion for the general audience of this particular discussion.

But in reading all three paragraphs, there is clearly an implied distinction between 'scientific theory' (in paragraphs 1 and 2) and 'theory' (in paragraph 3).

The use of 'theory' in paragraph (3) is the more casual, non-rigid sense of the word. The point is to give it a name (abiogenesis), and to point out that research work is being done and progress is being made.

As far as I can judge the main cause for opposing positions re the interpretations and qualifications for what is deemed fact, theory, hypotheses, assumptions - lies therein, and indeed is motored by bias and emotional factors which remain to an extent discussed off and on, though it shines through in just about every single post quite forcefully.

Exactly. Abiogenesis is a work in progress. The issue really boils down to the fact that the generation of cellular life from non-life is not a simple phenomenon. It clearly requires a multi-step process, each step of which requires a theory in its own right, so the use of the phrase "theory for life from non-life" is as fuzzy as the definition of life itself. It is not like the theory of gravity where you can state Newton's equation and be done with it.