I take it that you are referring to <whatthefat>'s May 1st, paragraph 1 comment:

<(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.>

I think it is self-explanatory. Do you disagree that there was a time when there was no life? Do you disagree that there is now life? If not, then what is the problem?

As I see it, on "this" (grey area--> toppling point - <whatthefat> addressed this very well imo) then also a consensus must be reached... More or less collectively agreed upon by a significant hard-working honest majority-group of alledged independent thinkers. If not you may- and will- be flushing a lot of research that has been conducted in the most scientifically justified way; observation first, interpretation/explanation second.

As a thought experiment I now imagine myself, attempting to be, and stay, truly humble and in awe by the complexity of what surrounds me and what's inside me, but aching, almost dying, to explore, describe and explain the reality surrounding me, while keeping in the back of my mind the huge paradigm shifts in "natural sciences" over the past 500 years (I did seek head on confrontation on these topics from my biochemistry- embryonology professors, the lot, and butted severe heads with them during the period when I "attended" classes and studied medicine for at total of 7 years, late 80s-90s), say, since Copernicus, then I would advocate with all my heart and mind and soul that the consensually agreed upon <methodological naturalism> approach doesn't cut it; I really by now do not care *that* much about what others think (I do remain listening and on guard, I hope), but what interests me mainly these days is <how> they think and reason... Then why...

Point being that if you "set out" on an investigative journey in a chosen direction (unguided natural forces etc.), and you hit a myriad of brick walls which might indicate that there simply is NOT A SUFFICIENT amount of convincing evidence supporting ONE possible (naturalistic/materialistic) theory/hypothesis posing as explanation -- YET -- (maybe for an indefinite amount of time, in itself irrelevant re my "point" btw) for chance-happenings at a certain point, (eg a simple probability calculation on the assembly-likelihood of a medium complex cell: 1/10^15 minimum, disconnected from the enabling comforting planetary conditions for such events to even have the remotest chance of taking place) -- then you gotta scratch yer head and simply for the sake of neutral honest fact-finding and observation, followed through for the "possible" explanatory models/hypotheses/theories, allow for, at one or more points in time gone by, an intelligence's presence, no?

[AFAIC you may call that "intelligence" (what other words do we have....), whatever you prefer, preferably not the loaded term "God" or "Creator"... Yet since we problem solving humans *are* roaming planet earth right now, we are best adviced to realize that if Intelligence came into existence (- and it *did*!), ultimately from a supposed formless glob in primordial soup and acids in protoplasm, with lightning hitting them round after round (wait! - exactly the right "mix")... Yet It worked! We're here, right?]

Why, if so, rule out the possibility of there having formed an intelligent entity say an X Billion years before the here discussed hypothesized process (xx--->LIFE!!) took place in our solar system, on planet Earth, some 4,5 Billion years ago to be more precise-- that can induce "unaccounted-for amounts of information" into the process and reality we are now examining?

The claim from ID proponents is that one *should* leave room for such investigation, leave open the options, whereas the majority scientific community claims we should persist on the direction and road traveled these past years ...

Why rule prior Intelligence out a priori? Why stop at explaining the Earth in its "Milky Way"-genesis time-frame? What may be the motivation behind that rigid, apparently scientific, approach?

Ok - I will not ask the Young Earthers, but i hope you do get the point I'm making ;)

We just do not know and should not rule out options and confine "ourselves" out of fear, hyped up and promulgated by the religious tension and related, of which i am just an observer.

How <that> potential "intelligent" entity came into existence is irrelevant and must be researched <later>, as <first> we must be <open> to the possibility, regardless however irritatingly it rubs us the wrong way, especially now we <finally> have the chance to ge "religion" out of this god-forsaken place!! ;)

I hereby do hold up a mirror and refer to your attempts, and rightly so, to form a hypothesis as to why people become close-minded and act out of fear and hesitance to break down what we call in Holland the "holy houses", that keep religion and science in that never ending judo grip, most of the time.

Intelligence *is* here now,(quite ironically at that considering what we are "doing to the earth and its inhabitants"), through Homo Sapiens, right? There *is* intelligence on this planet, and we can send a freakin Discovery into space to examine, in turn, this very planet and solar system. No-one in his right mind would say that this all might be possible through unguided natural processes... No - it took us, our accumulated experiences and intelligence, a lot of hard work and persistence, drawing from natural resources available, to assemble the darn thing and fire it away!

hmmm...

Isn't it strange that Evolution of Intelligence "scientists" haven't crossed swords with Science Philosophers and Molecular Biologists and simply openly confronted eachother with the "friction"?

The Wiki entry for "Evolution of Intelligence" is actually slapstick comedy for me, but that aside... Humour as "coping mechanism"...;)

It's both the small steps and larger leaps in this lengthy-ish argument that I want you to consider, apologies in advance that I couldn't help but insert some sarcasm and hyperbolic ridicule etc., in this post.

Maybe it's just me, but I find that in your effort to clarify your ideas with exquisite precision, they actually become rather difficult to extract. I think I can do it, but takes some time & effort. This is probably a criticism of our imperfect means of communication than anything else. We all have our ideas of how to balance precision with simplicity. I think you tend to lean to the precision side, OCF to the simplicity side, and oddly enough, I tend to be 'just right'. ;-)

I'm a bit short on time, but I'll address a couple of comments:

<Can you point out for me with mathematical precision [insert irony symbol] where the "scientificness" comes in danger of "toppling over" to becoming "casual"? How much grey area do we allow and how do we apply it in other sciences, and why? Mathematics of course being one of the most rigorous of all sciences in this respect, I gather. >

I don't see mathematics as being more rigorous than natural science. It's merely different. This is how I would explain it.

In NATURAL SCIENCE, we deal with <empirical data> -- stuff we observe (or think we observe). We know there's lots of stuff we can't or haven't yet observed. We know that some of our observations may be imperfect or understood incorrectly. And yet, we must make our best effort to understand and explain what we have. The potential for mistakes is very high, which is why the rigor of the scientific method is mandatory. Science itself has indeed evolved over the years. Science that has been conducted with rigor has survived over sloppy science because it has proven to be the 'fittest'. Science will evolve further as we go.

In MATHEMATICS, we deal with <deductions>. We start with basic axioms (statements that are held to be self evidient) and apply logical principles (which are also self evident) to arrive at conclusions that can be said to be logically true. Over time, some incredibly complex mathematical conclusions have been reached, but they all rest on those axioms and those rules of logic.

If mathematics had to deal with empircal data, its conclusions would be subject to the same limitations (i.e. provisional, non-provable) as natural science. And, as with natural science, we would (in order to make progress) have to sometimes accept what we have and move on.

<Point being that if you "set out" on an investigative journey in a chosen direction (unguided natural forces etc.), and you hit a myriad of brick walls which might indicate that there simply is NOT A SUFFICIENT amount of convincing evidence supporting ONE possible (naturalistic/materialistic) theory/hypothesis posing as explanation -- YET -- (maybe for an indefinite amount of time, in itself irrelevant re my "point" btw) for chance-happenings at a certain point, (eg a simple probability calculation on the assembly-likelihood of a medium complex cell: 1/10^15 minimum, disconnected from the enabling comforting planetary conditions for such events to even have the remotest chance of taking place) -- then you gotta scratch yer head and simply for the sake of neutral honest fact-finding and observation, followed through for the "possible" explanatory models/hypotheses/theories, allow for, at one or more points in time gone by, an intelligence's presence, no?>

Maybe you've heard differently, but I don't think scientists believe that one day a 'medium complex' cell appeared by virtue extremely fortunate chance happenings.

I think scientists are expecting to find some whole new type of evolution that, over a long span of time, goes from simple combinations of chemicals and energy (in a not-well-understood primitive environment) into more complex forms. Where these complex forms "cross the line" from nonlife to life might is anyone's guess.

If fact, the idea that such a "line" exists might prove to be an arbitrary result of our bias. We "life" things think we're SO much more important that those nonlife things. ;-)

<Why rule prior Intelligence out a priori? Why stop at explaining the Earth in its "Milky Way"-genesis time-frame? What may be the motivation behind that rigid, apparently scientific, approach? >

I don't see science the way you seem to describe it. We start from ignorance and work backward toward understanding, with as few preconceived assumptions as possible. It's not that we "rule out" Intelligence, it's just that we don't presume it.

It took a long time for us to work back toward the idea of a "big bang". Now, if there was, before that, an "intelligence" that put the big bang into motion, science hasn't found evidence for that yet. Or perhaps the scientific method hasn't evolved to the point where it even knows how to consider that possibility.

BTW, this discussion calls for a definition of "intelligence". Suppose that one accepts the idea of a big bang of energy, and much of that energy condensed into matter, and that into stars and planets, and that into simple life, and that into complex life that we see today -- and one accepts that it all happened by chance interactions of natural laws.

How intelligent are those natural laws! This natural explanation doesn't remove any of the wonder of it all, or make it any less impressive. I think its an astounding idea that this thing called the universe is (by the natural process described above) able to comprehend and understand itself, by producing people who are able to study it!

Anyway, if you want to introduce another Intelligence as the creator of the "natural law" intelligence, it doesn't really change anything! Why not add another Super-Intelligence who created the first Intelligence, and a Super-Super-Duper Intelligence before that one, as far as you wish to go? What would any of this really add to our understanding of nature?

<The claim from ID proponents is that one *should* leave room for such investigation, leave open the options, ...>

I disagree with the claim that ID proponents simply want science to keep the door open to the concept that "some intelligence" is at the root of it all.

And when I was mockingly instructed to look at the *theory* of abiogenesis by <whatthefat>, the first thing I find is this statement:

"That is the subject of abiogenesis *theory* (also referred to as origin(s) of life science). Abiogenesis is basically a hybrid biochemical/geochemical explanation for the origin of life from non-living materials."

the LORD’s throne is in heaven.

His eyes behold,

his searching glance is on mankind.

The LORD searches the just and the wicked;

the lover of violence he hates.

For the LORD is just, he loves just deeds;

the upright shall see his face.

<The just will gaze on your face, O Lord.

<<YouRang: I've explained that abiogenesis is NOT a scientific theory a number of times, and so has <whatthefat> (see his May 1st post that you quoted for example). >

And when I was mockingly instructed to look at the *theory* of abiogenesis by <whatthefat>, the first thing I find is this statement:

"That is the subject of abiogenesis *theory* (also referred to as origin(s) of life science). Abiogenesis is basically a hybrid biochemical/geochemical explanation for the origin of life from non-living materials.">

First, I don't think it was done *mockingly*.

Second, yes the word 'theory' was used. But I've explained that it's not a scientific theory, and <whatthefat> has explained that it is not a scientific theory.

So when you see the word 'theory' used with respect to abiogenesis, what would that tell you? I see two choices:

1. It must be understood as a 'theory' in the NON-scientific (casual, commonplace) sense of the word.

2. We are in cahoots with deceiving scientists trying to bamboozle everyone by saying it's a scientific theory some times, but not a scientific theory other times.

Evidently, you chose option 2 -- but I emphasize that it was *your* choice.

<And your ex post facto explanation: <Fine. Now that you've vented, is there still any confusion in your mind about 'scientific theory' (e.g. evolution) and 'casual theory' (e.g. abiogensis)?> carries no weight at this point. Where has that been for the past how many months?>

I don't think there has been any change in my position (or in <whatthefat>'s position) over these past months. I gather that there was a change in your understanding of my/our position.

So, rather than assume, I'll ask:

1. Is there any confusion in your mind about 'scientific theory' vs. 'casual theory'?

2. Was there ever any doubt in your mind that evolution IS considered to be a scientific theory?

the one who had also reclined upon his chest during the supper

and had said, “Master, who is the one who will betray you?”

When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about him?”

Jesus said to him, “What if I want him to remain until I come?

<What concern is it of yours?>

I understand that there are sometimes different usages of the same word. I also understand this delineation came after the fact, after I addressed the subject how many times for how long. I guess if I tried that after the fact, you'd accuse me of inconsistency. Whereas you are fine and dandy, and I'm a buffoon for not following all along.

<2. Was there ever any doubt in your mind that evolution IS considered to be a scientific theory?>

I'm not sure what you are asking here. I have a great doubt on where the matter stands. I guess on this forum, it's not a theory but it is a fact. Or something.

<3. Was there ever any doubt in your mind that abiogenesis IS NOT considered a scientific theory?>

You follow me.”>

<<1. Is there any confusion in your mind about 'scientific theory' vs. 'casual theory'? >

I understand that there are sometimes different usages of the same word. I also understand this delineation came after the fact, after I addressed the subject how many times for how long. I guess if I tried that after the fact, you'd accuse me of inconsistency. Whereas you are fine and dandy, and I'm a buffoon for not following all along. >

No, not a buffoon. But not terribly receptive to explanations either.

<<2. Was there ever any doubt in your mind that evolution IS considered to be a scientific theory?>

I'm not sure what you are asking here. I have a great doubt on where the matter stands. I guess on this forum, it's not a theory but it is a fact. Or something. >

Sorry, my meaning was that evolution is considered a scientific theory *according to most scientists*.

BTW, if there is still confusion about theory vs. fact, that's another matter. Scientists do regard evolution as both a theory and a fact, but you should understand that the theory of evolution and the fact of evolution are two different things. I think I explained this a while back...

<<3. Was there ever any doubt in your mind that abiogenesis IS NOT considered a scientific theory?>

The only usage on this forum was "theory of abiogenesis". The first site I looked at introduced it as a "theory". I can find many more sites saying the same thing. So yes, I did have a great doubt that it is not a theory. And (forgive the awkward construction here, it's the best I can do) for having no doubt it's not a theory after it was referenced on this forum as a theory, and introduced on the first website I searched as a "theory", I was accused of lacking intelligence or being obtuse or obstinate or argumentative. So it's called a theory on this forum, and every website I've seen on the matter, but I should understand it's not a theory. Great. And for that, I am a simpleton. I am still beyond shocked at this turn of events.>

Well, you are wording it awkwardly. I am refering to where you say <...So it's called a theory on this forum, and every website I've seen on the matter, but I should understand it's not a theory....>

When using two meanings of the same word in the same paragraph, you should clarify which meaning applies. In this case, you should at least say <..but I should understand it's not a [scientific] theory..>.

My writing style on these type subjects indeed lacks conciseness, as I often almost involuntarily adopt a conversational style of writing, which must be read as such if possible, after which through a quick "Q & A" that we would have in real life, we'd dense it up and get more concise, pretty much automatically.

Actually I can go both ways, but do not have that iron grip and trained and deceptively easy control that some of you talented "native speakers" have in that regard; and at times, on rare occasion, oddly enough, that turns out beneficial even. ;)

Thanks for your replies. I'll get back to you. PS - It does strike me that at some points you explain to me a concept that I already covered implicitly, at other points I do disagree and intended to shake at the (your) foundation ;), but for a large part I tend to agree but for a few minor but still "vital" adjustments.

A mixed bag!

and not only that, but we ourselves,

who have the firstfruits of the Spirit,

we also groan within ourselves

as we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies.

<For in hope we were saved.

Now hope that sees is not hope.

For who hopes for what one sees?>

Consider: first there was a junkyard full of scrap; now there is a car parked in the middle of the junkyard; therefore the junk in the junkyard somehow coalesced into a car.

O LORD, my God, you are great indeed!

You are clothed with majesty and glory,

robed in light as with a cloak.

How manifold are your works, O LORD!

In wisdom you have wrought them all

the earth is full of your creatures;

bless the LORD, O my soul! Alleluia.

to give them food in due time.

When you give it to them, they gather it;

when you open your hand, they are filled with good things.

If you take away their breath, they perish

and return to their dust.

When you send forth your spirit, they are created,

and you <renew> the face of <the earth>.

<<<<<Lord,> send out your Spirit,> and renew the face> of the earth.>

Okay, but remember that the context is natural science, which presupposes (takes it on faith, if you like) that there is a natural explanation for life on earth. If you prefer a *supernatural* explanation, fine, but then move into the religious context.

< It is a faith statement that I as a Christian must, and do, reject.>

Fine for you. But are you making a point beyond that? For example,

- Are you saying that anyone who accepts the modern scientific views cannot be Christian?

- Are you saying that scientists should reject the life from nonlife assumption because you think it is un-Christian?

<Consider: first there was a junkyard full of scrap; now there is a car parked in the middle of the junkyard; therefore the junk in the junkyard somehow coalesced into a car. >

Well, analogies are tricky. Stated simply as you've presented it, I would assume that someone most likely drove a car into the junkyard.

But if you are saying that the junkyard is a 'closed system' -- that is to say that there is no external influence, then yes, that seems to be the most reasonable (albeit amazing) *natural* explanation.

<The Bible tells us that there was no life until God created it. But we do not know "scientifically" that there really was a time when there was no life. I'm not swayed by cosmological theories that come from abstruse mathematics and wishful thinking.>

That strikes me as a very odd position.

You believe there was once no life based on the Bible, and scientists believe there was once no life based on their theories of cosmology.

Yet you think that scientists are wrong to believe that there was once no life! One reason you give is that their mathematics are abstruse (hard-to-understand). If you don't understand it, does that give you reason to regard it as invalid? The other reason you mention is 'wishful thinking'. Are you saying that scientists have some reason to wish that there was once no life?

<Persons who believe that life created itself have a theological axe to grind.>