... against Abiogenesis

Q

Which is more unlikely: Intelligent design or Abiogenesis?
https://www.quora.com/Which-is-more-unlikely-Intelligent-design-or-Abiogenesis#

David Chan

former Retired Senior Exec (1985-2010)

Answered 14h ago

Abiogenesis is more likely. Intelligent Design is a scam and a con.

Read

Argument against ID
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tERPzNO8vaXxEJaT5Jb7pYRmHTv-un54Qht4iWcAYC4/edit

I would be happy to discuss this with an adherent of ID.

I answered several times

namely i to uij, each of which is open for a discussion, and most of which start with a qute from the Google document.

i

Hans-Georg Lundahl

19m ago

“Science is about making statements about reality reality that can be falsified through experiment or observation.”

Already this line, abiogenesis is not science.

If the lack of not just order but also phospholipids after Miller Urey experiments do not refute abiogenesis to you, nothing will, and so you are not scientific about it.

On a more general level, if neither is science, since first origin of biological life on earth is a non-repeatable event (except if God choses to do a miracle like that despite the pause on day six), (and of course, in a way resurrecting people and resurrecting Himself Jesus did that), the question of which is science is not qualified to decide on which is most likely.

Intellectual is not limited to science, therefore an intellectual proposal which is not science is not automatically a scam.

However, giving scientific reasons against Abiogenesis, such as Miller Urey (lack of order, chirality and suitable material for cell membranes) is definitely not a scam even as science.

ij

Hans-Georg Lundahl

18m ago

“Thus scientific theories no matter how well accepted are different from truths like “God created the Universe” which are held by believers as immutable truths.”

I hold 2+2=4 as immutable truth, does that mean mathematics are not science either?

iij

Hans-Georg Lundahl

10m ago

“My understanding of the main ID argument is that known science cannot currently account for specific things such as, the evolution of the eye, the transition from chemistry to biology etc., so the fact that such complex phenomena currently exists imply that there is an Intelligent Designer aka the Abramic God! (Note, they do not use Taoist or Buddhist Theology as an explanation but stick with the Abramic Christian one).”

There is no Taoist or Buddhist theology. Taoism and Buddhism do not have a concept of God.

Also, on the level of ID, while the proponent would culturally find the Christian God more appropriate, the Platonist one would answer to the argument as well.

There is a fundamental dishonesty in the comparison to a stage magician, since while watching, you cannot analyse what happens from every possible angle, and so you rule out explanations which actually are there, just not in the manner you thought they were.

In the case of ID, Miller Urey has been done again and again.

You find no chirality except the mixed one, no order, no matter for cell membranes, every time.

You would no doubt design another experiment to account for phospholipids, but its conditions would contradict the ones for Miller Urey.

And since cell membranes keep amino-acids from otherwise quickly getting out of order or dissolving, they are as vital as amino-acids for production of a first cell.

iu

Hans-Georg Lundahl

9m ago

“The first is a lack of imagination because the proponent of ID is lacking in imagination because they cannot imagine how such transitions can come about by natural processes.”

What if the real lack of imagination is on your side in not identifiying the problems?

u

Hans-Georg Lundahl

8m ago

“Here, when a specific issue is actually answered, they will say it is an example of microevolution which is allowed by them so on to the next issue.”

Example?

uj

Hans-Georg Lundahl

4m ago

As to the general idea of microevolution, I certainly do accept that chromosomes can fuse.

I also accept that Chihuahuas and domesticated wheat have lost abilities their ancestors had, by mutations.

By contrast, gaining abilities and gaining chromosome numbers would seem quite a lot harder, speciation or no speciation.

Oh, if you wanted to take Flying Squirrel as example of a mutation gaining abilities, you would first need to prove it is not the original Squirrel.

Also, as far as ID goes, ID is per se neutral on whether macroevolution occurs, above was not said as an ID-er but as an outright Creationist.

I did not see one single argument against ID as a proposed solution, except the bad comparison to a stage magician already answered.

uij

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

Outside scope of question, ID is also supported by language.