The idea of "abiogenesis" is that life arose from non-living things, molecules or some such that somehow came to life in the first, single ancestor of life on Earth. This is hotly denied by evolutionists (as they don't like to be called) as being a part of "descent with modification" or "natural selection of mutations" or "evolution" or whatever the choice of appellations might be.
Usually this is presented as a mere denial, with the expectation that the logic behind it should be obvious. I recently came across reasoning of a sort for this denial. The rationale was to use analogy in order to compare abiogenesis to Newton's Physics and Quantum mechanics. The analogy used this example: mass, energy and force are easily assumed and their origin need not be understood in order for Newtonian physics to be used.
The second analogy was Quantum mechanics. The Principles of Quantum mechanics are not dependent upon the prior understanding of the origin of particles and energy.
It is certainly easy to see why it might be desirable to compare your own pursuit to that of the great pursuits of physics. A certain respectability rubs off just by being placed in the same sentence. But the use of analogy is a tricky thing, and it is of absolutely no value if it is the only argument in favor of your proposition. And analogies have a disheartening tendency to fail, especially when carried too far. And bad analogies fail before they get off the ground.
Let's think about Newtonian mechanics. Is it possible that Newton derived his relationsips without even knowing about their requirement and dependence upon the existence of mass, force and energy? No, it is about the behavior of mass, force, and energy, all of which were known to exist and be valid entities.
What about Quantum mechanics? Was it developed under the ignorance of the requirement for particles and energy to exist? No, it is about the behavior of particles and energy. The existence of both particles and energy was known well before Quantum mechanics.
And how about abiogenesis? Does the projection that there was one, single, original ancestor, a single progenitor for all on the tree of life (with the exclusion of intelligent design, and the exclusion of non-material forces at work), not require that the very first life have a non-material origin? Of course it does.
Evolution is not about abiogenesis, it includes abiogenesis. The requirement for abiogenesis under materialist evolution is logically certain. For no reason other than the material theory of evolution would abiogenesis even be considered; it is a major subset of evolutionary theory. It is logically absurd to compare it to Newtonian or Quantum mechanics, which deal with physical entities that had been fully known to exist regardless of the theories existence or validity.
The reason for taking abiogenesis off the table is not because it is a separate issue, a separate theory. It is not separate. The reason is because it is too difficult to explain, and if it goes on and on being not explained as a crucial element of the theory, it would call the entire theory in disrepute. It would not falsify evolution; science of the gaps ensures that. But the disconnect would cause serious doubt amongst the sceptical. So it must be kept separate, out of the discussion. If necessary to protect the evolutionary theory, the separation and denial would extend forever.
It is not possible to conclude other than this, that abiogenesis is a serious threat to evolutionary theory, and must therefore be denied. And this denial, this intellectual dishonesty, reflects on the theory as a whole.
2 comments:
Beelz says,
You're absolutely right. In order for evolution to become a complete theory of the origin of life, eventually abiogenesis must be explained. It does no good to punt it by saying that cellular life arrived from elsewhere. Eventually the matter must be resolved. I don't think it's been put off the table, I just think it's a questions that has not been resolved and may be beyond our current ability to resolve. This doesn't mean it’s intractable, merely that new theoretical inroads way be required to do so.
If you choose to believe that cellular life arose due to intelligent design, that's your choice, but others will continue to work on the problem. Since cellular life appeared approx 3.8 B years ago, that means the process (if natural) took somewhere around a half billion to 700 million years to come to fruition. That's a lot of time to account for, and to simulate.
I wouldn't venture to say that Intelligent Design negates further investigation, and am not familiar with stories of any theistic scientist(s) who felt this way, either. This is merely an old, quick-and-dirty hatchet job attempt by atheists to throw some dirt on the general outlook of theism so they can look better and sleep better.
Just as atheists choose to believe without proof that life arose by purely naturalistic means over billions of years, trying very hard to avoid the question of the origin of the vast laws and forces that drive natural selection; theists choose instead to believe without proof that an immaterial Intelligence is behind these laws. Some view this Intelligence as nothing more than Spinoza's God, other's believe this to be Jesus Christ, and so on. But these are separate views; ID in and of itself is nonsubjective.
You don't start with a conclusion and work your way back from there; you start with a question and move forward. After a bit of circumstantial research, and before experimentation, you have a hypothesis. During experimentation, until proven or evidenced beyond a reasonable doubt, and until substantiated through peer review, a hypothesis is all you have. This is the right of theists and atheists alike, and does not close the books for either side. The quest for further knowledge continues.
Post a Comment