Replies

"I know of no way, in principle, to demonstrate that something cannot happen, particularly something that has left evidence of having happened."

You missed my point. I am only discussing the scientific merits of ID vs. abiogenesis, not whether they are true. The first meets the commonly held standard of demarcation defining "scientific". The second does not.

I can assert that today things will continue to fall down rather than up. It is possible that some day the law of gravity will fail and things will fall up. Until then we have a law of gravity.

Until my statement is proved wrong, it represents the only testable and falsifiable hypothesis of the origin of life. There is currently no competition that meets the criteria.

Is it simplistic? Maybe. But simplicity is ordinarily regarded as a plus for a hypothesis.

"Neither abiogenesis nor ID can be disproved at the current state of technology."

We can only falsify statements. In the sense you are saying, evolutionary theory is not falsifiable. Popper's standard of falsifiability is itself not falsifiable. But it is commonly accepted as the standard.

Abiogenesis does not make any falsifiable statements. That does not mean it is not true. The statement Abraham Lincoln was a real person is not falsifiable, but is true historically.

There are competing views which claim the ID label. My statement would not be accepted by some ID proponents. But the statement is scientific:

"Due to information complexity and interdependence, no living organism can ever spontaneously arise from lifeless matter which exists in a naturally occurring state, but life can be created."