Replies

"Interesting that you say the theory can be falsifiable instead of verifiable. That's an interesting choice of words. Where is your test data for the ID theory of the origin of life? Link?"

The lack of significant test results makes the ID proposition a hypothesis rather than an established theory. I am not sure how it could ever be possible to verify such a historical event (or group of events).

If simple (or complex) life forms can be created in a laboratory it will validate what is intuitively reasonable, that life could be assembled intelligently. If any living organism (simple or complex) is ever discovered to arise from non living matter via a yet unknown self organizing principle, it will disprove the ID hypothesis.

I will include a previous illustration from an earlier post of mine:

There are only for possible explanations for the existence of life (an observed phenomena).

One, it was created by intelligent intervention (i.e. ID).
Two, it occurs by some unknown, self-organizing principle spontaneously (i.e. abiogenesis).
Three, life has always existed and its current existence is a continuation of previous forms.
Four, life has existed within a finite time frame but is self existing via some unknown variation in the laws of causality whereby some future life form spawned past life forms.

Most people agree that the last two propositions are untenable because they defy our current understanding of causality. That leaves us with two. Both can be explored by the same tests and experiments. And they are whether intentionally or not.

At this point I must distinguish between creationism and ID. Biblical creationism is only a subset of creationism. There are many who believe in some deity or even Creator, but do not accept the Bible. Many evolutionists fit in this category. Likewise, ID overlaps Biblical creationism but is not equivalent. Some ID proponents even accept evolution and only say the universe was intelligently designed. ID does not extend into the areas of theology in describing the nature of the designer.

The existence of God cannot be falsified and is therefore outside the realm of science. In that sense, so is the existence of Abraham Lincoln. Someone might argue that there is no physical evidence of Lincoln (if that were true; and any historical figure serves for this example). To which I reply that not all knowledge is of a scientific nature.

Some argue that proving creation (ID) occurred, must also prove a creator existed, and therefore also outside the realm of science. That is a logical fallacy. This wrongly assumes that the "creator" is of any particular nature.

Who the creator is or might be is not the subject of science. That is theology, if the creator is supernatural.

ID is scientific because it meets the minimum qualifications. I don't think I have ever called ID a theory. If I have I retract the statement. It is the horse which stalled at the gate and is just sticking its nose out. ID opponents are demanding the horse be disqualified because it really isn't a horse.

There either needs to be some experimental evidence or a better application of mathematical models to cross that threshold in my mind. I am unaware of any data which justifies calling ID a theory. It is an untested hypothesis. Yet that is part of science.

ID is similar (albeit superior) to abiogenesis in terms of scientific merit. Why not explore both at once?

Scientists do want to know whether any life can occur spontaneously. You hear about this every time the possibility of water on some remote heavenly body is speculated.

Scientists also want to know how to create life. They may care little for the debate over ID or abiogenesis. They might want to find a cure for cancer or improve crop yields. Regardless, their discoveries will have a bearing on these two viewpoints.

ID is testable and falsifiable in the very limited way I have already described. Abiogenesis is testable but not falsifiable. Therefore, ID is a preferable explanation of the origins of life from a scientific viewpoint.

Let's evaluate three statements for scientific merit:
1. Life can only originate from nonliving matter through intelligent intervention. (ID)
2. Life can originate spontaneously via self organization in a naturally occurring environment. (abiogenesis)
3. Life can originate by either of the above methods.

(I have disregarded the conversion of food to living matter via assimilation. For our purpose here it is treated similar to reproduction rather than origination. Also, I am not exploring the nature of intelligence beyond its common usage. How intelligent is irrelevant for the point of discussion. Intelligence in the sense of thought and intent.)

Only statement 1 is scientific. It could be false. Either 2 or 3 could be true. But only 1 is scientific.

One instance of abiogenesis would falsify ID (#1). No number of instances of intelligently assembled life in a laboratory would disprove abiogenesis (#2).

If I attempt to reverse the logic then I must claim abiogenesis is the ONLY way life can be derived from nonliving matter. (This would be a fourth proposition.) True, such a hypothesis can be tested and falsified. But one instance of life being formed in a laboratory would disprove it. Do you intuitively think that if life can self organize, that we will not figure out a way to assemble life intelligently?

Likewise, I can assert that life can form by BOTH means (#3). But this statement is also not falsifiable.

Therefore, the possibility of abiogenesis cannot be falsified and is outside the realm of science. This does not prove that life did not actually occur via abiogenesis. It does however, demonstrate that ID is the most scientific direction to explore in seeking to understand the origins of life.