Replies

I've read the articles you linked and did some additional research to see if I could find where Schopf withdrew his assertions. If there is such a statement by Schopf, would you please direct me to it?

I have found a lot of challenge and cross-challenge, but by all appearances the issue is not settled. Following is a seminar scheduled for November to air the issues:

First Announcement: The Hunt for Precambrian Life: An Integrated Approach

For Lurkers, here is a summary of the challenge and cross challenge:

Ancient Fossils or Just Plain Rock In the above article it appears the challengers are arguing along the same lines as the irreducible complexity debate that betty boop previously examined. IOW, in that debate the rebuttal was that any plausible theory defeats the claim of irreducible complexity. As an example, here is an excerpt from the above article:

Fossil claims, Brasier writes in his email, "are better tested by falsification rather than by justification. To that end, our research group urges that future studies (older than, say, 3.0 billion years) should explore the following null hypothesis: that very ancient/alien microfossil-like structures … should not be accepted as of biological origin until all possibilities of their non-biologic origin have been tested and can be falsified."

Or to paraphrase that in the "irreducible complexity" debate:

Claims of irreducible complexity are better tested by falsification rather than by justification. To that end, evolutionists urge that future studies of flagella should explore the following null hypothesis: that such structures … should not be accepted as irreducibly complex until all possibilities of their biologic origin can be falsified.

Or to sum it up, IMHO both challenges sound like an assertion of intellectual prejudice --- perhaps to maintain a materialist paradigm?

...both challenges sound like an assertion of intellectual prejudice -- perhaps to maintain a materialist paradigm?

A-G, it may be well to remember here that the "materialist paradigm" really is a metaphysical view. As such, it may have close similarities to the religious view. Perhaps what is being defended here is a "type" of quasi-religious doctrine....

I first heard about Schopf's problems from Nebullis, whom I'm pinging here. She IIRC mentioned that he had at least temporarily withdrawn his claim. He would have been under pressure to do so, given the charges, but since then, on further review, he's sticking to his story.

His problems apparently started with claims by a graduate assistant that he had carefully selected biologic-looking "fossils," deliberately excluding those whose appearance cast doubt on his interpretation.

My reaction was strictly, "Say it ain't so, Joe!" I have fat-fingered long passages from Schopf's book in on many a thread, there being no on-line copy. (For instance, here. My hard-disk shows about 18 such threads, but there have no doubt been many more. I used to use him a lot.)

I think he's still a fine source on early-earth conditions except that he's hurt himself with this controversy. That's probably why some of his colleagues are now suggesting that the bar be raised for making claims of very early complex life. He had his reasons, but he may have jumped a bit too quickly and embarrassed himself. They're basically saying, "Maybe we need a checklist of things to do before making the big announcement."