Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Few Pointers on Investigation
Teleologic ^ | 1/20/03 | Mike Gene

Posted on 02/04/2003 10:42:21 PM PST by CalConservative

A Few Pointers on Investigation

By Mike Gene (1/20/03)

 

Investigations typically begin with ambiguity and seek to better resolve the picture. Anyone interested in applying teleological concepts to the study of life might pay close attention to the way Origin Of Life (OOL) research is conducted in order to extract useful lessons. If one surveys this literature, you will find all sorts of speculations proposing how things might have happened, along with the circumstantial evidence that fits with these scenarios. In fact, there are so many different views that Michael Ruse once observed, " Indeed, to the outsider, one of the most striking things about origin of organisms inquiry today is the lack of unanimity" You will even find disputes about the nature of scientific inquiry itself:

quote:


In the field of the origin of life, scientists are divided into segregated schools that do not even agree on the standards of scientific inquiry. Ordinarily, science is perceived as the difficult search for an ever-more-comprehensive, true explanation of the world. But in the words of J. L. Bada and A. Lazcano ("Some like it hot, but not the first biomolecules," Perspectives, 14 June, p. 1982), the research into the prebiotic soup theory of the origin of life aims "to construct a coherent narrative." This is a remarkable statement. The objective scientific principle of a search for the truth is replaced by the subjective aesthetic principle of a well-constructed story.
- Günter Wächtershäuser, Oct 25, 2002, Science


But you will not find powerful arguments establishing that abiogenesis did happen, even in a scientific sense. Clas Blomberg, a researcher of abiogenesis, writes that origin of life research "is aimed to show how it could have happened"(emphasis added/ J Ther Biol 187:541-554). And when it is time to evaluate various speculations about the origin of life, Blomberg points out that the "primary question is not: "is this the way it happened?", but rather, "what arguments support the possibility that it could have occurred this way and what speaks against it?""

A nice example of the ambiguity that is inherent in such investigation is found
here. OOL researchers propose a speculative hypothesis that is supported by evidence that is little more than appearances. Yet I think there are three points that stand out:

1. Note this :
We'll never have much definite information on the origin of life, he says. "But then, just because we'll never know why the Roman Empire fell doesn't mean it isn't worth talking about." But if life were designed, we'd likewise probably be without much definite information. Yet just as standard OOL are still worth talking about ,so too are notions of life's design. In fact, simply talking about life's design can leads to speculations of what this entailed and this in turn can feed back into a better understanding of life. The bottom line here is any attempt to squelch discussions of design until we first extract a data base of definite information (i.e., actual mechanisms, identity of design, etc.) are seriously misguided and do not understand the proper way to brainstorm about an ambiguous topic.

2. Note also that the researchers have a solution to one of several fundamental problems in origins - why do archaea and bacteria have very different membranes? However, notice what Thomas Cavalier-Smith, a leading expert, says about this part of their hypothesis
- " It's quite impossible that it could be right." Yet the hypothesis is published in the peer-reviewed literature. Just because a leading authority may declare a speculation impossible, and even seems to have a point, doesn't mean we should not think about the speculation. All speculations, in their initial stages, are vulnerable to hyper-skepticism. To expect any speculation to somehow cause all the facts to suddenly fall into place is unrealistic.

3. Note this also, as it speaks for itself:
"It may be that no theory is going to fit all the evidence. The trick is to pick which bits to ignore, says John Raven of the University of Dundee, UK. "To create a coherent hypothesis we have to say 'this bit of data doesn't fit, but we're going ahead anyway'." This illustrates what is commonly seen with OOL research - a good degree of slack is cut to these speculations, as everyone realizes the ambiguity of the topic and the great problem of extracting definite information about these events. Thus, when brain-storming, sometimes you have to ignore some lines of evidence, with the plan of returning to them once the original hypothesis is better worked out.

To summarize, we can see that OOL research is a field of inquiry that lacks consensus, focuses on how things could have happened because such speculation itself is simply worth talking about, tolerates hypotheses that some experts label as 'impossible,' and entails a certain degree of cherry-picking of the data. This is important to keep in mind because many expect ID to adhere to a much higher standard, whereby an initial ID hypothesis is supposed to have the properties of a scientific theory that has matured at the hands of thousands of scientists working over decades. ID theorists need only follow the example scientists have laid down as they explore the OOL.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: creation; crevo; crevolist; intelligentdesign
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-38 last
To: general_re
Flawed premise, flawed conclusion.

Are you sure?

Premise: All Cities with the same initial letter as their state are capitals of their state.
Premise: Dover starts with the same letter as Delaware.
Conclusion: Dover is the capital of Delaware.

21 posted on 02/05/2003 7:42:02 PM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Sorry, I should have been more clear. I do not mean to suggest that a flawed conclusion must inevitably follow from a flawed premise - rather, I opine that this article contains both a flawed premise and a flawed conclusion.

I trust you have been well ;)

22 posted on 02/05/2003 7:44:25 PM PST by general_re (Chorus: "We are the chorus, and we agree. We agree, we agree, we agree.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; general_re; scripter
Stop bumping this pathetic thread.

That seems pretty arrogant of you. I am fairly certain that general_re has a good enough head on his shoulders to make his own decisions.

23 posted on 02/05/2003 7:45:29 PM PST by AndrewC (PatrickHenry -- "I'll do your thinking for you")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Thanks, I have been fine. I hope you and "yours" had a fine Christmas and are blessed with a fine beginning to this new year.
24 posted on 02/05/2003 7:47:57 PM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
We are well, and enjoying the new year thus far, although I could do with some warmer weather, all things considered ;)
25 posted on 02/05/2003 8:00:45 PM PST by general_re (Chorus: "We are the chorus, and we agree. We agree, we agree, we agree.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Well, that's great news. As for the warmer weather, I prefer it to remain cool as summers in Texas are hot.

One note on this thread---. The article does not mention evolution. It recommends that ID use the same criteria for "argument" as those used by scientists in the field of abiogenesis.

26 posted on 02/05/2003 8:07:36 PM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
As for the warmer weather, I prefer it to remain cool as summers in Texas are hot.

Indeed. I recall that March and October are quite pleasant in Texas.

It recommends that ID use the same criteria for "argument" as those used by scientists in the field of abiogenesis.

Not good enough for what ID theorists wish to do with it. Abiogenesis is a purely speculative exercise, as virtually everyone will readily admit. But ID does not seek to complement the teaching of abiogenesis - abiogenesis is hardly mentioned at all in any school curriculum, after all - it seeks to complement (or replace) the teaching of evolution via natural selection. Therefore, the standards by which abiogenetic theories are judged are inapposite in judging the worth of ID - it should, instead, be subjected to the same standards by which the theory of evolution is judged. If, by that standard, it proves equal to evolutionary theory, then it should complement evolutionary theory. Or, if it proves superior by those standards, it should replace it entirely.

Unless, of course, the point is to label ID as a purely speculative exercise also ;)

27 posted on 02/05/2003 8:19:31 PM PST by general_re (It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Unless, of course, the point is to label ID as a purely speculative exercise also

But papers on abiogenesis get accepted for publication.

28 posted on 02/05/2003 8:41:33 PM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC; general_re
I am fairly certain that general_re has a good enough head on his shoulders to make his own decisions.

I must admit my eagle eye hasn't been watching general_re as I threatened last year, but even so, he can most definitely think for himself. And if general_re thinks I'm in the habit of complimenting him, well, he better not get used to it. :-)

29 posted on 02/05/2003 9:25:28 PM PST by scripter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: scripter; general_re
Waiting with great anticipation for a certain Leprechaun.
30 posted on 02/05/2003 11:27:00 PM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Stop bumping this pathetic thread.

OK

31 posted on 02/06/2003 6:06:48 AM PST by Dataman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: scripter
They've blown this article away:

Silliness,

The article is another in a series of creationist dumps

Ah. An entire collection of silliness

pathetic thread.

What a crock of stewed prunes.

I cannot possibly refute such airtight logic.

32 posted on 02/06/2003 6:14:54 AM PST by Dataman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: CalConservative
Good post!
Bump!
33 posted on 02/06/2003 6:57:55 AM PST by Heartlander ((Preserve the purity of your precious Placemarking solution!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dataman
I cannot possibly refute such airtight logic.

Yes, this is quite a dilemma. It has been a very long time since I have seen a debate of this caliber but I believe the correct response to these attacking arguments to be:

"Nanny-nanny-boo-boo!"

Note: Be prepared for the possible counter-response of:
"Oh yeah, well my Dad can beat up your Dad."

34 posted on 02/06/2003 8:03:15 AM PST by Heartlander ((Preserve the purity of your precious Placemarking solution!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Apologies for the delay - this thread got lost in the shuffle of the last few days...

But papers on abiogenesis get accepted for publication.

Without some specific paper in mind, it's difficult for me to judge the propriety of such things. Generally speaking, however, IMO I have no problem with papers that investigate poorly understood or unknown phenomenon which may have implications for abiogenesis. E.g., "we have discovered this novel chemical process - perhaps this has some relevance to abiogenesis". If, on the other hand, there is nothing new to report, and the thesis of the paper essentially boils down to "maybe it was elves", then it probably shouldn't be considered "research", per se.

The real problem is, whether the proposed mechanism is naturalistic, such as the various chemical mechanisms proposed, or non-naturalistic, such as an ID mechanism, there's no clear idea as to what evidence for such a proposal might look like, or where we might find it. So we have several competing possibilities, none of which have any real historical evidence either for or against them. I may have a personal preference for one or the other theory, but it's difficult to avoid admitting that it's based purely on my personal preference, with no real rational reason for accepting it or rejecting another theory.

At this point, the thesis that God personally seeded the oceans with primitive life is at least as plausible as any other theory of biogenesis, be it Urey and Miller's lightning bolt, clay substrates, or whatever. From the standpoint of science, none of those theses is really falsifiable, so none of them are particularly superior to the others. People with a naturalistic bent will probably tend to gravitate away from non-naturalistic explanations, just as people with a non-naturalistic bent will probably tend to gravitate away from naturalistic explanations, but either way, one is simply assuming that the reality of the universe happens to jibe with your own personal philosophy, and assuming such without any real factual basis for doing so.

The truth is, while plausible mechanisms for how life first came into being will probably continue to be proposed, the truth of how life actually did come into being will likely remain unknown for the foreseeable future, perhaps forever. Not to say that we should stop looking, of course, but I have my doubts that any theory of biogenesis will ever become so overwhelmingly compelling that rational people will be unable to avoid accepting it.

Perhaps the only thing that might really carry any weight is if Starfleet gets out there and is able to observe biogenetic processes in progress on other planets. That, in and of itself, wouldn't constitute proof of how life came about on earth, but if we were able to observe the same mechanism operating repeatedly on many planets, with little or no exception, it would eventually come to resemble a rational argument to suggest that the same mechanism was responsible for life on earth. Alas, I think that you and I will probably end up shuffling off this mortal coil without ever having access to such data ;)

35 posted on 02/08/2003 12:13:26 PM PST by general_re (ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: scripter
I must admit my eagle eye hasn't been watching general_re as I threatened last year...

Ha. Nice attempt at misdirection - I've seen your agents following me around. And I hear funny clicks and beeps when I talk on the phone these days, so I'm sure you know everything I'm thinking before I even think it.

Excuse me, where did I leave my medication...? ;)

36 posted on 02/08/2003 12:17:07 PM PST by general_re (ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Ha. Nice attempt at misdirection

See, you can obviously think for yourself - I can't get anything past you. Good catch! :-)

37 posted on 02/08/2003 1:49:21 PM PST by scripter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Well, I have no more of a comment on your lucid communication than a hearty golf clap. Bravo!
38 posted on 02/08/2003 4:31:39 PM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-38 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson