Replies

The evolutionary tree of life, common descent, relies on "life begets life" in order for it to be a continuum.

But that is a tautology. No information is added by saying life comes from life. And common descent is just the current best interpretation of evidence. It is unrelated to biogenesis or to the dynamics of evolution.

This is particularly irksome when the original context of the "quotation" is abiogenesis, and implies that Darwin said the problem could not be studied by science -- not just "unknown," but "unknowable" on principle:

Darwin said that "life can only come from life." He never said where life came from. Neils Bohr agreed, saying the origin of life is simply unknowable -- not just "unknown," but "unknowable" on principle -- and thus could never be a proper subject for scientific investigation. And Hubert Yockey agrees with both men that the origin of life is "unknowable." And yet: There Life is!

All this really boils down to for me is that the origin of life is "unknowable" on the basis of reason alone, thus scientific methodology cannot give an account for it. To get the "full picture," Spirit, faith is required: Faith and reason are not mutually exclusive, but equally necessary complementarities for a proper understanding of man and the universe.

What is so maddening about this is it argues for shutting down investigation -- unknowable on principle.

This is why I continue to post here. to oppose those who would shut down science and declare certain topics off limits to research.

This goes way beyond a misquote.

So basically what you have here is a false quotation that is 100 percent opposite of the written (now published) opinion of the author.

In addition, you have an interpretation of the false quotation that is precisely the opposite of the author's opinion. And completely anti-science to boot.

I'm curious how Dembski or Yockey, writing in 1904, would have judged the outcome of the two-slit experiment in physics. On first principles.

Thank you for your reply!

And common descent is just the current best interpretation of evidence. It is unrelated to biogenesis or to the dynamics of evolution.

I'm sure all of the Young Earth Creationists will be thrilled to hear this for if "common descent" is not the central point of the theory of evolution or the dynamics of evolution - then it does indeed open the door to evolution by "kind" and the only major issue remaining is the age of the universe (which melts away completely when one considers inflationary theory and relativity.)

What is so maddening about this is it argues for shutting down investigation [abiogenesis] -- unknowable on principle.

The uncertainty principle prevents us from knowing both position and momentum, but we didn't stop doing physics because of it. And the wave/particle duality doesn't prevent either quantum mechanics or quantum field theory - we simply most look at both - particle and wave - to have a complete picture.

Likewise, we won't stop asking questions about origins just because we know that science alone cannot answer the question on principle. It requires both faith and reason to investigate origins.