You say, The hypothesis of abiogenesis is that you can get from amino acids to proteins, and from thence, to RNA and DNA.
If you get a chance to read my reply to LibertarianSchmoe (#1553), please do. I suggested that abiogenesis is theoretically possible in two ways. Does that make sense to you?
Yes, if I'm following you, cornelis. You suggest that ultimate causation for life could be either homogeneous or heterogeneous. If by "homogeneous" you mean fully specified by the physico-chemical laws, that would be one thing. If, on the other hand, you mean the physico-chemical laws as aided by another "heterogeneous" cause (which as you say we might expect would be a noncorporeal cause), that would be another.
But I'm not sure I have correctly grasped your meaning in this. So would be very glad to be corrected if I misunderstood you!
There is biogenesis, and then there is abiogenesis. My understanding of the latter term comprehends the idea of a sui generis cause for life, of the ability of "dumb" matter to "bootstrap" itself into a living condition, on the strength of the physico-chemical laws alone.
Yet my problem with the latter supposition (which I have reason to doubt is your own) is this: Absolutely everything that exists in the universe, living or non-living, is composed of exactly the same particles and fields. And yet living beings exhibit "behaviors" that we never see in non-living phenomena, such as for instance crystals. One supposes that the latter are fully specified by the physico-chemical laws. But it seems to me we cannot say the same thing about living organisms: Their behavior is not limited to what can be predicted on the basis of initial conditions and the operation of the physical laws. Indeed, they seem to be in total rebellion against the second law of thermodynamics, as the late, great Harvard biologist Gaylord Simpson pointed out. They can "change their course," they can heal themselves, they can coordinate all the various subsystems that compose their total organism, governing the macroscopic integrity of the organism. And so forth.
So what accounts for the difference between animate and inanimate systems in nature? This, to me, is the greatest question confronting the life sciences today. And yet to raise it, one must seemingly get used to the idea that such an honest question will be answered by somebody throwing "received doctrine" in one's face.
That sort of thing goes absolutely nowhere. Plus I am made to feel that I have transgressed against somebody's holy writ -- when science ought not to have anything to do with holy writ.
And that, to me, is the fundamental problem of "disputes" like the one we are having here, in the Religion Forum, no less.
Still many respondents are scratching their heads and expressing perplexity that such topical matter should find itself in the Religion Forum in the first place.
To which I have to say to such people: You've got to be kidding! Just look at yourselves! Your reaction to the things I've said reminds me of the reactions that Christians had to Serrano's photograph of the crucifix suspended in a glass of urine. Such a response, in my view, is not exactly rational....
I much admire your essay/post at #1553. Thank you so much for writing, cornelis!