Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Abiogenesis – Unfalsifiable Pseudo-Science?

September 14, 2006
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Commenter Tom English admonishes us for mocking “legitimate scientists” (these I presume are like real Scotsmen) in their inquiries into how abiogenesis could be accomplished. This raised a question in my mind. If abiogenesis is real science then how may it be falsified in principle? It seems to me that legitimate scientists (TM, Pat. Pending) could look for plausible paths for abiogenesis from now until forever, come up empty handed, and continue to claim as Tom does that any question of its legitimacy is nothing but an argument from incredulity. How convenient. Abiogenesis “research” has everything to win and nothing to lose. So tell me, Tom English, how can abiogenesis be falsified? What prevents it from being a hypothesis that cannot die and with its immortality its eternal eligibility for research grants?

Comments
Hawks Demonstration of abiogenesis in a lab in simulated natural environments will falsfiy ID for me. This statement doesn't seem hard to understand and your response seems to be a claim that I'm lying and that it won't in fact convince me. I have no clue why you think these experiments aren't allowed. Synthetic biology, which among other things attempts to create life artificially, is a rapidly growing field. Your response is nonsense and I strongly suggest you don't put words in my mouth or presume to tell me what I will or won't believe again.DaveScot
September 17, 2006
September
09
Sep
17
17
2006
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT
My comment in post#21 was in regards to DaveScot's post#11 (just thought I'd point it out in case it was confusing).Hawks
September 16, 2006
September
09
Sep
16
16
2006
11:16 PM
11
11
16
PM
PDT
"I’ve already given you a falsifiable hypothesis of biological ID in another article today. If abiogenesis absent intelligent intervention can be demonstrated in a lab it will falsify biological ID which claims abiogenesis is for all practical purposes impossible without intelligent agency. " But this hypothesis was, of course, not falsifiable. First off, experiments are mostly not even allowed to be conducted. But, more importantly, achieving abiogenesis does not exclude the existence, presence or intervention by a designer. You claimed in another thread that abiogenesis would require essentially the creation of something similar to a modern microoranism (a big ask to start off with). Your claim was that this would essentially falsify ID (or at least convince you that it was not necessary). But then you go and say - on this very page - "Your side makes the vacuous positive claim that bacteria can turn into a horse. ". In other words, a succesful demonstration of abiogenesis would not change your mind about the existence of a designer - and I find it hard understanding how ID would be falsified. How do you reconcile these statements?Hawks
September 16, 2006
September
09
Sep
16
16
2006
11:14 PM
11
11
14
PM
PDT
Abiogenesis is a cosmic joke. "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison
September 16, 2006
September
09
Sep
16
16
2006
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT
trrll: Science doesn’t offer Truth, it offers discovery. And most of the greatest scientists that have graced our planet understood they were discovering the handiwork of the Creator. Also, if TPP has it correctly, science offers discovery because that is what the universe was designed for- scientific discovery:
“The same narrow circumstances that allow for our existence also provide us with the best over all conditions for making scientific discoveries.”
“The combined circumstance that we live on Earth and are able to see stars- that the conditions necessary for life do not exclude those necessary for vision, and vice versa- is a remarkably improbable one. This is because the medium we live is, on one hand, just thick enough to enable us to breathe and prevent us from being burned up by cosmic rays, while, on the other hand, it is not so opaque as to absorb entirely the light of the stars and block the view of the universe. What a fragile balance between the indispensable and the sublime.” Hans Blumenberg- thoughts independent of the research done by Gonzalez & Richards.
Joseph
September 16, 2006
September
09
Sep
16
16
2006
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT
trrll: I’ve never heard any testable predictions of ID, discounting vacuous negative claims like “experimenters will never manage to turn a dog into a horse in the laboratory.” Just because you never heard of something should mean wj=hat to the rest of us who have? In general biological ID predicts CSI and IC (at a minimum). Both these concepts can be tested against their respective definitions. Then there is "The Privileged Planet" which demonstrates that ID extends beyond biology. In TPP the authors make several predictions based on their design inference. And science does offer truth- truth as in the reality to the existence to what we are observing.
“A healthy science is a science that seeks the truth.”[/B] Paul Nelson, Ph. D., philosophy of biology.
Linus Pauling, winner of 2 Nobel prizes wrote, “Science is the search for the truth.”
“But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding.” Albert Einstein
The truth need not be an absolute truth. Truth in the sense that Drs. Pauling, Einstein & Nelson are speaking is the reality in which we find ourselves. We exist. Science is to help us understand that existence and how it came to be. As I like to say- science is our search for the truth, i.e. the reality, to our existence via our never-ending quest for knowledge.Joseph
September 16, 2006
September
09
Sep
16
16
2006
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT
trrll I’ve never heard any testable predictions of ID, discounting vacuous negative claims like “experimenters will never manage to turn a dog into a horse in the laboratory.” As far a vacuous claims - when in Rome, do as the Romans do (or what's good for the goose is good for the gander). Your side makes the vacuous positive claim that bacteria can turn into a horse. Then you get offended if we a) ask you to prove it or b) make hard to prove claims ourselves such as "you'll never be able to demonstrate your claims".DaveScot
September 16, 2006
September
09
Sep
16
16
2006
12:35 AM
12
12
35
AM
PDT
But ID makes testable predictions. On the other hand evolutionism can only make post-hoc accomodations as we don’t know what mutation will cause what change or whether or not the environment it crops up in will favor or reject it.
I've never heard any testable predictions of ID, discounting vacuous negative claims like "experimenters will never manage to turn a dog into a horse in the laboratory." Note that a theory must make testable predictions, but it is not required to predict every specific thing that you might wish to know. For example, quantum theory is not required to predict (and indeed, is fundamentally incapable of predicting) the trajectory of a photon after passing through a narrow slit.
It would also be interesting to see how many (if any) “theories” made “correct” predictions but the “theory” turned out to be bogus. If I remember correctly I believe the geocebtric view made predictions that were borne out…
It happens all the time. That's why no scientific theory can ever be proven to be true, because even if experiments 1 through n confirm the predictions of the theory, it is always possible that experiment n+1 will disconfirm it. There are thousands of experiments that confirm Newton's laws of motion. It's only when you start working with things moving at very high speeds that you discover that the theory is wrong. Science doesn't offer Truth, it offers discovery.trrll
September 16, 2006
September
09
Sep
16
16
2006
12:12 AM
12
12
12
AM
PDT
trrll: Like ID, it is simply too vague to make testable predictions. But ID makes testable predictions. On the other hand evolutionism can only make post-hoc accomodations as we don't know what mutation will cause what change or whether or not the environment it crops up in will favor or reject it. But anyway- the following is an interesting erad: Falsificationism It would also be interesting to see how many (if any) "theories" made "correct" predictions but the "theory" turned out to be bogus. If I remember correctly I believe the geocebtric view made predictions that were borne out... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos: I don’t see fecundity in ID; by contrast, ID seems to consist of saying, “the designer did it.” Well we know there isn't any "fecundity" related to evolutionism, and only those really trying to misrepresent ID would say that "ID seems to consist of saying, "the designer did it"." ID is no more like that than archaeology is. As I told you before ID is about the detection AND study- do you think SETI researchers would, after determining the signal was from some intelligence, just throw a party, say the search is over and go home?Joseph
September 15, 2006
September
09
Sep
15
15
2006
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT
I agree that abiogenesis, simply as a concept, is not a scientific theory. Like ID, it is simply too vague to make testable predictions. On the other hand, specific theories of the origin of life do make predictions. For example, the RNA world hypothesis predicts that RNA alone can catalyze a wide range of chemical reactions, including the fundamental ligation reactions and replication reactions. Kauffman's autocatalytic set theory predicts that catalytic activity can be found in relatively short random polymers with fairly high probability. All polymer-based theories predict that it should be possible to identify conditions in which the required monomers form spontaneously, etc. Protocell based theories predict that it should be possible to identify non-biological conditions under which membrane like structures spontaneously self-assemble and reproduce, etc.trrll
September 15, 2006
September
09
Sep
15
15
2006
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT
(7) I am intrigued about the implications of your statement though. You seem to be saying more generally that unfalsifiable theories should not be taught in public school. Since you “don’t know of any theories of abiogenesis which are currently falsifiable,” should this topic also removed from public school curricula (ie, Miller/Urey)? How about other unfalsifiable elements of the neodarwinian synthesis? I would like the problem of abiogenesis presented this way, in a high school setting: "scientists presently do not know how life arose on Earth, and it may never be known. Nevertheless, here are some different scenarios that have been entertained, both in the past and in the present . . . There are a few things that we do know -- for example, that organic molecules can be synthesized from inorganic molecules -- and there are many things that we don't know." So, I'm in favor of having this in public schools, but not ID, because abiogenesis is fecund -- in terms of opening up new ways of thinking about chemical interactions, about what life is, about the difference between life and non-life. I don't see fecundity in ID; by contrast, ID seems to consist of saying, "the designer did it." Thus, while abiogenetic theories are not (yet?) falsifiable, their fecundity gives them a different status than ID theories.Carlos
September 14, 2006
September
09
Sep
14
14
2006
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT
You falsify abiogenesis by proving that a designer is responsible. This could take a couple of different forms, such as finding an undeniable signature within the genome. The signature is the gentic code.pk4_paul
September 14, 2006
September
09
Sep
14
14
2006
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT
Carlos I've already given you a falsifiable hypothesis of biological ID in another article today. If abiogenesis absent intelligent intervention can be demonstrated in a lab it will falsify biological ID which claims abiogenesis is for all practical purposes impossible without intelligent agency. There is much active interest in falsifying ID through demonstration of unguided abiogenesis. The most recent such active interest is Harvard's OoL project which they've committed to funding at $1M/yr. I'm sure no one would believe that self-professed ID researchers are seriously trying to falsify ID by the above means so we must rely on researchers who a priori believe abiogenesis w/o intelligent agency can be done and are doing their best to find out how.DaveScot
September 14, 2006
September
09
Sep
14
14
2006
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT
Chris Hyland, and vice versa. See DaveScot's later post.BarryA
September 14, 2006
September
09
Sep
14
14
2006
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT
I would say origin of life research is more of a protoscience. "You falsify abiogenesis by proving that a designer is responsible." And evolution as well.Chris Hyland
September 14, 2006
September
09
Sep
14
14
2006
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT
Ekstasis writes: "So, all the scientists and engineers studying the incredibly brilliant and innovative design in organisms are not fecund?" We can resolve this question very easily by doing paternity tests on the scientists' putative children. If the children really are theirs, then we know the scientists are (or at least were) fecund.BarryA
September 14, 2006
September
09
Sep
14
14
2006
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
Carlos: "There needs to be room in science for the not-yet-falsifiable. ...What I object to are attempts to promote ID, particularly in the public school science curricula, in anticipation of that day." I'm inclined to agree--ID is not yet ready for prime time. Like many IDophiles, I think that kids should learn more about evolutionary theory; not less. I am intrigued about the implications of your statement though. You seem to be saying more generally that unfalsifiable theories should not be taught in public school. Since you "don’t know of any theories of abiogenesis which are currently falsifiable," should this topic also removed from public school curricula (ie, Miller/Urey)? How about other unfalsifiable elements of the neodarwinian synthesis? -sbSteveB
September 14, 2006
September
09
Sep
14
14
2006
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT
Studying the structure and dynamics of living organisms is certaintly fruitful -- "fecund" -- but I can't see how it counts as ID theory. ID is a proposal as to the origins of complex biological structures. It says, in effect, that teleological structures (organisms) must have teleological causes (intelligence). If it's not about origins, then I must confess that I have no idea what it could possibly be. Now, beyond asserting that organisms are too complex to not be designed, and providing some interesting (though not water-tight) arguments for that assertion, what has ID produced? I don't even care all that much about falsifiability -- although it is desirable, I place less emphasis on it than DaveScot does -- but I do care about fecundity, and thus far I don't see it. Of course, that's no reason why ID theorists shouldn't continue with what they're doing -- I'm all in favor of the marketplace of ideas! -- but that is a good reason why the Dover case was ruled correctly. And if ID does manage to produce something interesting, and does prove to be a useful and interesting way of producing scientific theories, then hopefully there won't need to be another court case -- ID will win on its merits, when it has them.Carlos
September 14, 2006
September
09
Sep
14
14
2006
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT
Carlos, Typo, I meant "not saying"Ekstasis
September 14, 2006
September
09
Sep
14
14
2006
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT
Carlos, So, all the scientists and engineers studying the incredibly brilliant and innovative design in organisms are not fecund? And the real life applications that result are not fecund. Oh, don't misunderstand me, I am saying that their efforts are a result of ID theory. No, that is just the point -- ID is a reflection of what really exists. ID is plausible because it is consistent with, and mirrors, reality found in the attributes of living organisms. Darwinian evolution, on the other hand, is not a reflection of reality as we perceive it. In fact, it seems to be much more a reflection of 19th century economic theory. You know, Malthus and the crew. Once, when I was searching for a needle in a haystack that really was not there, I found all sorts of other missing articles of clothing, tools, etc. So, the adventure was certainly fecund, but I never found the needle.Ekstasis
September 14, 2006
September
09
Sep
14
14
2006
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT
Abiogenesis, not being a theory, cannot be falsified. What can be falsified -- if they are falsifiable -- are specific theories of abiogenesis. Some of them have been rejected due to considerations other than falsifiability. (E.g. Oparin's coacervate theory or Cairns-Smith's genetic takeover theory.) I don't know of any theories of abiogenesis which are currently falsifiable, although there are some likely contenders. (Personally, I find Kauffman's autocatalytic set theory very strong, but it is not yet falsifiable.) Now, does that mean that abiogenesis is not a science, or not yet a science? Here's where I take issue with Popper; I think that Popper's constraint is too severe, because it excludes too much of what's interesting about science. There needs to be room in science for the not-yet-falsifiable. And this is one of the reasons why I'm willing to be tolerant and open-minded towards intelligent design. I personally don't think it's going to pan out, but I could be wrong; I don't think there's anything wrong with scientists trying to give it more content and specificity than it currently has. Maybe we'll arrive at an ID theory which is falsifiable. What I object to are attempts to promote ID, particularly in the public school science curricula, in anticipation of that day. But then, shouldn't I say the same about abiogenesis, on pain of consistency? I don't think so, and here's why: although abiogenesis has not yet turned out a falsifiable theory, it nevertheless function as a research program which churns out experiments (both real and "thought experiments"), speculations, proto-theories, and in working through them, we keep learning something new about the distinctions between living cells and "mere" molecules. ID, by contrast, doesn't seem to be churning out anything. It's a mildly interesting idea, but in it's present form, it lacks fecundity. Abiogenesis, while also unfalsifiable, is fecund, and that counts for something. By the way, I seriously doubt that abiogenesis research is a money-maker.Carlos
September 14, 2006
September
09
Sep
14
14
2006
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT
To continue: On the other hand, how could the ID view of OOL be falsified? Some would say ID would be falsified if scientists could show how abiogenesis could occur. But the kooky thing about this is, a designer could still show up, take credit in some verifiable way, and ruin the whole game. One "falsification" would be falsified by another. This shows that such "falsification" by scientists is really just a sop. Things like this can happen when one assumes an inti-ID position as an article of faith.mike1962
September 14, 2006
September
09
Sep
14
14
2006
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT
You falsify abiogenesis by proving that a designer is responsible. This could take a couple of different forms, such as finding an undeniable signature within the genome. Of course, if the designer showed up and took credit, that would effectively do the job, esp if he/she/they could reproduce how they did it.mike1962
September 14, 2006
September
09
Sep
14
14
2006
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply