Intelligent Design News Origin Of Life

Senior NASA origin of life scientist on a research thesis that smacks of “creationism”

Spread the love

Readers may remember Suzan Mazur’s interview with a senior NASA scientist: senior NASA origin of life scientist:

In a couple of e-mails to me in January 2013, Andrew Pohorille, the senior-most scientist at NASA working in the origin of life field, objected to my story, “The RNA World’s Last Hurrah?”, “The RNA World’s Last Hurrah?”, in which I interviewed Paul Davies’ collaborator at Arizona State University, physicist Sara Walker. …

Hey, we got you hooked? Then how be this, a followup:

Pohorille is now even less enthused about the RNA world since Princeton and said there were also fewer scientists currently pursuing that line of research. He also thinks the answer to origin of life is not about a thermodynamic factor — which he says smacks of creationism. And he adds that scientists have so far not found viruses in meteorites, i.e., no nucleic acid.

I mentioned the recent lukewarm New York Times story about origin of life research and Pohorille agreed not only with the Times assessment but with comments made earlier to me by biochemist Pier Luigi Luisi that we need all new “mindstorms,” because nothing much has happened since Miller-Urey yet scientists keep pursuing the same lines of investigation.

Pohorille, however, does think working with amino acids makes sense. … More.

Can a reader explain more re “the answer to origin of life is not about a thermodynamic factor — which Pohorille says smacks of creationism.” He is talking about what, exactly?

Origin of Life Circus Suzan Mazur is the autho of The Origin of Life Circus, the best read since the clasic Seven Clues to the Origin of Life: A Scientific Detective Story

See also: A quick summary of origin of life issues

Follow UD News at Twitter!

3 Replies to “Senior NASA origin of life scientist on a research thesis that smacks of “creationism”

  1. 1
    Mung says:

    …we need all new “mindstorms,” because nothing much has happened since Miller-Urey yet scientists keep pursuing the same lines of investigation.

    And:

    …we should be prepared to accept the idea that no real unification in biology is possible without a new logic if life.

    – Marcello Barbieri

  2. 2
    Axel says:

    First of all, atheist scientists of whatever stamp, need to adopt the primordial assumption that they will go round and round in an endless (and brainless) loop, unless they adopt an attitude of absolute humility, open to any ideas, including and not least, theism.

    At the moment, as we’ve been reading a lot recently in these columns, they are ‘driving’ UD’s leading apologists ‘up the wall’ with their wilful deafness to reason, so that Thomas Paine’s words resonate very loudly:

    ‘To argue with a man who has renounced his reason is like giving medicine to the dead.’

    A dead man talking is a thankless interlocutor.

  3. 3
    tjguy says:

    “…because nothing much has happened since Miller-Urey yet scientists keep pursuing the same lines of investigation.”

    Why is it that most people don’t know this? Talking to your average Tom, Dick, and Harry atheist, you would think that science is on the verge of solving this!

Leave a Reply