Re: preposterous

From: John W Burgeson (
Date: Thu Apr 05 2001 - 11:40:43 EDT

  • Next message: David F Siemens: "Re: Why?/Re: Answersingenesis"

    My fellow physicist friend, Moorad, posted:

    "For instance, it is self-evident to me that the fundamental question of
    origins is not a scientific question, the answer lies outside of science.
    It is foolish to attempt to find a theory for it."

    Sorry, my friend. I must part company from you on this one.

    Were I capable of doing so, and I wish I were, I'd love to show the world
    an extension of the Miller-Urey experiment where some form of life
    developed. I'm sure most of our ASA colleagues would agree with this.

    On the same subject, I perceive you are making abiogenesis a
    "god-of-the-gaps" argument. And you are assuming nobody will ever be able
    to accomplish it. Of course you may be right. And it was Lord Kelvin (I
    think) who insisted that "humanity will never fly." This is my prediction
    -- sometime in the next 50 years an "M-U-E" experiment will be done, and
    within 30 years after that it will be replicated in High School

    You may, of course, rationally argue that my M-U-E experiment I've just
    described, even when accomplished, does not show that sequence of
    physical/chemical processes was THE ONE that actually led to life on
    earth. But if it is a plausible set of processes, it will no doubt stand
    as the best theory around (the only alternative in the barrel, as Gould
    argues), and in time will be accepted as "fact" in the same way common
    descent is described today.

    Burgy (John Burgeson)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Apr 05 2001 - 12:11:44 EDT