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