Quote:
Originally Posted by passingbat
I"The Evolutionary model says that it is not necessary to assume the existence of anything, besides matter and energy, to produce life. That proposition is unscientific. We know perfectly well that if you leave matter to itself, it does not organize itself - in spite of all the efforts in recent years to prove that it does."
|
The evolutionary model does not make an assumption on abiogenesis. That is a fallacy that is repeated by those who posit intelligent design. Indeed it appears this was a
major criticism of that author.
The proposition that matter and energy are all that is necessary to produce life is not unscientific. Life is, fundamentally, self-replicating molecules. We can create these with nothing other than matter and energy. When we reproduce we are using nothing other than matter and energy to do so.
As the gentleman noted if you leave matter to itself it does not organise, without outside input into a system it will tend towards being less ordered due to entropy, thermodynamics, etc, however the matter wasn't left to itself, it was not a closed system.
I presume this was an attempt to simplify.
---------- Post added at 10:18 ---------- Previous post was at 10:16 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by passingbat
|
There are far, far more who don't. A good thing about science is that there is no faith-based unanimous consensus, just a consensus that most readily fits the available evidence.
It's not a bad thing that there are those who dissent. It is a bad thing, however, if they are dissenting for unscientific reasons and covering it with a veneer of science.
---------- Post added at 10:22 ---------- Previous post was at 10:18 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by passingbat
It seems that from a science perspective, without absolute proof on a specific matter, it's a case of 'what model fits best'. Some believe Creation fits best and some believe Evolution fits best. That's why Creation and Evolution are both a belief/faith issue; each person chooses which set of scientists to believe.
|
Evolution is neither a belief or a faith issue. It is a fact. No-one has shown any robust evidence to support a young Earth. If someone actually could it would be a scientific revolution and they would win a Nobel.
You're actually offering the same arguments that are used when climate change is discussed. There are a small fraction of scientists that, usually due to vested interests be they financial or their belief system, dissent from the consensus therefore there is doubt, and the claim is that there is a conspiracy by 'big science' to silence them.
We have two very different viewpoints. Mine is, for a change, the more mainstream of them. Disagreement is healthy and necessary.