Science, faith, and life's origin

[rug]

One of the many fascinating things about evolution is that it generates disputes that can help us all better understand what science is and how it differs from religion or other areas of human endeavor.

Just such an enlightening dispute cropped up recently between two readers who were kind enough to let me share some of their correspondence. It all started when Elisa Winterstein wrote a letter to The Inquirer, stating that scientists rely on faith just as religious people do by accepting the idea of abiogenesis - the notion that life arose from non-living matter.

Her contention is mirrored in dozens of other reader comments I've seen, stating that science, like religion, requires faith.

Her letter goes on to say that, while scientists are considering various scenarios for the origin of life, none is currently backed by any evidence, and therefore, "to believe in abiogenesis does indeed require faith."

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/evolution/Science-faith-and-lifes-origin.html

[rrneck]

1. Thats the best axe I've ever owned!

It's had three heads and six handles!

People create emotional attachments to everything in one form or another and to one degree or another.

[aSpeckofDust]

2. The blog's comment section..

..makes me want to bang my head on my desk.

[Silent3]

4. I had the same reaction

It's frustrating and sad how deeply ingrained some of these anti-scientific thinking patterns are.

[DetlefK]

3. Scientific faith evolves and adapts to new knowledge, religious faith does not.

The article is right in that respect. What do you think why the aether-theory is no longer part of the scientific faith, but genesis in 7 days is still part of religious faith?

That's the difference between scientists and religious people:
Proof to a religious person that God doesn't exist and he will still cling to his outdated belief.
Proof to a scientist that God does exist and he will adapt and incorporate this into his worldview.

[exboyfil]

5. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution

We have mountains of facts supporting the theory of evolution (common descent through natural selection) and a good understanding of many if not most of the mechanisms involved in it.

Abiogenesis on the other hand has not advanced past the hypothesis stage. When we able to show self replicating life that can be driven by an evolutionary mechanism from conditions which could have occurred in the past, then we have one possible mechanism for abiogenesis (and we only need one to demonstrate that science can fully account for it). We many never know the actual mechanism because it has been destroyed by time.

My belief is that we will come up with a demonstration of a possible mechanism in the next 20 years.

As scientists we need to consider only physical phenomenon to account for abiogenesis. It does not mean that a supernatural occurence could have caused it, but how do you test such a hypothesis? It is not science. If we never come up with a mechanism, then it becomes a matter of faith whether a supernatural cause is necessary or not.

If creationists are willing to put a stake in the ground and say that we will never demonstrate abiogenesis, then I invite them to. They can renounce their faith once it is demonstrated.

Scientists don't "believe" in abiogenesis - they have concluded that such a hypothesis may be true based upon available evidence. Abiogenesis is far from being a scientific theory, and no reputable scientist should state that it is at this point. They should talk about it as a hypothesis with competing mechanisms to explain it. The same should also be said for "string theory". Scientists using the term theory for such hypotheses is part of the problem.

[northoftheborder]

7. very good post and explanation of science

Scientific knowledge and faith in a higher power are not necessarily inconsistent with each other. A higher power could have used any means to create life; science is only the physical factual discovery of how that process works, and has worked. IMHO

[TransitJohn]

6. Life on Earth=panspermia.

My belief.

[Silent3]

8. Why have a "belief" about that?

Panspermia is certainly a viable possibility given what we know now, but why not just say that it's an interesting possibility? What compels you to commit where no commitment is needed or called for?

Beside that, even if panspermia happens to life on Earth, there's still the question of how that life got started. We get a different possible "where" to the question the origin of life, but the same question of "how" remains.

[edhopper]

9. Scientist do not "believe" in abiogenesis

There are several good theories about the mechanism of life beginning on Earth. But there is not enough evidence to support one over the the others. So they await more information. All of them though, do not need a supernatural agency superimposed over the natural events to make them work. So scientist work on finding the evidence to show them the correct answer.
As opposed to knowing the answer and disregarding any evidence to the contrary as religion does.