NonlinOrg, I am sincerely trying to follow your arguments but I must admit considerable difficulty. I used to adamantly deny the Theory of Evolution, so I do think I have considerable empathy with where you are coming from. But I would encourage you to re-examine your logic and your misuse of scientific terminologies. I scarcely know where to begin.
The following reaction to your claims hits one of many nails squarely on the head:
And I think you surprised many of us with this one:
Oh my. As someone else insinuated in reference to a popular adage, that's so far off the deep end that it is not even close enough to qualify as "wrong."
Perhaps you are misled by what I sometimes call "The Morpheme Ambiguity." Geocentrism refers to the earth as the center of the universe. But heliocentrism only asserts that the sun is the "center" of the solar system, not the entire universe. (I put quotation marks around "center" because, technically, the earth's orbit is an ellipse and under Kepler's Law, the sun is at just one of two foci of that elliptical orbit. So one must be very careful about the meaning of center in this context.)
That's not just his opinion. Those are standard definitions. Or do you consider scientific terms just a matter of personal opinions?
By definition, abiogenesis (biological life from non-living ingredients) is always "materialistic" because those non-living ingredients are matter, the chemical elements of the earth's crust.
If someone denies abiogenesis, the only logical alternatives are (1) biological life has always existed and therefore had no beginning, or (2) biological life suddenly "poofed" into existence where nothing previously existed---a concept strongly denied by both the Bible and modern science. (The Bible claims that all animals come from "the dust of the ground", which is just another way to refer to abiogenesis, life from the non-living chemical elements of the earth's crust.)
That's absurdly illogical. How does the latter logically follow from the former? Let's see how you apply that same "logic" to the following converse claim that we will attribute to some imaginary anti-theist:
The evidence for a God-directed abiogenesis is utterly lacking. If it were true, given Earth’s life supporting environment, we would see God-directed abiogenesis every day.
Does that kind of logic still make sense to you?
Obviously, it is successful in scientific terms because it demonstrates a logically necessary first step if abiogenesis processes are ever to be explained by the scientific method. It is reminiscent of Friedrich Wohler's groundbreaking experiment where he synthesized the first organic compound in a laboratory. You see, prior to Wohler's experiment, virtually everyone assumed that organic chemicals, chemical compounds thought to only be produced by living organisms, were solely within God's creative domain---and would NEVER be synthesized by humans from non-living ingredients. Yet, nobody assumed that Wohler's synthesis of urea, a product of animal kidneys, in and of itself proved that chemists could create living organisms. But it did demonstrate one step in that potential direction. (And from that time on, the term "organic chemistry" changed its definition from "the chemistry of life" to "carbon chemistry", a much broader definition.)
Let's look at your logic further. Suppose a critic of cancer research were to say:
The experiment in which Dr. John Doe synthesized biochemicals which markedly reduced the growth and multiplication of cancer cells has been called an encouraging success. But how can a lab experiment in a petri dish which didn't cure even one person's cancer be called successful?
Does that kind of argument sound at all familiar to you, NonlinOrg? Do you still think that your argument is logically sound?
So now you are telling us that any "utter stagnation" in some field of science logically indicates that the concept being researched is "unrealistic" and will never be understood? Do we really need to review the many examples in the history of science when scientists appeared to make very little progress for many many years? Did that slow progress render the pursuit "unrealistic"? (Of course, I'm not accepting your assertion of "utter stagnation." You provided no evidence nor other basis for your claim.)
For a long time there were scholars who belittled the belittled the attempts of scientists to understand the motions of the planets. To them, the pursuit of scientific explanations were "unrealistic" because it was (allegedly) clear that "God commands angels to propel the heavenly bodies in their courses." Should scientists like Isaac Newton have given up on their research because of the "utter stagnation" which preceded his development of calculus and the development of his Laws of Motion and the Law of Universal Gravitation?
Perhaps you could define for us what exactly would constitute "utter stagnation". Should scientists give up on their research based on what you think are questions too difficult for them to address?
How does that at all logically follow? Absurd.
NonlinOrg, do you have any professional or academic background in science? I know that you've been asked that question before but I don't recall seeing your reply.
Once again, this is mind-numbingly illogical. Couldn't the same argument be applied to so many other scientific phenomena? For example, if the sun is powered by hydrogen atoms fusing to produce helium (and other heavier elements), why don't balloons filling with hydrogen gas in high school chemistry lab experiments routinely produce nuclear explosions?
As to information and chaos, I strongly recommend that you read even the first few chapters of any undergraduate information theory textbook.
Why? What about it constitutes "magic"? Suppose that someone told people living in remote areas of Papua New Guinea a hundred years ago that some rocks could be used to make devices which would allow human voices to be transmitted silently so that other people many miles away could hear them. Would that have been "belief in magic"?
NonlinOrg, do you understand why I am struggling to make sense of your claims?
And what does that have to do with either abiogenesis or evolution? Both the Bible and modern science agree that living things did not come from nothing. Living organisms come the earth's crust. (And by the way, EX NIHILO "out of nothing" creation has been a staple theological topic for many centuries, so why would it be wrong for physicists---if not biologists---to investigate the "something out of nothing" concept?)
Why? The Theory of Evolution makes no claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity. Science textbooks don't talk about God's role (or non-role) in creation for the same reason that music theory textbooks don't discuss theological topics. So I'm baffled by your claim.
I believe photosynthesis and mitosis are manifestations of God’s will. So does that thereby require that the whole photosynthesis narrative and the entire mitosis narrative needs to be reevaluated? Honestly, I don't understand your point here.
Seeing how nobody claims that "monkeys ate too many bananas and randomly grew a brain", this bizarre argument has nothing to do with anything, let alone evolution or abiogenesis. [content edited]
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "a predetermined design" but seeing how I'm a Molinist, I certainly believe that God chose the particular "reality path" which we observe today, one in which evolutionary processes brought about his divine will. Are you trying to mock this idea? Or are you making some other point? Once again, your argument baffles me. I thought all Christians could agree that God uses natural processes like the water cycle, solar fusion, photosynthesis, mitosis, and all sorts of biological processes to accomplish his will.