I don't have time to be an active participant now (and even owe a couple =
folks personal replies -- you know who you are!), but I had to ask: How =
in the world would life on Mars deal a blow to traditional evolutionary =
theory? Prima facie, it would offer significant support.
Is your argument really this: abiogenesis (what you called "spontaneous =
generation") in one spot is unlikely; in two spots it's even more =
unlikely; and therefore, the more abiogenesis there is, the harder it is =
to believe in traditional evolution?
Was I missing some irony in your comments?
Here's my take on this:
The traditional evolutionist (Christian or otherwise) has no hard =
position on the likelihood of abiogenesis in any particular location =
(some see it as nearly impossible, others as nearly inevitable) -- this =
is a matter for empirical and theoretical study (and speculation).
For such people, two empirically confirmed instances of abiogenesis in =
one star system (if, -if- that is what we have here) would be taken as =
an indication that the likelihood of abiogenesis is dramatically higher =
than most would have dared imagine.
If this is the case, especially since abiogenesis is generally regarded =
as the most difficult problem in evolutionary theory, then evolutionary =
theory has gained a substantial boost in plausibility with this =
discovery.
Philosophically, this is not an indefeasible argument. -IF- it can =
still be -proven- to be theoretically either impossible or truly =
extraordinarily unlikely, then, ironically, we just have a lot more =
empirical evidence for the miraculous, or for radical providence, or for =
directed panspermia, or other special explanations (Jim, this seemed to =
be your take on the matter?).
But clearly the scientific community as a whole is not at all persuaded =
by such supposed proofs, (1) based as they are upon a high degree of =
speculation (as are all OOL discussions), and (2) given the =
methodological naturalism most scientists take, for better or for worse =
(no one has come up with a more productive alternative to this point), =
to be a part of science.
I think the bottom lines are these: if one takes it as firmly known that =
abiogenesis is practically impossible -and- is open to =
theism/intelligent design, then and only then is this discovery more =
evidence of the miraculous or very detailed providence.
If one does not so take it, and has -some- predilection toward =
methodological naturalism (as scientists do, properly and regardless of =
openness to ontological theism/ID), then the discovery will make natural =
abiogenesis seem dramatically more likely, perhaps almost inevitable =
under "lifelike" conditions (water, carbon, heat, etc.; -even though- we =
don't yet have a detailed and non-speculative theory to explain just =
how), and so the plausibility of evolution as a whole increases =
substantially. It could still be wrong, but this would be the initial =
read of things.
But isn't this "proper" and certainly nearly universal predisposition =
toward methodological naturalism just slipping in atheism in disguise? =
No, unless the scientist is either sloppy or an ideologue. At least two =
basic reasons for this methodology: (1) science is the study of nature =
and so has a natural methodological bent in that direction, and (2) =
historically this approach has proven most practically fruitful in =
generating new theories and new successful predictions. If one thinks =
science should dump this methodology, and I can imagine circumstances =
under which it should, then one should come up with a better methodology =
and demonstrate its practical superiority. All a competitor need do is =
start making better predictions and more useful theories. Note the =
emphasis on practicality: science is a pragmatic thing. To consider all =
the possibilities, to apply reason broadly rather than narrowly =
construed, to avoid methodological limitations imposed by the drive for =
practical results, move to philosophy. I did! :^> To put it another =
way: "science" does not mean "deep truth", though we -hope- it often, =
ultimately, leads to truth at least at some level short of the ultimate. =
But science in practice is definitely a very pragmatic enterprise, =
which is a net criticism only if one thinks it should be instead =
philosophy or theology.
This isn't as rigorous or concise as I would like, but again, I'm in a =
hurry and I needed to go 30 minutes ago :^>, so I hope this is a bit =
helpful even as is. I hope I'm at least making sense! :^>
--John
----------
From: Jim Bell[SMTP:70672.1241@compuserve.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 1996 12:51 PM
To: INTERNET:evolution@Calvin.EDU
Subject: Re: Latest on Mars
This just in: A small life form actually stuck its head out of the =
meteor and
said, "Take me to your leader." So they transported it to Hillary =
Clinton's=20
office.
[Pause for laughs]
Now then. Let's say it IS a life form. This, it seems to me, vindicates =
both=20
Francis Crick [directed panspermia] and Fred Hoyle [Evolution from =
Space]. It=20
deals a blow to traditional evolutionists (what, we had spontaneous =
generation
in TWO places in the solar system?) and does nothing to harm Intelligent =
Design. In fact, it rather supports the idea.=20
What would, assuming once again, it say about God, man and Earth? I =
don't=20
think much. Man would still be a special creation.=20
It does give us writers some good SF ideas, though. It's time to re-read =
the=20
Hitchhiker trilogy again....
..42....
Jim