You should know better than to expect this group to give a straight answer
to your question. But I'll give you my qualified (does that mean crooked?)
answer. I'll answer your question in my own qualified way--hopefully
Howard will not consider the general topic to be a waste of time. I
believe that there is much to gain by discussing our attitude toward
abiogenesis. It helps us think about the relationship between the Bible
and science in a more neutral way since abiogenesis has not been
demonstrated--unlike most aspects of evolutionary theory. (Sorry, couldn't
resist!)
As has been noted, abiogensis as defined in the encyclopedia is not what
origin of life researchers are talking about; I don't know of anyone who
disputes the claim that abiogenesis doesn't occur these days, although
technically a resurrection from the dead might be seen as a case of
abiogenesis if we're going to allow miracles into the picture. It also
seems to me that from a scientific point of view, any special creation of
life would be seen as abiogenesis.
I have no theological objections to the abiogenesis required by a very
general theory of evolution (I don't disagree with the previous posts that
have made helpful distinctions about the relationship between evolution and
origin of life studies. As in all areas of science, such scientific
explanations tell us NOTHING about God's immediate role in governing such
processes.
As a biochemist, I don't see any reason why the abiogenesis is ruled out in
advance by physical, chemical, or biological principles. If the origin of
life on earth could be explained by physical, chemical, or biological
principles, it's certainly a very interesting area of study.
To my knowledge no one has demonstrated abiogenesis in the laboratory.
Interesting things, have been done, however, in silico, in the artificial
life community.
The unity of biochemistry, the genetic code (with a few exceptions), DNA
and protein sequence similarities, etc. strongly suggest a unique origin of
life on earth. Such data is most easily accounted for by a single origin
of life (by abiogenesis, panspermia, or special creation) or by multiple
origins where only one version survived either due to selection or some
contingency. Common design is not the simplest explanation of the
data--it's like arguing that two nearly identical manuscripts are similar
because they were produced by a common mind rather than one being a copy of
the other.
All things considered, it seems to me that it is reasonable to hold to
abiogenesis as a working hypothesis.
TG
>To the Evolution Mailing List:
>
>The basic assumption of evolution is spontaneous generation.
>
>ãSpontaneous generation, in biology, is the theory, now disproved, that
>living organisms sometimes arise from nonliving matter. It is sometimes
>referred to as abiogenesis, as opposed to biogenesis, the now
>established fact living organisms arise only from the reproduction of
>previously existing organisms.ä
>
> Above is the Encyclopaedia Britannicaâs entry under Spontaneous
>Generation. It is also the experience of about 5 billion people many
>billions of times currently and since the beginning of recorded history,
>without one single exception. The box score for biogenesis versus
>abiogenesis is many billions to zero.
>
>Please send me a "Yes" or a "No" to the statement:
>
>I subscribe to abiogenesis (spontaneous generation).
>
>Thank you for your help with this survey.
>
>Joseph Mastropaolo
_________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist
Chemistry Department, Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado 80523
grayt@lamar.colostate.edu http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/
phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801