Approaches like that are a turn off, yes.
Such videos are designed to be inflammatory, rather than objective or educational.
Exactly & I may be mis-remembering but I thought the talk was being given at an event in Kentucky, sponsored by organisations involved in promoting Creationism?
It should be noted too that the YouTube video is entitled "Abiogenesis: The Faith & The Facts"
So I was incorrect in saying that the term faith crops up within 50 seconds of the speaker beginning his talk; it crops up before we even click on 'Play'!
Not my experience with you with chemists.
More correctly with just one chemist! When I hear dozens more, then hundreds more (etc.) coming out & supporting the view that life could not have emerged by any natural means, I'll certainly review what I think on the matter.
But when a single member of any scientific profession voices the opinion that something is impossible, guided as much (it seems) by their faith as by their scientific understanding, I'll pass thanks very much.
The sample size I have with you shows you do not give someone a fair hearing, and if what he said was about his opinions, you'd have the right to complain. Since you didn't listen to him, his views are nothing you can compare to what others have said. You listen to what 10 minutes of a lecture somewhere around an hour and a half long. The part you heard you didn't even describe correctly.
The man really does refer to 'faith' being an issue in the understanding of how life began & he does this within 50 seconds of starting. Are you disputing this?
Had he limited himself to a purely factual, insofar as the facts can be established, argument against abiogenesis I might have been persuaded to watch the rest.
Approaches like that are a turn off, yes.
Such videos are designed to be inflammatory, rather than objective or educational.
Unless you actually bothered to watch it what are you complaining about? A chemist speaking about chemistry and the issues with abiogenesis? I've seen very inflammatory statements about faith and no speaks up about that even here. The Dr. was and is a respected Chemist and he handled the topic with science very even handedly.
It should be noted too that the YouTube video is entitled "Abiogenesis: The Faith & The Facts"
So I was incorrect in saying that the term faith crops up within 50 seconds of the speaker beginning his talk; it crops up before we even click on 'Play'!
Quite right, and he said the science of the topic should be limited to what we can test and prove, and that was the trust of the lecture. You have twisted it to his faith being inserted into his chemistry, the exact opposite of what was done. You did and are doing this without bothering to give his lecture an honest listen.
I will start using agency instead of mind. I am not sure how anyone who holds to a pure natural materialistic world view can accept abiogenesis can not be shown true using only chemistry.
To answer that, they point to the many flaws found in the physiology of modern organisms. Rather than the percections.
These flaws strongly suggest a lack of agency.
We can discuss the flaws if you want, but you are telling me a spelling error proves to you someone didn't write a paper?
Who is the 'someone' you have in mind & precisely what are you attributing to that someone?
It doesn't matter who right now, can it be done any other way is the question, once that is established the next question is who.
I will start using agency instead of mind. I am not sure how anyone who holds to a pure natural materialistic world view can accept abiogenesis can not be shown true using only chemistry.
To answer that, they point to the many flaws found in the physiology of modern organisms. Rather than the percections.
These flaws strongly suggest a lack of agency.
We can discuss the flaws if you want, but you are telling me a spelling error proves to you someone didn't write a paper?
A spelling error no.
On the other hand, an optic nerve coming out the eye, running 9 feet down the giraffes nech, wrapping around the heart, and then going back up the neck to get to the brain just a few inches where it started, says "total lack of forethought"
And when this exact same spelling error is found in every mammal on the planet, I wonder how these mammals do not share Common Descent?
Common design is just a valid answer, the issues you have brought up with the eye has been explained by some to my satisfaction. I also imagine our lack of understanding has more to do with many complaints about life's design.
I will start using agency instead of mind. I am not sure how anyone who holds to a pure natural materialistic world view can accept abiogenesis can not be shown true using only chemistry.
To answer that, they point to the many flaws found in the physiology of modern organisms. Rather than the percections.
These flaws strongly suggest a lack of agency.
We can discuss the flaws if you want, but you are telling me a spelling error proves to you someone didn't write a paper?
Who is the 'someone' you have in mind & precisely what are you attributing to that someone?
It doesn't matter who right now, can it be done any other way is the question, once that is established the next question is who.
It matters quite a lot if you have a fixed idea about the who & their powers & attributes.
I've been discussing issues like this for more than long enough to know that creationists always come with their own agenda. Are you a creationist with an agenda?
Professional biologists are clear on this point: Without evolution, nothing in Biology makes any sense.
It should be noted too that the YouTube video is entitled "Abiogenesis: The Faith & The Facts"
So I was incorrect in saying that the term faith crops up within 50 seconds of the speaker beginning his talk; it crops up before we even click on 'Play'!
Can anyone imagine a physicist, presenting a re-staging of Newton's famous experiment with a glass lens as "The Nature of Light: The Faith & The Facts"?
Such a person would be open to ridicule.
I will start using agency instead of mind. I am not sure how anyone who holds to a pure natural materialistic world view can accept abiogenesis can not be shown true using only chemistry.
To answer that, they point to the many flaws found in the physiology of modern organisms. Rather than the percections.
These flaws strongly suggest a lack of agency.
We can discuss the flaws if you want, but you are telling me a spelling error proves to you someone didn't write a paper?
Who is the 'someone' you have in mind & precisely what are you attributing to that someone?
It doesn't matter who right now, can it be done any other way is the question, once that is established the next question is who.
It matters quite a lot if you have a fixed idea about the who & their powers & attributes.
I've been discussing issues like this for more than long enough to know that creationists always come with their own agenda. Are you a creationist with an agenda?
What should my response be to you here, “You are a material naturalist with an agenda,” what does any of that mean or matter? If you have to go motivational mongering instead of advancing ideas or showing the flaws in them, then you are no longer using science in discussing evidence. Insinuating flaws only due to another’s motivation robs you of actually looking at critics of your point of view. You should be welcoming them so you can highlight the flaws in them as you see them. Going after people instead of the ideas, you will never see past your own thoughts and have them challenged honestly. It is the data and evidence that is important, not the people! If you set yourself up to only accept those people’s ideas who agree with you and you are wrong, how would you know? If you take every challenge to your opinions as a means to highlight the strength of them over oppositions, you will always self-correct.
Professional biologists are clear on this point: Without evolution, nothing in Biology makes any sense.
Quote a few please.
I will start using agency instead of mind. I am not sure how anyone who holds to a pure natural materialistic world view can accept abiogenesis can not be shown true using only chemistry.
To answer that, they point to the many flaws found in the physiology of modern organisms. Rather than the percections.
These flaws strongly suggest a lack of agency.
Actually, intentional agency tells us nothing about the nature of the agency, whether natural, supernatural, alien, humanoid, "perfect," imperfect, etc., so the existence of flaws is no more an argument against agency then the existence of "bugs" in my new Windows operating system that agency unwittingly (or wittingly!) put there, lol!
The existence of flaws, is also not an argument for or against the potential perfection of an agent, because interestingly enough, in information theory there must be a noisy channel in order to transmit information and there must be flaws in information transfer and information copying in order to get mutation and subsequent evolution
Furthermore, such "flaws" are not flaws if they are intentional or there is a reason for having them, which we are not in a position to speak to either philosophically or scientifically (e.g., for sake of argument let's say there's an all powerful, all knowing, all perfect being; it would be a little funny to think we could look into such a "Mind" with our finite little minds and somehow state with confidence what such a Mind "would" or "wouldn't" do; we certainly have no scientific method for doing so, which is one reason I find such arguments so curious when other scientists try to make them)
Speaking as an evolutionary biologist, I do not like to get into such arguments against design like Stephen J Gould did, because (1) they are not scientific but philosophical, (2) there is no need (when making the case for evolution, (3) it is historically dangerous to make such arguments because they often turn out to be "God-of-the-gaps" type arguments from ignorance that additional study invalidates. The same type of "argument against design" was used with the so-called 150 different "vestigial" structures in the human body (which turned out to be wrong) and even "junk DNA" was used as an argument against design and we all know how that turned out
What should my response be to you here, “You are a material naturalist with an agenda,” what does any of that mean or matter? If you have to go motivational mongering instead of advancing ideas or showing the flaws in them, then you are no longer using science in discussing evidence. Insinuating flaws only due to another’s motivation robs you of actually looking at critics of your point of view. You should be welcoming them so you can highlight the flaws in them as you see them. Going after people instead of the ideas, you will never see past your own thoughts and have them challenged honestly. It is the data and evidence that is important, not the people! If you set yourself up to only accept those people’s ideas who agree with you and you are wrong, how would you know? If you take every challenge to your opinions as a means to highlight the strength of them over oppositions, you will always self-correct.
I think you'll find that the sole agenda of most material naturalists is to strictly follow the evidence, wherever it leads & to make very limited inferences from that when the available evidence becomes scant or non-existent.
But I have enough experience of creationists as a whole to know that they desire nothing more than to trash any branch of science that contradicts scripture, or that suggests the earth is ancient. I've seen some do this dishonestly, completely misrepresenting what scientists have stated or what theory covers. Mind you, this is also sometimes through utter ignorance of the principles they're arguing against.
Are you of that kind? It's a reasonable question.
Professional biologists are clear on this point: Without evolution, nothing in Biology makes any sense.
Quote a few please.
I can only tell you that I've heard biologists say this & if you Google the phrase you'll find a few results. It's a common enough belief in the field of Biology.
Actually, intentional agency tells us nothing about the nature of the agency, whether natural, supernatural, alien, humanoid, "perfect," imperfect, etc., so the existence of flaws is no more an argument against agency then the existence of "bugs" in my new Windows operating system that agency unwittingly put there, lol!
....
Not an original point but one that can't be made too often! Creationists in particular have the strange idea that if they can but demonstrate the probable existence of a 'guiding hand' at the start of things (either the Cosmos or life itself), then they've practically proven the existence of the 'God' they so fervently worship.
I think you'll agree that the truth is very different.
Professional biologists are clear on this point: Without evolution, nothing in Biology makes any sense.
Quote a few please.
I can only tell you that I've heard biologists say this & if you Google the phrase you'll find a few results. It's a common enough belief in the field of Biology.
It's a common saying popularized by Dobzhansky, but honestly has no bearing here and is a non-sequitir with respect to the OP, which is about abiogenesis, not evolution
Actually, intentional agency tells us nothing about the nature of the agency, whether natural, supernatural, alien, humanoid, "perfect," imperfect, etc., so the existence of flaws is no more an argument against agency then the existence of "bugs" in my new Windows operating system that agency unwittingly put there, lol!
....
Not an original point but one that can't be made too often! Creationists in particular have the strange idea that if they can but demonstrate the probable existence of a 'guiding hand' at the start of things (either the Cosmos or life itself), then they've practically proven the existence of the 'God' they so fervently worship.
I think you'll agree that the truth is very different.
Such matters would take us into the much deeper pool of professional philosophy with metaphysics, ontology, nature of religion and religious experience, the nature of mind, the nature of "God," conceptions and attributes of God and whether or not they have logical coherence.....It's a very deep pool....Personally, I'd rather stay in the shallow end and narrow the focus of the OP (like we've done by moving from mind to agency)
....
The existence of flaws, is also not an argument for or against the potential perfection of an agent, because interestingly enough, in information theory there must be a noisy channel in order to transmit information and there must be flaws in information transfer and information copying in order to get mutation and subsequent evolution
Furthermore, such "flaws" are not flaws if they are intentional or there is a reason for having them, which we are not in a position to speak to either philosophically or scientifically (e.g., for sake of argument let's say there's an all powerful, all knowing, all perfect being; it would be a little funny to think we could look into such a "Mind" with our finite little minds and somehow state with confidence what such a Mind "would" or "wouldn't" do; we certainly have no scientific method for doing so, which is one reason I find such arguments so curious when other scientists try to make them)
Speaking as an evolutionary biologist, I do not like to get into such arguments against design like Stephen J Gould did, because (1) they are not scientific but philosophical, (2) there is no need (when making the case for evolution, (3) it is historically dangerous to make such arguments because they often turn out to be "God-of-the-gaps" type arguments from ignorance that additional study invalidates. The same type of "argument against design" was used with the so-called 150 different "vestigial" structures in the human body (which turned out to be wrong) and even "junk DNA" was used as an argument against design and we all know how that turned out
Hmm, you need to expand on this a little because to most people of faith the 'agent' concerned is 'God' & that agent is possessed of unlimited power, wisdom & knowledge. Although some seem to qualify the wisdom & knowledge to a greater or lesser extent.
That being the case, their agent would not bring about unintended outcomes due to 'noisy channels', since He is quite capable of noiseless agency!
Such matters would take us into the much deeper pool of professional philosophy with metaphysics, ontology, nature of religion and religious experience, the nature of mind, the nature of "God," conceptions and attributes of God and whether or not they have logical coherence.....It's a very deep pool....Personally, I'd rather stay in the shallow end and narrow the focus of the OP (like we've done by moving from mind to agency)
I agree but I think we've pretty well run out of road? And I still think it's more reasonable to think in terms of a natural agent (in the broadest sense) of some kind.
Not my experience with you with chemists.
More correctly with just one chemist! When I hear dozens more, then hundreds more (etc.) coming out & supporting the view that life could not have emerged by any natural means, I'll certainly review what I think on the matter.
But when a single member of any scientific profession voices the opinion that something is impossible, guided as much (it seems) by their faith as by their scientific understanding, I'll pass thanks very much.
The sample size I have with you shows you do not give someone a fair hearing, and if what he said was about his opinions, you'd have the right to complain. Since you didn't listen to him, his views are nothing you can compare to what others have said. You listen to what 10 minutes of a lecture somewhere around an hour and a half long. The part you heard you didn't even describe correctly.
The man really does refer to 'faith' being an issue in the understanding of how life began & he does this within 50 seconds of starting. Are you disputing this?
Had he limited himself to a purely factual, insofar as the facts can be established, argument against abiogenesis I might have been persuaded to watch the rest.
Approaches like that are a turn off, yes.
Such videos are designed to be inflammatory, rather than objective or educational.