Yes true.
The same principle applies with abiogenesis as with evolution however. In the end science may decide (if it has not already) that life is no more than chemically based and that life could and did come about through chemical processes only.
That is the direction that science is going, since that is what the evidence indicates.
This would be an assumption based on naturalistic methodology and the lack of evidence for the supernatural and spirit.
It is an hypothesis, several in fact, based on what has been learned so far.
If you believe we have a spirit, how would or do you handle this?
I don't worry about it. Finding that life arose through natural processes doesn't alter my belief in God. It just means that demanding that all that evidence and understanding be tossed out in favor of the interpretation of some people is a ridiculous way to go about it in my opinion. As a Christian, I think we are given the gifts of our own senses and intellect and a wonderful and diverse world in which to use them to learn. Why would God create something so complex, diverse and interesting and not want us to try and understand?
Does that mean that one day in the distant future the governing body for science might come to the conclusion that science has shown that God does not exist because science has not found evidence for God?
There isn't any governing body of science that I am aware of and science can't call the answer to a question it isn't capable of addressing for lack of any evidence to examine.
So what I said above sounds as if it could happen one day. Many skeptics these days do say such things after all.
Anything can happen I suppose. Scientists as a whole believe and disbelieve many things that are outside the scope of science. Scientists are people with personal opinions just like anyone. But it would be bad scholarship to claim something doesn't exist without reason.
That would depend on your interpretation of what is written.
As it is literally written, there is no evidence to support the claims of Genesis and some evidence that points to conflicting statements therein. Plants coming before the sun is one example that is fairly prominent.
I for example interpret Gen 1:1-2 as meaning that God created the heavens and the earth and the earth was covered by water and thick cloud which made it dark. (as in Job 38:8-9)
I don't really have any objection to this interpretation. I can't even say that I fully understand it.
OK it is a refinement of what a believer believes a passage means.
I think so.
If I am not willing to accept all of current scientific understanding because of my religious beliefs and because of a conclusion that I might see as being based on the presumption that there was no supernatural involvement or no God involvement or no spirit then,
This is a misunderstanding that I find with many believers. There is no presumption of this in science. Presumption isn't a useful mechanism in science. Presumption is what those rejecting science are usually doing.
yes the grounds are at least partly outside of science and from personal bias but also the grounds are partly inside of science, to do with the naturalistic methodology which can cause science to reach conclusions that are wrong imo. For example, what I said above about science concluding that life is no more than chemical based.
IOW science is not the be all and end all of defining what is true.
But science is very good at studying, testing and discovering things. It doesn't really define what is true. It provides a meaningful basis to draw rational conclusions on those things that fall into the scope of scientific study. Anything that is evident can be examined using science. That which is without evidence cannot.
This is where it gets tricky. You see your allegory interpretation as correct and that I should conform to that, and I see my interpetation of Genesis as vaguely historical and hope that others might be able to see that.
I see my interpretation as a better way than trying to follow a literal interpretation and force the facts to fit it rather than follow the facts to a natural conclusion.
Actually I don't demand that all we have learned be tossed out.
Sorry, I did not mean to imply that you did. Some seem to though.
I see that what we have learned as confirming the Bible and the Bible as confirming what science has discovered.
I'll accept that, though I don't agree with it. Perhaps in a more vague and very general way.
BUT of course even though I am of course correct
and the Bible is correct also and science is correct also (except in assuming that God did not do it) from experience, I hold no hope of convincing people of this and so my spiritual maturity that I get from it is to not take it to heart and to accept others as Bible believers even though we disagree.
I'm not sure that it matters if the story is or isn't historically accurate and completely factual. That is trivial to the spiritual enlightenment and relationship with God in my view.
