Is the origin of life a scientific or theological question?

[Oneatatime]

Thinking something is scientific does not make it scientific. Its very easy to adopt labels which give claim credibility but under cursory examination these claims are found to be lacking and the label innaproporiate. In regards to science its quite easy to see whether or not a claim has been scientifically established but when it comes to religion as one can make stuff up as they go along its much more difficult to say that something is not representative of true religion.

 

[search the scriptures]

"Is the origin of life a scientific or theological question? "

it is either or. but not limited to. noone was there.

science would deal with observation.

theology would deal with the unseen

 

[Oneatatime]

"Is the origin of life a scientific or theological question? "

it is either or. but not limited to. noone was there.

science would deal with observation.

theology would deal with the unseen

Sums up quite well why the theological answer is going to be useless

 

[search the scriptures]

"Sums up quite well why the theological answer is going to be useless"

or does it? can you observe the origin of life? will it ever be seen again? when science figures it out lemme know.

and how do you know there isn't an invisible diety who made it?

 

[ellenjanuary]

"Sums up quite well why the theological answer is going to be useless"

or does it? can you observe the origin of life? will it ever be seen again? when science figures it out lemme know.

and how do you know there isn't an invisible diety who made it?

How about, "Gee, God... I don't believe you're the Creator. How about you do it again?"

Theology doesn't come up with answers, it comes up with excuses for not asking the question.

 

[McBell]

or does it?

Can you give another explanation as to why the theological answer is going to be useless?

can you observe the origin of life?

Nope.
Can you?

will it ever be seen again?

I do not know.

when science figures it out lemme know.

Figures out what?
The beginning of life?

At least science is looking.

and how do you know there isn't an invisible diety who made it?

I do not "know" that there isn't.
However, being that there is no credible evidence that this deity even exists...

 

[Oneatatime]

"Sums up quite well why the theological answer is going to be useless"

or does it? can you observe the origin of life? will it ever be seen again? when science figures it out lemme know.

and how do you know there isn't an invisible diety who made it?

You're right that unless we can go back in time to when life arose on earth that we can't be absolutely certain of how life arose on earth but thats a limitation which applies to all events which have happened in the past.

This is also why we expect scientific theories to generate testable predictions because if life arises and doesn't arise elsewhere in the universe in line with our predictions then we can be more confident that this theory can account for the begining of life on the Earth. If we don't find ilfe where we expect it then we need to modify the theory to take this into account or propose a completely new thoery if this isn't possible. If science works out how life likely arose on Earth and where we should expect to find it elsewhere in the universe then I'm sure that it'll be mentioned in the news.

How do I know that an invisible deity didn't make life? I'll pressume you mean ann undectable deity. The honest answer is we don't know but this doesn't mean that we should throw in the towel prematurally and not bother to see if there is a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life on Earth. I also don't accept that supernatural explanations are a good alternative to a naturalistic explanation and this is something which theologians generally feel as we because they recognise that a God of the Gaps will forever be retreating into smaller and smaller gaps as science progresses which at the very least isn't particually dignified.

The major flaw in supernatural explanations is that they lack explanatory power. Its all very well to claim that God created life but it doesn't explain how God created life and where else we might expect to find life created by God. Its a useless answer

 

[Skeptisch]

If science works out how life likely arose on Earth and where we should expect to find it elsewhere in the universe then I'm sure that it'll be mentioned in the news.

A NASA scientist's claim that he found tiny fossils of alien life in the remnants of a meteorite has stirred both excitement and skepticism, and is being closely reviewed by 100 experts.

"Given the controversial nature of his discovery, we have invited 100 experts and have issued a general invitation to over 5,000 scientists from the scientific community to review the paper and to offer their critical analysis," he said.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/nasa-scientist-finds-alien-life-fossils-20110306-083629-405.html

 

[gnostic]

One of the reasons why the Bible, especially the Genesis version of the creation and the flood, is that the Mesopotamia and Egypt, have told similar myths to that of the Bible, myths that was older than the composition of the Genesis, and other books attributed to Moses...as well as the John 1, about Jesus being the Word.

Like these myths, magic is involved with the creation of the world. Using words to create are similar to that of the older myths of Re (Ra) and Ptah. The creation of humans from the earth, comes from originally from the ancient Sumerian and Akkadian myths, as it the story of Noah.

None of these are satisfactory explanations. And evidences are seriously lacking with the Bible and these myths. Jesus healing the sick, as if it by magic, explain nothing, and require no medicine.

Earth science provide more information about geological composition of rocks, about the seas and ocean, the atmosphere, etc, all of which used physics and chemistry. Biology explain all life form, including humans. Evolution explains the common ancestry of animals, and the mechanism of changes.

What does the Genesis explain?

That the earth made in 6 days. That the light of day and night was created without the sun. That we (humans) made from the earth, from dust, soil or clay, in a single day. Woman created from the man's rib. The flood covered the highest mountains. All of which defy the natural law and processes.

 

[ellenjanuary]

A NASA scientist's claim that he found tiny fossils of alien life in the remnants of a meteorite has stirred both excitement and skepticism, and is being closely reviewed by 100 experts.

"Given the controversial nature of his discovery, we have invited 100 experts and have issued a general invitation to over 5,000 scientists from the scientific community to review the paper and to offer their critical analysis," he said.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/nasa-scientist-finds-alien-life-fossils-20110306-083629-405.html

I don't know "100 experts," but Meyers didn't think much of it... I think even less.

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm giving gods no status at all; that is my point. Saying there is no god involved is a theological statement. What is it with some of you guys -- that should be so obvious I am astonished at the deliberate arguing.

Again, you have it backwards. As hypotheses for the origin of life are proposed, they don't reference gods in any way shape or form. They don't say they were involved and they don't say they weren't either, just as they don't say whether or not leprechauns, unicorns, or fairies were involved.

So unless you can show me a published paper from a scientific journal that says something like, "And no gods were involved in the process", you're simply arguing against your own straw man.

 

[Frank Merton]

Again, you have it backwards.

My the milk has gone sour.

As hypotheses for the origin of life are proposed, they don't reference gods in any way shape or form.

So?

They don't say they were involved and they don't say they weren't either, just as they don't say whether or not leprechauns, unicorns, or fairies were involved.

The leprechauns and so on are unnecessary titilation. Otherwise that is a good point and one that make make me rethink this You say that a theory that says nothing, pro or con, about gods being involved is not theological. Yes, that seems right.

So unless you can show me a published paper from a scientific journal that says something like, "And no gods were involved in the process", you're simply arguing against your own straw man.

I don't see where it is a straw man, and I imagine such a thing almost certainly exists in the literature, but that is all excess on your point: your essential view is one I accept.

 

[Skeptisch]

I don't know "100 experts," but Meyers didn't think much of it... I think even less.

What seems of great value here is that a scientist who thinks he may be on to something of great importance is inviting the general scientific community to falsify his conclusions.

Let’s for a moment assume that there is absolutely no doubt about that this NASA guy has found tiny fossils of alien life in the remnants of a meteorite, would that change evolutionary deism? How about other religions, how would they react?

 

[gnostic]

I don't see where it is a straw man, and I imagine such a thing almost certainly exists in the literature, but that is all excess on your point: your essential view is one I accept.

I think you have misunderstood Jose Fly.

Straw man referred to a logical fallacy.

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.