Ella S.
Well-Known Member
Technically, it's not a nit pick. It gets to the very core of your post: the likelihood that God created life. Here's why:
A hypothesis in science is a falsifiable prediction. This is something like, "If I jump while I'm on the ground, then I will fall back down to the ground." You can test that claim through the experiment of jumping and seeing what happens. If you fall back down to the ground, then we say that the hypothesis has been sustained. If you don't, then the hypothesis has been falsified.
Hypotheses are what experiments are designed around. The reason for this is that it's very difficult to prove claims such as "all swans that have ever existed have been white." To prove it, you would have to directly observe every swan that has ever existed as well as prove that no other swans could have ever existed. That's pretty infeasible. However, it's a lot easier to prove that this claim is false, because then all you need to do is present a swan that is some other color such as black. A black swan would falsify the claim that all swans that have ever existed have been white.
That's why hypotheses have to be falsifiable; it's easier to prove that something is false than that it's true. If there is no potential observation or experiment that can prove that your claim is false, then how much more difficult would it be to prove that it's true? A lot. The answer is a lot. It would be a lot more difficult. Nigh impossible, even.
Another facet of science is the model. The model gives us a broader idea from which we can base our hypothesis off of. For instance, the model of gravity tells us that, if things are up in the air they will generally begin to fall back down. Within this model are a number of hypotheses, including "If I jump while I'm on the ground, then I will fall back down to the ground" but also "If I throw a ball in the air, then the ball will fall back down to the ground."
If either hypothesis is falsified, it calls the entire model into question.
So here's the big one: a theory is when all of the hypotheses that make up a model have been consistently sustained through organized and concerted efforts to falsify them. If a model is so good at creating hypothetical predictions that seem to always come true through observation, even when people deliberately try as hard as they can to find an exception to its predictions, then I would say it's pretty well-evidenced. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that theories are some of the most well-evidenced concepts in all of human thought.
Now let's get back to your post, because I'm sure you're tired of my lengthy sermon. Here's the problem. Abiogenesis is a hypothetical model, and many of its hypotheses have been tested and sustained. It's going through the process that all models must go through before they become a theory. This makes it well-evidenced, although not as well-supported as something like the theory of evolution.
By contrast, the claim that God made life does not lead to any falsifiable predictions. It's a model without any hypotheses. That's called speculation.
So, which is more likely? Speculation or a sustained hypothesis? Well, a sustained hypothesis has more experimental evidence supporting it, whereas speculation does not. So a hypothesis is more likely.
So, which is more likely? Speculation or a model composed solely of sustained and untested hypotheses? Which one has more experimental evidence supporting its likelihood? Well, speculation literally has no experimental evidence supporting it, because it doesn't even provide any hypotheses to conduct experiments on. So the hypothetical model is more likely.
So, which is more likely? The speculation that God created life or the hypothetical model of abiogenesis? It's abiogenesis. That's the only correct answer you can have, given everything I have outlined thus far.
