Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that about scientific discoveries in general, which have greatly benefitted our lives and led to better understandings.
I'm talking about this kind of discovery: "The creation of a working protocell which could ALMOST be plausible in a prebiotic environment." TRANSLATION: "Scientists are right on the CUSP of proving abiogenesis true once and for all"
These are the 'discoveries' that end up in magazines and newspapers enough to give the public the impression that scientists 'pretty much know' that life originated by natural causes.
Of course, it's been my impression that these 'discoveries' fall by the wayside and get forgotten, but by then the newest 'discovery' has taken the spotlight...and so on
But where do you think the journalists GET their incessant stories about the 'new discoveries' that all but prove abiogenesis? Do you think the press has moles in the scientific community that steal these 'secrets'?
Okay, you've all made some very good points. I'm glad I brought it up to get your views on the topic of sensationalizing of origin-of-life science, but I grant your main point, so let's get back to the topic, shall we?
Could RNA start life?
Of course anything 'could have' happened. But the interesting question is:
"Could RNA start life without the assistance of an intelligent designer?
[qs="RAZD"]Hi dayalanand roy, welcome to the fray. As we know, still majority of evolutionists believe in an RNA world hypothesis. ... Wrong.
Many accept that the RNA hypothesis may be true, many are skeptical of it being true and are waiting for more information.
... However, I have a problem in imbibing this theory. ... That would appear to be a personal problem, not a scientific one. Whether or not you accept the theory of gravity has no effect at all on the behavior of gravity.[qs]
First, you insist that some scientists are skeptical about the RNA world hypothesis, then you berate the person for his own skepticism.
"Could RNA start life without the assistance of an intelligent designer? You'd have to show how it couldn't. For that we'd need to know more about the origin of RNA.
Not exactly. Science has to show how the DNA code sequences needed to build life COULD have originated by naturalistic means. And so far it hasn't, though scientists have been trying for over 50 years.
Could RNA start life without the assistance of an intelligent designer? We don't know. However, looking for natural causes for natural phenomena has worked so well in the past that it seems foolish to not look for a natural cause in the case of the origin of life.
Good point. But when the search for natural causes gets to the origin of life, it stalls out. There has been no naturalistic answer in the half century since discovering the structure of DNA. The reason is that, at the level of the cell, virtually all of the molecular systems exhibit irreducible complexity, and the code embedded in the DNA sequence is something that can not yet be explained without positing an intelligent designer.
Is it possible that intelligence can exist without a living physical body to sustain it? Is it possible that a living physical body can exist without intelligence to design it?
There's a bare, logical possibility for both questions; it's just our viewpoint that results in which option you believe to be MORE LIKELY. But without more information than science can provide, there's no basis for committing either way. More information is needed.
For the Biological research establishment to admit that, scientifically speaking, there is room in the origin of life for an intelligent designer, would require an admirable example of scientific self-criticism.
...even those who claim that there is a designer fail to do any research to test the idea.
You don't have to "claim that there is a designer" to do research on the idea. The current research establishment is free to do real research based on Design Theory, it just chooses not to.
The Discovery Institute, on the other hand, has a small lab up and running, which took decades to do (as is the norm) and will probably take decades to grow to the point of having enough researchers to 'dig in' to the subject. It's just the pace of science. It'll come. With the full resistance of the current establishment, ID has come a long way scientifically.