Posted by
Yubaduck on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 1:19:28 AM
I went to see Ben Steins movie on Saturday night. I will get on to reviewing it in the next post, first let me review something we all learned in science classes, the scientific method:
Step one of the scientific method is to choose your topic. Lets say the origin of life.
Step two is to Identify a problem....Lets say How did life begin?
Step three is to Research the problem.....well, all life is made up of cells. Cells are microscopic arrangements of macromolecules such as Protein, Carbohydrates, Lipids, and Nucleic Acids arranged in such a way that they can Grow, Develop (Evolve), Reproduce, Metabolize Energy, and Respond to Stimuli. Though there is some debate about whether a Virus is living (it does not reproduce develop or grow on its own, only through use of a host system), most scientist seem to agree that Cells are the simplest form of LIFE. Since the simplest cells possible must contain around 200 genes, and the proteins produced by these genes to function, there are no currently known "simple cells". So the challenge is to determine if A. Cells can or cannot be simplified beyond a certain point without losing their status as "Living" or B. Cells can be produced artificially by component chemicals.
Step four is to Develop a hypothesis......If cells arose from nonliving material, there must be a way to artificially create cells from chemical components or to simplify cells beyond the level currently known.
Step 5 is to design experiments to create or simplify existing cells into simpler protocells.
Step 6 is to try out the experiments
Step 7 is to analyze results.
Step 8 is to form conclusions and if necessary, modify the hypothesis or the experiments.
Above is the scientific method. It is a very loose use of the scientific method for a number of reasons. First, components found in prebiotic earth are theoretical. Until life is found elsewhere in a more primitive state, we are truly guessing at the components and details of early earth. If you have too many variables, you cannot design an effective experiment. So many researchers will say you "must have had" this or that on prebiotic earth when life originated, though other than imposed mandates of the researcher, there is no way to know whether this needed ingredient was actually on earth or not. Experiments since the 20's when Oparin proposed "Primordial soup" have mostly had this flaw, and even giving a lot of ingredients access to the soup there is no way to know they had, no sort of life has yet been created. Many scientists who see this as unassailable use of the scientific method state that ID (Intelligent Design) is untestable. Lets explore ID from the scientific method format:
Steps 1 and 2 are identical, the problem is still the origin of life.
Step three takes the statement above a step further. It states that since the simplest cell known is about 200 genes and contains at least that many proteins specialized in replication of genetic material, converting genetic plans into proteins, capturing and converting energy, detoxifying and removing waste, repairing gene damage, protein damage, and component parts, responding to heat, acidity, and other environmental changes, as well as a lipid layer to separate the cell from its environment, cells are irreducibly complex, unable to exist beyind a certain simplicity, and the only explanation for their existence is that they were designed.
Many scientists would say this is an untestable hypothesis, a philosophical statement of origin and therefore outside of the realm of science. But in fact, it is not. The experiments are exactly the same. If instead of breaking cells into protocells, we see an increase in complexity each step we take downward that renders us unable to go beyond a certain point, we see evidence that points to a design. In ID cosmology, you also want to continue to study the cell because it teaches us about the tools we are created with. We in the ID community do not say "God did it" and stop exploring, just as God fearing scientists before Darwin did not stop experimenting or hypothesizing for fear of undermining God. If God is all powerful, honest inquiry will point towards Him, not away. The point is, studying origins or evolution, change over time, is an important part in studying science. This does not cease to be if the scientist mentioned is convinced that inquiry points to a Creator. Framing the debate as Science vs. Faith is ridiculous. Until God is revealed or until the evolution of life from non life occurs artificially, both ID and Evolutionary origin of life theorists are doing the same thing. Looking for evidence to see which way the science leads.