My point is that all of these experiments would be perfectly valid if they were conducted for ID research. All the hypotheses apply equally well. Because they are interpreted in an atheist framework, they are perceived as only supporting atheist abiogenesis. The truth is, they support ID just as much, and ID has equal claim to the results. So when people ask if ID is science, well, it's got the same body of work backing it up as atheist abiogenesis.
What I am saying is that abiogenesis is not necessarily atheist. It just doesn't look for a Designer that we don't know how to find in any kind of repeatable experiment. Back to gravity. Gravitational experiments don't look for God and don't reference Him in their hypotheses. Does that make gravitational experiments atheistic? I don't think so.
If ID scientists are experimenting to find out how chemicals may have been combined to form the first primitive replicating molecules, that's is science. That's one of those funny things about science, anybody can do it no matter what they believe. It's when they add the Designer putting those chemicals together that they either move away from science or must test for the Designer.
ID doesn't specify the designer. So the only qualifier they need is "A designer with an I.Q. of at least 115 like Joe Id here, could have..." and they're home free.
On the flip side, when Joe Atheist does the very same experiment, he can't say "Random, mindless chance could have..." ID can then take Jo Atheist's results, and claim "A designer with an IQ of at least 123 like Joe Atheist could have..."
Thus it seems ID has a big whopping advantage when it comes to framing hypotheses. Most experiments are conducted by someone, and not left to random chance.
CS could have problems. Some experiments are so silly it'd border on blasphemy to hypothesize God fooling with them.
There is no testable atheistic abiogenesis hypothesis. They have no viable science which applies exclusively to their belief.
Exactly!!! An atheist chemist studying abiogenesis cannot apply atheism to his experiment any more than his partner who happens to be a Hindu or the Christian chemist who tries to repeat their experiment can apply their Gods to the experiment.
The atheist can't say "this shows that God does not exist".
The Hindu cannot say "this shows Shiva started life with fire".
The Christian cannot say "this shows God mixed the chemicals together"
What they can, and do, say is "These chemicals could have mixed this way and produced the first replicating molecules." Gods are not added or taken away because they weren't tested for.
I think maybe we're getting somewhere.
But the problem remains that all results are protrayed as exclusively supporting atheistic abiogenesis (if not conclusively proving it), and at the same time ID and CS (yep, creation science) are put down as unscientific, and in denial of the results of these tests.
Now when atheist abiogenesis devises an experiment or hypothesis which distinguishes it from ID, they might be able to claim to have a monopoly.
That is assuming that the "atheist" claims to have a monopoly. Saying "I see no god at work here" is not the same as saying "There is no god at work here".
That's not assuming. That's
observing. And in every case there is some intelligent being at work.
Otherwise, they should be honest and admit that ID is their equal.
This is where things fall a little flat. ID's basic hypothesis is that there is a Designer. If an ID believer does experiments that don't look for the Designer then he is not working in ID. He is just doing the science that everyone else does.
Example: A doctor is trained in oncology (cancer research). If he claims to be an oncologist but does research in gynecology then he is doing nothing to advance the knowledge toward a cure for cancer.
In the same way, if a scientist does experiments that don't look for identifiable signs of the Designer then he is doing nothing to advance the field of ID. It doesn't matter how well he does his experiments.
