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.
Sure, Joe could have, but since you have no evidence of Joe, saying "Joe did it" cannot be a conclusion. It is mere speculation, and not science.
You're trying to leverage historic methodology vs. scientific methodology. Thanks! I love history.
The past doesn't repeat (although history tends to do so). A limit of science concerning the past is that
it can never say what happened. It can only test for what is possible and what is impossible.
This is true. Therefore, the conclusions drawn from the testing, evidence observed, or samples collected can only include that which is supplied by that testing, evidence or samples. Any statement that falls outside of that is speculation. I'm sure that scientists could say that the Great Designer or My Little Pony used iron sulfides to create energy transfer pathways. However, since neither the Great Designer nor My Little Pony EVER SHOW UP in an experiment, that statement is not a conclusion from the evidence. Since it is not a conclusion from the evidence, IT IS NOT A VALID SCIENTIFIC CONCLUSION.
So if science says "A designer =>Joe could have..." It's reached it's limit. But this is still valid science.
As soon as another scientist reads the research that says "Joe could have...", that scientist will ask the first one where the evidence is that shows Joe could have. Of course there is no evidence and that "Joe could have..." statement will be labeled as unscientific. So saying "Joe could have..." is not science. Science would be showing evidence that supports the statement.
Science alone will never say anything more, and one needs to turn to trustworthy methods of investigating history if one is to learn more.
Putting aside your implication that science is not trustworthy, what are the trustworthy methods of investigating history.
Now let's fantasize for a moment: Joe creates life in his lab. This tells us that ID is a distinct possibility. We cannot say the atheist model is a distinct possibility. We cannot say your model is either. At this point, ID becomes the strongest candidate, because it's the only one of the three that's been demonstrated actually be possible. The others haven't been ruled out, but they've got to play catch-up. They need to demonstrate that they too are possible.
Well, since it has been shown the imperfectly self replicating molecules can develop on their own, I guess ID has to play catch up and the "atheist" model is the strongest candidate. Thanks, for your validation of abiogenesis.
Meanwhile, ID is free to continue investigating, turning its focus to historic methods.
Which you conveniently fail to provide.
Alternatively, ID can attempt to go on the offensive and scientifically demonstrate the others are impossible (I do not say this hasn't already been done, so nobody start.)
I thought they were already on the offensive. (In Texas, In Kansas, In Dover....)
Showing chemicals combining and saying they can combine like that, then concluding starting life is possible by chemicals combining like that is not saying that there is no God. It's just saying that this is one way life could have started, which supports the hypothesis that life began by chemicals combining together.
You mean "life
could have begun by chemicals combining together. Remember the limits of science.
Sorry, I forgot that science excludes your God since He isn't a good enough designer to build a universe that can bring forth life once it is started rolling.
It may seem as supporting atheistic abiogenesis because God/aliens/pink unicorns/fairies are not mentioned. However, the designer is not seen. Design is not conclusively seen. So what should they do? Should they say something like "The designer we cannot show evidence for must have done it like..."? That's exactly like saying "The designer made this river curve right here" or "The designer made this snowflake just like this". In science you cannot attribute a result to a particular cause unless you can show evidence of causality.
I does not seem at all to support atheistic abiogenesis. Not to any person paying close attention. I think we agree. But it is always claimed to be supporting atheistic abiogenesis anyhow. On this we may not agree - I don't know.
The claims that people make about the conclusions drawn by science does not affect the validity of those conclusions. The conclusions drawn in physics experiments say nothing about God, yet you and yours seem to have no problem with their conclusions. However, I could say that these physics experiments show that God was not involved in physics.
I'm an engineer. My job security does not depend on evolution, so that dog won't hunt.
And the mystery of your loyalty remains unsolved.
The solution is evidence. Provide some and I might change sides.
Now, just to assess where we are, do we both agree that there's no testable scientific hypothesis for what actually happened?
I said there is no way to find out what actually happened, yet. There may never be a way to find that out. There is no exact hypothesis, anyway. They are all approximations. Gravity may not work exactly as the Theory of Gravity states.
If so, do there exist testable hypotheses for what could have happened aboigenesiswise? I mean the whole thing - not increments. Increments only count if they add up to life.
Certainly there are hypotheses that make attempts to explain the process from chemicals to life. However, they are not completely fleshed out. They have to be modified as evidence and experimentation are accounted for.
And not to wander too far astray, but I do have some questions about this model of yours which, if I understand correctly, is based on the idea that on a molecular level, matter is pre-designed to assemble life when given the opportunity.
Is there any evidence for this self-assembling property? Is is still active and available for testing, or has it discontinued? Is there a proposed mechanism by which it operates?
Assuming there were a Designer, the evidence points to a universe designed to operate on its own for the most part. Chemicals combine different ways under different conditions. They seem to do this on their own. Self-replicating molecules have been shown to develop on their own. Simple ones are crystals. More complicated ones are the result of combinations of amino acids which form proteins that, once formed, replicate themselves as long as the raw materials are available.
These things have been observed in labs, so, yes the process still works.
