Logic

A common response offered by those subscribing to the view of ‘life from accidental or chance chemical causes’ is that “Just because we haven’t found the answer yet, doesn’t mean it won’t be found…”

Think of it this way – if all the world’s scientists working together cannot create a single cell of living material… then, logically, a person or group capable of achieving this feat would be considered SUPERIOR to the rest.  If we cannot achieve it today, but expect to in a hundred years, this thinking operates on the assumption that we will be more advanced in the future, and our understanding increased. 

So, again, a ‘superior’ intelligence (to our own) is required to engineer life.  Thus our bias is manifest and irrefutable, for we continue to insist(!) that no intelligence or a superior intelligence is required which is the irrational consequence of refusing to relinquish the former as a viable proposition.

--%--

Separating ‘Strong Conviction’ from Facts

ALL systems of order whose origins are known for certain are the products of Minds.  To repeat, there is no system of order whose causes are understood which is not born within the intelligent mind.

Objectively, if you re-read the previous statements, this describes REALITY as it IS, and as we Find it to BE, every time we look, and without exception, bar none, end of discussion. 

If when reading the above you feel the author is making a religious statement, or is making a case for the existence of G-d, you are still conflating intelligences above the human order with religion. 

(Remember Her?)

Regarding the Motivations of Bias, members of the scientific community who seek to prove that accidents can create nano-technology and life are essentially seeking to prove a “G-d” is not necessary to explain or account for the natural world.  This pursuit pertains to ideology and institution, but not the pursuit of truth, impartial assessment of facts, or legitimate understanding.

THE CURIOUS CASE OF BIO GENESIS

The reason the institution of science insists upon studying the origin of life as a chemical process is because any non-law based process would be deemed ‘supernatural’.  Thus it is stigmatized as religious, though there is no inherent relationship between the supernatural (per se) and the religious.

To describe the origin of life as a Supernatural event is strictly a logical fact.  As no natural process has ever been witnessed to create life from non-life.  We’ve explored oceans, beneath the earth, into volcanoes, in the sky, in space, on the moon, on the surface of mars, beyond our own solar system and never have we seen a ‘natural process’ convert inert chemicals into a biological organism. 

What does this fact mean to you??  That we just haven’t looked hard enough?  If this is the case, at least recognize the assumption that supports such logic – you presuppose that eventually we will find the ‘natural’ solution.  This amounts to blind faith – and again, blatant illogic as language requires intelligence.