Absence of Evidence (The limitations of science)

by David Turell , Sunday, March 02, 2008, 22:46 (6110 days ago) @ dhw

As I read through this thread on the absence of evidence, I am struck by the fact that no presentation of scientific findings is offered to be considered, that might be viewed as 'evidence'. All I see is a discussion in philosophic definitions. I am a former agnostic, who with my scientific background as a physician, decided to study the accepted evidence, and in many cases proven lack thereof, and I concluded there is evidence of 'something' behind the origin of the universe and of life. That 'something' is not God as created by mankind's religions. I was invited to visit this website by Clare Rooney, a member of the website coordiation team, because she came upon my website that discusses my book. I am really asking a question of this website. Does this group know the scientific effort expended since 1953 on the origin of life with no meaningful result? The Urey-Miller lightening in a bottle experiment was 1953. Fifty-five years ago. An excellent review was "Origins; A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth", by Robert Shapiro, 1986. He is now a retired biology professor who spent his career in the field, and recently has published a provocative paper in Scientific American suggesting an approach with simpler chemicals, because of the lack on any progress. "Genesis" by Robert M. Hazen, 2005, is a recent presentation of the various competing theories, again admitting no progress. Should I offer my view of why I think there is no progress? Does that fit the purpose of this website discussion group?