Theoretical origin of life; a review of fake news (Introduction)

by David Turell , Monday, September 02, 2019, 18:12 (1697 days ago) @ David Turell

An essay that encapsulates all the articles I have presented showing that design in labs proves nothing:

https://evolutionnews.org/2019/08/origin-of-life-public-education-and-religious-neutral...

The problem starts with OOL researchers greatly exaggerating the significance of their results. Then, the popular press amplifies the claims to ridiculous extremes. Finally, science textbook publishers canonize the misinformation by embedding it in official curricula.

This way, the public receives a quasi-religious education in what has been called exclusive humanism, an understanding of reality that denies the existence of any transcendent agent directly acting in the world. Among other consequences, many people are thus robbed of the freedom even to consider belief in a traditional religion.

***

Dr. Tour generated some controversy by stating that the researchers were “lying” to their readers. Tour’s comments were made largely in jest, and he has apologized for his choice of a verb, yet assertions in the articles were indeed demonstrably false.

The origin of life is not a normal scientific theory, for the belief that life formed purely through natural processes represents a sacrosanct secular creation myth. I do not use the term “myth” pejoratively but in the anthropological sense of a story that helps provide a unifying framework for thinking about life. With that in mind, one could argue that Szostak and Sutherland were not speaking as dispassionate scientists, but were instead functioning in their roles as secular faith leaders who were entrusted to propagate cherished creation narratives. Their articles functioned less as scientific works than as sacred literature, so the authors could not be expected to concern themselves too greatly with scientific plausibility.

The popular media have further contributed to the general misunderstanding of the true state of OOL studies by publishing hyperbolic claims,

***

For example, the common statement that an experiment mimics “plausible” conditions on the early Earth actually means that the experiment employs conditions completely unlike anything that could have ever occurred outside an advanced laboratory setting. Meanwhile, people are often referred to as “antiscientific” if they judge the viability of OOL scenarios based upon hard evidence and well established physical processes. In contrast, people are applauded as “scientific” if they uncritically accept OOL theories based on little more than wild speculation.

***

This epic journey from simple chemicals to life certainly captures the imagination, but it is completely detached from reality. Meteorites only contain biological molecules in trace quantities, often just a few parts per million, amidst countless other molecules. The formation of stable vesicles is only possible in highly controlled laboratory conditions, and the prebiotic synthesis of long strands of RNA or even the base nucleotides in significant quantities is completely implausible. Presenting such grossly inaccurate information to students only serves to erode the public trust in our educational and scientific institutions.

Perhaps the greatest violation of trust is how such content infringes on the principle of religious neutrality. Public education is expected to neither advance one religious or philosophical faith nor inhibit another. Yet the belief that life arose through undirected natural processes is the number one hindrance among atheists and agnostics to considering the existence of a Creator.

That belief is based almost entirely on misrepresentations of the scientific literature. In reality, OOL research over the past 65 years has uniformly demonstrated that the transformations of simple molecules into just the most basic components of a cell require dramatic investigator (intelligent) intervention. Teaching students the truth would not inspire such enchanting prebiotic stories, but it would protect the integrity of science education in the public eye.

Comment: Note that this is an ID article. It clearly shows they believe in a Creator of no religious identity, but most of the followers are Christian and don't hide the fact. A number of their members (fellows) are Jewish. My theories simply use their theories. Some agree with my theories about God choosing to evolve humans. Others at not quite as clear.