Posted: Mar 19, 2010 9:11 am
Just A Theory wrote:rainbow wrote:A 'grand synthesis' of this sort in the laboratory is not high on the scientific agenda at the moment, which is more concerned with validating the individual hypothesised steps, but once those steps are accepted as valid in the field, doubtless one day a 'grand synthesis' will be attempted, and the success thereof will establish beyond serious doubt that our pale blue dot became our home courtesy of well-defined and testable chemical reactions.
If this experiment will 'establish beyond serious doubt that our pale blue dot became our home courtesy of well-defined and testable chemical reactions', then it follows that there is serious doubt at present.
You are correct, there is serious doubt at present. However, the serious doubt is somewhat lessened by the weight of research and evidence in the field. I don't mean to declare that the case has been solved, but that there ARE reasons for thinking that the doubts can be resolved by the scientific method.
On the flip side of the argument, there is also serious doubt about the intelligent design/divine creation of life. In this instance however, there is no evidence or research that supports, even partially, the hypothesis of some sort of designer (divine or not).
So, while there are serious doubts about both hyptheses, only one has a modicum of supporting evidence.
In principle you're correct.
It is however a very weak argument to claim that an alternative has less going for it.
Of the form:
There is no evidence for A, therefore B.