Why is it that so many fundies see methodological naturalism as "faith"? They say things like, "i have faith god made everything, you have faith things made themselves," (which is of course a straw man, considering the 1st Law and cosmology and etc.)...without realizing [one of] the huge difference[s]--that while evidence has shown time and again that observable phenomena are the result of natural law, no evidence has ever shown observable phenomena to be the result of "supernatural" activity. In fact, it is just this line of reasoning that leads me to conclude that life on earth is the result of chemistry and physics. Obviously, god can still fit in the picture as the maker/guider of chemistry and physics, but that doesn't appeal to most theists. And usually they conclude that naturalistic philosophy leads one to dismiss "evidence" that purportedly supports a supernatural cause, yet they acknowledge that rational naturalistic scenarios always fit the bill, and that Occam's razor slices god right out of the picture.
I recently compiled some really good articles on my website in list fashion regarding abiogenesis. I specifically focused on publications reviewing homochirality and other frequently-touted “problems” for abiogenesis (mostly Bonner pubs). For those of you without the access or time to look them up, this could prove a valuable resource. Also, in one of the listed pubs, Lindahl, from TA&M, put together a very good review (2004) that takes us from organic chemistry to extant metabolism via “Quasi-steady state systems”…worth your read. Keep in mind that copyright laws apply to these full-text PDFs.
________________
Technorati tags: abiogenesis, Faith, God, Religion, Philosophy
