At least there are some (albeit far too few) Materialists out there that are honest enough to speak the truth regarding the state of the Origin Of Life (OOL) field. Here are two quotes:
"The origin of life is one of the hardest problems in all of science, but it is also one of the most important. Origin-of-life research has evolved into a lively, inter-disciplinary field, but other scientists often view it with skepticism and even derision. This attitude is understandable and, in a sense, perhaps justified, given the "dirty" rarely mentioned secret: Despite many interesting results to its credit, when judged by the straightforward criterion of reaching (or even approaching) the ultimate goal, the origin of life field is a failure - we still do not have even a plausible coherent model, let alone a validated scenario, for the emergence of life on Earth. Certainly, this is due not to a lack of experimental and theoretical effort, but to the extraordinary intrinsic difficulty and complexity of the problem. A succession of exceedingly unlikely steps is essential for the origin of life, from the synthesis and accumulation of nucleotides to the origin of translation; through the multiplication of probabilities, these make the final outcome seem almost like a miracle."
Eugene V. Koonin, molecular biologist, The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution (Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press, 2011), p. 391.
"Over the past sixty years, dedicated and skillful scientists have devoted much effort and ink to the origin of life, with remarkably little to show for it. Judging by the volume of literature, both experimental and theoretical, the inquiry has thrived prodigiously. But unlike more conventional fields of biological research, the study of life's origins has failed to generate a coherent and persuasive framework that gives meaning to the growing heap of data and speculation; and this suggests that we may still be missing some essential insight."
Franklin M. Harold, In Search of Cell History: The Evolution of Life's Building Blocks (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2014), p. 164:
Sadly, many people have spent and will spend most of their lives seeking the Materialistic OOL only to die in failure. But not all is lost --- as they seek to find this non-existent OOL, many spinoff discoveries and techniques emerge that find useful applications in other areas.
That said, we must never lose sight of the fact that it is their FAITH in a purely Materialistic OOL that keeps them going. It can only be FAITH because they do not have a single verifiable, repeatable scientific observation to back up their OOL belief. Yet, they will deny this until their last breath.
Science and Scientism? Yeah, right!
Jorge
"The origin of life is one of the hardest problems in all of science, but it is also one of the most important. Origin-of-life research has evolved into a lively, inter-disciplinary field, but other scientists often view it with skepticism and even derision. This attitude is understandable and, in a sense, perhaps justified, given the "dirty" rarely mentioned secret: Despite many interesting results to its credit, when judged by the straightforward criterion of reaching (or even approaching) the ultimate goal, the origin of life field is a failure - we still do not have even a plausible coherent model, let alone a validated scenario, for the emergence of life on Earth. Certainly, this is due not to a lack of experimental and theoretical effort, but to the extraordinary intrinsic difficulty and complexity of the problem. A succession of exceedingly unlikely steps is essential for the origin of life, from the synthesis and accumulation of nucleotides to the origin of translation; through the multiplication of probabilities, these make the final outcome seem almost like a miracle."
Eugene V. Koonin, molecular biologist, The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution (Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press, 2011), p. 391.
"Over the past sixty years, dedicated and skillful scientists have devoted much effort and ink to the origin of life, with remarkably little to show for it. Judging by the volume of literature, both experimental and theoretical, the inquiry has thrived prodigiously. But unlike more conventional fields of biological research, the study of life's origins has failed to generate a coherent and persuasive framework that gives meaning to the growing heap of data and speculation; and this suggests that we may still be missing some essential insight."
Franklin M. Harold, In Search of Cell History: The Evolution of Life's Building Blocks (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2014), p. 164:
Sadly, many people have spent and will spend most of their lives seeking the Materialistic OOL only to die in failure. But not all is lost --- as they seek to find this non-existent OOL, many spinoff discoveries and techniques emerge that find useful applications in other areas.
That said, we must never lose sight of the fact that it is their FAITH in a purely Materialistic OOL that keeps them going. It can only be FAITH because they do not have a single verifiable, repeatable scientific observation to back up their OOL belief. Yet, they will deny this until their last breath.
Science and Scientism? Yeah, right!
Jorge
Comment