Socratease,
On the good side, scientists usually have a well-developed sense of humour and a sharper awareness of what we *don't* know than the religious, especially in proportion to the capacity to deliver. Be of good cheer We *know* we are subject to correction.

George,
Because runner deserves a chance to show he *really* read and understood the paper he quotes. Maybe he just has some "evolution debunked" book so common in religious bookstores that gives him snippets like this to "tickle his ears"? Maybe not.

I wonder if he read the rest of that issue of SciAm? It was devoted to evolution and had excellent overviews of many aspects from such distinguished scientists as Ernst Mayr and Lewontin, maybe Skinner.

My own copy is filed with all the other old stuff in deep-storage (beware of the leopard!) and apparantly needs removal.

*Of course* Dickerson's contribution contains many phrases about this or that being "speculative". Unlike the great sweep of metazoan biological evolution, the emergence of recognisable cellular life from prebiotic conditions is incredibly remote in time and in the chemical conditions of the day.

Starting with the Miller-Urey electroreduction of organic molecules, Dickerson exhaustively catalogues the chemistries contributing to the formation of numerous amino acids and nucleotides. Despite difficulties, it identifies feasible chemistry for the formation of polymers of both. Having established that the capacity to develop metabolism existed (a very intersting result of Miller-Urey), Dickerson, yes, laments the lack of data on the formation of a working genetic system.

Did anybody think it would be easy?

The early nineties had some interesting stuff on RNA catalysts. They can be templates for replication, they have catalytic properties, and they can directly bind amino acids and other cofactors to enhance that catalysis. They are easily isolated from random pools of polymerised RNA.

In 1978 Dickerson asserted that both the genetic and the metabolic capacities of life needed to evolve from simpler precursors in parallel. How better than when combined in one molecule?

Inconvenient facts?

These quoting games would be fun if they weren't so tediously repetitive.

Rusty

Science, fundamentally, is a game. It is a game with one overriding and defining rule. Rule No. 1: Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behaviour of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural.

Given the persistent total absence of the supernatural, and the complete uselessness to us of absent things, deliberately *not* invoking it has been damn useful.

Rusty

Dan,

I remember back when I was a fundamentalist believer, I used to pretend to not have a problem with science. I’d tell myself that science was great, so long as it was proper science, unlike that awful, awful evolution stuff. It was always comforting to remind myself that there were thousands of credentialed scientists around the world who didn’t accept evolution.

But deep down I resented science as a whole, because it always seemed to be out to disprove my beliefs and it frustrated me that most scientists wouldn’t take my beliefs seriously.

Contrary to how you spoke, I always suspected this was how you quietly felt too. And now, after 2 years of applying pressure, the cracks are finally appearing and your true feelings about science as a whole are starting to show through...

<<Science, fundamentally, is a game. It is a game with one overriding and defining rule.>>

This is a landmark moment. Boy, does it bring back memories!

<<Rule No. 1: Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behaviour of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural.>>

Yes. That would be a good start because, as Creationists demonstrate, the moment we invoke the supernatural - or anything else unquantifiable, immeasurable or mystical - we stop learning.

If we allow the established churches to start pushing their unprovable ideas onto science, where do we stop?

Do we just let any old crank who claims to have a direct connection to a figment of his imagination insist that their ideas be taken seriously?

Imagine how our progress would slow and eventually stop as we’d inevitably return to the days of heretic burning and witch trials in little as a couple of generations.

Please tell me, Dan:

How does one invoke the supernatural into the study of science, without resorting to the ‘God of the Gaps’ fallacy, or the ‘Argument from Incredulity’ fallacy?

What kind of evidence would one look for?

DSM,

You obviously think science is a game and that scientists deliberately avoid any evidence of supernatural involvement.

The main point that creationists miss is that there is yet to be found one shred of evidence that supernatural forces are at work. Thus unwilling to ascribe phenomena to mystical beings, they strive to find the real reasons. In doing so they unlock the mysteries of nature, and are able to use it to improve life.

"Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behaviour of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural."

as if there's an alternative. invoking the supernatural is not explaining, it's simply giving up.