Q's RESPONSE TO RICHARD CARRIER
Q's RESPONSE TO RICHARD CARRIER
Table of Contents
About the Debate
It started out with a few simple comments meant to correct misinformation in Richard Carrier's 4,400 word blog post, "The Latest Proposal for a Probability of Abiogenesis." It mushroomed into a more than 10,000 word retort by Richard ("Biogenesis and the Laws of Evidence") devoted entirely to 'setting me straight' in his characteristic abrasive, derisive way. Richard can't seem to fathom that a person of science could genuinely disagree with him (or that he could ever be wrong, even on something outside his field of ancient history--like science)***, and so throughout his exhaustingly long read he erroneously imagines that I am a religious creationist. Even more, Richard refused to correct this mistake or take me at my word when I told him I am not a religious creationist, but an evolutionary biologist. He instead insisted that I post my credentials and CV on his blogsite to 'prove' it (As if that would convince him, when he's been known to accuse the metaphysically like-minded [Tim O'Neil] of being "a Crypto-Christian...posing as an atheist."). I don't respond to browbeating (plus, I tend to be 'old-school' when it comes to posting personal information on the web), so I declined his 'invitation', but told him I have credentials in evolutionary biology and paleontology, and that I am a retired science educator and peer-reviewer for a national science journal. This, of course, was not enough to assuage him (but then again, perhaps nothing is, short of unquestioning devotion and loyal sycophancy to his 'infallible' tutelage). At any rate, what began as a randomly picked letter from the alphabet ("Q") that I used when commenting on Richard's blog, evolved into a quasi-persona of its own, and now an adopted non de plume.
***(Note: Richard will protest: "I am literally published on this subject under peer review. So don't try to claim I'm the one here who doesn't know what he's talking about." Yes, it is true that Richard has been published on this in the journal of Biology and Philosophy, but I'm afraid that only proves the peer-review process is not infallible (something I could have told him, as a peer-reviewer for a national science journal). To be absolutely clear and avoid any misunderstanding, I am not speaking of his article as a whole, but specifically to Richard's '1 in 10^41' probability argument for abiogenesis, which is 'fatally flawed'. Richard's "1 in 10^41" probability argument is valid in principle (which is no doubt why it passed peer-review), but ultimately unsound, because it is a theoretical result that is only valid on paper, and that does not hold true in the real world of mass action chemistry. See, "The 'Fatal Flaw' with Richard Carrier's '1 in 10^41' Argument for Abiogenesis".)
In the end, evidence and facts trump authoritative appeals, credentials, and yes, even peer-reviewed articles. In the end, what matters is whether a statement, claim, or proposition is true. Minor errors are understandable and can often be excused. Major errors require correction. But major errors spanning twenty years and arrogantly defended with mocking derision towards any knowledgeable reviewers....Well, that's just plain irksome (and yes, requires correction, too). And that is really my only motivation here: to correct misinformation and ensure accurate science instruction (call it the pet-peeve of a peer-reviewer and former science educator). I am not here to debate philosophy or religion, but to correct the mess of misinformation that is Richard's "science," falsely so-called. Hubris is not easily cured, nor the blind who follow it, so I am under no illusion that the facts are unlikely to penetrate the psyche of one Richard Carrier or his small band of devotees (Notwithstanding Richard's boast in his "Biogenesis and the Laws of Evidence" that he always "immediately corrects" errors due to his "effective epistemology" vs. my "broken epistemology."). But for all others who don't fall within the aforementioned categories, perhaps it will prove a useful resource. If nothing else, it will expose the many false, erroneous, unscientific claims and arguments of Richard Carrier, and reveal to both wary and unwary alike that the sometimes seeming persuasiveness of Richard's arguments stems more from the repetitive, emphatic, forceful, browbeating manner in way he asserts things, rather than from any real substance grounded in evidence and empirical fact.
A Quick Recap
In response to Richard's blog post, "The Latest Proposal for a Probability of Abiogenesis," which erroneously portrays the abiotic origin of life from nonlife as an established empirical fact, I submitted the following comment:
"The lack of an empirically verified naturalistic explanation for the origin of life remains problematic for metaphysical naturalism."
In reply, Richard wrote, in part:
"You must not have actually read the article you are commenting on. We have several naturalistic explanations for the origin of life, all match known science and available evidence..."
The exchange continued with my reply:
'No evidence exists that the accidental origin of life is too improbable to have occurred naturally, but there are numerous attempts to argue so.'
"The flaw with this statement is that it tries to put the burden of proof on dissenters when it’s the other way around. Forget probability. Proponents of abiogenesis have yet to even demonstrate empirically that abiogenesis can happen and that it has happened. It is an empirically unverified working assumption, which suggests an agnostic stance on abiogenesis is the more rational one. Your ready acceptance of an assumption that lacks empirical verification is a little surprising given your statements elsewhere."
Richard then replied in part:
"To the contrary, they have proved both to an adequate evidential standard to leave no room for bizarre superghosts to have been involved.
The evidence biogenesis was a natural chemical event is multiply corroborated in the geological and genetic record and in the known laws of chemistry; and there are at least a dozen ways it could have happened that match known laws of physics and the material evidence. Hence we don’t need to know which one actually transpired...
I continued with the following reply:
"You are greatly overstating things. I’m simply being honest about the state of origin of life research, as informed by those in the field I know and interact with and my own areas of academic expertise in biology and paleontology.
Abiogenesis has not been proved to an ‘adequate evidential standard’. Everyone in the field recognizes that abiogenesis is an unproven working assumption that is accepted as true a priori without empirical demonstration. The great hope is that one day we will have empirical verification for abiogenesis. But it’s simply inaccurate to say that we already do.
Not looking for a debate. Just a friendly FYI. Best."
I planned to end it there, but Richard continued the exchange, doubling down, adding ad hominen insults into the mix, and divining with his clairvoyant powers "the story of [me]" that I am supposedly "a delusional apologist who doesn't know how evidence or logic works":
"I am not overstating anything. It is a peer reviewed scientific fact that we have a dozen different possible explanations of Earth biogenesis that fully fit all the evidence and known laws of physics. It is also a peer reviewed scientific fact that current geological and genetic data conform perfectly to natural biogenesis. And it is likewise a fact that no such evidence exists for superghosts ever being involved or needing to be.
You are illogically obsessing over information we don’t need. We do not need to know which theory of biogenesis is true to know one of them most likely is. Whereas to argue a superghost did it, you need to both empirically prove none of those theories is true and empirically prove a superghost did it. Neither of which has happened.
You are thus not thinking scientifically here, but like a delusional apologist who doesn’t know how evidence or logic works. And that’s the story of you."
Those who wish to can read the rest of the exchange, but the above comments are sufficient for conveying the 'gist' of the debate.
The Origin of Life Remains an Unsolved Problem in Science
The Crux of the Debate: Richard believes the naturalistic origin of life from nonlife has been empirically proven to a sufficient evidentiary standard, such that it can be viewed as an established scientific fact. It has not.
The Bottom Line: Richard's probability-based arguments for abiogenesis are valid in principle, but ultimately unsound, because they are only valid on paper, and not in the real world. The scientific evidence and empirical research simply do not support his claims.
The Unvarnished Truth: The origin of life remains an unsolved problem in science for which we lack a convincing empirically confirmed naturalistic explanation. In short, we don't know. Science assumes there is a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life a priori, but has yet to empirically demonstrate that life can emerge from nonlife by natural processes. This is neither an argument for theism, nor an argument against atheism, but simply a statement of fact about the current status of our scientific knowledge.
A good place to start for an overview of the subject is respected Origin of Life researcher Pier Luigi Luisi's (2018) article, "The Prebiotic Experiment," wherein, he writes in part the following (emphasis added):
"The origin of life on Earth is still a mystery – a mystery being a problem which does not appear to have a solution. The general idea about it is the one originally expressed by the Russian chemist Alexander Ivanovic Oparin (Figure 2), who in 1924 proposed that the origin of life was due to natural processes, whereby simple chemicals originally present on Earth underwent a spontaneous process of increased complexity till the formation of the first cells – a process that today we would call of molecular evolution....
This is indeed the core of the problem: not only the scholars of the origin of life have failed so far to reproduce in the laboratory the events which led to the origin of life, but they do not have any scientific hypothesis on how life may have originated. To make things even clearer: in the case, say, of the origin of the universe, we have the theory of the big-bang, which doubtless has points of uncertainty and doubt – but the great majority of scientists stand behind this theory, which accounts for all of most of the cosmic data we know of. For the origin of life, instead, we do not have such a hypothesis – there are some speculations, the most well-known being the “prebiotic RNA-world” – which however, as shown clearly (e.g. Luisi, 2016) does not make any sense from the chemistry point of view....
So, this is the point: not only the experiments with our tanks do not work, despite all possible ingenious variation of two generations of brilliant chemists – but we do not have a conceivable theoretical scheme on paper, on how the origin of life may have come about.
We have to recognize this hard fact. Maybe tomorrow some splendid bio-Einstein will discover the solution – nevertheless, for the moment, we simply don’t have the slightest idea on how life originated from non-life. Which, again, does not mean that we have to give up the research and resign to the existence of a mystery (a mystery is a problem that by definition has no solution). However, it is important to have an honest basis of departure."
And that in a nutshell is the unvarnished truth and really the only point I've been trying to get through to Richard: that the origin of life remains an unsolved problem in science. Science presupposes a priori a naturalistic origin of life, but has yet to empirically demonstrate that life can spontaneously emerge from nonlife. "[F]or the moment, we simply don't have the slightest idea on how life originated from nonlife." Yes, we've made progress, but relative to the 'Grand Canyon' gulf between life and nonlife that must be bridged that progress is rather trivial by comparison. The truth is there are enormous gaps in understanding that we don't have the slightest idea how to bridge even in theory, which is why Luisi says, "we do not have a conceivable theoretical scheme on paper, on how the origin of life may have come about." From a scientific standpoint, the origin of life is still a mystery--i.e., "a problem which does not appear to have a solution." And that's the reality. Richard's belief that we have already empirically demonstrated that life can come from nonlife is not only overly optimistic, it is not factual.
For more information, see, "Q's Open Challenge to Richard Carrier"; "The 'Fatal Flaw' with Richard Carrier's '1 in 10^41' Argument for Abiogenesis"; and "A Line-By-Line Refutation of Richard Carrier's 'Biogenesis and the Laws of Evidence' Post Against Me."
Comments
Post a Comment