Can the study of the origin of life be considered science?
152118
Applying scientific methods (hypothesis, repeatable experiment, analysis) to a question qualifies as science no matter what the topic is.\n\nThe trouble with the origin of life is that in order to prove the statistical event, one has to create artificial life forms and repeat that experiment.
761533
It depends on what your definition of a "living" organism is.  Life probably started out as something like a self replicating organic molecule...like a prion.  Early "life" was probably indistinguishable from basic organic chemistry.           Your question didn't ask about the origin of molecules, just the origin of the first life forms.
838820
Hi. I do not think so. It may be possible that life forms unimagined may exist (I'd be surprised if they didn't) but they would still need to be based on something other than vacuum.
408810
Hell no. \n\nScience alludes to a rigorous process by which things are proven to be fact.\n\nAnything that is a matter of speculation (religion) cannot be considered scientific.\n\nHowever there is such a thing as the science of religion which is a sort of sociology. But this is sociology -- the scientific study of human behavior. \n\n It is not science like biology, physics, chemistry, calculus. Science is inherently unbiased, and non-subjective.\n\nAny religios text, Im afraid to say does not fall into any type of 'science' category. It may be studied in a Sociological or Philosophical context for enrichment purposes.\n\nI dont think anyone hates the Quran, or any religios text, rather I think that people dont like it when other people impose their views on them. There are 6 billion people in this world each with their own version of religion, we cant go around calling everyone infadels becaues they dont believe in the same things we do. \n\nI wouldnt want to live in a world where everyone was the same -- it would be boring.\n\nAs unpopular as Muslims may seem to be, let not the fact ellude you that catholics, mormons, christians, hindus, daoist, yoga hippies, all get their fair share of dislike. \n\nI mean take in the U.S. for example, most people dont like how the religious people try to impose their silly ideas of anti-abortion and creationism on the rest of us. \n\n At the end of the day there is always someone who doesnt like someone else (more Sociology) for some silly reason.\n\nI personally do not like people who are overly religious, and use religion to explain everything they dont understand, while there are perfectly good scientific reasons out there. In my humble opinion, religion and education are contradictory.\n\nAlas, despite our differences we must learn to get along.
1053044
Can creationists be scientists?\nby Dr. Jason Lisle, Ph.D., astrophysics, AiG–USA speaker and researcher\n\nFirst published in\nAnswers Update–USA\nApril 2005\n\nIt has been often said that “creationists cannot be real scientists.”\n\nSeveral years ago, the National Academy of Sciences published a guidebook entitled Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science.1 This guidebook states that evolution is “the most important concept in modern biology, a concept essential to understanding key aspects of living things.” \n\nIn addition, the late evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky once made the now well-known comment that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”2\n\nBut is a belief in “particles-to-people” evolution really necessary to understand biology and other sciences? Is it even helpful? Are there any technological advances that have been made because of a belief in evolution?\n\nAlthough evolutionists interpret the evidence in light of their belief in evolution, science works perfectly well without any connection to evolution. Think about it this way: is a belief in molecules-to-man evolution necessary to understand how a computer works, how planets orbit the sun, how telescopes operate, or how plants and animals function? Has any biological or medical research benefited from a belief in evolution? No, not at all.\n\nIn fact, the Ph.D. cell biologist (and creationist) Dr. David Menton, who speaks at many conferences, has stated, “The fact is that, though widely believed, evolution contributes nothing to our understanding of empirical science and thus plays no essential role in biomedical research or education.”3\n\nNor has technology arisen due to a belief in evolution. Computers, cellular phones and DVD players all operate based on the laws of physics which God created. It is because God created a logical, orderly universe and gave us the ability to reason and to be creative that technology is possible. How can a belief in evolution (a belief that complex biological machines do not require an intelligent designer) aid in the development of complex machines which are clearly intelligently designed? \n\nTechnology has shown us that sophisticated machines require intelligent designers—not random chance. Science and technology are perfectly consistent with the Bible.\n\nSo it shouldn’t be surprising that there have been many scientists who believed in biblical creation. In my own research field of astrophysics, I am reminded of several of the great minds of history. Consider Isaac Newton, who co-discovered calculus, formulated the laws of motion and gravity, computed the nature of planetary orbits, invented the reflecting telescope and made a number of discoveries in optics. \n\nConsider Johannes Kepler, who discovered the three laws of planetary motion, or James Clerk Maxwell who discovered the four fundamental equations that light and all forms of electromagnetic radiation obey. These great scientists believed the Bible.\n\nToday as well, there are many Ph.D. scientists who reject evolution and instead believe that God created in six days as recorded in Scripture. Consider Dr. Russ Humphreys, a Ph.D. nuclear physicist who has developed (among many other things) a model to compute the present strength of planetary magnetic fields4 which was able to predict the field strengths of the outer planets. Did a belief in the Bible hinder his research? Not at all. \n\nOn the contrary, Dr. Humphreys was able to make these predictions precisely because he started from the principles of Scripture. Dr. John Baumgardner, a Ph.D. geophysicist and biblical creationist, has a model of catastrophic plate tectonics, which the journal Nature once featured (this model is based on the global Genesis Flood). \n\nAdditionally, think of all the people who have benefited from a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scan. The MRI scanner was developed by the creationist Dr. Raymond Damadian5 who has b
961833
Life? Sure. Given the speed at which bacterial life formed on earth after it had cooled down enough, it seems that life itself is relatively easy to get going and so would be common in the universe.\n\nOn the other hand, even on earth, it took a long time for life to become multi-cellular. Out of about 3.8 billion years that life has been around, it was one-celled for about 3.1 billion years. This suggests that multi-cellular organisms are fairly hard to get going and so are relatively rare.\n\nAs for other *intelligent* life, I think it is rather uncommon. First, is the issue of how long a species lasts once it gets to radio technology (say). Given our own experience, it may be as little as a few hundred to a thousand years. If that is the case, the probabilities of time overlap with other intelligent life becomes fairly small considering the overall age of the universe and speed of the processes in it.\n\nOne basic fact that we have to come to grips with is that other life is not *obviously* seen around us. Given likely expansion rates and rates of technological developement, we would probably become obvious before too much longer (a few thousand years): we would send self-replicating probes into the universe, or do LARGE scale projects (solar system size). Since we don't see this in the universe at large, technologies reaching that level are almost certainly rare. I would be very surprised if there is currently another species with our level of technology or higher in our galaxy.\n\nHowever, the universe is a BIG place. There are a hundred billion galaxies in the observable universe, each with an average of a hundred billion stars. Even if we only look at spiral galaxies (ellipticals have the wrong composition for our form of life, at least), there are enough of them to almost assure at least one highly advanced technology somewhere. However, the distances involved are such that we may never be able to detect them, especially if we die off in a few thousand years).
212239
The theory states that life on Earth was "seeded" by life carried in by a meteor.  In order to have any support at all, we would have to discover life outside the Earth, and show that its related in some way to life here.  Since life outside the Earth hasnt even been discovered yet, there is no basis whatsoever to support this idea.
1034393
The answer *appears* to be yes.  That is the current scientific theory of our origins.  There is no other *scientific* theory that explains what we see.  (I.e. 'something just created/designed everything' is a nice theory, but not a *scientific* theory as it is not testable, makes no predictions, and does not *explain* anything).\n\nAll the evidence points to the fact that every organism on the planet is a product of evolution from ancestral organisms.  This is not just fossil evidence, but genetic evidence linking humans to other apes (like chimps and gorillas), apes to other primates (like monkeys), primates to other mammals (like tigers and tree shrews), mammals to other vertebrates (like birds and salamanders), etc. etc. all the way back to single-celled organisms.  Every step has genetic links ... for example jellyfish are genetically linked to sponges, which have genetic links to amoebazoans, which have genetic links to early bacteria, etc.\n\nAnd the *amount* of genetic linkage can be computed based on the chemistry of a single molecule found in every organism on the planet ... a molecule called DNA.\n\nAnd the order of these genetic links all match up perfectly with order in which the ancestors for each organism appear in the fossil record (i.e. earlier genetic links appear in lower layers of rocks).\n\nAnd the *amount* of the molecular/genetic linkage all matches up with *when* each ancestor appears in the fossil record (i.e. the amount of molecular DNA difference expected based on known mutation rates, matches up perfectly with the ages of the rocks in which the fossils are found). \n\nThat is the evidence.  Those are *facts*.  Those facts are not in dispute, only the explanation for them.  If you can come up with a better *scientific* explanation for this all this evidence ... these observed *facts* ... then you would get the Nobel Prize.
7893
Creation-DNA and the human body are far too complex to be be thrown together by chance.\nDNA is a very complex organic computer program that could never evolve. So either you believe in the ET seed theory, or in a Designer. Evolution requires billions of years to even get to the simple cell. Sorry, the sun would have been too hot only a million years ago to sustain life.\n\nNow, suppose a secular scientist were sent to investigate a meteor that impacted the earth. Upon scraping the crust away, the scientist is amazed to find a perfect, sphere of polished metal. Back at the lab, he sees that he can unscrew the hemispheres apart. Inside he finds a very elaborate system of gyros, propulsion and visual cameras. If damaged, the internal systems can repair itself. Would the scientist marvel at how long it took to have such a mechanism accidently evolve in space? Or would he choose to believe it was created by an advanced designer somewhere outside of terrestial domain? Because he is a secular scientist, he has no problem with thinking the latter. Yet if we say we believe in a Creator, we are branded as unscientific or mindless zealots. Science has its own beliefs and faiths. One of them in nucleonic glue holding like particles together in an atom, or evolution which is merely a theory accepted as fact. It is just an agenda to keep God out of the public arena.
993128
The origin of the first life form is actually indeed unclear.  What makes this so difficult is not that one cannot envision molecules that replicate themselves by having certain enzymatic activities.  Rather, if all recent life forms go back to one ancestral species, how did all those parts shared by recent species come together?   (For example, cell membranes, organalles, the nucleic acids etc.)\n\nNow, you are absolutely right that there is an assumed parent species, an ancestor to all other species on the planet.  But science does not show at all that life cannot derive from non-life.  Quite on the contrary, science would suggest, since all the individual parts of which living cells are composed are by themselves not alive, life must emerge from the higher-level organization.  The idea is the following: the properties of the parts of a system do not predict the properties of the whole.  Take water, which is composed of two gases.  Nothing in the properties of either gas suggests or makes predictable that H20 is a translucent liquid with a density anomaly.  The same holds true for biological systems.  Life seems to emerge at one point of complexity as a property of the union of non-living parts in complex systems such as cells.  How that happens is unclear.\n\nNow, I am not familiar with the theory you mention.  As a biologist who has focused much of his work time on evolution, I cannot say that this is a commonly held opinion.  But your question is a very good one:  If that indeed were the case, don't we just push the point of origin one level backwards?  Some scientists opt for the pansperm theory, according to which life came from out of space.  Not to wory, I am not talking UFO's etc.  Rather, amino acids and nucleic acids have been found in space.  The idea comes in two major flavors, namely one, that life originated on earth from these parts that were brought to the surface of the planet by means of meteors and then came together to form life.  The other flavor is that this happened on another planet and that the living cells were transported by meteroites to earth, which likewise would push the problem of the origin of life backwards, just as the "other dimension idea" (which to me seem rather strange and unscientific).
914208
An oxymoron. Science is objective lucidity.  Creationism is subjective magical-thinking.
504888
There is some weak evidence, but its all incomplete.  Some people who claim that creation is supported by evidence will offer examples like, "A chart of minerals on the sea floor shows no minerals older than a few thousand years"...when in reality this is only a PORTION of a chart that shows minerals millions of years old.\n\nOther theories include "there's not enough mud on the sea floor"...if sediment washes into the ocean as fast as it does, and the only way to dispose of it is through techtonic plates pushing it underground...then there's not enough to support a planet billions of years old.  However, first in order for this arguement to be valid you'd have to support the theory of techtonic plates...which matches continental drift taking millions of years.  Not to mention millions of tons of water and mud can turn the floor into rock.\n\nBottom line, about 1 tenth of 1% of geologists, anthropologists, and life scientists even believe that creation is possible.  These ARE the scientists that do these studies...so clearly scientific theories of creation are not valid.
873595
To be.\n\nAlan Gowans said science explains how things are made, and how they work, NOT what they are, nor what started them working. \n\nScience cannot explain essence and origin, in other words.
1108935
Origins of life were initially suspcted to be of creation from God.\nThen the Theory of Evolution kicked in, suggesting all life came from a single cell.\nNow life came from a stone that banged into earth 4 billion years ago.\nBut are any of them true if we keep finding more truths. If breakthroughs always happen, wouldn't there be an endless amount of breakthroughs? So what we all know now is not the truth?\n\nThe origins of life on earth?\nDon't even think about it.
76003
Science is a methodology - a way to go about finding information.  Below I've posted two blogs I've written.  The first one deals with creationism and science - I include it because it describes what is science and what is not. The second blog is an essay on the theory of evolution. Check out the links in the cited section for pictures and links to additional information.\n\n------------------\nIn the news today, evolution and creationism are once again on trail.  This time the lawsuit is taking place in Harrisburg Penn over the addition of creationism’s latest offering – Intelligent Design theory – into school text books. \n\n \n\nAccording to this report, intelligent design purports to be an ‘alternative theory’ to the theory of evolution.  In fact, according to the article, intelligent design purports to:\n\n \n\n"Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, “Of Pandas and People,” is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.\n\nWith respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments.”[1]\n\nOn the face of it, this part of the disclaimer seems reasonable.  The question is – is intelligent design an explanation of the origin of life?  Is it actually a competing scientific theory?\n\n \n\nThe answer is, unequivocally, no.\n\n \n\nFor a start, intelligent design has no positive evidence in favor of their ‘theory’.  Intelligent Design advocates attempt to present evidence by pointing out supposed flaws in evolutionary theory – as though there was a legitimate dichotomy to choose from. \n\nAn expert biologist who was giving testimony during yesterday’s trial said the following in an MSN’s article: \n\n”Under questioning from American Civil Liberties Union attorney Witold Walczak, Miller said he wasn’t even sure that Behe had done research on intelligent design.\n\n“I have yet to see any explanation advanced by any adherent of design that says we have positive evidence for design,” he said.”[2]\n\nThis is further corroborated by the utter lack of attempts to submit papers for peer review by creationists:\n\n \n\n“The priorities of creationism are politics and religious evangelism. Science is not very important to creationists in the first place. The main reason that they do not get published in reputable science journals is that they do not try to publish there. In a survey of editors of sixty-eight journals, only eighteen out of an estimated 135, 000 submissions were found that could be described as advocating creationism (Scott and Cole 1985). \n\nIn the McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education creationism trial, the creationists complained to the judge that the scientific journals refused to consider their articles, but they were unable to produce any articles that had been refused publication.”[3]\n\n \n\nAside from lack of positive evidence, there is a bigger problem here.  One that is ignored by creationists and one that ultimately shows intelligent design to be nothing more then an appeal to magic – which, needless to say, doesn’t constitute a ‘scientific theory’.\n\n \n\nWhat is a scientific theory?  According to Wikipedia, a scientific theory, in the context of biology, is: \n\n \n\n“A theory is an established paradigm that explains all or much of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested. In science, a theory is never considered fact or infallible, because we can never assume we know all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing until they are disproven, at which point they are thrown out altogether or modified to fit the additional
1018241
How life came into existance and how the different species have evolved or undergone changes has been the subject of constant analysis as well as  conjecture by mankind. Most religions have tried to theorize that all creation is the work of God. Modern science however does not 'see' the hand of God for creation to occur and believes that the different forms of life evolved from the primordial soup, made up of oxygen, nitrogen, oxides of nitrogen, hydrogen etc (simple molecules) dissolved in water and catalysed by lightening. Further evolution to higher forms of life was a natural process of selection which is exemplified best by the 'Dashawatar' analogy of the Hindus, amongst  all the prevailing religious theories. At which precise moment the advent of different species began, including that of humans, and where it will stop are all matters of conjectures (in the absence of scientific answers), feeding the various religious and non-religious dogmas.
657395
why wouldn't it be considered a science?