The Creation Wiki is made available by the NW Creation Network
Watch monthly live webcast - Like us on Facebook - Subscribe on YouTube

Abiogenesis is speculative, without evidence (Talk.Origins)

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to: navigation, search
Response Article
This article (Abiogenesis is speculative, without evidence (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.

Claim CB050:

Abiogenesis is speculative without evidence. Since it has not been observed in the laboratory, it is not science.


  • Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pp. 50-52.

CreationWiki response:

(Talk.Origins quotes in blue)

1. There is a great deal about abiogenesis that is unknown, but investigating the unknown is what science is for. Speculation is part of the process. As long as the speculations can be tested, they are scientific.

While this is true, part of scientific testing is falsification. Abiogenesis and theories thereof are not falsifiable since a negative result may just mean that the right conditions were not used. Simply put, there is no experimental or observational failure that would make the supporters of abiogenesis conclude that it is impossible. In fact scientific problems arising from areas like Thermodynamics and Information theory are dismissed as not applying to abiogenesis. This is because abiogenesis is a philosophical necessity of absolute naturalism, rather than a scientific concept.

On another part of the Talk.Origins website these telling quotes can be found when reading the article, "Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations" [1] by Ian Musgrave regarding abiogenesis.

The very premise of creationists' probability calculations is incorrect in the first place as it aims at the wrong theory.

At the moment, since we have no idea how probable life is, it's virtually impossible to assign any meaningful probabilities to any of the steps to life except the first two...

Much scientific work has been done in testing different hypotheses relating to abiogenesis...

True, but none of this work is even close to actual abiogenesis. The most this work has dealt with is the synthesis of amino acids and some simple proteins. None have shown synthesis of RNA and DNA, let alone the large degree of organized complexity in even the simplest of living cells.

While some real scientific work has been done in nonbiological synthesis of some of life’s basic building blocks, abiogenesis itself remains nothing but untestable speculation.