Strictly materialistic version of the origin of life?

[Existentialanxiety]

Everyone knows modern science is overwhelmingly materialistic. So when it comes to explaining the origins of life, great majority of biologists try and explain it by invoking various materialistic causes. But as everyone who has looked into the topic closely will know, the scientific evidence supporting STRICTLY MATERIAL genesis of life is quite weak and many scientists admit that they have no idea how it could have started. They know even the probabilistic resource of the entire observable universe is not enough to credibly argue chance hypothesis. So there are some evolutionary scientists that invoke multiverse theory to explain away this problem, but obviously that is a highly controversial and not to mention unproven hypothesis. I believe the origin of life can one day eventually explained away solely by materialistic causes, and as I understand it, that's what's motivating evolutionary biologists conducting research on this area. But my question is, what is the basis of insisting on a premise (materialism) when the evidence don't support the hypothesis? Because I know that today's biological community considers any other approach heretical. Why?

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Science doesn't insist on a purely material explanation of the origin of life. Science simply follows the evidence. If experiments done using the scientific method leads to evidence coming out of some dualistic and/or supernatural entity, then that would be something science insists on.

It is unscientifically and fallaciously shifting the burden of proof to ask why science doesn't include something in it's potential explanations. We might as well ask, "why doesn't science use magical unicorns to explain the origin of life or why doesn't science use magic fairies to explain gravity; what evidence does science have that unicorns and fairies don't exist?" The question is flawed. It is shaved away by Occam's Razor.

[Pyrrho_Agnostic]

Not everyone in the scientific community is a materialist. Many great scientists were religious. The conclusions drawn from materialistic observations do not have to assume that materialism is the only thing we can believe in.

I think that materialists in general dislike religion, because they see negative effects from the majority of its members. I think that materialists have a blind side that can not see the negative effects from the majority of its members, just like religious/spiritual people have blind spots. Both sides can lead to a fundamentalist holier than thou perception and this is one of the many reasons why I refuse to join either side.

[Leog]

Everyone knows modern science is overwhelmingly materialistic. So when it comes to explaining the origins of life, great majority of biologists try and explain it by invoking various materialistic causes. But as everyone who has looked into the topic closely will know, the scientific evidence supporting STRICTLY MATERIAL genesis of life is quite weak and many scientists admit that they have no idea how it could have started. They know even the probabilistic resource of the entire observable universe is not enough to credibly argue chance hypothesis. So there are some evolutionary scientists that invoke multiverse theory to explain away this problem, but obviously that is a highly controversial and not to mention unproven hypothesis. I believe the origin of life can one day eventually explained away solely by materialistic causes, and as I understand it, that's what's motivating evolutionary biologists conducting research on this area. But my question is, what is the basis of insisting on a premise (materialism) when the evidence don't support the hypothesis? Because I know that today's biological community considers any other approach heretical. Why?

You can create a non-materialistic 'theory' of origins of life, but it will be not scientific theory, because science is based on materialism. Such 'theory' already exists (described in Bible).

If you want to propose an extraterrestrial scientific theory/model of origin of life, you need to base your theory on facts. There are no enough facts however.

Until now no living organism found that is not sharing same DNA/RNA structure with all other living organisms on Earth (i.e. there is a proof that all living organism on Earth are relatives).

If scientists for example find remains of aliens or proof of their activity, of course the model of origins of life will change.

[Theophane]

Science doesn't insist on a purely material explanation of the origin of life. Science simply follows the evidence.

Yes ... but only if said evidence is material in nature. This is where the science-derived philosophy of Scientism comes from.

-- Updated October 15th, 2014, 2:07 pm to add the following --

Science doesn't insist on a purely material explanation of the origin of life. Science simply follows the evidence.

Yes ... but only if said evidence is material in nature. This is where the science-derived religion of Scientism comes from.

-- Updated October 15th, 2014, 2:07 pm to add the following --

Science doesn't insist on a purely material explanation of the origin of life. Science simply follows the evidence.

Yes ... but only if said evidence is material in nature. This is where the science-derived religion of Scientism comes from.

-- Updated October 15th, 2014, 2:08 pm to add the following --

Science doesn't insist on a purely material explanation of the origin of life. Science simply follows the evidence.

Yes ... but only if said evidence is material in nature. This is where the science-derived philosophy of Scientism comes from.

[Bohm2]

Everyone knows modern science is overwhelmingly materialistic.

I'm not sure what this means. Define what you mean by 'materialistic'.

[Theophane]

I believe Existentialanxiety meant it as the opposite of supernatural, mystical.

-- Updated October 15th, 2014, 4:05 pm to add the following --

I believe Existentialanxiety meant it as the opposite of supernatural, mystical, magical.

[Logic_ill]

The problem with the supernatural are the inconsistencies that have arisen of its description. Also, not everyone claims to know, have seen, or have had magical, mystical or supernatural experiences. In fact, most of us have had more experiences with the materialistic and are more consistent about that, than of the supernatural.

[Existentialanxiety]

Everyone knows modern science is overwhelmingly materialistic.

I'm not sure what this means. Define what you mean by 'materialistic'.

As Theop have explained above, what I meant by modern science being materialistic was that the scientific community favours, or should I say it doesn't allow any other approach to scientific enquiry other than that based on the idea that all phenomena arises from, and thus can be explained in terms of physical matters and their interactions alone. While I agree this approach has been fruitful since the scientific revolution, I don't see fit to apply this approach in 'origins' sciences such as origin of life research in biology and cosmology for reasons I won't go into here (it is a subject in its own right). If we restrict our enquiry to physical matters because we have no means (sense organs/research equipments) to conduct research on any other entities, then fine, there may be no way to find out what's out there beyond physical matters. But I'm convinced that this limitation doesn't mean that all of reality is consisted and thus can be explained in full by purely materialistic means. This is where the majority of scientists disagree. My question is, why be so dogmatic and dismissive when we know full well our limitations; why be so arrogant (in stance taken), as well captured by a quote below?

This is what the renowned professor Richard Lewiston has said;

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

[Atreyu]

But my question is, what is the basis of insisting on a premise (materialism) when the evidence don't support the hypothesis? Because I know that today's biological community considers any other approach heretical. Why?

Because any other "approach" would be outside of their boundaries....

[Leog]

Why religion does not operate with materialistic proofs?

For the same reason science does not operate with idealistic 'proofs'.

Science is based on materialism by definition.

[Bohm2]

Science is based on materialism by definition.

Science is based on the scientific method or methodological naturalism because to date it has produced the most progress. Science is not based on materialism. Materialism/physicalism is a philosophical term that is vacuous, because it changes as our physics/science changes:

Conceptions of the physical/material are, at best, contingently tied to tentative theories in physics. Since such theories are open and evolving, the concept of the physical [or material] is unstable and, hence, not sufficiently well-defined for the purpose of framing empirical or metaphysical theses. There simply is no definite a posteriori concept of the physical available for use by the physicalist. The significance of this conclusion for physicalism is also clear: if our conception of the physical is tied to open and evolving theories in physics and there is, therefore, no well defined a posteriori conception of the physical, it follows that it is pointless to inquire about the content of the theses of physicalism since they too have no well-defined content.

https://www.academia.edu/237143/Chomsky ... hysicalism

[Anthony Edgar]

Is it possible that a strictly materialistic version of the origin of life is an inevitable result of the atheism that emerged from the (so-called) Enlightenment?  The "Enlightened" atheism-dominated intelligentsia may have decided that since there is no God, there was no creation, but a "scientific" explanation of life's genesis is needed if an atheistic worldview is to be intellectually justified.

My opinion is, earthworms will figure out how to split the atom before human beings with their puny science figure out how God created life.  However, this won't stop certain scientists convincing themselves that they've solved the riddles of life's origins.  Attempting to explain scientific impossibilities with science will only result in science-flavoured fairy tales - as is already evident.