I would say we do know enough about the OOL at this point to say for certain what a "naturalistic" explanation of life's origin will have to look like if there ever is one.
Obviously if life's origin required direct intelligent activity, there will never be a naturalistic explanation.
If we assume that life did originate naturalistically, there are two possibilities: a fortuitous accident or some sort of as yet undiscovered natural law that causes life to spontaneously arise under the right conditions.
We know enough about what life entails at this point to know that if it occurred by fortuitous accident under the physical laws we know about, it was an accident SO absurdly fortuitous that we will never have any explanatory insight into it, and will be left appealing to infinite multiverses and the like.
That leaves the possibility of a physical law that causes life to arise. At this point, however, we can say that any such "law" would have to be fundamentally unlike the simple regularities we refer to as "laws" currently. It would have to be so specific yet complex in its operation that it would basically just be intelligence operating by proxy. Worse for the naturalist, the intelligence in question would have to be the creator of the universe, aka God. The only other alternative would be to appeal to an infinite universe-generating multiverse to account for the law, which again is not any sort of explanation at all.
All of this is a foregone conclusion. Life is not going to turn out to be less complex and sophisticated than we already know it to be, only more so. Modern OOL research is just an extended exercise in wilfully pretending not to see the obvious.
Reading the details of a scientist's journey is encouraging and informative. Thanks for sharing the conversation. Having a background in aquatic ecology, specifically, limnology, made the exchange especially interesting.
I would say we do know enough about the OOL at this point to say for certain what a "naturalistic" explanation of life's origin will have to look like if there ever is one.
Obviously if life's origin required direct intelligent activity, there will never be a naturalistic explanation.
If we assume that life did originate naturalistically, there are two possibilities: a fortuitous accident or some sort of as yet undiscovered natural law that causes life to spontaneously arise under the right conditions.
We know enough about what life entails at this point to know that if it occurred by fortuitous accident under the physical laws we know about, it was an accident SO absurdly fortuitous that we will never have any explanatory insight into it, and will be left appealing to infinite multiverses and the like.
That leaves the possibility of a physical law that causes life to arise. At this point, however, we can say that any such "law" would have to be fundamentally unlike the simple regularities we refer to as "laws" currently. It would have to be so specific yet complex in its operation that it would basically just be intelligence operating by proxy. Worse for the naturalist, the intelligence in question would have to be the creator of the universe, aka God. The only other alternative would be to appeal to an infinite universe-generating multiverse to account for the law, which again is not any sort of explanation at all.
All of this is a foregone conclusion. Life is not going to turn out to be less complex and sophisticated than we already know it to be, only more so. Modern OOL research is just an extended exercise in wilfully pretending not to see the obvious.
Reading the details of a scientist's journey is encouraging and informative. Thanks for sharing the conversation. Having a background in aquatic ecology, specifically, limnology, made the exchange especially interesting.
Why did it end with "Finally, ther" ?
Thanks for the comment, George. I'm not sure what you meant by your last question. It suggests that the interview was unduly cut short. But it's all there: https://billdembski.substack.com/p/origin-of-life-interview-with-edward.
Glad I stuck with pursing this post. I had simply neglected to open your Substack post. I started reading in my email.
The questions and answers in the last quarter of this interview are excellent.