Re: The law of biogenesis!
- --- In Maury_and_Baty, Robert Baty wrote (post #2563):
> OK, I ran across this on the Internet:Hi, Robert.
>> Law of Biogenesis
>> Claim CB000:
>> Pasteur and other scientists disproved
>> the concept of spontaneous generation
>> and established that life comes only from
>> previous life.
>> The spontaneous generation that Pasteur
>> and others disproved was the idea that life
>> forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria
>> can appear fully formed. They disproved a
>> form of creationism. There is no law of
>> biogenesis saying that very primitive life
>> cannot form from increasingly complex
> That is kinda what I was trying to propose. That is, that whatever
> this much touted scientific law might actually deal with, it isn't
> what some want to make of it.
> In other words, the law, whatever it might be, doesn't really say
> anything about the origin of life, much less "supernatural"
> And I am still wondering if anyone is going to come up with more
> about how religious folks fought against the law of biogenesis
> based on their interpretations of scripture. That reference I gave
> early indicated there may be a very geocentric story about all of
> David, Todd, "mathewmaury", am I at least on the right track here?
Yes, you are seeing why I stated my objection to the use
of "spontaneous generation" as was made. The way creationists use the
idea of spontaneous generation is a classic case of the rhetorical
debate technique of bait-and-switch. While it is an effective
rhetorical tactic it is simply wrong.
Here are some online references related to my earlier comments
regarding the distinction between abiogenesis and spontaneous
Bill Morgan's Question: Spontaneous Generation
A History of Microbiology
ISCID Encyclopedia of Science and Philosophy (beta version)
Evolution Education Wiki - Abiogenesis
Wikipedia - Abiogenesis
AnyBoard Forum Discussions
Subject: Abiogenesis and Evolution
Todd S. Greene