lew@ihuxr.UUCP (Lew Mammel, Jr.) (12/03/84)
I think Galileo clearly enunciated the scientific response to the standard anti-abiogenis argument in his essay, The Assayer. Part of his object was to defend the the need for advancing hypotheses without insisting on their correctness. After an apparently autobiographical description of an un- successful attempt to determine the voice mechanism of a Cicada he says: I could illustrate with many more examples Nature's bounty in producing her effects, as she employs means we could never think of without our senses and our experiences to teach them to us - and sometimes even these are insufficient to remedy our lack of understanding. So I should not be condemned for being unable to determine precisely the way in which comets are produced, especially in view of the fact that I have never boasted that I could do this, knowing that they may originate in some manner that is far beyond our power of imagination. This welcome acceptance of our small powers of comprehension in the face the vast beauty of Nature, I take to be a mainstay of the scientific spirit. Richard Feynman emphasized this point in the NOVA program devoted to him. Creationists charge that evolution is based on faith. Insofar as Galileo had faith that someday others would comprehend the origin of comets, I think I would grant that I have faith that someday others will comprehend the origin of life on earth. Considering the explosive increase in our knowledge of life, I think a bookie might have that much faith. Lew Mammel, Jr. ihnp4!ihuxr!lew