Well, I try to be neutral about these things, so I’ll let Comrade Politbureau or someone else answer for the creationists. 
1 Like
My problem is it’s not really an answer. Believing it is one thing, but invoking it as an explanatory answer is another. How did life on Earth start? I don’t know. Invoking an uncreated creator to explain things just adds more questions than it answers. The reality is we don’t even know how the universe itself got started, or if it’s the only game in the town of reality, etc. To me a question like “how did self replicating chemical life-forms get started on one small planet” seems trivial in comparison, but again, that’s just my viewpoint.
“They (Miller-Urey) designed an apparatus which held a mix of gases similar to those found in Earth’s early atmosphere over a pool of water, representing Earth’s early ocean. Electrodes delivered an electric current, simulating lightning, into the gas-filled chamber. After allowing the experiment to run for one week, they analyzed the contents of the liquid pool.”
Likewise I don’t think I need to use scientific terminology to describe what was essentially an experiment which simulated lightning striking Earth’s early ocean/atmosphere in order to make its hypothesis sound less “ridiculous.”
why this is condescension?
Those are full of food for thought, with no absolute answer, unless you bring up God(s).
“Those who need an absolute answer to everything” implies rigid, narrow thinking and an inability to process ambiguity.
it is true that there are those who hate there is ambiguity, as I’m one of them. I’m sure gods give me much peace of mind if I could accept that it is the answer. I think it is an important function of religions to give answers to those questions, and peace of mind to people.
Well, I thought his depiction of the limits of science were well done, especially given the fact that he was a militant atheist.
In HHGTG he was pointing out several things: a) you need to know what the question is if you want science to work as advertised b) it might take an inordinate amount of effort to get the answer and c) you might not like the answer.
The fundamental problem with science is (a). It’s like that guessing game where you can only answer yes or no, except in the case of science the only possible answers are ‘no’, ‘maybe’, or ‘probably’.
In this particular instance: let’s say God did actually create the universe. How would science arrive at the correct answer? How would you frame that hypothesis in a testable manner? AFAIK, nobody has figured that out, not even in conceptual outline. There is an interesting workaround for this: you can do indirect tests. Start with the hypothesis that the world was created and make predictions from it (ignoring the fact that the hypothesis itself is unfalsifiable). Then test those predictions. You then do the opposite and, again, test your predictions. Both experiments have been done and nobody even noticed. I wrote a book about it. I don’t bother checking sales - I think it’s still at zero.
Anyway, that’s why most people are content with “God done it” or “I dunno”. Anything else is a waste of life-hours.
1 Like
I like your post, except for the last sentence.
I said “for most people”, ie., most people have better things to do than try to figure out where we came from. Some people enjoy that sort of thing. 
1 Like
So, I should read the last sentence as “Anything else is a waste of life-hours for most people.”, then I now like the entire post.
Solving the #1 mystery in science at the dawning of the artificial intelligence era would be a waste of time?
What is the Secret of Life?
Solve the #1 Question in all of Science
Origin of Life is the hardest question in science. No one knows how the first cell came about. But there’s a simpler, more fundamental question: Where did the information come from? An answer will trigger a quantum leap in Artifical Intelligence. This may be as big as the transistor or the discovery of DNA itself. A new $5 million prize seeks a definitive answer. . . .
A solution to this problem will become one of the most pivotal scientific and technical discoveries of the 21st century. . . .
If we can unearth the underlying forces that create and propel life, we stand to reap enormous benefits in Artificial Intelligence, engineering, computer science, nutrition, aging, health, cancer research, disease treatment and prevention.
Thanks for drawing our attention to that. The God-Emperor can hardly contain its enthusiasm! 
@discobot quote
1 Like
Forgiveness is choosing to love. It is the first skill of self-giving love. — Mohandas Gandhi
Ask again later
Will do.
If you think toadying up to the new overlords is going to save you from the fate of becoming a cheap energy source, you’re sorely mistaken. 
2 Likes
1 Like
OP never came back