"I will further state that I believe science will never have an answer to how or to why. they have stopped asking why, if indeed they ever did."
This is basically what my Biology textbook states.
It says, "Conjecturing about how life began is both fruitless and safe. One can never be proven right and it is impossible to be proven wrong. Nonetheless, it is a good intellectual exercise, and it can be useful in helping to understand scientific reasoning. So let's ignore all the problems associated with the question and tread into an arena littered with dead guesses."
Now what I'm getting from this is that scientists don't know how life began, but are guessing. Here is some more I gleaned from the text. To paraphrase:
"There are two scientific schools of thought concerning origins of life. These are Mechanism and Vitalism. Mechanism implies that life is the result of simple interactions of mindless molecules. Vitalism is based on the premise that living things are more than the result of molecular interaction, that living things inherently possess some undefinable and unmeasurable quality, a life force. Vitalists use telological reasoning. This reasoning is commonly used in reference to ideas that go beyond what is actually verifiable and generally implies some inner drive to complete a goal or some directing force operating above the laws of nature."
Now, the disagreement at Darwin's time was over how one arrives at scientific conclusions. Scientific conclusions are arrived at either by induction or deduction. With induction, empirical data is gathered and from this a generalization is induced. The deductive method arrives at a generalization through some insight or hunch. Most scientists today rely more strongly on inductive evidence in developing scientific principles.
"Due to the skeptical nature of scientists, any idea, theory, or experiment is certain to be attacked by someone. Scientists demand hard evidence. However, their rigor does nor mean that they are eminently rational people, pristine, pure of heart, unemotional, and unfettered by personal prejudice."
Biology, The World of Life Fourth Edition Robert A. Wallace Copyright 1987
What I am understanding from this is that there are differing schools of thought when it comes to science and the scientific method(s.) That there are two distinct scientific methods which are at odds depending on current trends. That philosophy is a substantial ingredient in any discussion of life's origins. That this is something which cannot be proven either way, and that "life force" is part of the Vitalism school of thought. I do not know if Vitalism is related to Intelligent Design, but apparently it is considered within the realm of science. At least by the author of this textbook.
Here is a question. Since there is no way to prove scientifically how life began, and since curiosity and seeking truth is one of the main goals of science, can any discussion of how life began deliberately leave out any possibility, including creation? I believe this question is a valid scientific question which deals with the philosophical aspect of scientific thought. It cannot be dismissed outright. Imho, the only truthful scientific answer at this point in time would be we just don't know.
Les
