The Origins of Life? Can science answer this question?

Can science answer this question? 

According to some, science by its definition cannot answer this question. 

Here are a few quotes from some scientists, (taken from the book, In Six Days - Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation edited by John F. Ashton.):  

 

What is truth?

A simply dictionary definition, such as Webster’s New Dictionary of the English Language, states that truth is:  

► the real state of things; FACT

► the body of real events or facts; ACTUALITY

If truth is nothing more than in the eye of the beholder, then it is not the real state of things, nor is it the body of real events or facts. To regulate truth to the whims of the individual is to destroy the actual meaning of truth.  To ascribe another definition to the word truth defrauds the meaning, distorts the message and deceives the masses. 

 

Faith versus Reason?

When dealing with unbelievers one will usually hear, during the course of the conversation, something to the effect that they simply cannot accept this “faith” so blindly. They are “forced” to use their reason which, to them, rejects any and all aspects of faith. They often resort to stating that believers are blindly following a “faith.” They insist that faith and reason are not compatible. Are they not compatible? How does one respond to some of these charges?

 

Legislating Morality?

Often in the public square, religious people are told to keep quiet and get out of politics because … well, just because.  Some argue that the so-called religious right are attempting to legislate what they “see as immoral behavior so as to … keep[] them right with what [they] think God wants.”

Here are a few quotes from those who are outspoken in their positions with respect to conservative social policies, which dispel this rumor of wanting certain social policy positions simply because “God told them.”

 

Secular humanism/atheism is a religious belief. (Part III – Atheistic churches, camps and chaplains)

5) Atheistic churches, camps and chaplains 

a) Atheist churches 

Not only are two of the court cases cited earlier, Washington Ethical Society and the Fellowship of Humanity, examples of atheistic/secular groups identifying with religious churches, there are scores of others seeking to equate themselves as churches (in the religious sense). 

Several years ago, a couple of Brits, Sanderson Jones and Pippa Evans, brought their successful mega-church style of atheistic churches to America.  The “inaugural Sunday Assembly in Los Angeles attracted more than 400 attendees, all bound by their belief in non-belief.”  The hundreds who attended were treated to “more than an hour of rousing music, an inspirational sermon, a reading and some quiet reflection.”  It was like an old-fashioned Baptist revival as the “attendees stomped their feet, clapped their hands and cheered as Jones” entertained the congregants.[i] 

Secular humanism/atheism is a religious belief. (Part II – Court Cases)

4) Court Cases 

a) United States v. Kauten - 1943[i] 

Mathias claimed he was a conscientious objector and could not serve in the services.  The court granted the conscientious objector status to him because of his “religious conscience." The court concluded: "a conscientious objection to participation in any war under any circumstances... we think, may justly be regarded as a response of the individual to an inward mentor, call it conscience or God, that is for many persons at the present time the equivalent of what has always been thought a religious impulse.

Secular humanism/atheism is a religious belief. - (Part I – Humanist Manifestos)

While it is normally agreed that definitions have meaning and should attempt to actually convey something consistent that has not been the case in many instances.  (Fundamentalism comes to mind!)  The goal to have secular humanism identified as a religion has been waged by those who are secular humanists.  They are the ones who have insisted that they are indeed a religion.  So it is difficult to understand how, letting their own definitions of themselves be used as an attack upon traditional religionists.  Just for clarification here are a few points that are germane to this topic.