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.):  

 

► As Dr. Edward Boudreaux has stated, "... origins issue is strictly a matter of history... The initial processes responsible for this stasis [the material universe is in a stable state of static equilibrium] are not amenable to the methods of scientific testing, because they were unobservable events." 

► Dr. Jeremy Walter, speaking of what is science makes the following statements: "... the age of the earth can be neither be proved nor disproved by science." Speaking of observations, he stated, "... an observation is always an action of the present, not of the past." Speaking of conclusions to be drawn from the "evidences" for or against the age of the earth, Walter said that we need to "realize that our faith commitments greatly influence the development of scientific concepts... The interpretation of these observed data hinges solidly on the concepts of truth held by the investigators, not the facts themselves. Faith commitments to either human reason or biblical revelation influence what hypotheses are considered and how data is accepted or rejected."  

► Dr. Jonathan Sarfati said "… science deals with repeatable observations in the present, while evolution/long age ideas are based on assumptions from outside science about the unobservable past. Facts do not speak for themselves - they must be interpreted according to a framework." 

► Dr. Ariel Roth said, "Science is more reliable in the experimental realm than when dealing with the past, especially when that past cannot be experimentally repeated. When it comes to answering the great questions of origins, meaning and destiny, science has lost its credentials."

► Dr. Stephen Grocott stated, "... creation and evolution are actually both outside the realms of science ... evolution is non-scientific because it is not observable or testable."  

► Dr. Andrew Mcintosh wrote, "No scientist is entirely objective. We are always governed by our assumptions... Many hold tenaciously to a strange view that theism is by definition excluded by science. Such a position is not logical, since theism or atheism is a product of one's assumption." 

Both evolution and creation are predicated upon a particular worldview that one holds to. Intelligent Design (ID) and Young Earth Creationism (YEC) are actively involved in the "evidences" for and against evolution/creation. That is only one of the areas that we need to "to mingle thought with thought." It is true that the "heavens declare the glory of God." It is also true that there are other evidences for a Biblically based faith, or there are evidences against a Biblically based faith.  

To "ponder" these other areas would probably require that there will be/should be a consensus that evolution and creation are on the same level of scientific hypothesis, that both are a particular worldview, and that those who hold to either of them have preconceived assumptions. If there is no common ground here then it is irrelevant to the other "evidences."  

 

The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism