I think it's more accurate to say he lacks the comprehension necessary to understand how scientific methods for gathering data and simulating environmental variables work.
He is basically using the scorn-worthy argument that since we do not DIRECTLY observe something, we can't say it's real. We observe abiogenesis in action by recreating the environment of early earth, which is exactly how evolution on earth began, and he tries to move the goalposts out of reach by stating that we must observe it without recreating it and must instead see it in action...in an environment that is no longer conducive to initiating evolution.
I reject that premise. Biological evolution exists. Abiogenesis recreates the conditions of early earth that led to the development of amino acids, the basis for organic life, which by process of combination led to RNA and eventually into more advanced DNA sequences. The former confirms that the latter happened, because the only other explanation is "god did it" and, to spin the argument back on Heywood, there has been no direct observation of biological evolution being implemented by a deity-figure. One explanation has observable and testable evidence supporting it. One is a claim with no basis whatsoever and neither observation nor testable evidence to support it.
This is pretty basic stuff, I learned this back in tenth grade. I don't see why it's so hard for certain people to understand.
But then, I don't think Heywood was expecting to actually debate. I think he sees the subject in terms of oversimplification and with faulty logical processes and either doesn't grasp the argument at hand, or doesn't want to. This is a topic that if he is wrong (and he is), it tears asunder a very large cornerstone of his beliefs. Remembering the discomfort having my own delusions broken caused me at the outset of me becoming an atheist, I guess I can sympathize. Sort of.
He is basically using the scorn-worthy argument that since we do not DIRECTLY observe something, we can't say it's real. We observe abiogenesis in action by recreating the environment of early earth, which is exactly how evolution on earth began, and he tries to move the goalposts out of reach by stating that we must observe it without recreating it and must instead see it in action...in an environment that is no longer conducive to initiating evolution.
I reject that premise. Biological evolution exists. Abiogenesis recreates the conditions of early earth that led to the development of amino acids, the basis for organic life, which by process of combination led to RNA and eventually into more advanced DNA sequences. The former confirms that the latter happened, because the only other explanation is "god did it" and, to spin the argument back on Heywood, there has been no direct observation of biological evolution being implemented by a deity-figure. One explanation has observable and testable evidence supporting it. One is a claim with no basis whatsoever and neither observation nor testable evidence to support it.
This is pretty basic stuff, I learned this back in tenth grade. I don't see why it's so hard for certain people to understand.
But then, I don't think Heywood was expecting to actually debate. I think he sees the subject in terms of oversimplification and with faulty logical processes and either doesn't grasp the argument at hand, or doesn't want to. This is a topic that if he is wrong (and he is), it tears asunder a very large cornerstone of his beliefs. Remembering the discomfort having my own delusions broken caused me at the outset of me becoming an atheist, I guess I can sympathize. Sort of.
