Accidental Genesis

I've just finished watching the Origins of Life video lecture series by Robert Hazen. I offer a few comments in summary.

Quotes and comments;

1. Hazen quotes Leslie Orgel as saying "anyone who thinks they have the answer to this question is deluded... but anyone who thinks it is unsolvable [e.g. creationists] is also deluded."

- Really Leslie? How do you know this? I don't see any way you can know this. All he's saying is that materialism Has to be true. How does he know this? Well, apparently it's his intuitive feeling about the matter... but that isn't certain knowledge. When we get down to it, the m. feels there is no god, and the theist feels there is a god. Neither view qualifies as scientific knowledge. We can't tell the universe what it must or must not be like :=)

2. He insists that the chemical steps leading to life's origin are knowable... and that one day we'll know them.

- Really? How does he know this? I see no possible way we can know what happened 4 billion years ago... it's simply impossible. Any idea put forward can't be an empirical observation. No one was there. All you can ever have are theories.

3. As an old fashioned materialist he tells us life is basically chemical in nature. In my view this is an outmoded concept.

- I view 'life' as being basically informational in nature. In my view life on earth began with a plan in the mind of an an intelligent being.

4. He tells us there Must have been an unbroken chain leading from the first life form to the modern cell. The 'law of continuity demands it. (Must is one of his favorite words by the way.)

- So what is this 'law' of continuity?
Definition; (Math. & Physics) 'The principle that nothing passes from one state to another without passing through all the intermediate states.;

-I see nothing in the laws of physics that predicts biology or life; so I don't see how this 'law' applies. The idea life must have arisen by unaided chemical action is more a matter of human psychology than it is a matter of physics.

5. He expects 'life's has arisen billions of times in the universe.
- How's that for faith :=]

Summary;
His speaking style is annoying. He rarely looks into the camera, but off to the side where he's reading his cue cards. He does a competent job of outlining the materialist view of origins... but does a poor job of mentioning any critiques of this model.
His view is that materialism is so obviously true we don't need to talk about objections to it. In his view, science equals materialism.
He's far too confident in his statements; statements which aren't empirical, and are wildly speculative. To speak of certainty in this subject is empty bravado. Scientists can't tell us what happened 4 billion years ago anymore than they can build a time machine. There don't appear to be many limits to what scientists and engineers can do, but there still are limits... and it's scientism to deny this.
He talks a lot (in the latter lectures) about information, but he never tells us what he means by information.

Notes;
1. #24. Three scenarios for the origin of life [Teaching Company]
- Hazen has got the cheek to title his book on the subject Genesis.
- He never tells us what the benefit of OOL study is. i.e. what's it for? I don't see any point to it at all.