Theoretical origin of life; new earliest? (Introduction)

by David Turell , Monday, October 02, 2017, 15:25 (2388 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID's comment: My bold certainly supports the idea that God saw to it that the Earth could nourish life from near its very beginning.

dhw: I agree that our planet and all forms of life are very special, but the article is not about all the unusual characteristics, and it says nothing about God’s work. It only suggests that “life was everywhere” and it began earlier than was originally thought. Your comment is no more linked to the article than an atheist saying that “life was everywhere” and may have started earlier than we thought, which supports the idea that chance did it. One should not pretend that a purely scientific observation offers support for either theism or atheism. For all you know, the researchers themselves might be atheists!

DAVID: My comment is my thought, not that of the authors as you imply. Have you forgotten that I have the right to interpret scientific findings as I wish?

dhw: Of course you have that right. But if you quote another author and claim that the author’s statement (which you even put in bold) “certainly supports” your own hypothesis, you are misleading your reader. I know you don’t mean it that way, but it is a technique that leads to misrepresentation, as when both theists and atheists claim that Darwinism supports atheism, even though Darwin himself categorically denied that this was so. There can be no justification for claiming that a personal belief is “supported” by someone else’s statement, when the statement offers no such support.

You miss the point that I have the right to interpret an author's statement as supporting my point of view if I clearly state that is what I am doing. It is my interpretation of his statement. Of course Darwinism supports atheism, whether he meant so or not. Why do you defend him?