Dearest Vel, I have been asking you the most straightforward question, yet you still fail to answer me. My question is… Can abiogenesis and biological evolution be investigated and evaluated using the scientific method, and if so, to what extent?

So, you can or don’t know how to answer it clearly, so you attack me. When you do, your statement collapses under its own assumptions.

First, you claim there is “no metaphysical,” while simultaneously making metaphysical claims lol. Declaring that only material explanations are valid is itself a metaphysical position. It is not a scientific conclusion. It is a philosophical rule imposed on science. Science describes physical processes. It does not rule on what can or cannot exist beyond them. Saying “only the material is real” is not an experiment. It is your flawed worldview.

Second, you (this is very silly) demand that God must be “shown” in the same way as a chemical reaction (clearly) misunderstands each category. God, by definition, is not a physical object inside the universe. Demanding a physical demonstration of a non-physical claim is a category error (in which you make many). It is like demanding a ruler measurement of justice, love, or consciousness. Those are real, yet they are not test-tube objects. Their reality is established by rational, philosophical, and experiential evidence, not laboratory synthesis.

Third, abiogenesis and macroevolution are not settled facts in the way gravity or thermodynamics are. They are research programs built around unresolved core problems. The origin of life has never been experimentally demonstrated. No laboratory has ever produced a living cell, coded genetic information, or a self-replicating biological system from nonliving chemistry. George Wald, Francis Crick, Eugene Koonin, and Paul Davies have all acknowledged in print that the origin of life remains unexplained and, in Crick’s words, that it “appears at the moment to be almost a miracle.” That is not ignorance. That is the scientific record. Yet I am sure you have a stronger claim in science than these men.

Fourth, natural selection explains variation after life already exists. It does not explain the origin of life, the origin of the genetic code, or the origin of consciousness. Treating it as if it does is a philosophical extrapolation, not an experimental demonstration. Your extrapolation then functions as the real “metaphysical” move in your position.

Finally, labeling belief in God as “cult” or “imaginary friend” is not an argument. It is rhetoric. It avoids addressing the actual philosophical questions:

Where did biological information come from?

Why does a rational mind exist in a material universe?

Why do objective moral obligations exist?

Why does mathematics map reality so precisely?

Your stance on Materialism does not answer these questions. It assumes them away. So the irony is this, you accuse others of metaphysics while standing entirely on an unproven metaphysical foundation of your own. Your belief that matter is all that exists, that information arose from non-information, and that reason emerged from non-reason. That is not science. That is your faith in lab coats. Thanks everyone, please like, please share and leave a comment.