Science is founded on a commitment to "Methodological Naturalism". This means that supernatural answers are off-limits. - cofty
This has nothing to do with any bias or personal beliefs of individual scientists. Even christians who are scientists begin with the working assumption that there are unguided, naturalistic causes for the phenomena they investigate. That is what it means to do science as opposed to theology.-cofty
Oh is this true? Really? Are all chemists ethical? Do Pharmaceutical and Industrial chemical companies recruit chemists to develop new products to make money? Have chemists, pharmaceutical and industrial chemical every lied about their results to sell products? As far as research and development in chemistry it's mainly about making new patented product to make money.
I am by no means a chemist, I am a chemical analyst. I analysed finished products. I have not done any research or developed any products, but I have worked in companies where my colleagues were chemists. Their research and development was not founded on "methodological naturalism" and when learning chemistry this phrase doesn't enter in any credible text book.
Credible chemists write papers that are impartial as far as god and atheism is concerned. Their conclusions are about which is the best and most efficient ways to synthesise products for their company. Christian and Atheist scientists who preach are not credible but bias. Dawkins and Krauss are just as bias as the creationist scientists trying to prove God exists. They wrote books called the God delusion and A universe from nothing. These are not peer reviewed science papers. They are the opinions of men. If you want to follow them then do, but know they are bias just like the creationist scientists.
As soon as a scientist does what Kate has done in this thread they cease to do science. It amounts to anintellectually lazy surrender to superstition. Further progress becomes impossible. Even Isaac Newton compromised on methodological naturalism when he was unable to work out why all planets revolve on the same plane around the sun and declared that god-did-it. -cofty
What did I do that was lazy? Can you be specific please. If drawing conclusions based on the facts is lazy or wrong then explain to me succinctly why this is please. I am not declaring god did it, I am applying Occam's Razor.
From the time it was first discovered that some molecules were either "left handed" or "right handed", and that all the amino acids in living things were only of one sort, it has been a matter of considerable mystery why this should be so. - Cofty
Thalidomide caused serious birth defects and chemists worked hard to find out why and then tried to develop a safer synthesised organic homochiral product. It had nothing to do with God or Atheism. It was about preventing mutations.
In 1995 Kenso Soai was able to solve the mystery. He showed that the situation where all the molecules are of just one sort is exactly what happens under natural conditions.-cofty
It has never been about solving the mystery. Saoi has never used that term. You are twisting the facts again to suit your conclusion. Just because you repeat it multiple times it doesn't make it true.
I will post a thread on it in my Evolution is a Fact" series later but here is a very brief summary of the facts. - Cofty
That will not twist the facts because you are not bias and just have a position.
The key to Soai's discovery was the fact that the process that produces the molecules in question are "autocatalytic". -cofty
Twisting facts again. The key to Saoi's discovery was that chemists can now synthesise homochiral organic products more efficiently using autocatayisis in the lab.
I am going to comment on the rest of your post later when I am free. Look out for it Cofty xx