God and dark matter are not on the same level. You can not claim god did something unless you can prove he or she or it exists. No one has come close to doing that in thousands of years so until someone does I will dismiss it. Scientific hypotheses are thought up by viewing the world around us and then are tested. If they are wrong, they are changed. If they are right, they are tested more and more until it becomes apparent they are true. Scientists have shown that under certain conditions many basic building blocks of life can be formed through entirely non-organic processes. Just because we do not know exactly how abiogenesis worked now does not mean we will not in 10 years. Simply giving up and saying I have faith god did has no merit. Prove to me god exists and then prove to me that he created life. Until you have evidence for those things your beliefs have no merit and shouldn't be believed.
The example wasn't meant to be taken literally. I'll give you another example so the point is more clear. Take the DNA molecule. The essence of all living things. The code for protein synthesis. Now look at two different viewpoints:
Scientists: "Wow, the DNA molecule is extremely complex! This just goes to show you how lucky we are to be alive! It must've taken billions of years of random events to create such a spectacular molecule. Just shows why it would be hard for us to find life on another planet!"
God Advocate: "Wow, the DNA molecule is extremely complex! This just goes to show you how it requires an intelligent designer to be made! After all, it is a code - just like how binary is a code (and required a designer), DNA is a code, and requires a designer as well! Just goes to show why we can't find life on other planets - our planet, Earth, is special!"
Flying Spaghetti Monster Advocate: Pretty much the same as above.
You see, "evidence" can be coaxed into many different viewpoints. Which one is the correct one? We do not know.
You will never get proof for the existence of God, or for the validity of evolution. But what you will get is evidence for both. However, as I stated before, evidence is easily coaxed by the observer, so in the end, your viewpoint is your viewpoint. To change it is a major feat.
I understand where you're coming from - I agree, we should never just 'stop' and not try to discover more. But what I'm saying is that this does not have to occur in the absence of God. And when I say 'God', I do not necessarily mean the Christian God. It could be any higher being. For example, we could discover more - the Higgs Boson, evolution, etc. but in the end, the atheist will just say this is more evidence that God is not needed, whilst the theist will say, "I'm beginning to understand how God created everything around us now."
There is no proof for abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is not about the creation of building blocks - it's about the creation of life through random processes. By saying we were able to make building blocks through natural processes and claim that abiogenesis is most likely true is analogous to saying that a factory which produces only the parts of a car can actually produce a functional car without some intervention. It just doesn't work like that. Building blocks need their 'builder'. The emergent property states that the sum is greater than the parts due to interactions. What causes these molecules to interact?
And if you're referring to the Miller-Urey experiment, text books tend to hide the fact that this experiment actually goes
against the theory of abiogenesis. Whilst the experiment only produced 'building blocks' (and not any complex molecules, such as DNA), it produced a 'racemate' mixture of left handed and right handed amino acids. All organisms to date are homochiral (with rare exceptions such as the cell walls of certain bacterium) - we all have left handed amino acids. The problem is, right handed amino acids are toxic to life, so all the Miller-Urey experiment showed was how hard it could be for abiogenesis to be true. Chirality poses a big problem for abiogenesis.
Harold Urey even admitted after the experiment that all this experiment showed was the chance of abiogenesis being true are even more slim than before: "All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did."
But again, scientists should never stop to see if abiogenesis is true. At the time being, however, those who are saying that it will be proved true are committing a "Science of the Gaps" fallacy, putting faith that science will prove that this theory is true one day. What if it wasn't true though? Do you just wait longer because it's your only "hope"? Or perhaps we can understand that maybe saying "I don't know" isn't so bad - after all, science is only limited to our senses and understanding.
