You may not believe that the question of origin is relevant or not, but many believe it is the most important question. Einstein, Eddington, Hoyl, Hubble...all felt the question regarding a beginning was important. So when you say,"Whether the universe is eternal....", seems to indicate that you leave open that possibility. The Kaalam Cosmological argument posits that if the universe is eternal then an infinite number of past days (time) must have been....but, tomorrow another day will be added to the infinite number of days...BUT, nothing can be added to the infinite. So philosophically and logically it does not make sense that the universe is eternal.
As a professional scientist, the question of origin is indeed irrelevant to my work. I care about evolutionary relationships between modern living organisms. I care about the evolution of microorganisms into forms that allow them to attack and sometimes kill humans. Does the origin of the universe really have any impact on those questions? None that I can see. If some of those physicists thought the origin of the universe is important--well, scientists of other disciplines have their priorities, which are not necessarily my priorities.
If I am to ponder whether the universe is eternal or not, it is not as a scientist that I ponder such a thing. That kind of question is in the realm of things that I cannot answer through experiment or observation. I really dislike those kinds of questions--one can go crazy trying to reason one's way to an answer, and the answer, being derived through thought and not observation, is always uncertain and subject to change. So, in the interest of maintaining sanity, I stick to the concrete and answerable.
As regarding the relevance of 'a beginning' or 'an eternal' universe, it seems to me there is great relevance. Many ethical questions flow from the view that the universe is created or eternal.
I can only say that I disagree strongly with that statement, as well as the rest of that paragraph. By that, you seem to be implying that--for example--someone who sees the universe as eternal could be horrified by the practice of killing the unborn as a method of birth control, but if they were to decide that the universe has a finite beginning and ending, they would then change their mind and accept the practice without reservation. Or vice-versa. I see absolutely no correlation between someone's ethical views and their view on whether the universe is eternal.
Regarding your comment that Chemistry acts according to physical laws and chemical reactions form the basis of evolution, I would like you to consider how dead, brute chemical gave rise to consciousness, thought, any mental event. Chemicals don't think, they react.
Indeed. Every single process going on in every single living organism is a blind chemical process proceeding according to immutable physical law. Each one of those processes can be replicated in vitro, that is, outside of a living organism. I've carried out hundreds, maybe thousands, of experiments replicating processes that occur in living organisms. Yet, when all of those processes are combined and operating, there is a living organism. And if I do something to make those organisms non-living, there is nothing I can do to restore them to a living condition. Amazing, isn't it?
As to the lack of connectivity of how life came to be, being apart from life evolving, it seems that is the first and most pivotal step in evolution.
Actually... I don't need to know how the first life came to be, or what form it took. Having that knowledge will not affect phylogenetic tree construction or any other methodology I use to examine evolutionary relationships. For my work, I need to understand the mechanistic drivers of evolution, and I do know that.
I suppose we could speak to Krebs cycly, the cytochrome P-450 systems, but we need to regress to a point prior to those systems 'evolving'. Where and how did the enzymes (very large, specific, complex molecules with specific spatial configurations) come to be? That is more interesting than reading Leninger or Whites Biochemistry books. Where and how did the first substrates arise to be acted upon by those enzymes? And how could the estimated 350 (minimum) enzyme systems needed for the most primitive cell arise denovo and concurrently to allow for protein construction, energy production, energy consumption, etc. We cannot even produce proof of that first system.
Enzymes are proteins. Proteins fold all by themselves into the proper forms. That is a consequence of their chemical nature; they need no direction or guidance, they just fold. Enzymes need only two functions: a substrate binding site, and an active site. Those also are consequences of them being chemicals. An enzyme substrate is, likewise, a chemical. In the presence of energy, chemicals react with each other because that is their nature--it's no big deal. As for the estimate of there needing to be at least 350 enzyme systems for a simple cell (where did that estimate come from, anyway)--the smallest virus known has three genes, one structural and two enzymes. Since the only essential function of a living organism is the replication of the genetic material--I'd say that the first living things wouldn't have needed to be very complicated at all.
So the supreme question remains, how did first life arise? I think it is extremely relevant to today.
Relevant, for what purpose? Maybe for your theology, but not for science. Medical research will continue whether or not we ever find a scientific answer to that question.
Your dismissiveness is revealing. There are those who would say ones' view of the beginnings of the universe by, lets say quantuum theory gives rise to the view (your view) of Richard Dawkins which can be trunkated to say the universe and all that is in it is due to blind, purposeless, mindless, chance. I do not know your view of origin, but for purpose of argument I put your view on a rough par with DAwkins. So your view, no Creator of the universe or life. Life came from a chemicals stew (though the Miller Urey Experiment has been throughly discredited). Your contention is that this worldview is "irrelevant" (your word). Your concern is microbes killing or making ill persons. As a Board Certified Surgeon for 30 years I share your concern. I have fought the good fight all of those years. But in your worldview what is the point. Is there a moral imperative that you and I do this? From whom does that imperative (we ought help make people whole) flow? You say all that is in the universe is blind and purposeless. There is no guiding moral purpose...just purposeless chemical reactions guided by meaningless, purposeless laws of physics. And when those physics run the course in the universe all of the atomic and subatomic particles will be washed into an ocean of nothingness approaching absolute zero and a vacuum. No purpose.
Now history has told us of a group of central European peoples and the dear leader who concluded what you have concluded. As Dostoyevsky said, "Without God, all things are permitted." And so World War II cost 100 million lives because Hitler sought to set his Worldview-his Weltanschauung-loose on the whole world. Hitler, a devotee of Nietzsche. Nietzsche wrote, "Our whole European culture is moving for some time now with tortured tension that is growing from decade to decade, as toward a catastrophe: resteless, violently, headlong like a river that wants to reach the end, that no longer reflects, no long wants to reflect, that is afraid to reflect. Nihlism is the only result.
Now fastforward to June 29, 2012-Obama care. Someone will have to dictate how resources are allocated. Someone will determine this person fill requirement for dialysis, but this other is too old and frail. I recall Mr.Obama saying, "Grandma needs a hip replacemnt, but maybe it is better that she go home will a pain pill." Who decides? Which worldview decides? Yours...mindless, purposeless, blind and dictated by chance? Or a worldview that says, "God made man in His image. The essence of the character of God is the Moral code and therefore all human life is sacred."
I am afraid your blind and purposeless universe gives little comfort to those who are on the front lines of this great struggle before us in resource allocation. Death panels have already been set up by people such as Peter Sanger and yourself. Good luck with that when you and your family have someone with that Weltanschauuang commanding your fate. It can rapidly move from a theoretical conversation, like you and I are having, to harsh reality. I have lived those situations for 30 years plus. It is real and, though you see these issues as irrelevant many see them as imperatives.
Don't feel you need to freep me back. I have read many of you musings and find them mostly devoid of reason and thoughtfulness regarding these issues. (I do not mean thoughtfullness as one being thoughtless regarding all matters, but thoughtless in that clearly you are not well read and schooled regarding metaphysical realities and metaphysical naturalism and the importance of all of their permutations.) I have read and studied on these matters for 40 years and am still lacking in many areas of understanding regarding these matters. But there are things which are understandable and knowable by anyone who wishes to open their minds and look at these issues. I simply will agree to disagree with your assertions. But assertions without epistemic underpinnings are really of little value other that saying, 'this is my opinion'. We all have one. But why is that opinion your opinion is a much more interesting question.
I have head alledged 'scientists' write with an intense, intellectual haughtiness and attempt to derive credibility by their declarations. Without explication, theirs remains only their opinion.
So when you say origins take us to a place where a scientist cannot go because you cannot observe it through experimentation, you are dismissing what you can know, what you do know. For example you cannot, by observation or experimentation prove logic or reason because to attempt to explain logic and reason by logic and reason is circular and therefore meaningless. Yet, you say you do that every day...use logic and reason. You say you use scientific method in your experiment, but you cannot prove scientific method by scientific method without begging the question and there makes your deduction meaningless. You use mind in your scientific experimenation and observation but mind has no physical makeup and for you, if you are consistent, must deny mind in a physicalist worldview.
I won't continue on this road. I have been down this road with naturalists so many times and you will refuse to learn. So I will stop here. Again, no need to re-freep me. Our conversation will only be tit-for-tat and I do not need a pissing contest any more than you probably do. Good Luck in all of your observations, use of logic, reason and rational thought. ONce you figure how evolution gave us those things freep me...I would love to hear your explications.