Is Neil DeGrasse Tyson Correct Regarding the Origin of Life?

"Astronomer Neil DeGrasse Tyson says the following in the television series "Cosmos":  

"1. Science doesn't know either how or when life first came into existence." (Thats being honest and is true. The "how" is the exact steps nature took, the "when" is the exact time. Saying science doesn't know how or when doesn't mean science knows noting on the topic. Science knows a lot on the topic from studying life and its environment. So, nothing wrong with this premise except for you taking it out of context.)

"2. Life may have existed prior to our own sun and solar system." (This is speculating about probable possibilities which is basically hypothesis building. So, nothing wrong with this premise.)

"3. Life arose from a series of unguided "totally by chance" natural processes." (Life being defined as biology is in fact a chemical process that exists within nature. We have no evidence of things outside of nature, and outside of natural processes. Therefore its not unreasonable to claim life must have come from natural processes. The "totally by chance" part is kind of a strawman fallacy as natural selection which is one of the component in the process of evolution is not totally by chance, it selects.)

It seems to me that you might have some underlining cognitive biases that distorts your perceptions of certain scientific fields of study like evolution and abiogenesis. These biases can cause your mind to take science out of context to cast doubt on science so that you can avoid cognitive dissonance while trying to simultaneously hold onto your religious beliefs/faith.

Others have pointed out that Tyson did not say those three things.  That might be enough to end the discussion, which arose from a question that on its own merits simply consists of three statements that are frequently made.  Tyson's naming merely suggests that the statements need to be considered because he's smart and well-known.

Suppose the three statements were made by "Jean", who is unknown except for the statements.  Now, the personality, authority, in/out of specialty, extraneous issues are off the table.  How then would they be reviewed?  

1. True 

2. True ("may have")

3. Unknown truth, not a consequence of 1 or 2, and an argument from ignorance (misusing 1 imo)

Speculation 3 might be a starting point, a basis for proposed hypotheses, but as presented above seems a conclusion that's simply unsupported by prior argument.

What you are questioning is the general scientific concensus model of abiogenesis which Neil DeGrasse Tyson is discussing

Neil is a astrophysicist and as such follows these six basic steps of the scientific method:

– observe the natural universe
– form a question
– form a testable hypothesis on that question
– make prediction based on hypothesis
– test the prediction
– use results for new hypotheses or predictions and repeat.

Karl Popper’s axiom of “falsifiability” (i.e. testability to make repeat predictions) is key to the vast majority of today’s science, though advanced areas of study like theoretical cosmology have technological limitations and/or absence of empirical evidence for direct testing and thus, cannot fall under traditional empirical methods pursuant to falsifiability.

Inherent in the scientific method of testing predictions for both physical and theoretical elements of a hypothesis is “probability”, i.e. the likelihood of a particular outcome based on known (and hypothetical) preexisting conditions. When predictions and outcomes correlate with a high level of probability, hypothesis are often elevated to “theory” and assumed to hold repeatable certainty until proven otherwise.

Neil's "rather grandiose theory of how life "might" have came to be” as you stated, simply follows fundamental physics and our current understanding of the evolutionary development of earth bound life forms. In the 2014 version of COSMOS, Neil makes it clear that the congruence of fundamental elements, the correct combination and order of chemical compounds and energy in conjunction with deep time have a high degree of probability of developing the ability to self-replicate and even evolve into even more complex systems — none of which violates the second law of thermodynamics (i.e. increase in entropy). The “panspermia hypothesis” simply removes the initial conditions for abiogenesis from terrestrial origins, nothing more.

What science does NOT do in the face of limitations to fully test hypotheses is leap to unfalsifiable explanations like a First Cause via an Absence of Evidence and Circular Reasoning fallacies. Your remark of “...Tyson then quotes virtually verbatim the standard textbook mythology…” clearly indicates use of a Genetic fallacy on your part as well.

“The good thing about science,” Neil DeGrasse Tyson said, "is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”

Lastly, your Weak Analogy assumes a subjective bias on Tyson’s part and a Conspiratorial Theory upon formal education.

"Does it mean, if you don’t understand something, and the community of physicists don’t understand it, that means God did it?... If that’s how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on.” — Neil DeGrasse Tyson 

The points by Tyson come from the first year of the television series Cosmos.  I took notes at one time while re-reviewing three different segments of the first year, but I can't go back and do that all over again because I neither have the patience or the time.

I can assure you that Tyson said in one video segment that science doesn't know how, when, where or why life first came into existence.  This is correct and, many of his peers agree with him.  Obviously if life existed prior to our own sun and solar system, then human science won't likely ever know how, when, where or why life first came into existence.

Tyson also presents a rather grandiose theory of how life "might" have came to be, which I kind of like and have no quarrel with, even though his theory can neither be proven or disproven.

Unfortunately, in a third segment, Tyson then quotes virtually verbatim the standard textbook mythology we've been taught since high school, stating that life came about by a series of random, totally by chance natural processes.  Tyson, like my college biology textbook, didn't bother to provide any supporting evidence, rhyme or reason as to either how science would know this or, why anyone with an elementary school education would bother to invent such baseless superstition.  

Obviously, if scientists don't know how, when, where or why life first came to be, then science doesn't know that life came about by a series of unguided totally by chance processes.  This is like telling a police officer, I didn't see anyone rob the bank, but I'm certain that some African-American person robbed it.  It not only wouldn't hold up in any legitimate court of law, it doesn't even make any rational sense.

– observe the natural universe 
– form a question 
– form a testable hypothesis on that question 
– make prediction based on hypothesis 
– test the prediction 
– use results for new hypotheses or predictions and repeat. 

Obviously, Neil DeGrasse Tyson doesn't go by these six steps.  He just pulls the foundation for his theory of evolution out of a black hole rabbit's hat, stating without providing a shred of verifiable testable supporting evidence, that life came about by a series of random blind "totally by chance" natural processes.

There is no test that verifies such a position and, it isn't possible to conduct any such test, if science doesn't know how, when, where, or why life began.  If life began prior to our own sun and solar system, obviously it remains impossible for anyone living on earth to scientifically verify how life came into existence.  To claim that science doesn't know how life came to be and then, to turn around and claim that life came about by a series of random blind "totally by chance" processes, represents nothing but a hypocritical mythology having no foundation in evidence.  Embracing such mythology is just embracing a blind faith religion without foundation in evidence.

Apparently, certain responders here think it is perfectly okay when an atheistic scientist totally contradicts himself, but woe unto anyone who suggests the obvious, that the universe is a result of deliberate conception, design and creation.

Where is your evidence that motion can arise from no motion, energy from no energy, light from no light, life from no life, intelligence from no intelligence?  Where is your evidence that mathematics can randomly magically exist unto itself, along with the rest of the grand design universal reality?

I'd love to see Tyson and Richard Dawkins go up against Isaac Newton in a debate, who very strongly believed in God and, try to convince Newton that a re-action can occur without any Primary Action.  Socrates would have a field day with such obvious self-contradictory nonsense. 

Even if a re-action could possibly occur without any Primary Action (which contradicts the basic laws of physics and all of the known scientific evidence), it sure as hell cannot be scientifically tested and verified.  In order to do that, one would have to crawl outside of the universe and travel back in time prior to the big bang.  There is no evidence that the big bang magically went boom and, that the entire universe magically came into existence, filled with magically existing beings engaging in magically existing advanced mathematics, all just magically appearing out of nowhere from nothing.  This is the bottom-line of all agnostic and atheistic nonsense.  Atheism is just a blind faith religion, having no foundation in evidence.