In Ben Stein's new film "Expelled," there is a great scene where Richard Dawkins is going on about how evolution explains everything. This is part of Dawkins' grand claim, which echoes through several of his books, that evolution by itself has refuted the argument from design. The argument from design hold that the design of the universe and of life are most likely the product of an intelligent designer. Dawkins thinks that Darwin has disproven this argument.
So Stein puts to Dawkins a simple question, "How did life begin?" One would think that this is a question that could be easily answered. Dawkins, however, frankly admits that he has no idea. One might expect Dawkins to invoke evolution as the all-purpose explanation. Evolution, however, only explains transitions from one life form to another. Evolution has no explanation for how life got started in the first place. Darwin was very clear about this.
In order for evolution to take place, there had to be a living cell. The difficulty for atheists is that even this original cell is a work of labrynthine complexity. Franklin Harold writes in The Way of the Cell that even the simplest cells are more ingeniously complicated than man's most elaborate inventions: the factory system or the computer. Moreover, Harold writes that the various components of the cell do not function like random widgets; rather, they work purposefully together, as if cooperating in a planned organized venture. Dawkins himself has described the cell as the kind of supercomputer, noting that it functions through an information system that resembles the software code.
Is it possible that living cells somehow assembled themselves from nonliving things by chance? The probabilities here are so infinitesimal that they approach zero. Moreover, the earth has been around for some 4.5 billion years and the first traces of life have already been found at some 3.5 billion years ago. This is just what we have discovered: it's quite possible that life existed on earth even earlier. What this means is that, within the scope of evolutionary time, life appeared on earth very quickly after the earth itself was formed. Is it reasonable to posit that a chance combination of atoms and molecules, under those conditions, somehow generated a living thing? Could the random collision of molecules somehow produce a computer?
It is ridiculously implausible to think so. And the absurdity was recognized more than a decade ago by Francis Crick, codiscoverer of the DNA double helix. Yet Crick is a committed atheist. Unwilling to consider the possibility of divine or supernatural creation, Crick suggested that maybe aliens brought life to earth from another planet. And this is precisely the suggestion that Richard Dawkins makes in his response to Ben Stein. Perhaps, he notes, life was delivered to our planet by highly-evolved aliens. Let's call this the "ET" explanation.
Stein brilliantly responds that he had no idea Richard Dawkins belives in intelligent design! And indeed Dawkins does seem to be saying that alien intelligence is responsible for life arriving on earth. What are we to make of this? Basically Dawkins is surrendering on the claim that evolution can account for the origins of life. It can't. The issue now is simply whether a natural intelligence (ET) or a supernatural intelligence (God) created life. Dawkins can't bear the supernatural explanation and so he opts for ET. But doesn't it take as much, or more, faith to believe in extraterrestrial biology majors depositing life on earth than it does to believe in a transcendent creator?
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 53)
1. Bueller...Bueller...Bueller
MrWiteKES at 1:15PM on Apr 18th 2008
2. This is the same "debate" I keep getting into with Biology Professors and Athiest friends. Evolution can only explain life after it came into existence, but now how it did come into existence in the first place. "Chicken or the egg" is a good example of this evolutionary paradox.
pastorkid at 1:25PM on Apr 18th 2008
3. This is the same "debate" I keep getting into with Biology Professors and Athiest friends. Evolution can only explain life after it came into existence, but now how it did come into existence in the first place. "Chicken or the egg" is a good example of this evolutionary paradox.
I hope you have more intelligent point to make when you debate with Professors and Athiests. Or rather I hope you actually have a point of any kind since the above has none.
timwatts at 2:09PM on Apr 18th 2008
4. Mokele, nice job anticipating today's blog!
708. I've been doing some Farking this morning. Here's another if you're interested in "Expelled"
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know&sc=rss
Mokele Mbembe at 12:55PM on Apr 18th 2008
Ryan Anderson at 1:36PM on Apr 18th 2008
5. So saying a giant invisible fairy in the sky created life by magic is consider an acceptable scientific answer DD?
I don't think so.
busterggi at 1:44PM on Apr 18th 2008
6. Dinesh:
You've done it again!!
"Is it possible that living cells somehow assembled themselves from nonliving things by chance? ....It is ridiculously implausible to think so."
It is no more plausible to therefore assume any other unsubstantiated hypothesis is true!!
Although Darwinian evolution does not explain (nor did Darwin claim so)the origin of life, it certainly does not support the idea of "intelligent design" either.
It may be thus far impossible to explain the beginnings of life on this Earth, but reliance on an equally unsubstantited belief in a Supreme Being as the origin makes no sense either. This particularly true if one further suggests that this alleged deity either 1) pays any further attention to his/her/its "creation" or
2) demands that he/she/it dmands worship or adherence to some set of principles lest unbelievers be punnished after they die.
Dinesh, your several recent postings seem to suggest that you have now accepted the known age of both the earth and the universe as being dramatically longer than the Biblical account suggests and that the fossil and DNA records clearly support the accuracy of the idea that evolution has taken place and that human kind has reached its present development within some kind of evolutionary process. Are you now reduced to arguing that there "must" be some kind of "creator" and that if this correct, we should all accept some form of Christianity to "hedge our bets" with regard to possible eternal consequences? If this is close to a correct interpretation of where you are in this debate, it would help some of us who are truly interested in an honest and open discussion of these issues.
Harvey at 1:49PM on Apr 18th 2008
7. Evolution was never meant to explain how life originated, just how it reached it's present state. You seem to have problem with abiogenesis. I am just as amazed as you are at the complexity of even a single cell, but in the scheme of things which one seems more plausible: that a single cell natually came about from inorganic material, or that an incredibly intelligent designer came about from nothing?
Cadon at 1:49PM on Apr 18th 2008
8. I like Ben Stein. Why did he have to go and do such a biased movie? (Anyone who wants to challenge me saying it is a biased movie can read the link provided in post #2.) Sigh. We're going to be dealing with this movie an the inevitable after effects of the malleable masses for months.
K at 1:49PM on Apr 18th 2008
9. Sorry, CORRECTION: the link in post #3
K at 1:50PM on Apr 18th 2008
10. If aliens delivered life to earth, how did the origins of alien life come about? Had to be God! :)
Ben Fraley at 2:34PM on Apr 18th 2008
11. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/movies/18expe.html?bl&ex=1208664000&en=a1e4ebc5ede504e4&ei=5087%0A
For those interested here's NY Times review of the "Expelled".
I especially like this bit:
Mixing physical apples and metaphysical oranges at every turn “Expelled” is an unprincipled propaganda piece that insults believers and nonbelievers alike. In its fudging, eliding and refusal to define terms, the movie proves that the only expulsion here is of reason itself.
Sounds a lot like Dinesh, no?
Igor at 1:55PM on Apr 18th 2008
12. If God exists, He is a living Person (or, perhaps, three living Persons). Therefore, Dinesh, how do you explain the existence of God?
emelpe at 1:55PM on Apr 18th 2008
13. "Could the random collision of molecules somehow produce a computer?" - DD
Really? Are you really asking this question? These types of questions have been shot down ad nauseum. Anyone who still uses this nonsense in a debate is leaving their IQ up for debate.
Sheesh.
K at 1:55PM on Apr 18th 2008
14. The Philosophy of Dinesh: the theory of evolution must be held to a high standard of scrutiny. When it turns out that, like any other scientific theory, it does not answer every single possible question, replace it with an ancient mythology and demand NO evidence to verify it. When people point out the irrationality of doing so, call them shrill and hateful. Ignore the internal contradictions of said mythology, and self-righteously condemn anyone who doesn't toe the line.
AndrewV at 1:55PM on Apr 18th 2008
15. AndrewV you are right on target with your assessment.
JefFlyingV at 2:01PM on Apr 18th 2008