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 2 of 53)
16. Pastorkid; it's currently believed that the modern chicken evolved from a hybrid of the red and grey jungle fowl.
So the egg would have come first.
Ryan Anderson at 2:09PM on Apr 18th 2008
17. Come on, everyone. It's pointless to debate this topic. Everything you ever needed to know is in this video, or in the one with the banana or that evolution peanut butter video. You can learn a lot from us Christians...and from FOOD.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk8BOvJVt9A
There is a transcendent creator.
Dinesh D at 2:13PM on Apr 18th 2008
18. Dinesh wrote: “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?”
I don’t know exactly which series of events resulted in the first self-replicating molecules forming on earth. But it is overwhelmingly probable that no intelligent being intervened and caused the first cell to be on earth. For one thing, no even remotely similar to that is know to have occurred. Second, the first self-replicators are very small. And there was water on early earth, which is important for life.
Wes at 2:14PM on Apr 18th 2008
19. "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"
Far from being a weakness in Dawkins' position this illustrates the strength of genuine science. Evolution provides the most plausible narrative to account for the variety of species on earth. The fact that it cannot account for the origins of life is irrelevant. I have not seen the film D'Souza refers to but I am certain he is lying when claims that, in the film, Dawkins 'goes on about evolution explaining everything' All Dawkins, and other scientists, have claimed is that evolution is the only explanation for speciation.
timwatts at 2:49PM on Apr 18th 2008
20. Dinesh wrote: "It is ridiculously implausible to think so."
It is nearly certain that the first cell formed without the aid of any intelligent. Please see my previous post. What no one knows today is exactly which series of events resulted in the first cell forming on earth.
Wes at 2:16PM on Apr 18th 2008
21. Here is are links to recent work that has been done to try to determine exactly which series of events resulted in the first cell being on earth:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/217054.stm
http://www.scripps.edu/news/press/100704.html
Wes at 2:19PM on Apr 18th 2008
22. That is why the theory is called evolution and not origin.
evolution: a concept that embodies the belief that existing animals and plants developed by a process of gradual, continuous change from previously existing forms.
origin: the first stage of existence; beginning
Why does Dinesh think it's great that Mr. Dawkins doesn't know the origin of life? No one knows the origin of life on this planet.
What is your point, Dinesh?
I don't think Dawkins ever said he knows everything there is about the origin of life. He just doesn't agree with the bible's genesis story. And why should he, why should any of us?
Because it's fact? Maybe it's just a theory?
A 2000 year old theory at that.
An uneducated guess at best.
At worst - smoke blown up your ass.
TJ at 2:19PM on Apr 18th 2008
23. Here is a section from Ernst Mayr's What Evolution Is that touches on the issue of the first self-replicator(s) on earth. Mayr was one of the great biologists to ever live. He died recently.
"Astronomical and geophysical evidence indicate that the Earth originated about 4.6 billion years ago. At first the young Earth was not suitable for life, owing to the heat and exposure to radiation. Astronomers estimate that it became liveable about 3.8 billion years ago, and life apparently originated about that time, but we do not know what the first life looked like. Undoubtedly, it consisted of aggregates of macromolecules able to derive substance and energy from surrounding inanimate molecules and from the sun’s energy. Life may well have originated repeatedly at this early stage, but we know nothing about this. If there have been several origins of life, the other forms have since become extinct. Life as it now exists on Earth, including the simplest bacteria, was obviously derived from a single origin. This is indicated by the genetic code, which is the same for all organisms, including the simplest ones, as well as by many aspects of cells, including microbial cells. The earliest fossil life was found in strata about 3.5 billion years old. These earliest fossils are bacterialike, indeed they are remarkably similar to some blue-green bacteria and other bacteria that are still living" (p. 40).
Wes at 2:23PM on Apr 18th 2008
24. Here is more from Ernst Mayr:
"...The first serious theories on the origin of life were proposed in the 1920s (Oparin, Haldane). In the last 75 years, an extensive literature dealing with this problem has developed and some six or seven competing theories for the origin of life have been proposed. Although no fully satisfactory theory has yet emerged, the problem no longer seems as formidable as at the beginning of the twentieth century. One is justified to claim that there are now a number of feasible scenarios of how life could have originated from inanimate matter. To understand these various theories requires a good deal of technical knowledge of biochemistry. To avoid burdening this volume with such detail, I refer the read to the special literature dealing with the origin of life (Schopf 1999; Brack 1999; Oparin 1938; Zubbay 2000).
"The first pioneers of life on Earth had to solve two major (and some minor) problems: (1) how to acquire energy and (2) how to replicate. The Earth’s atmosphere at the time was essentially devoid of oxygen. But there was abundant energy from the sun and in the ocean from sulfides. Thus growth and acquisition of energy were apparently no major problem. It has often been suggested that rocky surfaces were coated with metabolizing films that could grow but not replicate. The invention of replication was more difficult. DNA is now (except in some viruses) known as the molecule that is indispensable in replication. But how could it ever have been coopted for this function? There is no good theory for this. However, RNA has enzymatic capacities and could have been selected for this property, with its role in replication being secondary. It is now believed that there may have been an RNA world before the DNA world. There was apparently already protein synthesis in this RNA world, but it lacked the efficiency of the DNA protein synthesis.
"In spite of all the theoretical advances that have been made toward solving the problem of the origin of life, the cold fact remains that no one has so far succeeded in creating life in a laboratory. This would require not only an anoxic atmosphere, but presumably also other somewhat unusual conditions (temperature, chemistry of the medium) that no one has yet been able to replicate. It had to be a liquid (aqueous) medium that was perhaps similar to the hot water of the volcanic vents at the ocean floor. Many more years of experimentation will likely pass before a laboratory succeeds in actually producing life. However, the production of life cannot be too difficult, because it happened on Earth apparently as soon as conditions became suitable for life, around 3.8 billion years ago. Unfortunately we have no fossils from the 300 million years between 3.8 and 3.5 billion years ago. The earliest known fossiliferous rocks are 3.5 billion years old and already contain a remarkably rich biota of bacteria" (What Evolution Is, p. 42-43).
Wes at 2:25PM on Apr 18th 2008
25. Here, once again, the spiritually retarded are trying to weigh and measure God. Folks, deal with it, there are things so far beyond the scope of our primitive scientists and theologians that will very likely NEVER be quantified. If you are truly seeking God, look inward, then outward. Once you have envisioned as far as your limited imaginations can take you, you will then perhaps only be approaching the doorstep of the wonder of it all.
Robert at 2:29PM on Apr 18th 2008
26. From the last blog:
723. Thanks for the Scientific American link, Moke. Lots of info there.
I'm debating on whether or not to see the movie
1. A waste of my hard earned money.
2. Aggravation at not being able to respond to the nonsense.
3. Afraid my laughter will offend or bother other moviegoers.
1. I feel I should see it if I expect to critique it.
2. A good laugh is always healthy
3. It is appropriate to see what the ID people use as arguments.
Linda at 2:30PM on Apr 18th 2008
27. You are wrong on several counts here. First, Dawkins discusses in "The Blind Watchmaker" how molecular evolution could have led to self-replicating organic compounds.
Which brings up another point: You are wrong to say that "[i]n order for evolution to take place, there had to be a living cell." Replicators, not cells, are the smallest units of evolution. Take viruses. They are not cells, nor are they made up of cells, and they're not "living" in several senses of the word, but no one disputes that they evolve.
Your lack of expertise shows here.
JeffBercovici at 2:34PM on Apr 18th 2008
28. "Folks, deal with it, there are things so far beyond the scope of our primitive scientists and theologians that will very likely NEVER be quantified."
======================================================
That is really hilarious. Robert says that SCIENTISTS are PRIMITIVE. Theologians, definitely.
It will never be quantified because it doesn't exist.
Linda at 2:35PM on Apr 18th 2008
29. Maybe I'm missing something here, help me out IDers.
If, you say, evolution lacks evidence and therefor is not true, how does this validate your beliefs?
Because x is wrong does not make y true, because y is false does not make n true.....
mac at 2:40PM on Apr 18th 2008
30. If God created life, why did he start with very simple things like cells, and then progress on to humans? He could have just started with humans!
Or, I could just ask, why does nature look exactly the way you'd expect it to look if it were undirected?
AndrewV at 2:40PM on Apr 18th 2008