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 5 of 53)
61. "Linda,As I stated previously, I could go on and on about 'showing you the money', as you say. but I won't clog up this blog with my personal experience"
That's a neat way to avoid providing examples of those things that "defy empirical explanation"
Tim at 3:15PM on Apr 18th 2008
62. "If you admit that you're not intelligent enough to understand god, you're also saying that you're not intelligent enough to know if He's real or not. Admitting that, how can you continue to spout?" Godless
This is false and you know it.
By saying that we cannot explain God, I'm saying that we do not know His intentions. We do not know why? We do not know how?
What's your definition of God? What's your definition of something you don't believe in? Because I do not know the God you speak of. The God you speak of is in your mind. You are imagining that God.
Botts at 3:16PM on Apr 18th 2008
63. The wonderrrr of it all
Take a chance, make it happen...
Foxwoods!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (ta da!)
Godless Heathen Brian at 3:17PM on Apr 18th 2008
64. "Because if you can't understand god, he might be satan, faking you out, no?"
I've answered this.
"Or he might be nonexistent. How would you know? You'd make him up anyway."
My experiences and my life gave me my answers. That's all I need to know. That's all I can go off of. No influences, no guilt or shame. I did it on my own. And you can't tell me I'm wrong, because you aren't me. You haven't lived my life or shared my experiences.
That's why they call this a circular debate.
We can talk all day long about hypochrists and all the wrongs religion has done. And you wouldn't get one disagreement from me. But none of that has anything to do with God being real or not.
Botts at 3:20PM on Apr 18th 2008
65. "God can't be explained. We're simply not intelligent enough to understand God. But whatever he did, we still can't explain it"
Isn't this another example of the "God of the gaps" argument? Any gaps in scientific knowledge is attributed to God. As another poster observed, the goalposts keep being moved as science explains more and more. Why should we not be intelligent enough to understand God anyway? Weren't we made in his image after all?
Tim at 3:20PM on Apr 18th 2008
66. By saying that we cannot explain God, I'm saying that we do not know His intentions. We do not know why? We do not know how?
-------------------------------
But you can know he exists? How? Feelings. Not facts. Sorry botts. No man can know He exists, as it COULD be a psychosis that you're feeling there...
And I was referring to his version of god, not yours. Yours makes more sense. And isn't dogmatic. I still disagree with it, but since you don't hate me for it, it's cool.
Godless Heathen Brian at 3:22PM on Apr 18th 2008
67. So, after reading the #3 link I can't really say that it made an overwhelming case against Ben Stein. It did raise some good flaws to his agenda, but not necessarily disagreeing with everything he said, but how he said it, and went about saying it. I think if that's the best they can come up with to counter, then that's a flaw in itself. I read I think it was #6, which presented an agenda for atheism I thought. "Although most scientist are atheists, not all of them are." I read this as, most smart people are atheists, but not all of them are, which seems to be the majority of the posts I've read on here in recent months. Then there was the comment about empirical validity, which makes since. The belief that because we don't know what caused it does not mean we should associate it with God. So, find out what caused it is my assertion. Science can't, and hasn't. You do that, and God is dead. My lack of understanding is why I'm faithful, so for me, an atheist acts like he/she has a better understanding, but in actuality they don't. That's my stereotype of atheism. I guess I should just view it as a need for empirical validity. I haven't seen the movie yet, so I'll post again later tonight.
MrWiteKES at 3:23PM on Apr 18th 2008
68. The other problem is that Dawkins *doesn't* believe that ET was the origin of Earthly life. The interview is misleadingly edited, and Dawkins was answering the question of what kind of "intelligent design" might be plausible - *not* what he actually believes happened. See here:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins
Ray Ingles at 3:26PM on Apr 18th 2008
69. What's your definition of God? What's your definition of something you don't believe in? Because I do not know the God you speak of. The God you speak of is in your mind. You are imagining that God.
What is yout point exactly? You just seem to be posing pointless questions and making fatuous, obvious observations. "The God you speak of is in your mind" Well of course it is. And?
timwatts at 3:26PM on Apr 18th 2008
70. "But you can know he exists? How? Feelings. Not facts. Sorry botts. No man can know He exists, as it COULD be a psychosis that you're feeling there..."
Experiences. Natural Law. I can't speak for anyone but myself, and it's not a psychosis. I'm quite sane and reasonable. Your experiences tell you no. Mine tell me yes. We've gone over this many times before, but I feel that you're a stage behind me Godless. Your next stage is where I'm at right now. You'll understand it soon enough.
"And I was referring to his version of god, not yours. Yours makes more sense. And isn't dogmatic. I still disagree with it, but since you don't hate me for it, it's cool."
As a matter of fact, I love you as a fellow brother of this Universe. And will continue to do so until I can't breath anymore. You're much respected by me.
When we meet in person, it wil be a whole other animal. I'll go over these experiences with you, as you will do the same. On a blog, we are limited.
Botts at 3:26PM on Apr 18th 2008
71. LIFE
On a Tiny Blue Marble
Third Rock From The Sun
Four Billion Years Passed
Before Life Had Begun
Organic Molecules Danced
Through The Solar Breeze
DNA Combined To Form
A Simple Cell
And On A Simple Rock
Abundant Life Now Dwells
Where Do Doves Go To Cry
Where Do We Go When We Die
We Can Close Our Eyes And Try To Hide
From The Pain We Feel Deep Inside
As We Wander We Must Also Wonder
There Is Sunshine After The Thunder
Ever Watch A Sunset On The Ocean
Through A Gentle Mist
Enchanting Colors
As Earth And Sun Briefly Touch
Then Kiss
Look Close And You Can See
The Green Mist
Listen Close And You Can Hear
The Hissss
LIVE LAUGH AND LOVE
Take A Lesson From The Dove
Dwell Not On What Has Passed Away
Or What Is Yet To Be
The Present Is Our Eternity
Chandler Yergin at 3:27PM on Apr 18th 2008
72. "God can't be explained. We're simply not intelligent enough to understand God. But whatever he did, we still can't explain it"
----------------------------
This is the part of the christian programming that deals with all the people that God let's die or kills himself. Which is all the people.
Your baby just died when you were praying hard for him for months? God works in mysterious ways...
Bullshit. I can explain it fine with the simplest explanation. There is no god. You can't, because you just aren't allowed to even think that, so you MUST make up bullshit, you have no choice.
Godless Heathen Brian at 3:28PM on Apr 18th 2008
73. " I can only encourage you to explore beyond what your apparently self-limited senses have shown you"
=====================================================
I explore plenty, Robert. I am continuously reading, traveling, taking classes, etc. Knowledge is freedom to me. It helps me to understand my world.
I was never indoctrinated in religion. I attended a church for a while, with a friend. Yet I never believed in a supernatural being (not since Santa at age 4)
I admit it, I'm a pragmatist and a skeptic. To me, that's a healthy world view.
Linda at 3:29PM on Apr 18th 2008
74. "What is yout point exactly? You just seem to be posing pointless questions and making fatuous, obvious observations. "The God you speak of is in your mind" Well of course it is. And?"
What exactly is your point? If you knew me as most of the others do here, you wouldn't say what you say. But trust me it's cool.
What may be pointless to you, isn't pointless to me. If you don't like them, don't answer them and ignore them. Other than that, please have a great day.
Botts at 3:30PM on Apr 18th 2008
75. ID isn't that crazy if you let go of naive anthropomorphic conceptions of what "design" is. There do exist protons, neutrons, and electrons - and in a Feynman diagram you can break them down into even smaller components. We live, we think, we experience. Can matter alone explain not only consciousness, but the potential for it to even exist in the universe? Yes these things do exist, but WHY? Of all ways the universe could have been structured, why do we have all these kinds of fundamental particles and particle interactions? Then ask the why to that why. What is the origin in terms of "information" In the beginning was there some declaration "These are the laws of the universe..." that was imprinted onto all existence? Where did this seemingly arbitrary foundation come from? This irreducible arbitrary foundation in a sense could be called "intelligence". When you think of cause and consequence and you want to understand the ultimate cause, remove everything that is merely the consequence of an a-priori truth. Creatures are made of cells are made of molecules are made of atoms are made of yadda yadda yadda. When you get to the irreducible end (if there is one) would we find an incredibly simple pattern at the heart of all things, or something that looks arbitrary or "intelligently designed"? One way or the other, this is my definition of God.
Mokele Mbembe at 3:30PM on Apr 18th 2008