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 53 of 53)
781. According to several sources all over the internet now, the Anti-Defamation League issued the following statement condemning the film's use of the Holocaust:
"The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed misappropriates the Holocaust and its imagery as a part of its political effort to discredit the scientific community which rejects so-called intelligent design theory. Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people and Darwin and evolutionary theory cannot explain Hitler's genocidal madness. Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry. Anti-Defamation League."
- "Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust", Anti-Defamation League, April 29, 2008.
After watching the film, one Jewish viewer wrote an angry letter to interviewee Michael Shermer, which Shermer forwarded to fellow interviewee Richard Dawkins. This prompted Dawkins to write "Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda"
Here some excerpts from Dawkin's letter, which echo what many others and myself have posted in defense of the truth, for Dinesh D'Souza is once again defending the big lie with bigger lies of his own.
"Hitler's horrible opinions were not all that unusual for his time, not just in Germany but throughout Europe, including my own country of Britain, by the way. What singled Hitler out was the fact that he somehow managed to come to power in one of Europe's leading nations, which was also one of the world's most technologically advanced nations. Hitler had a lot of support in Germany. His horrible bidding was done by millions of ordinary German footsoldiers, and the great majority of them were Christians. Many were Lutheran, and many (like Hitler himself) were Roman Catholic. Very few were atheists, and whatever else Hitler was he most certainly was not an atheist. It is sometimes said that Hitler only pretended to be Catholic, in order to win the Church's support for his regime. In this he was very largely successful. So, whether or not Hitler was himself a true Catholic (as he often claimed) the Church bears a heavy responsibility for what happened. And Hitler himself used religion to justify his anti-Semitism. For example, here is a typical quotation, from the end of Chapter 2 of Mein Kampf.
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.
Hitler's obscene anti-Semitism was able to hold sway in Germany because there was a deeply embedded history of anti-Semitism in Germany, and indeed in Europe generally.
3. Going further back in history, where do we think the toxic anti-Semitism of Hitler, and of the many Germans whose support gave him power, came from? You can't seriously think it came from Darwin. Anti-Semitism has been rife in Europe for many many centuries, positively encouraged by most Christian churches, including especially the two that dominate Germany. The Roman Catholic Church has notoriously persecuted Jews as "Christ-killers". While, as for the Lutherans, Martin Luther himself wrote a book called On the Jews and their Lies from which Hitler quoted. And Luther publicly said that "All Jews should be driven from Germany." By the way, do you hear an echo of those words in your own letter to Michael Shermer, "We Jews will fight to keep people like you out of the United States." Don't you feel just a twinge of shame at those truly horrible words of yours? Don't you feel that, as a Jew, you should feel especially regretful that you used those words?
4. Now, to the matter of Darwin. The first thing to say is that natural selection is a scientific theory about the way evolution works in fact. It is either true or it is not, and whether or not we like it politically or morally is irrelevant. Scientific theories are not prescriptions for how we should behave. I have many times written (for example in the first chapter of A Devil's Chaplain) that I am a passionate Darwinian when it comes to the science of how life has actually evolved, but a passionate ANTI-Darwinian when it comes to the politics of how humans ought to behave. I have several times said that a society based on Darwinian principles would be a very unpleasant society in which to live. I have several times said, starting at the beginning of my very first book, The Selfish Gene, that we should learn to understand natural selection, so that we can oppose any tendency to apply it to human politics. Darwin himself said the same thing, in various different ways. So did his great friend and champion Thomas Henry Huxley.
5. Darwinism gives NO support to racism of any kind. Quite the contrary. It is emphatically NOT about natural selection between races. It is about natural selection between individuals. It is true that the subtitle of The Origin of Species is "Or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life" but Darwin was using the word "race" in a very different sense from ours. It is totaly clear, if you read past the title to the book itself, that a "favoured race" meant something like 'that set of individuals who possess a certain favoured genetic mutation" (although Darwin would not have used that language because he did not have our modern concept of a genetic mutation).
6. There is no mention of Darwin in Mein Kampf. Not one single, solitary mention, not one mention in any of the 27 chapters of this long and tedious book. Don't you think that, if Hitler was truly influenced by Darwin, he would have given him at least one teeny weeny mention in his book? Was he, perhaps, INDIRECTLY influenced by some of Darwin's ideas, without knowing it? Only if you completely misunderstand Darwin's ideas, as some have definitely done: the so-called Social Darwinists such as Herbert Spencer and John D Rockefeller. Hitler could fairly be described as a Social Darwinist, but all modern evolutionists, almost literally without exception, have been vocal in their condemnation of Social Darwinism. This of course includes Michael Shermer and me and PZ Myers and all the other evolutionary scientists whom Ben Stein and his team tricked into taking part in his film by lying to us about their true intentions.
7. Hitler did attempt eugenic breeding of humans, and this is sometimes misrepresented as an attempt to apply Darwinian principles to humans. But this interpretation gets it historically backwards, as PZ Myers has pointed out. Darwin's great achievement was to look at the familiar practice of domestic livestock breeding by artificial selection, and realise that the same principle might apply in NATURE, thereby explaining the evolution of the whole of life: "natural selection", the "survival of the fittest". Hitler didn't apply NATURAL selection to humans. He was probably even more ignorant of natural selection than Ben Stein evidiently is. Hitler tried to apply ARTIFICIAL selection to humans, and there is nothing specifically Darwinian about artificial selection. It has been familiar to farmers, gardeners, horse trainers, dog breeders, pigeon fanciers and many others for centuries, even millennia. Everybody knew about artificial selection, and Hitler was no exception. What was unique about Darwin was his idea of NATURAL selection; and Hitler's eugenic policies had nothing to do with natural selection.
8. Mr J, you have been cruelly duped by Ben Stein and his unscrupulous colleagues. It is a wicked, evil thing they have done to you, and potentially to many others. I do not know whether they knowingly and wantonly perpetrated the falsehood that fooled you. Perhaps they genuinely and sincerely believed it, although other actions by them, which you can read about all over the Internet, persuade me that they are fully capable of deliberate and calculated deception. You are perhaps not to be blamed for swallowing the film's falsehoods, because you probably assumed that nobody would have the gall to make a whole film like that without checking their facts first. Perhaps even you will need a little more convincing that they were wrong, in which case I urge you to read it up and study the matter in detail -- something that Ben Stein and his crew manifestly and lamentably failed to do.
With my good wishes, and sympathy for the losses your family suffered in the Holocaust.
Yours sincerely
Richard Dawkins"
Chris Aable at 9:10AM on May 23rd 2008
782. Mr. D'Souza gives away his ignorance in matters of science AND etymology by equating evolution with the origins of life. Evolution only considers the gradual course that life takes, from the primitive to the astoundingly complex. Is it really that hard to comprehend?
As for the other assorted gibberish littered through this article, I can only recommend that you buy a couple of pop-sci books and bring your scientific know-how upto scratch. Urey-Miller demonstrated as far back as 1954 that amino acids can be produced from basic elements which existed at the time of Earth's formation, in the presence of electricity. Eigen proposed self-replicating RNA, the deep vent theory proposes formation of complex molecules in hydrothermal vents in the presence of redox reactions, biochemical reactions on mineral surfaces; the list is densely populated and what's more, EACH of those theories is VASTLY more plausible and quantifiable than ID or creation-based lies. Your intellectual dishonesty, in the face of all that makes humanity great by way of striving to discover his true place in the cosmos, is appalling.
Devdutt at 4:36PM on Oct 16th 2008
783. from reading these threads, I think it would be useful for all parties to re-think the debate in terms of 1) properties of organic chemicals and their behaviors and origins 2) the idea of emergence in both living systems and other complex systems and finally, 3) the idea that the big bang, as the ultimate state of potential energy (entropy state)supports the idea that the formation of organic molecules, the tendency of lipids to form spheres, and experiments for over a century showing how proteins (the building blocks of life) can (will) self-assemble in containers of non-living, simple organic compounds under certain pH and temperature ranges illustrates that not only is the formation of life on earth as an evolutionary process not at all a violation of thermodynamics (the 'downhill effect" from the inertia of the big bang which is in fact- still in effect)and thus a logical or rational anomaly, but further, as we see around us the emergence of "technologies" from mamal humans who once lived in caves, the phenomenological emergence on the macro level of solid matter which is composed of atoms composed largely of space- that is- properties observed by our bodies which at present are entirely unpredictable from their constituent molecules- makes the idea of a living, autonomous system as dependent upon a certain complexity and cooperation between macromolecules in an enclosed system described as yet another instance of this emergence, the intuitive and logical aspects of this idea begin to take more of a plausible feel . I would still allow that the ultimate chicken-egg problem is still not fully satisfied by this perspective in its essence- however- it could it not be argued that this problem, as we learn more about the properties of elements which naturally formed in our nearest star from fusion and the nature of these elements to combine in certain combination, with the understanding that far from unrealistic, magical, or surreal in that the energy of these particles are carrying, it could be said- nothing more than a translated form of the continued outgrowth of potential energy (required to create things of a less organized state into a higher organized state- if "organized" is the word in question that accurately describes the supposed "improbable" hurdle on the chemical pathways that form from random interactions of positively and negatively charged metals and non-metals) that exploded from the big bang event, rather replaces terms of, or articulation of the question of origins from eggs and chickens to the very question of how the conditions of the big bang itself came about?
Far from resolving the question, the big bang scenario complicates matter even further- at such a moment before the explosion, all of our scientific laws do not apply- including the classic newtonian idea of a cause always preceding an effect in amongst physical bodies, to the very notions of space and time itself. Indeed, both space and time unfolded, along with the nature of all of the dimensions of our universe, the relative strengths of the four forces of physics- that the question becomes as puzzling as the data that arises from our experiments. Perhaps I have done nothing but complicate matters. But Perhaps, by taking a question of causation of origins and placing back to a primordial beginning before "causation" has yet no meaning, we may eliminate the problem- but perhaps again the problem (not perhaps, I am sure of it) can be restated to reflect the same sense of mystery that reflects the particular questions that are appropriate to the moment before the big band took place (theoretically- I posit- rather naively, that such a concept is possible- there was no "time" until the big bang exploded- and thus before should be taken as a rather clumsy hypothetical word to stand in for the framework by which we formulate theological questions about the big bang). I see, at the moment, but certainly not with any permanent certainty- two possible observations that could be made at this point: if we reformulate the question of the chicken/egg or the question of how we can articulate the logic of divine intervention in light of what physicists are in agreement upon, namely, the big bang origin (Stephen Hawking proved, without a doubt, that time in our universe had a definite beginning) would we not have, then, a theology that must use the language of science to refine its objections? and further, if two opposing thought systems caught in a dispute- one system incorporates the language of the other- is this not an implicit sign of the beginnings of defeat? The second question that comes to mind - is- is it necessary to specify when and how exactly a supernatural, omnipotent and all-knowing god intervened in our universe to make it come about- as if- conceiving this abstract (in terms of our capacity to understand by mechanistic explanation) deity- devoid of and superior to, our conception of the universe and its laws that we are somehow still bound in conceiving the specific methods of creation in terms we can understand? Is A god as engineer who built the universe using beakers and hot plates, chemical solvents, a notebook, radically different from the utterance of statements composed of "let their be x" or further- is any conceivable relationship between spirit and matter constrained by our langauge, our human minds, the way in which a seminal religious text is written? Perhaps the question was inappropriately posed from the start- and either a better question needs to be formulated, or the question, as such, is inconceivable by its very nature. . . .
ben at 1:09AM on Feb 19th 2009
784. With regards to the origins of life, first we had God or gods, then with Darwin we had evolution,now we have a third way which allows all parties opinions to be partly correct, including the atheists, intelligent design by advanced science.The theory of evolution is evidence of progression of design, understandably presumed in the 19th Century to be the work of nature.Now with the work of Craig Ventner, we can consider progression of design by our scientists.If we cn do it why should their not be much more advanced scientists in other solar systems.In addition we can understand what is behind the real agenda of the appearances of the so called ufos especially since 1945 when it was a case of ' oh my god, the kids have found the matches!
Michael at 8:05AM on Apr 21st 2009
785. Micheal, it appears you completely ignored the wised and learned words of Devdutt (and Linda, Terry Madison, Chris Aable, Steve, John Ford, etc. :
"Mr. D'Souza gives away his ignorance in matters of science AND etymology by equating evolution with the origins of life. Evolution only considers the gradual course that life takes, from the primitive to the astoundingly complex. Is it really that hard to comprehend?
As for the other assorted gibberish littered through this article, I can only recommend that you buy a couple of pop-sci books and bring your scientific know-how upto scratch. Urey-Miller demonstrated as far back as 1954 that amino acids can be produced from basic elements which existed at the time of Earth's formation, in the presence of electricity. Eigen proposed self-replicating RNA, the deep vent theory proposes formation of complex molecules in hydrothermal vents in the presence of redox reactions, biochemical reactions on mineral surfaces; the list is densely populated and what's more, EACH of those theories is VASTLY more plausible and quantifiable than ID or creation-based lies. Your intellectual dishonesty, in the face of all that makes humanity great by way of striving to discover his true place in the cosmos, is appalling."
Jay90211 at 6:27PM on May 18th 2009
786. You don't understand Dawkins arguments. Ben Stein's documentary was shameful because it was manipulative in its redaction. Please read Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene." If you already have read it, please do so again.
If you follow his line of argument closely you can't help but appreciate his enthusiasm for "the inclined plane" of evolution, for its beauty as a universally applicable explanatory principle.
It's the faulty logic that is pernicious in Dawkins' eyes. God is harmful to the degree in which the invocation of His name inhibits the search for natural causes. And, yes, ultimately there is always a natural cause/explanation, even for the forming of cells. Of course, finding these answers often just leads to more questions. Such is life.
Timothy Tiberius at 1:48AM on May 25th 2009