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 6 of 53)
76. 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
77. gotcha, so he spends his time there, no?
TJ at 3:31PM on Apr 18th 2008
78. "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."
Godless, I'm not programmed in any way, nor am I dogmatic. I thought you'd known this by now.
"Your baby just died when you were praying hard for him for months? God works in mysterious ways..."
I would never answer that circumstance in that way. I believe we all have a purpose in this life, and so does that baby that died.
"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."
I make up nothing, and I have choices.
Botts at 3:32PM on Apr 18th 2008
79. 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.
---------------------------
Yes, I've gone beyond where you are now. Oh, I see by your next post that you say the same for me. I can deal with that. Peace.
Hey, I sees it too, remember? Your explanation for it is god. Mine takes three pages to describe. In these complex matters, the simple answer is often the wrong one. You have your experiences and I have mine, but yours cannot tell me why I had mine in the way that I did, leading me away from a diety. Mine on the other hand DO explain why you had yours in the way that you did, leading toward a god. It's what you wished it to lead to. I was just observing without any such wishes. Just trying to come up with an explanation, the most global explanation, since in this difficult matter the most global explanation is likely the correct one.
Godless Heathen Brian at 3:34PM on Apr 18th 2008
80. 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.
I think your confusing a discussion that goes round in circles pointlessly with circular reasoning where the conclusion is assumed in the premise of an argument. A good example of this would be the teleological argument for God's existence since this assumes that only God could have created life and then uses the existence of life to 'prove' God's existence.
Tim at 3:40PM on Apr 18th 2008
81. Botts, whats up? I'm doing great. Today is such a beautiful day here, its kind of hard not to be doing great. How've you been?
Glad to see your not gonna pull your punches today.
"What do you mean by "God"? How do you define God? What is your vision of something you don't believe in?"
The God I'm speaking of is, very generally, the God that Christians are talking about. I'm not defining him, I'm using the definition I hear from everyone else.
"God can't be explained." If this is the case, then you cannot list any attributes about his nature. For example, you can't say he's unexplainable, and then say he is good, or loving, because those attributes EXPLAIN something about him.
If you mean it in a deeper sense that God's NATURE cannot be explained, that we can't comprehend what kind of being he is; this I would agree with. He's supposed to be "super"natural, ie outside of nature. If he exists outside of nature, and we can only sense the natural, then it would be to us as if he did not exist. He needs to interfere in the natural to make his presence known.
I just don't think that if there is something immensely powerful that exists outside of the natural world, that his primary way of communicating with us would be ancient documents, private revelations, and the occasional coincidence.
AndrewV at 3:36PM on Apr 18th 2008
82. http://professorxneedstomasturbatepubliclysohereheisagain.com
brandon at 3:36PM on Apr 18th 2008
83. "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"
==========================================================
So you are saying that your brain isn't good enough for you.
There isn't anything to understand about "god". It simply doesn't exist. You're the one who says it does. Why would I try to understand something that doesn't exist?
Linda at 3:38PM on Apr 18th 2008
84. What if?
What if god did exist?
What if the thing that created life bares no resemblance to the god(s) that we know, none of them.
What if??
mac at 3:40PM on Apr 18th 2008
85. I make up nothing, and I have choices.
Botts at 3:32PM on Apr 18th 2008
-----------------------------------
Botts, I know you're a Christian. But I wasn't talking to you. You're different. I don't think you have a psychosis at all. Sorry, dude. I was talking to the hypochrists.
Godless Heathen Brian at 3:41PM on Apr 18th 2008
86. "Hey, I sees it too, remember? Your explanation for it is god. Mine takes three pages to describe. In these complex matters, the simple answer is often the wrong one. "
Mine would take 100's of pages to explain which is why I'd prefer to do it in person. The answer isn't simple, but yet the answer ends up as God......to me.
"You have your experiences and I have mine, but yours cannot tell me why I had mine in the way that I did, leading me away from a diety."
I think some of the experiences we've shared together clearly explains why you feel there is no God. If I experienced some of the same things, I would conclude there is no God as well.
"Mine on the other hand DO explain why you had yours in the way that you did, leading toward a god. It's what you wished it to lead to."
When I sit down with you and explain everything, I am certain that you will not be able to tell me why.
"Just trying to come up with an explanation, the most global explanation, since in this difficult matter the most global explanation is likely the correct one. "
I didn't need to come up with an explanation. It was already shown to me.
You fail to remember, that I was an Atheist. Raised that way for 24 years. I was moral and extremely happy. No sadness, nothing. I didn't need an explanation. And to this day, I still feel that if this is the only life we have, so be it. I'm not afraid of dying, and I could care less if there is an after life or not.
Botts at 3:40PM on Apr 18th 2008
87. "Design" is the consequence of an a-priori configuration, or "Intelligence" so to speak. When you reduce the makeup of the universe to its cause, and discard everything else that follows as consequence will we find a beautifully simple truth, or maybe a 600000 character sequence correlating to the Torah? I'm not implying the latter to be ridiculous (That's DD's MO to call the improbable idiotically absurd).
Mokele Mbembe at 3:43PM on Apr 18th 2008
88. I think some of the experiences we've shared together clearly explains why you feel there is no God. If I experienced some of the same things, I would conclude there is no God as well.
----------------------------
When you are so open, you almost make me want to convert.
Nah.
But you come closer than anyone, dude.
Hey, we should meet someday. It'd be cool. But don't forget that like yourself, my story is much more compelling in person as well.
And I used to be an agnostic, more atheist than anything, just open to anything, as I felt that to claim that there definitely is no god, is as stupid as insisting that there is one.
And when I say "god" it's not yaweh or jesus. No way. To them, I'm a complete ATHEIST, hence my chosen name on here.
If there's anything, it's not like we think of any god at all. That's my bet.
Godless Heathen Brian at 3:46PM on Apr 18th 2008
89. (Sigh!!!)
Robert at 3:45PM on Apr 18th 2008
90. -or is it 304805 characters?
Mokele Mbembe at 3:46PM on Apr 18th 2008