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 7 of 53)
91. Prof X is back after his brief conversion to atheism yesterday. Beware, he's linked a Word Doc to his name. Its not "evolutionfacts" anymore. And don't get your hopes up, Prof, I didn't open your damn doc, you narrow-minded fool.
AndrewV at 3:48PM on Apr 18th 2008
92. -or is it 304805 characters?
It's 12 parsecs.
AndrewV at 3:49PM on Apr 18th 2008
93. When I sit down with you and explain everything, I am certain that you will not be able to tell me why.
-----------------------
And I am certain that I can. So, it's a tie.
:-)
Godless Heathen Brian at 3:55PM on Apr 18th 2008
94. I lettered in fellatio in college
PROFESSOR X at 4:02PM on Apr 18th 2008
95. I didn't know you could letter in that at Bob Jones U.
AndrewV at 4:03PM on Apr 18th 2008
96. Hey Andrew, I'm going good today, but quite stressed. Maybe that's why I'm not pulling punches..lol Lot of shit to do with not a lot of time to do it.
"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."
I figured as much, I just wanted you to say it.
"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."
Agreed
"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."
Agreed again.
"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."
I can undertand that. Your experiences so far haven't given you a clear determination. I respect that.
Botts at 4:04PM on Apr 18th 2008
97. Wes says, "Either an intelligent super being contribute to the existence of the known universe or it didn't. And it is overwhelmingly likely that no intelligent super being contribute to the existence of the known universe."
No, there are an infinite number of variations on your statement here. Creation stories that haven't been written.
How many gods? One, millions, billions?
Conjuring a 'designer' is not what science does.
You ask, "What do you mean by "philosophy?" And what do you mean by "science?""
Philosophy has arguments from pure reason and such.
Science 'at worst' has theories based on physical evidence.
e.g. The Big Bang may not have happened, but the theory is based on reproducible physical observations etc.
Religionists know as well as anyone else that physical observations are 'the best', hence the Bible.(anecdotes of people seeing/hearing/hearing from God all over the place)
But religionists know that there is no scientific evidence so they try to make out that reason alone can prove their 'supernatural'.
Saying that there must be an inorganic designer because science is finding 'design' in organic life is kind of like saying, "Maybe you're not sad/happy/whatever when it rains, maybe it rains because you're sad/happy/whatever!"
The necessity of a designer is a philosophical question because the word design 'seems to' imply 'designer'. That is just wordplay.
not-pboyfloyd at 4:04PM on Apr 18th 2008
98. Godless,
I know how you feel about the hypochrists. I understand that.
I look around and see:
People worshipping the Pope who is just a man and calling him father.
A documentary in Missouri teaching children that everyone is the enemy but people that are like. Brainwashing that seemingly can't be stopped.
No tolerance from fellow Christians.
Interpretations that weren't met to be interpreted.
I see the same things too.
Botts at 4:08PM on Apr 18th 2008
99. “No, there are an infinite number of variations on your statement here. Creation stories that haven't been written.”
I don’t see your point.
“How many gods? One, millions, billions?”
There are probably no Gods. Zero.
Wes at 4:09PM on Apr 18th 2008
100. “Conjuring a 'designer' is not what science does.”
I don't know what you mean by that. You are going to have to clearer. Or this is going to take too much time.
Wes at 4:11PM on Apr 18th 2008
101. Atheists! Let God save your filthy rotten undeserving hateful evil pagan satanic souls with his divine love, as he did me!
My pastor showed me the light when he inserted his finger.
PROFESSOR X at 4:14PM on Apr 18th 2008
102. I'm only happy when it rains...
Mokele Mbembe at 4:14PM on Apr 18th 2008
103. “You ask, "What do you mean by "philosophy?" And what do you mean by "science?""
Philosophy has arguments from pure reason and such.
Science 'at worst' has theories based on physical evidence.”
I’m not sure what things you are associating with philosophy. But “evidence” is hugely important to what I associate with what is taught in most philosophy departments at good universities. For example, one knows that no Gods exists depends partly on what I think you mean by “evidence.”
Wes at 4:14PM on Apr 18th 2008
104. "The necessity of a designer is a philosophical question because the word design 'seems to' imply 'designer'. That is just wordplay."
I don't know what you mean by "philosophical question."
But either an intelligent super-being contributed to the universe or it didn't. And it probably didn't.
Wes at 4:16PM on Apr 18th 2008
105. Well, now that prof x is here, I think I'll take a sanity break.
Godless Heathen Brian at 4:22PM on Apr 18th 2008