My last blog remarked on the fact that Richard Dawkins, one of the world's leading atheists, now believes in the possibility of "intelligent design." Dawkins is quite willing to grant that life may have originated on earth not by evolution nor by some chance combination of chemicals. He knows how infinitesimal are the odds of random chemicals simply mixing together to produce, say, the first cell. Even the simplest cell is more complicated than the most elaborate human inventions, such as the jet airplane or the most advanced computer. Consequently Dawkins told Ben Stein that maybe smart aliens deposited life on earth. I call this the ET explanation. Intelligent design is okay with Dawkins as long as that intelligent design does not involve a supernatural creator.
Some atheists on this blog are not happy with Dawkins' ET explanation. They want to go back to the early twentieth-century view that somehow the chemicals must have assembled together to produce the first cells. And the favorite piece of evidence is the 1953 experiment conducted by Harold Urey and Stanley Miller. Urey and Miller were operating on Darwin's hopeful assumption that perhaps life originated accidentally in some "warm little pond." They mixed together various chemical compounds, including hydrogen, ammonia, methane and water. To their delight they were able to generate organic compounds, including a small tincture of amino acids.
For a decade or so this generated enormous excitement in the scientific community. But then two things happened to take the wind out of the Urey-Miller balloon. First, scientists found that the early conditions on earth were nothing like the ones that Urey and Miller envisioned. For one, there was virtually no oxygen on the earth in its early stages. So even if chemicals somehow came together to produce organic compounds and amino acids, they could not have done so in anything like the way that Urey and Miller showed.
Second, biologists seeking to try and create life in the laboratory discovered that the really difficult thing is not producing amino acids. It is converting those amino acids into proteins. Here is where things get really complicated, and here is where chance really collapses as a reasonable explanation. For the details I direct you to Franklin Harold's scholarly yet accessible The Way of the Cell. Harold notes that as a consequence of the two developments listed above, the Urey-Miller experiments are now largely dismissed as a viable hypothesis of life's origin. And of course knowledgeable atheists like Dawkins and Francis Crick know this, which is why they have fled to the ET explanation--an explanation that would seem to require at least as much faith as believing in divine creation.
If you enjoy seeing atheist arguments exploded in this way--or even if you're an atheist with masochistic tendencies--you may want to attend one of my "God v. Atheism" debates this week. On Monday, April 21 I'll be debating philosopher Walter Sinnott-Armstrong at Dartmouth College. The debate is at 8 pm in Alumni Hall on the Dartmouth campus. On Tuesday, April 22 I'll be debating Dan Barker, head of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, at Harvard. The debate is at Memorial Church, 1 Harvard Yard, at 8 pm. Finally on Friday April 25 I debate the controversial philosopher Peter Singer at Biola University. The debate is at Chase Gymnasium on the Biola campus near Los Angeles. You can get tickets at the door or at apologeticsevents.com.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 61)
1. http://evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
PROFESSOR X at 8:17AM on Apr 21st 2008
2. http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080418/32015_Ohio_Teacher_Refuses_to_Remove_Bible_From_Classroom.htm
NOW we see the censorship in full view. Look at what great lengths atheists and secular humanist go through just to prevent young people to think for them self; and they in vain try to keep God, whom they don't believe exists, away from the young person. Ironically these atheists seem to see nothing wrong with the Hindu Vedas, the Koran, Buddhist religious literature, Wicca, Satanism, or the religion of self-worship. It seems that when those religions are expressed they lose the passion to fight them, and they invest no intellectual or economic capital waged against them. Could it be that even Atheists realize that those other gods do not exist and thus pose no disagreement with their philosophy because they ultimately serve the same god the atheist serve - the God of self? The answer is YES.
This is just another reason why I believe atheists DO NOT EXIST. There are just rebellious people who despise the ONE and ONLY HOLY God because He will hold them accountable for their wrongdoing now and later.
http://atheistsareimaginary.blogspot.com
RICHARD DAWKINS at 8:22AM on Apr 21st 2008
3. DD,
let me be the first to say this article hit the nail right between the eys. the truth is very simply this: the atheist need evolution to make their case that there is no god. they will defend it to their last breathe. evolution is much like a "shart", now the world of atheism is too!! a shart is where one thinks he farted but to his dismall reality he really sh$%!! because this is what evolution and atheism truly is- a shart!!!
the atheist will cling to the rediculously small chance that life just began. like richard"sheer luck"dawkins has said himself in reguards to how it all began, he said "sheer luck" and he is the atheist leading voice of reason????
but my big question is for you DD. why do you write these articles knowing full well the atheist have no choice but to respond in hate-filled diatribes? they will and you know it!! these atheist are like a dog and a bone,they will never ever turn it down.
yes atheism is a "shart" and evolution is what they need to make god out to be a figment of imagination. its the 2% club the rest of the world does not buy.THANK GOD!!!!
brian at 8:24AM on Apr 21st 2008
4. "If you enjoy seeing atheist arguments exploded in this way"
First, Dinesh misrepresents Dawkins opinion that ET delievered life to earth. He proposed it as one of many possibilities. He didn't "flee" to it.
Second, at lease we are capable of dealing with our arguments exploding (not that this is the case here). We just keep on keeping on, keep on seeking.
If one line of inquiry turns out to be wrong, why take refuge in god?
Ryan Anderson at 8:25AM on Apr 21st 2008
5. post number 2,
dude amen and amen!!! atheism is bankrupt and needs devolution to prove its validity. which it won't!! but the atheist do not want to be held accountable for their immorality and decadence,yet thinking themselves moral,they look for the next threesome,right here on this blog!!!! and they have no sense of shame. 2% thankfully!!
yes atheism is a shart!!!
brian at 8:29AM on Apr 21st 2008
6. ryan,
you are not looking for god you are looking for a reason to have no moral restraint. evolution is conveniant to your cause,be truthful man!!
brian at 8:30AM on Apr 21st 2008
7. brian; if you truly cannot see the log in your own eye, I am very sad for you.
"...the atheist have no choice but to respond in hate-filled diatribes?"
"yes atheism is a shart!!!"
Ryan Anderson at 8:31AM on Apr 21st 2008
8. brian; I never said I was looking for god. Also, I'm not a biologist, so I'm not looking for the origins of life either.
I have a very strong moral code. Strong enough to see that you are a sad, scared, lost little child.
Ryan Anderson at 8:34AM on Apr 21st 2008
9. Dinesh is intellectually dishonest, just as all creationists are. Dawkins tries so very, very hard to tell the creationist interviewer that even if an intelligent designer did create life on earth, that intelligent designer must have been the result of evolution himself.
Intelligence never comes at the beginning of something, it is always the result of a gradual evolution.
JJH at 4:45PM on Apr 21st 2008
10. brian; oh, and good morning to you.
Ryan Anderson at 8:43AM on Apr 21st 2008
11. "This is just another reason why I believe atheists DO NOT EXIST. There are just rebellious people who despise the ONE and ONLY HOLY God because He will hold them accountable for their wrongdoing now and later.
http://atheistsareimaginary.blogspot.com
RICHARD DAWKINS at 8:22AM on Apr 21st 2008"
Of course an absurd argument like that can be flipped. Perehaps Christians don't exist, they are just cowardly people clinging to unsubstantiated, unbelievable fairy tales because they are so afraid of death.
Of course neither of these arguements has any validity at all and only a fool would espouse either of them. There's ample evidence that both Christians and athiests exist, but no evidence besides hearsay supporting the existance of Magical Rabbis.
Ed W. at 8:58AM on Apr 21st 2008
12. ryan,
good morning!!! you did not read my post. very well if you did you would have to agree that atheism is a shart. its expecting one thing and getting quiet another,now tell me how is that hate-filled and having a log in my eye,please. please tell me how. because atheism is doing exactly that. it looks for one thing and gets another. bottom line. and you say i am hate filled because i express that truth? i suggest i do not have log in my eye. i have said nothing about no one but i have said atheism as a belief is bankrupt. that is the truth, its not hating at all. please,just because i think and said atheism is a shart does not mean i hate.thats is absurd
good morning. so you are a biologist? when in the heck do you work?
brian at 8:52AM on Apr 21st 2008
13. ed w.
jesus was a historical figure who it is well documented, lived,died and was raised from the dead.christianity is the most valid religion of all religions. jesus said no one comes to god but through me. no one!! jesus said he was the truth. the way,the life,the alpha,the omega,the creator,the sustainer,jesus said and proved he was god in the flesh. praise him!!!
brian at 8:56AM on Apr 21st 2008
14. brian; I said I was NOT a biologist.
We've posted countless examples of your hate. There is no more I can do. I hope you eventually figure out that you are poisoned.
Ryan Anderson at 8:59AM on Apr 21st 2008
15. ryan,
as far as your strong moral code it matters not. in light of God's holiness none of our morals holds up. you seem fixed on comparing yourself to others,which is judgemental, and not comparing yourself to God. to his holiness,to his standard. this is why i suspect you desire for there to be no god. against him you know!! besides you can always find people that you behave better than. look at this blog,you behave way better than most atheist here. you say things but they are not as hate-filled as floyd,or ghb, or linda. your not as bad as they are. but this is only about you and god. at the judgement god is only going to be comparing you to the Law. because you have no mediator between you and the law you will be found guilty and you will agree. for the moral law you break you will be held accountable. those who are christians are no different in that we break the moral law. but we acknowledge that jesus paid our sin debt. a debt you cannot repay. no hate ryan. i actually like you above al the atheist on this blog and you are far nicer. a biologist?
brian at 9:03AM on Apr 21st 2008