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 3 of 61)
31. Ray; this is an interesting theory as well.
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/07/0317223
Speaking of evolution, watching a fetus develop in the womb really seems to support evolution. It starts out as a cell, becomes very "fish" like for a while, has a tail, then is covered in hair, then loses the tail, then loses the hair then is born a human baby. Seems to retrace our evolutional journey over the course of 9 months.
Can someone with a more scientific mind than my own let me know if this is valid.
Ryan Anderson at 9:26AM on Apr 21st 2008
32. One more thing to point out about hanging your belief in God(s) on the present uncertainty about the origin of life... what if it were shown that life could and/or did originate in the conditions of the early Earth? Would that undermine your faith?
In the late 1700's, as scientists started getting a handle on electricity, they realized that lightning was electrical, and should respond in the same ways as the electricity they generated in their labs. Lightning rods were proposed, and the officials of various churches vociferously denounced them. After all, they knew that lightning was a direct expression of Divine fury, and it was hubristic to attempt to interfere with that.
Of course, since God wouldn't strike a church with lightning, very often people would store explosives in the local church (the tallest building in town, with ungrounded metal on top). After the Church of San Nazaro in Brescia, Italy was struck by lightning in 1769, and 3,000 people were killed when 100 tons of gunpowder stored there exploded, those objections began to die out.
Now, even before the 1700's, was it reasonable to say that God (or Thor, or the Thunderbirds, or Zeus, or Seth, or what have you) caused lightning? No, the proper response to "What causes lighting?" was "Darn if I, or anyone else, knows."
We don't know how life originated right now. Be careful if you assume that means that we won't ever know.
Ray Ingles at 9:26AM on Apr 21st 2008
33. Why does everyone think that it is only the =exceptions= or the rare events that constitute evidence? Given that there is no a priori reason why natures should behave lawfully, surely it is the teleological aspect of nature - its tendency to move toward an end - that is the better evidence. Natural selection, for example, moves species toward greater fitness in a niche, and has in general moved life toward forms of greater complexity, internal coherence, and independence from the immediate environs. Looking for God in the unlikely events of nature is like looking for Frank Whittle in the measurements and clearances of a jet engine. The existence of Frank Whittle is simply not an engineering problem.
Also, as Cardinal Schoenborn of Vienna has pointed out, the Bible clearly states that God commanded the sea and the earth to bring forth life, and they did so. This is the medieval doctrine of secondary causation: they believed that God had endowed the natures of things with the ability to act directly upon one another, and, supposing their God to be both rational and true, these actions would be lawful and permanent and accessible to human reason. Hence, the concept of "natural" laws. There is no need for theokinetics. If God saw that what he created was "good," it was unlikely to need continued interventions by a cosmic maintenance tech.
Mike at 9:33AM on Apr 21st 2008
34. Ryan, embryological development *does* offer good evidence for evolution, but not exactly in that way. It used to be thought that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" - that developing embryos re-enacted evolution as they formed. That's not true.
However, embryonic development is a sensitive process and modifications to it are complex and generally conservative. Major changes are usually fatal so most changes tend to be as small as possible. So you *can* see echoes of past structures as the process runs. The gill slits that form and then disappear as humans develop is a case in point.
It's a more complex relationship than a simple "recapitulation" but it *is* strong evidence for evolution.
Ray Ingles at 9:37AM on Apr 21st 2008
35. every time i hear that god created life, i have to ask what created god. where did god come from? isn't it better to admit we don't know? so why does dinesh seem to feel that his diatribes will lead us to his god? and why must we give better answers as atheists than he does as a god-ist?
abbot at 10:00AM on Apr 21st 2008
36. Ray; thanks for the information. When I "saw" the gills during an ultrasound, that was the first thing I thought of.
Abbot; It's funny that the creationist are the first to use the "something had to create the universe" argument, but when pressed about God, he's just "eternal with no beginning or end".
If you are willing to believe god is eternal, why can't you believe the universe is eternal?
Ryan Anderson at 10:04AM on Apr 21st 2008
37. I wonder just how firmly Dawkins tongue was planted in his check when he suggested that ET may have been one of the many ways life began on Earth. Are you absolutely sure that he was not having some fun with Ben Stein.
Also Dinesh’s own doubts are on exhibit: “He knows how INFINITESIMAL are the odds of random chemicals simply mixing together to produce, say, the first cell.”
It was not lost on me that Dinesh wrote “infinitesimal” rather than “IMPOSSIBLE”. This is a tell, So much for Dinesh's faith.
The earlier responses to this post are rather interesting and deserve a reply if only to disabuse certain respondents of some of the ridiculous ideas they have about atheists.
I do not harbor Hindu, Islamic, Satanic or Wiccan beliefs but at this point in our history in America with Christians in the majority, we are not in danger of waking up to a government controlled by any other religion. We do however have hundreds of organizations who’s main focus is the establishment of a Christian hegemony. If this ever changes and lets say Buddhist become the threat to the separation of church and state then we will focus on Buddhist and I’m sure many of these same hegemonic Christians will suddenly find the separation of church and state to be a good thing.
The notion that religion is the sole provenance of morality and ethics can only mean that were it not for the fear of God many of you would be out there raping and pillaging, that you need some kind of cosmic cop to keep you in line rather than rationally coming to the realization that such behavior is abhorrent and ultimately detrimental not only to our survival as a species but also to any kind of high quality of life.
Not all atheists are completely hostile to religion or the religious. I personally do not believe that anyone has he right to tell anyone what they can or cannot believe in. We just don’t want religion shove down our throats, we want no erosion of the separation of church and state, and before any of you even thinks of saying that the first amendment does not guarantee such a thing let me state that the founding fathers, Jefferson in particular (who authored the Constitution) left more than enough written evidence stating that was the intention.
I Doubt that “The God Delusion” would have been such a bestseller ten years ago so why is it a bestseller now? Two reasons:
1: We have an inept self described born again Christian in the Whitehouse who wasted no time in establishing an office of faith based initiatives in which religions other than Christianity are nearly absent and allowing basing important policy decisions on his beleifs rather than what's best for the country.
2: A particular political party decided to court the extreme religious right emboldening their worst elements and ultimately endangering the spirit of the first amendment, a state of affairs that even many mainstream Christians found alarming.
Dinesh is a polite and well mannered but he is every inch the hater that Ann Coulter is and I have one question for him.
Dinesh, when you and Ann Coulter had sex, did you flip a coin to determine who was going to be the man that night or was she always the man?
rabidmccain at 10:05AM on Apr 21st 2008
38. Can someone with a more scientific mind than my own let me know if this is valid.
Ryan Anderson at 9:26AM on Apr 21st
"Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." This is a capsule statement describing the fact that embryonic development (of all living animals, not just humans) follows the evolutionary development of the embryo's species. Darwin had very limited knowledge of this fact, but it has always been one of the strongest supporting scientific observations for the basic validity of evolutionary theory. As our knowledge of both embryologic development and of the fossil record's ever increasing support for similar historic development of various modern species has increased, so has the obvious correlation of the statement "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny".
Harvey at 10:11AM on Apr 21st 2008
39. Whoo Hoo!!! It's a brand-new week and the radicals are rabid! Why don't you all get off this blog and do something before your godless corpos and god-fear inducing theologos destroy the miracle you are arguing so vehemently about! Truth is, we, quite simply, ARE. How? Dunno. Why? Might have an idea, but won't cast my pearls before argumentative swine. So, off I go to share my (as Linda noted on a previous blog) Sci-fi Fantasy of Everything, with people who care, and are open to a really far-out version of Everything. Live long and prosper, for the Force is with you!
Robert at 10:14AM on Apr 21st 2008
40. Sorry, couldn't resist..."Once Upon A Time, in a World Filled with a gelatinous muck- Something Happened!!!" Okay...so now what are we going to do about it?
Robert at 10:17AM on Apr 21st 2008
41. Dinesh: "or even if you're an atheist with masochistic tendencies"
Who the hell have you been talking to? Not that many people know that about me.
But, I'm not that extreme about it, so no, I'm not going to your debate.
FL Chick at 10:31AM on Apr 21st 2008
42. I'm not a scholar. I consider myself a fairly intelligent person, but I didn't educate myself as much as I would have liked. Still, I managed to easily be open minded enough to see the basis for the theory of evolution and the threat it poses to fundamental Christians.
brian has constantly thrown poo at the atheists that post on here and occasionally he finds that some of them throw it back, but more out of frustration that he refuses to recognize the ignorance of his own words. I take this as a good example of evolution at work. It clearly shows the slow process of change as even some of the "more evolved" responders revert back to aggressive and primitive behavior that brian consistently expresses.
I'll address you directly brian, but I do not want you to go on and on about how I'm spewing hate, etc, etc. I don't hate you, brian. I am sad for you. I am truly saddened that you are so far buried in theistic propaganda that you can not even have a rational discussion with atheists. Now, I'm not blind to the fact that many of them do insult you and respond just as condescending and some times ignorantly as you often do. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you actually do not see the tone in your written words, but even that doubt would lead me to the same conclusion: you are blinded by the illusion of enlightenment.
Let me assure you that no one needs a god to watch over them to make them behave. Let me assure you that the evidence of the Jesus in the bible doesn't prove that this man rose from the dead. Had he actually been the messiah as was claimed... I believe there would be no more Judaism. The reason this didn't happen is because it took a Roman Emperor to spread Christianity. Not disciples or even Jesus. It was a politically motivated move. That is well documented historically brian. So try using something other than a bible as a history lesson.
Tom at 10:33AM on Apr 21st 2008
43. Greetings from the Dark Continent.
On today's stuff;Yes,the Miller-urey expt has been discredited,but there are some new theories on the block.Either way it is all good that we Humans are speculating on how life began.It makes for some interesting discussions,and some interesting answers.
For me,I am not convinced that life began spontaneously in some organic soup.(apologies to Carl Sagan).Studying the mechanisims of the cell via my human physiology textbook(Review of medical physiology by Ganong)made me realise how so complete the cell is,how so like a well oiled machine it functions.Made me think about a creator straight away,and sort of confirmed my faith in God.The body itself is so like a machine tyhat functions well together,with instant compensations if one part goes wrong,i just can't stop and think of a creator.
Embryology does not explain evolution.An embryo simply does not have gills.And it may look like a fish,buit it ain't a fish.
Lastly,science has not disproven God.IT just has not developed a mechanisim to prove or disprove gGod or gods.Till it does,the debate on God's existence continues.
One last thing;Being a Christian does not mean that i think that all atheists or unbelivers deserve to be killed and eliminated from the earth.It mdoes not mean that i think gays and lesbians deserve to be treated as shit.It SIMPLY MEANS,IN THE WORDS OF A BIBLE VERSE TO LOVE ONE ANOTHER,EVEN THE WRONGDOERS.
God bless you all.Especially the non belivers.
mad african christian at 10:34AM on Apr 21st 2008
44. Ray Ingles wrote:
Lightning rods were proposed, and the officials of various churches vociferously denounced them. After all, they knew that lightning was a direct expression of Divine fury, and it was hubristic to attempt to interfere with that.
Himself
One often hears this fable repeated; but never with any empirical evidence. It seems to be accepted on faith. Specific names, times, and places would be useful. So would actual knowledge of motivation.
Ray Ingles wrote:
Of course, since God wouldn't strike a church with lightning, very often people would store explosives in the local church (the tallest building in town, with ungrounded metal on top). After the Church of San Nazaro in Brescia, Italy was struck by lightning in 1769, and 3,000 people were killed when 100 tons of gunpowder stored there exploded, those objections began to die out.
Himself
Of course, churches had been struck by lightning repeatedly, so it is unlikely that anyone would actually believe this.
It would also be useful to cite other cases, if people "very often" stored gunpowder in churches, claims of "Pap" Taylor and the Know Nothings notwithstanding. Naturally, in the Age of Reason, the authorities saw no problem in using churches for secular purposes; but the rationale was surely more geared to large storage spaces in the vaults. Churches were not the only places used as depots.
Mike at 10:38AM on Apr 21st 2008
45. brian, A shart? I thought atheism was a boil.
AndrewV at 10:38AM on Apr 21st 2008