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 4 of 61)
46. 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
47. Ryan Anderson
If you are willing to believe god is eternal, why can't you believe the universe is eternal?
Himself:
First, because the most coherent physical evidence points to the universe having had a beginning in time. It's called the Big Bang theory and, like all theories, it has its problems, it is the best available model congruent with the empirical evidence.
Second, and more fundamentally, because the universe is a material body and therefore subject to time. Recall what Einstein wrote: that time is an attribute of matter, not a metaphysical abstraction. If all matter disappeared, he wrote, time (and space) would disappear with it.
Hence, there cannot be a physically realized infinity. Given an infinite amount of prior time, the universe would long ago have dissipated.
This leads to the conundrum. In physics, no thing can be the cause of its own existence. Therefore, even an "eternal" universe would require a cause; and that cause cannot be the universe itself. (The allegory of Plato's Foot.) Since by definition, the "universe" comprises everything that has material existence, the cause must therefore be something that is non-material and in some sense "outside" the universe. (And please note: a "universe" is not the same thing as a "space-time continuum.")
The God of the Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. is not a part of the physical universe and, not being a material body, is not subject to time.
Recall that according to Aquinas, time is the measure of change in material being - an interesting anticipation of Einstein - and that eternity differs from time in essence. Eternity, he wrote, is not "time without end"; nor is time a "segment" of eternity. They are two different kinds of duration entirely. Time measures change; eternity is duration without change. Viewed from eternity, all time is simultaneous. Think of viewing a motion picture versus viewing a photograph.
Mike at 1:39PM on Apr 22nd 2008
48. brian, A shart? I thought atheism was a boil.
AndrewV at 10:38AM on Apr 21st 2008
49. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
brian called atheism a "shart."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Geez, how old are you? 14? Did you just learn this word yesterday or something and couldn't wait to get on this blog and use it? What a joke.
I thank you, brian, for being our example of the worst of Christianity every day. You support our position better than anything we could ever say.
K at 11:03AM on Apr 21st 2008
50. Atheists must be late risers. All I see is the rantings of dilusioned 'beleivers'
Geoff Barker at 1:09PM on Apr 21st 2008
51. brian's posts are always good for a laugh. I feel sorry for people that cannot reconcile their faith with proven scientific fact.
danny at 11:12AM on Apr 21st 2008
52. As the philosopher Xenophanes said:
If cows could create works of art,
all of their gods would look like cows.
-The Goddess Athena
The Goddess Athena at 11:13AM on Apr 21st 2008
53. tom,
i really enjoy civil dialogue with rational people. now this morning you seem rational,even though we do not agree. i respect your right to think and feel as you will, its ok by me. i believe god is who he said he is and i believe jesus is who he said he is. i believe he rose from the dead and i have the hope that we too will be like him as the bible tells us. that is hope/ my hope/ whether you have any hope is up to you but this i know. atheism offers no hope.
it offers no answers, to nothing. if it did offer answers tell me what is suffering for? from an atheistic view.respectfully.
and i am no shart--had you guys even heard that word or have i had to educate you?
brian at 11:26AM on Apr 21st 2008
54. Dinesh actually interrupted his own post to commercialize his debates, which he'll probably claim victory in all afterwards. Can't wait for him to post the videos of his so-called explosions.
I'll say that while this is a decent arguement, just because science has yet to find an answer does not immediately mean it will not. This is like those people completely refusing to believe the Earth is anything but flat because nobody could convincingly prove otherwise.
Which leads me to a short anti-Bible rant for those who insist on taking it literally. The Bible was written by people who thought the Earth was flat. Just something to ponder.
Also, how are some of you able to sit here and post ALL the livelong day?!
Strados at 11:30AM on Apr 21st 2008
55. The cow-art post reminded me of something, I think it's on snopes.com. It's elephants who were taught how to paint. They PAINT THINGS. And they're not bad at it either. Go take a lookey....just google "elephants who can paint".
Strados at 11:33AM on Apr 21st 2008
56. So true goddess! And salvation can only be found for cows who believe in the cow god. If others love and accept cow god they can enjoy eternal life in cow pastures in cow heaven.
I find it amazing how humans anthropomorphize the gods. My 2 year old takes his favorite truck and points out the eyes, arms and feet. The earliest and oldest versions of the biblical god is a human god that interacts and shows his face to humans.
goddess1prevail at 11:39AM on Apr 21st 2008
57. Hey atleast Dinesh doesn't whore out his book as much as he used to. That or I don't get on as often. Could be a combination I think...
danny at 11:50AM on Apr 21st 2008
58. Mike, here's a Christian who's defending Christianity from the charge that it opposed lightning rods. He still has to acknowledge that many preachers actually did oppose them, and they claimed that it was on religious grounds:
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/norods.html
Even if their theology was wrong, they still were opposed. (It might be enlightening to reflect on whether incorrect theology might drive someone to oppose evolution...)
And here's a pastor talking about the practice of storing gunpowder in churches:
http://pastorsteveweaver.wordpress.com/2006/10/03/divine-warnings-are-a-divine-mercy/
(I figured you'd be more likely to accept these facts from such sources. There's plenty of purely secular sources, too, if you Google a bit.)
Ray Ingles at 11:54AM on Apr 21st 2008
59. I thought the "Shart" line was hilarious. When Shart was described, I spit out my coffee.
I think I've had a couple Sharts before. Maybe we all have, and their not fun at all.
Botts at 11:57AM on Apr 21st 2008
60. And the cows who don't believe in the Cow God? They're damned to hell. Or as they call it, Bill's BBQ.
The great Sacred Cow defender, D'Aisy B'Ovine repeatededly posts Right-Udder blogs about how he will promote his latest milking of the public at the abbatoir, but can't figure out why the only animals to attend all seem to look like sheep.
Tim at 11:58AM on Apr 21st 2008