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 6 of 61)
76. Why, oh why, do believers insist that whenever they don't understand something it MUST be caused by a magical sky fairy?
I swear its like watching all those old movies where jungle explorers (always white Christians of course) impress the natives (always dark-skinned unbelievers) by flicking their lighters or turning on their radios.
Heap great magic! If you're ignorant enough to believe it that is.
busterggi at 12:59PM on Apr 21st 2008
77. not-pboyfloyd,
ID doesn't really reject evolution, it posits that the process is either planned or guided by an interested entity. It's not synonymous with Creationism.
brian,
Milk is good for you. The Cow God says so. There are always hack "studies" out there that like to shake up the mainstream. Even if they find out that milk gives you cancer after 50 years, it's still purty darn good for you (considering). Not all science is a consensus, but the truth usually hides among the candidate theories. They used to believe heat was a fluid (caloric), but now it's well established that it is energy. It only takes one wacko to ruin a unanimous consensus.
Tim,
Communion wafers (the body) will be dried meat, and wine (the blood) will be steak sauce. I could convert to that creed for the perks ^_^
The Goddess Athena,
I never thought of that. Maybe they did rebel (without free will) and the story wasn't apropos to mention in the human Bible. There must then be a Cow Bible.
Mokele Mbembe at 1:08PM on Apr 21st 2008
78. "a shart explains atheism.expecting one thing and getting another. what better explanation for an atheist?" - brian
That makes no sense. An atheist believes in no gods. What else were you expecting from an atheist?
"i mean really whatis wrong with that? you get so angry and mean when it does not agree with you."
No, I get angry and mean when I encounter morons who pose questions they don't want to hear the answers to. I get angry and mean when those same morons have pre-concieved notions about a group of people, and pretend to want to engage in conversation to understand each other when all they really want to do is argue and get validation for their beliefs. I get angry and mean when said morons try to take over the government.
"you better hope there is no god, but if there is no god and there is no justice and there is no hope and there is no hereafter and hitler and stalin and all those atheist dictators who murdered their millions do not get what they deserve then it really is a travesty isn't it."
I think there is a god in the sense that "god" is just a word for a force we don't understand. I don't believe in a god the way Jews and Christians do - a jealous, wrathful god who will kill his creation en masse for even the smallest offense. I'm sorry you can't enjoy life and the short time we have here without the promise of "eternal" life in some kind of spiritual realm. Hitler, Stalin, et al are dead and gone. Life is not fair. People do bad things to good people. Life goes on.
"but that does not explain your hostile bent towards religion,specifically christianity. why such hostility. if your right who cares. you can be anyway you want and so can i ,and you hate that???"
I am hostile toward you, because you are an elitest moron. A spiritual elitest moron.
I get really tired of answering these same questions article after article, so this is the last time I am answering these questions.
K at 1:11PM on Apr 21st 2008
79. BRIAN: 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!!
And how do you recommend we embrace our immorality, tapping our toes in the mens bathroom and then deny it? Becoming Priests to molest little children and then have your Bishop move your around to avoid prosecution? You profess your superior morality yet you look at prison stats and it isn't even close, atheists make up .21% of the entire prison population with the religious making up the other 99.79%! Guess that is the advantage of being a moral Chrisitan since you can back slide all you want and then ask for God's forgivness on Sunday.
JimCO at 1:14PM on Apr 21st 2008
80. Dear Ryan and Brian,
I have absolutely loved your conversation; you have managed to make both sides look absolutely awful. Congratulations! Keep up the "good" work. Perhaps if either of you knew what you were talking about you could have a decent debate.
David Matheny at 1:17PM on Apr 21st 2008
81.
Once the communion wafers are all distributed, all the Catholicows will exit the stable. As they do, each must stop and take a slurp at the devine salt lick, to remind themselves of the testament verse where Son Of Cow-God said "I Thirst."
D'Aisy B'Ovine has posted that the devine salt-lick has roots in Barn Yard design, as it keeps showing up on its own as a miracle.
The chickens argue that it is not a mircale, but is placed there by a mysterious being known primarily as Corn-chucker. B'Ovine challenges them to a debate.
Tim at 1:19PM on Apr 21st 2008
82. The Goddess Athena: So the question I have is: if cows and other animals have painful childbirths, what great sin are they guilty of? Or is the writer of the Bible
ignorant of barnyard basics? Curious minds want to know. :>)
LOL ... someday we will decipher their moos to find out what crime they committed ... perhaps they ate the hay of knowledge of good and evil?
JimCO at 1:20PM on Apr 21st 2008
83. Mokele Mbembe says, "ID doesn't really reject evolution.."
But it does reject evolution. I.Ders are willing to admit to 'micro-evolution' but reject evolution entirely. If you look at I.D. flow charts of how different 'kinds' or species of animals come to be... they reject evolution.
We 'see' how God, considers the world, then 'seeing a 'need' for a different species, 'pops' them into their perfect environment, with a little variation, in case their environment changes a little.
With the ability to 'adapt' a little.
Of course evolution is a much better explanation, the trouble with it, as far as Christians are concerned is that God is not interfering ENOUGH, for their liking.
not-pboyfloyd at 1:22PM on Apr 21st 2008
84. Unfortunately it is all man's fault... as he goes, so does the earth and all of the creatures in it.... we all have to suffer those labor pains... i would support painkillers for cows... i don't like to see anything in pain...
Shannie at 1:25PM on Apr 21st 2008
85. If adam and eve were the first humans created by 'god' who was there taking notes for the bible?
Geoff Barker at 1:28PM on Apr 21st 2008
86. David Matheny; glad I could entertain.
Ryan Anderson at 1:31PM on Apr 21st 2008
87. Shannie..
According to the Booklets, God allowed sin. He put the Tree of knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden, allowed the serpent to convince Eve that it was okay to eat the fruit then didn't forgive them for disobeying HIM.
In any court of law, some authority figure allowing this to happen with the full knowledge that it would happen(God knows everything), it would be obvious to the jury that God deliberately set up 'man' for a fall from HIS grace.
Neverminding that, the animals have no guilt(excepting the snake) so why must they suffer?
You KNOW that they suffer because nature is as uncaring as a neocon.
Nature is as uncaring as shit-fer-brains brian who feels that he should never be forced to pay any taxes that would go to alleviate the suffering of poor people.
not-pboyfloyd at 1:45PM on Apr 21st 2008
88.
If adam and eve were the first humans created by 'god' who was there taking notes for the bible?
mY gueese would either be Bessie, The Original Cow Goddess,
Or Pasta God, great leader of the Pastafarians.
Tim at 1:51PM on Apr 21st 2008
89.
But is the Cow Bible bound in leather?
I think it should be bound in that brown and white cow hide with the hair still on it.
But I suppose the cows would consider that sacrilege. (sigh) Just one more religion I can't "get right".
FL Chick at 1:51PM on Apr 21st 2008
90. Rayn,
Top of the morning to you.
Did you receive the Joseph Campbell book yet?
Jerry Brown at 1:53PM on Apr 21st 2008