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 7 of 61)
91. k and all atheist everywhere,
debate is not what you want. debate would mean your open to hear from different views. you want to use science to say evolution is the answer to our origin and therefore validate the claim of no god. that is not a debate. when i say the bible said in the beginning God created, you no more hear that than me saying atheism is bankrupt. we are on different pages. not even in the same book. your unbelief blinds your ability to know the truth. the truth is a person found in jesus not in propositions. why can we not be civil? we will never agree. thats the end of that.
and as far as being an elitist, hardly. only democrats like spotted owl gore and obama types are elitist.
brian at 1:56PM on Apr 21st 2008
92. Dawkins ET scenario is a twisting of his meaning. He was well aware that even the hypothetical ET that designed Earth life would have evolved from abiogenetically-formed life. THAT was his POINT. He's saying there's no necessary SUPERNATURAL designer involved. His ET is intended a THOUGHT EXPERIMENT, NOT A THEORY. Clearly exasperated, he said it to try to shake off Stein's condescending persistence, but ended up only giving Stein what he wanted.
Mokele Mbembe at 1:57PM on Apr 21st 2008
93. Dinesh: Consequently Dawkins told Ben Stein that maybe smart aliens deposited life on earth.
No, go back and watch it again, Ben asked if it were possible that Crick was correct on transpermia and he said yes. That is not the same as he now embraces that theory ... just that the Murchison Austrlia meteor was found to contain 90 amino acids, 19 of them endimic to Earth. So it is possile that much of the building blocks of life already existed here. But they still had to be put together ... I suppose in time we will find out how, forcing you Christians to come up with new objections or rehash or old ones!
JimCO at 1:58PM on Apr 21st 2008
94. Jerry; how are you doing? I did get the campbell book, but hadn't started it. I read the first couple papers in the Urantia book though. I'm going to dive into 99-103 next weekend.
brian; "we are on different pages" - you finally got something right.
Ryan Anderson at 1:58PM on Apr 21st 2008
95. not pboy... good questions. God knew that man would screw up but there is forgiveness.. and consequences. I think that is what we are talking about... and the animals suffer. I think it is sad b/c of their 'innocence'.. nature is rough.. at one time it wasn't according to the bible.
now about brian.. i used to feel sorry for him b/c he got beat up here all the time.. but now I don't.
Shannie at 2:00PM on Apr 21st 2008
96. Chick Flick,
It's called "Holstein"
Note on "elitest"/"elitist",
brian actually corrected someone's spelling. Good job, man!
Mokele Mbembe at 2:01PM on Apr 21st 2008
97. shit-fer-brains brian says, "debate would mean your open to hear from different views."
Definitions of debate on the Web:
argue with one another; "We debated the question of abortion"; "John debated Mary"
///////////////////////
shit-fer-brains brian says, "you want to use science to say evolution is the answer to our origin"
Evolution is not an answer to 'our origin'.
Definitions of evolution on the Web:
development: a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage (especially a more advanced or mature stage); "the development of ...
(biology) the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms
consider: think about carefully; weigh; "They considered the possibility of a strike"; "Turn the proposal over in your mind"
argument: a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal; "the argument over foreign aid goes on and on"
discuss the pros and cons of an issue
the formal presentation of and opposition to a stated proposition (usually followed by a vote)
argue: have an argument about something
////////////////////
Do you never get tired of being wrong, brian?
not-pboyfloyd at 2:03PM on Apr 21st 2008
98. "you want to use science to say evolution is the answer to our origin and therefore validate the claim of no god." - brian
No, we don't. No one here has ever said evolution = origin of life. You do your religion a great disservice everytime you click the "Add Your Comments" button. You thrive on dischord, chaos, hate, and pain. You could very well be the damn devil himself. Oh, and you have a log in your eye.
K at 2:04PM on Apr 21st 2008
99. Tim, I think that is "Elsie" the cow goddess. She was the first cow celebrity that I know of. (All Hail Borden's)
========================================================
So, thanks to poster #26 on page 2, we have the entire blog by DD completely and totally refuted (can't remember who's post it was, sorry)
DD, perhaps you should check the link on #26?
Just a suggestion.
Thanks to gshort for another excellent scholarly post.
Linda at 2:05PM on Apr 21st 2008
100. "k and all atheist everywhere,debate is not what you want. debate would mean your open to hear from different views."
"why can we not be civil? we will never agree. thats the end of that."
Debate is not what you want. I think you want this to be a slugfest, and then blame the other side for throwing punches. And yes, we will never agree.
Mokele Mbembe at 2:06PM on Apr 21st 2008
101. Ryan Anderson
Sounds great, hope you enjoy both. I have been thinking about our Christian friends, brian, Observant, and wildman. It has been a mystery why they are inclined to be so negative when my spiritual growth has been so positive as yours seems to be. I plan to send you a comment on that later, may be awhile.
Jerry Brown at 2:07PM on Apr 21st 2008
102.
More on Cow Gods - Really!
http://www.aurochs.org/cows/famous/
brian, you really are shart for brains
Tim at 2:16PM on Apr 21st 2008
103. Thanks to whoever brought up painting elephants. This is amazing, and they're not half bad!
Mokele Mbembe at 2:13PM on Apr 21st 2008
104. Adding to Moke's post,
You have never been open to anyone else's views. You have pre-concieved notions about every single person who posts here, all based on their lack of belief. You don't see people as people, you label them and then twist around everything they say to somehow fit inside your tiny mold. It is impossible to have a debate with you, because all you ever say is "nope I'm right." I don't have a problem with Christians, I have a problem with you.
K at 2:15PM on Apr 21st 2008
105. Oh, and you have a log in your eye.
K at 2:16PM on Apr 21st 2008