Replies

Where to start with this gem...

“Does the term ‘primal soup’ stir any brain cells? It was an experiment by Stanley Miller in the 1950s that claimed to produce life out of a ‘soup’ of chemicals placed into a container full of gases and energised with a swift bolt of electricity.”

The ‘primal soup’ experiment most certainly did NOT claim to ‘produce life’. It claimed to produce large protein molecules, which are potential precursors to RNA and DNA.

Whether or not it exactly reproduced primeval Earth (or some microclimate, as near a volcanic vent) is n”ot so relevant as the general result. A vast array of conditions are no doubt present on the billions of planets throughout the universe.

“But there are deeper questions raised about the theory that life on Earth could have started in such a way. Such questions as where did we come from are answered these days by scientists following principles first proposed in the mid-nineteenth century by Charles Darwin under the all-encompassing umbrella of the Theory of Evolution.”

Somehow we’ve now made the jump from the “origin of life” to the “origin of species”. Darwin never theorized (as far as I can recall) on the origin of life.

“Make no mistake, despite its billing as the enemy of organised religion, for most scientists working today in a whole variety of disciplines, the Theory of Evolution has become a religious system of the highest order. With a set of dogmas firmly entrenched in the past, based around the holy book, “The Origin of the Species”, Evolution is put forward as a mechanism to explain all the mysteries of life.”

My hyperbole meter pegged on this sentence. Evolution is a general theory to explain how life has changed over time. Many details of that process still aren’t well understood. What seems clear from what we can see is that life has changed over time. Any theory of life will have to account for that, as well as a generous dose of Occam’s Razor.

“What it does remind you of, though, is the medieval Church, zealous to protect its dogmas by vilifying the slightest deviation from them and burning “heretics” at the stake.”

Nothing like melodramatic over the top rhetoric. I haven’t seen too many scientists calling for capital punishment of intellectual dissenters lately. ;-)

“A basic assumption of Evolution is that life appeared by blind chance.”

No. Evolution makes no assumption about the origin of life. That is a different area.

It is true that prevailing scientific opinion is that life began through some natural series of events, rather than (say) due to the magic incantations of pink bunnies from Aldeberan. This is mainly since scientists generally don’t invent more elaborate explanations than necessary unless there are supporting facts, as in observable phenomena.

“They argue the case against blind chance and instead introduce the idea of an Intelligent Designer, a controlling presence, creating and guiding life as we know it.”

In which star system did this “ID” originate? Oh, you mean you’re positing an all-powerful, omniscient, supernatural being as the ID? I’m afraid from a strictly scientific viewpoint that is a wild leap of imagination completely unsupported by any evidence. Produce some, and I think you have a much more interesting and compelling argument.

‘In July 2005 more than 400 scientists put their name to the following statement: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged”.’

Honest and open inquiry into all facets of nature should be the goal of science. I’m sure most young biologists spend many hours pondering evolution and the details of its various mechanisms. Just bear in mind that any competing theories will have to account for all the evidence, such as the general progression from simpler life forms to more complex in the fossil record. Constant intervention from Aldeberanian pink bunnies seems unlikely.

‘One man, Professor Anthony Flew, has gone further. A firm disciple of Charles Darwin for fifty years, he has done an about-turn in his twilight years. Science “has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved” he says. “The argument for Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it ... it now seems to me that the findings of more than 50 years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.”’

The cynic in me says that he’s hedged his bets in his waning years, but I suppose that’s uncharitable... ;-)

However, the statement ‘The argument for Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it ... it now seems to me that the findings of more than 50 years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.’ seems quite unsupported. I’d like to hear his “enormously powerful argument” - where has it been published? What as the reaction been in the scientific community at large?

From my perspective, DNA research has done rather the opposite of what he claims. Artifacts left by ancient retroviruses are evident in DNA, and can be seen matching most frequently in related species, and less frequently in more diverse species. This is thought to correspond to the length of time since the two species shared a common ancestor. What is the ID explanation for these observations?

The fact that over 90% of the DNA in a chimp and a man is the same is scarcely a strong argument for custom, ground-up design of each, is it? Why would chimp and human DNA have many of the same retrovirus artifacts?

“The Professor is sure that there is an Intelligent Designer, but is not going any further. He stops just short of pondering metaphysical issues, but it doesn’t mean we should do the same. Because, If Intelligent Design is a valid alternative to the Theory of Evolution, then who on earth is this Intelligent Designer?”

I vote for Pink Bunnies from Aldeberan. Any other theories?