Posted on 04/21/2008 7:23:01 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
In Ben Stein's new film "Expelled," there is a great scene where Richard Dawkins is going on about how evolution explains everything. This is part of Dawkins' grand claim, which echoes through several of his books, that evolution by itself has refuted the argument from design. The argument from design hold that the design of the universe and of life are most likely the product of an intelligent designer. Dawkins thinks that Darwin has disproven this argument.
So Stein puts to Dawkins a simple question, "How did life begin?" One would think that this is a question that could be easily answered. Dawkins, however, frankly admits that he has no idea. One might expect Dawkins to invoke evolution as the all-purpose explanation. Evolution, however, only explains transitions from one life form to another. Evolution has no explanation for how life got started in the first place. Darwin was very clear about this.
In order for evolution to take place, there had to be a living cell. The difficulty for atheists is that even this original cell is a work of labyrinthine complexity. Franklin Harold writes in The Way of the Cell that even the simplest cells are more ingeniously complicated than man's most elaborate inventions: the factory system or the computer. Moreover, Harold writes that the various components of the cell do not function like random widgets; rather, they work purposefully together, as if cooperating in a planned organized venture. Dawkins himself has described the cell as the kind of supercomputer, noting that it functions through an information system that resembles the software code.
Is it possible that living cells somehow assembled themselves from nonliving things by chance? The probabilities here are so infinitesimal that they approach zero. Moreover, the earth has been around for some 4.5 billion years and the first traces of life have already been found at some 3.5 billion years ago. This is just what we have discovered: it's quite possible that life existed on earth even earlier. What this means is that, within the scope of evolutionary time, life appeared on earth very quickly after the earth itself was formed. Is it reasonable to posit that a chance combination of atoms and molecules, under those conditions, somehow generated a living thing? Could the random collision of molecules somehow produce a computer?
It is ridiculously implausible to think so. And the absurdity was recognized more than a decade ago by Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the DNA double helix. Yet Crick is a committed atheist. Unwilling to consider the possibility of divine or supernatural creation, Crick suggested that maybe aliens brought life to earth from another planet. And this is precisely the suggestion that Richard Dawkins makes in his response to Ben Stein. Perhaps, he notes, life was delivered to our planet by highly-evolved aliens. Let's call this the "ET" explanation.
Stein brilliantly responds that he had no idea Richard Dawkins believes in intelligent design! And indeed Dawkins does seem to be saying that alien intelligence is responsible for life arriving on earth. What are we to make of this? Basically Dawkins is surrendering on the claim that evolution can account for the origins of life. It can't. The issue now is simply whether a natural intelligence (ET) or a supernatural intelligence (God) created life. Dawkins can't bear the supernatural explanation and so he opts for ET. But doesn't it take as much, or more, faith to believe in extraterrestrial biology majors depositing life on earth than it does to believe in a transcendent creator?
What's your source for this "fact"?
Same way it always has proceeded. Ignore evidence. Make up arguments from improbability. Accuse biologists of being Nazis. Collect book royalties.
OK, discussion over until you do some historical research on Newton, Bohr, Bacon, Farday, Boyle, etc.
What did they do that required an assumption of intelligent creation?
The evos look at fossils and attempt to extrapolate plausible history. By “evos” I mean those who adhere to macroevolution. I think its safe to say that we have reached a consensus on both sides to accept microevolution (fka adaptation.) The ID people look at mathematical probabilities of designs of similar complexity arriving by chance.
How many areas of scientific inquiry does it arise in, where the designer in question is a diety?
If it was just a matter of a disagreement over whether it was verifiably random or possibly directed, it might be easier. A quick read of the threads should tell you that's not nearly all there is to it.
Had to read it a few times, but I can only disagree on one point. God did not keep His purposes secret, and He did not conceal Himself from us any more than an architect is concealed from those that live in his buildings.
Gonzales’ Privileged Planet is an exploration of the Bible’s phrase of the heavens reveal Your glory.
However, as I understand it, ID does not specify a deity. Panspermia, or the belief that life came from outer space, is one of several ID theories. Other ID theorists don't go so far as to postulate the source of the intelligent design. Obviously, ID opens the door to those who believe in a creator God, but does not dictate that the intelligent designer must be God.
Stein presents that as one of the opposing viewpoints to ID, or at least not something that's apparently to be seriously considered as a legitimate example of ID.
Forgive my poor form but I was asking a question, as in,’ Has God kept his purposes secret?’ as part of a line of reasoning leading to either belief in God as a creator or rejection of the questions in favor of atheism.
Do I think He has hidden Himself? Of course not. But thanks for pointing out that my composing skills are about a D grade. mea culpa!
If we're going to give it "equal consideration" in academia, then they should be able to add collecting research grants, and getting paid to tour the lecture circuit and prostheletize. I don't see them spending much time in the lab.
——But if I accept that there is a an intelligent creator who is the not the higher power but the highest power then I might ask why He created anything in the first place, then has he kept His purposes secret, then if not where can I find the answers, then what part do I play in God’s purposes, what does He expect, demand of me?——
In this physical life, all we are commanded to do is love the Lord and love thy neighbor as thyself. If we can pass this simple test, maybe God has much more in store for us. It seems He just wants us to focus on this simple task now, which some of us just can’t handle.
Happily for us God hasn’t kept Himself and purposes secret from us. He’s even explained how are to show our love of Him and neighbor.
I posed some logical questions that are answered in the Bible.
——Happily for us God hasn’t kept Himself and purposes secret from us. He’s even explained how are to show our love of Him and neighbor.
I posed some logical questions that are answered in the Bible.——
Well that’ll teach me to jump into the middle of a conversation(maybe)...lol
Amen and carry on.
I agree with you in part. I saw the movie, and it certainly appeared Stein did not take Panspermia seriously. I can’t put my finger on it, but I cam away with the impression that Stein believes God is the creator. Nonetheless, I don’t remember him saying that directly.
However, I have heard some ID theorists include Panspermia as one possible type of intelligent desgign, especially when distinguishing ID from creationism. ID theorists do not assume who, or what, the intelligent designer might be. (Of course, they all might hold personal beliefs as to who or what that designer would be, but this is not assumed under that theory.)
On the other hand, as I understand, at least some Panspermists (if that is even a word) will tell you that theirs is a third separate theory, partially because they do not want to be know as being members of the ID camp. (They’d probably lose their jobs if they did that.)
That's one of the reasons I think the movie is providing more heat than light. The movie leaves the impression that if it isn't being taught as an explicitly theistic philosophy, it isn't really ID. The ID proponents will submit on the surface that it's not about religion, but when it gets down to brass tacks, the only acceptable "designer" they'll accept is their own personal God.
——Panspermists——
Is that anything like ectoplasm? lol
Knowing the identity of the designer isn't a predicate to detecting that something was designed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.