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?
Very well, I haven’t seen the film. I have read the available transcripts of the interviews, and I have talked with multiple people who say that have seen the film, and so far none of them have disagreed with that characterization. Now, am I easily confused, or disingenuous?
That would be disingenuous.
Now to answer your first question to me, yes, it does mischaracterize the content, although through lack of personal experience. The film does address panspermia through Dawkins himself. Although he was reluctant to answer two questions in particular, Dawkins did produce a number and a "theory". The number was, strangely, 99% and the "theory" was panspermia. However, Dawkins did precede his "theory" with the caveat that the "seeder" had to be explained. Mentioned in passing was/were a(some) reference(s) to an alien source of design, I believe in the Discovery Institute interview.
P.S. The NCSE "Expelled:exposed" website is also wrong. There were definitions given for I.D. and Neo-Darwinism in the film. The only question of the Neo-Darwinism definition is that the descent with modification was, I believe, limited to a single fountainhead.
Please explain how my "personal experience" affects the content of the film.
What did I say about the film that contradicts that?
It doesn't affect the content. However, it does affect your mischaracterization of the content. You didn't see the film.
Would the same statement be accurate if I had seen the film?
The word is "mischaracterize". The film was not to present theories of ID, but to decribe the "non-controversy" controversy, but they did address different sources of intelligence in the cell.
Which statement? Yours or mine?
Heck, let’s do both.
No, because your lack of knowledge would not be mitigating. It would be an intentional mischaracterization.
Apparently it didn't. It did present scientific theory. That's what the scientists were there for, wasn't it?
Tell me what I’ve said that’s inaccurate.
I suggest, if you truly want an answer, that you see the film and make your own decision. But as I stated, the purpose of the film was to present the non-controversy controversy.
If I leave with the perception that the proponents of ID support the theory of panspermia, I'll come away with a different perspective than anyone I've talked to who's seen it so far.
Are you sure you want this to be your argument? Dont forget the necessity for life building material that result from supernova. I hope I dont have to explain the ramifications of this. Ok, hint. Age of universe `13 bil.
nuf said
I've answered that. Remember, my question to you was if you had seen the film. You then asked me if you had mischaracterized the content. That has been answered.
Like hell it has.
Try Raelians.
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.