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?
If you are addressing the ID folk, they need a similar level of support as the Neo-Darwinists receive with no censorship thrown in.
P.S. They are proceeding anyway despite the roadblocks.
What resources do you need to describe the process?
Is there any precedent in academia for demanding equal footing for an untested hypothesis with an established theory?
I'm glad to hear it. I'd be interested to know how they plan on going about testing it.
I told you numerous times, what we are doing here is argumentation, not science. Ask Behe or Minnich.
Did I use the word "equal" or did I use the word "similar"?
You are free to ask. Here is a source for you. Ben did it. You can too.
Discovery Institute Contact Information
Discovery Institute main offices are located in the Marion Building in downtown Seattle. The entrance to the office is on Columbia Street between Second and Third Avenue.
| Seattle Headquarters: Discovery Institute 208 Columbia Street Seattle, WA 98104 Phone Numbers: Voice: (206) 292-0401 Fax: (206) 682-5320 |
Washington DC Office: Discovery Institute 1015 Fifteenth Street, NW Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005 Phone Numbers: Voice: (202) 558-7085 Fax: (202) 408-0632 |
bump
You may present cases of grants of similar footing as evidence. Since there's apparently no money involved, quantitative comparisons will be hard to make, anyway.
You’ve got to be kidding me.
Since when is the word "support" limited to "money"?
You are the one demanding answers from ID. I give you a source and you pooh-pooh it. Shows your disingenuousness.
You can’t get a straight answer from anyone on this. All they can do is try to shove a link to a creationist web site down your throat.
Did I say it was? I initially assumed that "support" involved some financial support (salaries, research grants, equipment budgets, etc). I've since been informed that the universities are destitute, so there's not going to be any money involved.
You've contacted Discovery Institute before? And if you did, I really doubt anyone tried to shove anything down your throat. All you have to do, is do what you seem to indicate your nature is, refuse to investigate.
You've been informed that universities seek money. Kinda indicates that money is involved. But then again, you mentioned the money aspect in relation to the immediate question. I mentioned support.
>>Ok, so maybe God created the Universe, and had a hand in creating the first lifeform, then He used Evolution to create all the life we have today.<<
You say that as though it is a statement of fact. Is it, or is it merely a theory or hypothesis?
Just curious. ;)
I’ve seen the “if you won’t go do all this research, it can only mean you’re afraid to know the truth” dance too many times to get worked up over seeing it again.
>>..in such a case these designers must have been themselves naturally evolved...<<
For a sceintist to make such a statement, I can only assume he has some empirical evidence to back it up. I would have very little respect for a scientist that would make such a statement - I am especially keying on his use of the words “must have” - without evidence to back it up. Otherwise, it is an unsupported opinion based on unfounded belief and unbecoming a scientist discussing anything “scientific”.
That is probably due to the fact that you "shoot your mouth off" on things about which you really have no firsthand knowledge.
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.