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?
How much less are we talking about then?
Is not Natural selection a core element of Darwinism?
I think so, but don't see that as being pertinent right now. If you want to take that up as a separate issue, we can.
How about letting people freely use the word ID in their workplace without fear of reprisal.
I think so, but don't see that as being pertinent right now.
It is pertinent because you stated "I'd expect any questions that "strike at the core" of an argument to be answered directly". The only question pertaining to a "core" element was that concerning natural selection.
That's kind of a can of worms. If I start trying to turn every discussion anyone tries to have with me into something to do with ID, people are going to start getting justifiably irritated.
I did not say that you had to use the word, so I assume you mean that allowing the use of the word "ID" would lead to a fixation by the users of the word. I don't believe that is a justified conclusion. But I do understand your concern. Dawkins comes to mind.
If you're trying to make the argument that there are evolution zealots, but there's simply no such thing as an ID zealot I'm calling BS.
And you would be absolutely correct. But I'm not saying that. I'm saying Dawkins has a fixation. But that in no way leads to the conclusion that Darwinism should ever be unmentionable.
I’m not opposed to letting people talk about it, as long as there’s some way to throttle the zealots if they get militant without it all turning into a big legal mess.
Hey we agree! Science is not about browbeating.
Well, you're going to have to do a little better than "letting people talk about it without fear of reprisal" or that's what your going to end up with. That's an open ended license to prosthelytize.
Strange how freedom works. It is a wonder the United States can exist with an open ended license to proselytize.
Don't start with that crap. We're talking about in the workplace, remember? The right to free speech doesn't mean I get to spend all day at the water cooler shooting the breeze, or sitting in my cube singing at the top of my lungs. My boss isn't violating my rights by telling me I can't, and I'm not the "victim" if I do it anyway and get canned for it.
You're the one that started with the slippery slope crap. It is a logical fallacy. Look it up.
I don’t think it’s all that slippery. People do weird things when they get emotional, and this is a very emotional issue for some people.
It may be an emotional issue for some, but that does not make the slippery slope argument any more valid.
Do you think there's no chance that biology department staff meetings and symposiums could end up looking like FR crevo threads, or that it doesn't matter if they do?
It takes two sides to tango. If you examine the emails within the Smithsonian on the Sternberg matter, you will discover who would be the source of the "food fights" that you fear. In the example of Guillermo Gonzalez from Iowa State. The controversy was started those seeking to expel any mention of ID and was not a result of any proselytizing.
That doesn't answer the question. The question is, is the tango going to get destructive?
What question? Your hypothetical slippery slope argument? I answered it. It is a logical fallacy. It is your task to prove that the result is an inevitable consequence of the starting conditions. Otherwise, it is just your fantasy which I am under no obligation to accept.
We’re done.
The more conservatives that see this movie, the more chance that movies like this will be made in the future, plus the movie is very entertaining, as well as informative.
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.