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?
That's a stupid statement. If it's supposed to be an arrowhead, and it's design is incompatible with fulfilling that function, then where is the "intelligence" of the design?
Apparently some folks can’t get their minds around the concept of multiple independent lines of evidence.
Maybe that’s the result of a single minded pursuit of a foregone conclusion. I’m not really sure how to account for it, but it doesn’t seem rational.
Your implied "all" is not the same as my "many" when describing hospitals. The second part of that statement is false about ID. It may be true about Discovery, but I pointed out that ID and Discovery are not synonymous. Your opinion on Muslim methods of travel are irrelevant.
The ID movement in this country was started by Christians for Christian purposes. That all Christians aren't in it, or that others believe too is absolutely irrelevant.
Your assertion about the ID movement has so many holes in it that it is difficult to know where to start. First, Darwinians, claim that ID is creationism. Therefore, if DI=ID as you claim, creationism began with the formation of DI, clearly an unlikely event. Second, your use of "in this country", implies that there is ID outside of this country contradicting your DI=ID argument. Third, your declaration that non-Christians being a part of ID and Christians being a part of non-ID is irrelevant, is wrong since you assert, wrongly I might add, "ID has spreading Christianity and changing culture as its mission."
but the fact remains that the logic was solid, it was not a fallacy.
Nope. Still a fallacy.
I haven't found one of the top-rung ID proponents who doesn't have some connection to the Discovery Institute
Yeah?, and Bush has definite connections to "Big Oil". So what? But you clearly indicate that I am right, you do equate ID and DI. They are not, no more than NCSE is equal to Darwinism.
What? the damn rock/arrowhead is a paper weight. Oh did I forget to tell you, the point on the rock/arrowhead makes the rock/arrowhead an awl. Get the hint. Functionality is in the eye of the beholder. I have demonstrated that functionality is not a valid test.
Are you interested in discussion, or does Ad Hominem fulfill all your interests?
This is a narrow view of Design. In fact, someone opposing design or teleology in nature faces far greater scientific and philosophical difficulties than this. See the classic little book by Argyll, Organic Evolution. You can download it from my FR homepage.
"Ad Hominem" = "against the author". If you can't take criticism of the statements made without taking it personally, I'm not interested in continuing.
I get it. It never was an arrowhead, this is a game of "gotcha".
I've had atheists tell me that cabbages are atheists too, because cabbages don't believe in God. Behold, the miracles of unbelief.
I thought you were talking about Baylor where Dembski ran the faith organization, of which the ID research was a part, and was demoted because of the discord he was causing.
I'll assume that you mistook my post to another person as addressed to you. Or do you make it a habit of answering questions meant only for others?
My mistake.
I'm sorry you think so, but it was a serious attempt to show the process of testing something that appears to be "scientific".
Yeah, right. He caused discord by breathing. /sarc
And yes Baylor is a Baptist University. It even has religious studies. It has the George W. Truett Theological Seminary which does promote Christianity. But it could not have the Michael Polanyi center, which was not in the science department.
The function of an arrowhead is to kill by causing substantial hemmorhage. That is why arrowheads are shaped the way they are. An awl is not likely to fulfill that function. The test of functionality would have determined that it is not an arrowhead. I think that should be obvious.
That is funny. It ties the mental level of cabbages with atheism. It doesn't take much to "understand" atheism.
Let me put it this way: We wouldn't be having this talk right now if not for the Discovery Institute.
First, Darwinians, claim that ID is creationism.
No, they claim rightfully that ID is creationism modified to try to get into school curriculum as science. Just slapping the word "Science" after the word "Creation" didn't work, so they needed a new tactic, and that tactic is outlined in the Wedge Document.
IDers have been trying to distance themselves from the top-secret Wedge Document since it was leaked. I see you continue this.
As far as the idea of a guiding creator, that has been around a long time. But active work on "Intelligent Design" as supposedly a science in opposition to natural selection with the plan of replacing evolution began in the 80s with the DI people.
However, I should be more specific. The DI itself, as a whole, is not the founder of and main vehicle for the modern ID movement. They do their main ID push and funding through their Center for Science and Culture, run by the founders of the modern ID movement. Although the CSC is the biggest and most important part of the DI, the DI also does other work, most of which I agree with.
Yet religious people so often have such a hard time understanding it.
The function of a knife is to kill by causing substantial hemorrhage. Does that make a knife an arrowhead?
Shoot an elephant with a single arrow, will it bleed to death? I still say functionality is not a valid test. I didn't say functionality was never a valid test. I said with respect to this determination that it is not a valid test. An example of a valid test of functionality, would be:
I hypothesize that this green liquid is a good substitute for human blood. A functional test is an obvious part of testing that hypothesis. It may be the same in every aspect,(including the constituent cells), except color, but until it fulfills the functions of blood, my hypothesis is not supported.
Does dried blood pass the functionality test for blood? If it doesn't, I suppose you would say it is not blood.
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.