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?
Considering that Dawkins wrote a book called The God Delusion, you would think he would already have a pat answer to a simple question like that. I mean, his whole premise is that God does not exist, and he has certainly given thought to how that very first living cell came to be. I mean, that’s his whole schtick — disproving God.
I have to admit that he was not nearly as intimidating as I expected, having never seen or heard him before.
Put it another way; neither God nor anybody else could create our present biosphere via evolution.
the mystery is ended.
life was created by the first brilliant, all-knowing, light-giving, insightful, liberal, as he always existed. he decided to create the human animals around him and manipulate time so that it seems as if his animal creations were based upon evolution over “billions of years”.
if you ask liberals in congress, they will admit to being superior beings and quite capable of performing miracles.
they do have all the answers dontcha know.
haroldeveryman said:
The scientific method has saved humanity from starvation, has brought prosperity to the many and has allowed ordinary people to travel the world in almost perfect safety, and is on the verge of curing cancer. But due to political chicanery, science of late has been deemphasized in our schools. I’m all for religious discussion in schools. But it is anti-educational when a faith based theory is presented to kids in the guise of a “science.”
And what does having a belief in evolution have to do with any of the above?
And, who created the aliens? .......................
The same entity that created God? Humans are haunted by these questions, and they will continue to be haunted by them. Maybe the answer is there millions of years in our future and maybe not. Everything has a beginning some where.
Point, game and match!
I love the literalists. Christ said, "I am the door." I guess He had hinges! I mean, he said it!
God doesn't mention atomic physics in the Bible, either, but I can turn on my light switch and light the room.
Actually, it is worse than that.
Evolutionary Biology states that ALL life on Earth evolved from a single ancestor. This is argued for very compelling reasons. Yet, even though Earth is self-evidently hospitable to Life, and even though trillions of wet, protein-filled bags of lifeforms offer more environments for unique Life to originally occur, it has only happened once in 3.5 billion years (roughly one quarter the age of the Universe). Moving Life's origin to another planet does not solve the problem of its incidence here.
The dogmatic belief in macro evolution as the origin of life is as much or more of a religion than anything else I've experienced. And, unfortunately, its adherents have succeeded in making it the state religion
The point was that he was incapable of explaining the origins of life and had to resort to “intelligent design” despite himself. It was a beautiful moment.
Not hardly. The modern panspermia movement began with Hoyle and Wickramasingh in the 70s.
The biologists had to wait on the physicists before they could develop Astrobiology.
Since NASA has been investigating cosmic life for quite a few years, how could it be jaw dropping?
I've seen him before, and I'm generally not impressed. He chides religion for being dogmatic and full of hate and scorn, yet he's exactly the same.
lol....ok.
Who created the E.T.s?
Which of course begs your question, "Where did that come from?"
Amen Spiff;
And that’s the sad part...innocent kids are getting this garbage shoved down their throats.
“Is the film suitable for kids?”
It depends on their interest and understanding of the evo-ID debate. If they’re not interested in the subject matter, boredom is a distinct possibility. On the other hand, if they’re interested in the debate, I would not hesitate to bring them.
Certainly, there’s no profanity/sex/violence. There’s one part where Ben Stein explores how the Nazi regime gassed and cremated their victims. He visits a museum showing the gas showers and sits in a concentration camp, but the atrocities otherwise described using only words. I have three kids myself, and my philosophy was to teach them about historical atrocities- so they know.
I heard audible gasps in the theater when Dawkins went on his anti-God rant.
I think people were prepared for his belief in evolution, but were shocked to hear his utter contempt towards believers.
Do you think any of them changed their minds about evolution because of Dawkin's personal sentiments about religion?
There are whole shelves of books on the evolution of complexity. My favorite is: The Evolution of Complexity, by Means of Natural Selection by John Tyler Bonner
It is wonderfully detailed and footnoted. You might want to read it. It's a lot more than ID's one sentence body of work "It's complex so it must have a designer!".
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.