Richard Dawkins’ Climbing Mount Improbable – Blind Chance or Intelligent Design?
by Jack Wellman Posted in Ministry 26 Comments
Tags: atheist, evolution, intelligent design, Richard Dawkins
Atheist Richard Dawkins
Are humans just an accident by chance. Did life emerge from a pre-biotic soup? Or was there purpose and design behind human life? Richard Dawkins actually admits in his book, Climbing Mount Improbable that “The original replicator probably was not DNA. We don’t know what it was” (p. 261). So Dawkins theorizes that it was DNA. The problem with this is that DNA is not self-replicating and it is, extremely unstable. This deems a pre-biotic synthesis for life is more than improbable, but impossible.
The theory that life began when proteins, DNA, and RNA were formed by chance, or at least by chemicals coming together…whatever you want to call it, is one that can never have conclusive proof (Abiogenesis). And that also goes for the origination of the DNA/RNA. Every single science experiment that has ever been attempted to form life, has revealed that amino acids don’t form as readily with any kind of stability. The amino acids that did manage to form during experiments, immediately tended to break apart every time.
Amino acids come in two forms called right and left-handed because one is a mirror image of the other. Proteins which contain all left-handed amino acids will connect correctly with the surrounding proteins. However, if a right-handed amino acid is included, the shape of the protein is changed and the protein will not work in a living cell.
Scientists have not been able to cause amino acids dissolved in water to join together to form proteins. The energy-requiring chemical reactions that join amino acids are reversible and do not occur spontaneously in water. The conclusion is that since scientists have no idea how life originally formed, and human attempts at creating life by experiment have failed miserably, time after time.
Dawkins and evolutionists believe that simple chemicals became concentrated in the ocean, making an organic broth of ever more complex chemicals out of which life emerged. Amino acids are essentially, the building blocks of life, and can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life.
Dawkins has always attacked Creationist’s writings about the irreducibility complex problems of life evolving on its own, yet his book, Climbing Mount Improbable, is all about probabilities. He ignores the astronomical odds of life creating itself, but seems its fine if he uses probabilities. For example, Dawkins debunks creationists ideas of the impossibility of naturalistic mechanisms being the way that life could not evolve, but its no problem for him to state that the odds-to-infinity claim that over eons of time, this hill-climbing change made life possible to self-evolve. What sort of duplicity there is in this book and what hypocritical analysis for odds being okay for life evolving on its own while refuting the enormous odds that life could not evolve on its own as claimed by creationists. He wants it both ways apparently.
Dawkins also claims that Intelligent Design is absolutely not involved, yet he draws a distinction between “objects that are clearly designed and objects that are not designed but superficially look a bit like they are, but describing them as a ‘designoid’.1 He compares a designoid as that of a human profile, using John F. Kennedy or Robert Kennedy as an example, “Once you have been told, you can just see a slight resemblance to either John or Robert Kennedy. But some don’t see it and it is certainly easy to believe that the resemblance is accidental.’(p. 3).
Dawkins blatantly suggests that the God Hypothesis is wildly improbable, yet he uses improbable in the title of his book. Look at the odds for life evolving on its own, according to Dawkins own words, “So the sort of lucky event we are looking at could be so wildly improbable that the chances of its happening, somewhere in the universe, could be as low as one in a billion billion billion in any one year. If it did happen on only one planet, anywhere in the universe, that planet has to be our planet-because here we are talking about it” (p. 283).
An accidental world and the evolvement of life, with chance as the main mechanism, swims upstream against a logical axiomatic. That everything came out of nothing defies all logic. Cause and effect demands some Causer prior to nothingness. Chance, to Immanuel Kant, was just an excuse for ignorance. Blind chance is an event, not a noun. Chance of itself, it has no power to effect, and I submit to you that it is not the x-factor that evolutionists claim it is. And chance is not composed of physical matter. Regardless of those facts, to those who believe in evolution or carry a disbelief of Creationism or Intelligent Design, chance was the x-factor in everything coming into existence. We should expect science to deal only with facts (objective), approaching things rationally and logically.
It is self-evident that things that have a beginning also have an ending. The law of cause and effect provides that the universe could not be self-caused, or created itself. Nothing can create itself without an outside cause, at least equal to or greater than itself. To say the universe (and matter) had no cause, caused itself or has always existed, is essentially saying that all matter existed before it came into existence, which is a logical absurdity. And if there must have been something there to cause nothing to bring into existence something, then logically there was not nothing there, but had to be something that made something happen.
A self-created universe is a logical and rational impossibility because for something to create itself it must be before it is. This is impossible…it’s impossible for solids, liquids and gases, it’s impossible for atoms and subatomic particles, it is impossible for light, it is impossible for heat, it is impossible for God. Nothing anywhere any time can create itself because if it could it would have to exist before it created itself.”2
Whether it is the Big Bang theory, scientists are essentially saying that nothing exploded into something, which is a logical impossibility. To retain a theory of self-creation is totally irrational and rejects all logic. Such a theory can be believed but it can’t be argued reasonably and can never be established as a fact.
The purely logical conclusion is that a “First Cause”, as Aristotle called it, was this uncaused Causer. A pre-existing, eternal God could account for such a created order.
To cling to any theory other than a “First Cause” is to look at the universe’s origination as a theoretical equation: Space + Time + Chance = Everything. To the rational eye, this equation looks like; 0 + 0 + 0 = everything! The space did not cause matter to come into existence, nor did time. Neither can chance influence or create events. Can being come from non-being… spontaneous generation of matter from nothing? Can chance actually do anything or cause something to happen? No. Chance is only the likelihood of something occurring. There must be a cause before an effect can occur. And a cause logically demand a Causer…this infers a Creator. Like Aristotle’s “First Cause”. What is puzzling is that random chance is given the status of a cause.
We hear there is a chance for thunderstorms in the forecast, but the forecaster had no power to create the storms. By assigning a decimal to it (ie, 40%), we assume that the chance will cause the rain. No, it is only the likelihood of it occurring. The storms had a first cause and it was not the forecaster. Chance is powerless. It can not make something happen or create something from nothing. It is a non-being. And besides, it is a noun, not a verb (action). Has anyone ever identified anything in the universe that was uncaused? There is nothing in the universe that we know of that did not have a cause; every physical thing in the universe will have an ending, which infers that it had a beginning.
Dawkins and evolution still does not explain nor can they explain, the origins of the universe. This question should be addressed prior to any question of the possibilities of life, should it not? For without a universe, and thus matter, the question of life would be a moot point. But Dawkins avoids this impossible question because he has no answer. Aristotle was wise indeed in stating that a purely logical conclusion is that a “First Cause” was probable and in fact logical. Perhaps Dawkins would be better suited to call it Climbing Mount Impossible, for the odds he mentioned, “one in a billion billion billion” are beyond improbable, they are impossible.
1. Dawkins, R., 1976. The Selfish Gene, Oxford University Press, New York.
2. Sproul, Dr. R. C., Defending Your Faith. Excerpts from John McArthur. Copyright 2009.
http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/90-216
Dawkins, R. 1996. Climbing Mount Improbable, Norton Publishing, New York. (p. 261, 3, 283). ISBN 0393039307
About the Author
Jack Wellman is a freelance writer and Christian author who writes for several websites including Associated Content and Ovi Magazine. With a BA in history and degrees in science and education, his primary focus is on Biblical theology, apologetics and doxology. Wellman is also the author of several books including, "Blind Chance or Intelligent Design?: Empirical Methodologies and the Bible (Volume 1)", "Do Babies Go To Heaven?: Why Does God Allow Suffering?" and "Teaching Children The Gospel: How To Raise Godly Children".
How to Build a Church or Non-Profit Website in One Day
To lavigne943:
A statement like that isn’t logical. For example: A man pushes a rock down a mountainside. Does that prove that stones need humans to push them down (orelse they won’t fall?)? No (an eartquake could’ve caused it, etc.)
What is right though, is that only something intelligent could create life from nothing to relatively advanced in one step. Evolution did it step by step, like Richard Dawkins explains.
And if you say that nothing can appear from itself; something intelligent has to create it somehow, you have one really big problem (a regression problem): The one (like God) that designed life, must be designed as well, and by something even more advanced than itself! And this must have been created by something even more advanced (you can go on forever). This one (like God) couldn’t just appear in this theory, as that would’ve been a contradiction to the theory itself.
If scientist were able to create an COMPLETLY new organism; it would only prove life need intellegence to direct it.Wouldnt it?
I’m glad there is a well-informed Neo-darwinist in the house explaining to you all the embarrassingly fallacious nature of your misguided beliefs. Keep it up, Bobby! Hopefully one day these maniacs will stop interfering with human advancement. It’s also nice to know that someone else out there thought this article was as hilarious as I did. Richard Dawkins may be as biased in his writings as you, but at least he takes the time to write grammatically and structure his thoughts.
[...] Richard Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable – Blind Chance or … [...]
Getting back to the subject at hand, in this case, Dr. Craig Ventor’s claim to have created a new life form, physicist Freeman Dyson backed his way into paying the researchers a compliment in his own inimitable way:
One question is whether or not a DNA sequence alone is enough to generate a living creature. One way of reading the paper suggests this doesn’t seem to be the case because of the use of old microplasma cells into which the DNA was inserted — that this is not about “creating” life” since the new life requires an existing living recipient cell. [1]
1. http://www.edge.org/discourse/creation/creation_index.html
“My worry is that some people are going to draw the conclusion that they have created a new life form,” said Jim Collins, a bioengineer at Boston University, saying, “What they have created is an organism with a synthesized natural genome. But it doesn’t represent the creation of life from scratch or the creation of a new life form”. [2]
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/science/21cell.html
That is my point, or actually, their point. No new life for was created, it does not represent life from scratch, nor was a new life form created. It comes down to the fact that humans can not create life; in fact they are created themselves. That God is the prerequisite of the creation of life and by Him alone is it possible. God = 1, humans = 0. That is the final score.
“By the way, historically, racism has occurred more frequently where communism, atheism, totalitarianism, and evolution are taught, practiced and believed.”
Yep, when I think of the American South under Jim Crow, the first things I think of are “communism, atheism, totalitarianism, and evolution”.
Wow, that was some rant there, Dr. Adair! Maybe you should take a nice little walk and get a breath of fresh air. A man your age needs to be careful about his blood pressure—I wouldn’t want to see you have a stroke.
I’ll say this for you: there certainly are a lot of words to what you say! Let’s take a look at them, and see if these words actually make any sense, shall we?
“I see we have begun with the obligatory ad hominem attack.”
If it is an ad hominem attack to point out that the “metaphysical foundation” of Hitler’s beliefs was creationism, then it must also have been an ad hominem attack for you to (incorrectly) state that the “metaphysical foundation” of Nazism was evolutionary biology. It’s the exact same argument structure, except I was able to back my argument up with some specific evidence.
“What is the extent of your training, not to say education?”
I’ll tell you what my “training, not to say education” doesn’t include: a “degree” from an unaccredited “university” like Indiana Christian University or Honolulu University. (I have to say, I’ve never heard of “St. Charles University”—is that anywhere near Hogwarts? Just wondering.) No, my educational background has nothing so . . . “exotic”, let’s say. Just an undergraduate degree from a fully accredited state university, and law school at an ABA accredited law school.
“Lamarkism is simply a slight variation of Darwinism.”
Oh, this I have to hear.
“It is equally, atheistic, equally racist, equally unscientific.”
Really? Really now? Any evidence to back any of that up, or are we just making stuff up as we go along?
“I find it fascinating to attempt tp communicate with a creature who actually believes that he is an ape, brother to the Gorilla and the Chimpanzee.”
And it is a pleasure to meet you, too.
“It reminds me of the were-tiger cult.”
And here I was worried that you were going to say something completely bizarre.
“ . . . the mass murder universally practiced by Darwinists and their clones?”
I’m so glad we’re staying away from ad hominem attacks.
“As to Adolf Hitler, brilliant exponent of the Big Lie, the ever ready technique of the evolutionist hucksters, From Darwin to Hitler massively documents the fact that the Hitler regime was animated by an exaggerated nationalism, Social Darwinism and Darwinian eugenics.”
Keep trying—you’ll write a coherent sentence someday!
“‘The majority of scientists accept evolution.’ Who are we counting? Engineers, medical researchers, technicians, what? Whoever we are talking about, they are scattered all over the earth.”
Oh no! You don’t mean to say that evolution is accepted by the scientific community WORLDWIDE? Well, that certainly proves that it’s wrong, doesn’t it?
“Worse than that, they are narrow specialists who usually have not studied beyond the fact of an introductory Biology course and not thought about it since because it has little or no relevance to the hard sciences and they live in Socialist countries where opposition to this dogma might bring serious reprisals.”
You just finished saying that they’re “scattered all over the world”. Now they “live in Socialist countries.” Figure out which of these things you mean, and get back to us, will you?
“Evolution is simply pseudo-science which is now being massively debunked”.
And this post by you is an example of how evolution is being “massively debunked”? Beautiful!
Thanks, “Dr.” Adair! That was more entertaining than you can possibly imagine.
As to Adolf Hitler, brilliant exponent of the Big Lie, the ever ready technique of the evolutionist hucksters, From Darwin to Hitler massively documents the fact that the Hitler regime was animated by an exaggerated nationalism, Social Darwinism and Darwinian eugenics. This is the most thorough treatment but everyone who has studied the Hitler regime knows this. What I find fascinating about the evolutionists is that they deny that it is a religion and yet the founders like Thomas Henry Huxley and Earnst Haeckel insisted that it was. It certainly displays all the characteristics of religious fanaticism. They also boast of their logic and yet their main “arguments” always tend to be logical fallacies. “The majority of scientists accept evolution.” Who are we counting? Engineers, medical researchers, technicians, what? Whoever we are talking about, they are scattered all over the earth. Worse than that, they are narrow specialists who usually have not studied beyond the fact of an introductory Biology course and not thought about it since because it has little or no relevance to the hard sciences and they live in Socialist countries where opposition to this dogma might bring serious reprisals. This is not an appeal to expert knowledge but rather a Vox Populi fallacy. No more significant than a preference for chocolate ice cream. Insufficient Evidence, Post Hoc, Propter Hoc, The Refusal To Discuss, just plain irrational, inconsistent, incoherent ans self contradictory. There is little in even in legitimate science which can be proved, but evolutionists usually claim “scientific proof” when verification is the best science can claim. Kuhn points out that science operates with paradigms which may or may not be true and that the majority of scientists have always opposed every new advancement in science. Evolution is simply pseudo-science which is now being massively debunked and the True Believers are hysterical about like you, Funn or whatever your name is, you can’t refute Well man;s arguments so you refuse to discuss most of them.
Thank Mr. Funn, why don’t you use your real name? I see we have begun with the obligatory ad hominem attack. What is the extent of your training, not to say education? Lamarkism is simply a slight variation of Darwinism. It is equally, atheistic, equally racist, equally unscientific. I find it fascinating to attempt tp communicate with a creature who actually believes that he is an ape, brother to the Gorilla and the Chimpanzee. How does this feel? It reminds me of the were-tiger cult. Doesn’t the fact that you believe yourself to be an ape have vast, far reaching implications in ethics and explain the mass murder universally practiced by Darwinists and their clones?
Bait and switch tactics I see in the making here. To use Hitler as a being linked to Creationists is akin to, by association, to make all Creationists in the company of Hitler. What a sad tactical argument that defies all logic. This is like saying that Jeffrery Damer, since he was a non-Christian, and who will definitely go down in history as a very wicked man and being a homosexual who abducted, raped, tortured, murdered and cannibalized his many victims, he is ranked among the worlds worst men in the minds of most; then we can say, How do YOU feel about the fact that you share this ‘metaphysical foundation’ with Jeffrery Damer? since you are an unbeliever. This would be totally unfair to unbelievers and thus your arguments about Creationists being on a “metaphysical foundation with Hitler” is falty logic and guilt by association. That is a false peusdo argument and totally irrational. Not all unbelievers are of Jeffrey Dahmer character, just as all Creationists are not of Hitlers.
By the way, historically, racism has occurred more frequently where communism, atheism, totalitarianism, and evolution are taught, practiced and believed. Especially when any of these are combined under a state system.
In the early 20th Century, 32 American states had laws in the books to sterilize or euthanize those unfortunate, innocent victims. Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, called for the elimination of “human weeds,” “pruning the species for furtherance of it,“ for the cessation of charity, for the segregation of “morons, misfits, and maladjusted,” and for the sterilization of “genetically inferior races.” Mrs. Sanger argued that organized attempts to help the poor were the “surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding, and is perpetuating . . . defectives, delinquents, and dependents”. The U. S. Supreme Court backed the states on their practices. How fortunate we are today, even the great Physicist, Stephen Hawking might not have survived such a fate or had Albert Einstein had Muscular Dystrophy, who knows?
“I wonder how Bobby Funn feels about the fact that the principal use people have had for his pseudo-science is to provide the metaphysical foundation of every form of Socialist tyranny including Nazism and Communism.”
Why howdy there Dr. Adair! Say, do you know “Dr.” Kent Hovind? I understand that he is a “Dr.” just like you!
So you are claiming here that Nazism and Communism were “metaphysically founded” on the Darwinian Theory of biological evolution. Let’s see how that claim stands up to scrutiny:
Well Joseph Stalin was a believer in Lysenkoism (a form of Lamarckism), a belief that is at odds with Darwinian evolution. Lysenkoism held that acquired characteristics of an organism (e.g., plucking the leaves off of a cotton plant to make it leafless) could be inherited by that organism’s descendants. Lysenkoism became the basis of official agricultural policy of the Soviet Union, while Darwinian evolution was dismissed as “bourgeois”. This policy continued into the 1960s, causing great, long term harm to Soviet agriculture. So Soviet Communism was, if anything, anti-Darwinian.
Let’s turn to Hitler and Nazism, because that’s where the fun really begins. Because throughout his writings, Adolf Hitler made it very clear that he was—get ready for this—a Creationist!
“The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger. The only difference that can exist within the species must be in the various degrees of structural strength and active power, in the intelligence, efficiency, endurance, etc., with which the individual specimens are endowed.” – Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. i, ch. xi
“For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties.” – Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. x
“From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today.” – Adolf Hitler, Hitler’s Tabletalk
Yes, Adolf Hitler was a Creationist. Just like you, Dr. Adair! How do YOU feel about the fact that you share this “metaphysical foundation” with Adolf Hitler?
I wonder how Bobby Funn feels about the fact that the principal use people have had for his pseudo-science is to provide the metaphysical foundation of every form of Socialist tyranny including Nazism and Communism. It has also been used by Carl Sagan and many others to justify the murder of the unborn. Sagan made use of Earnst Haeckel’s fraudulent drawings of the human embryo, long discredited but still used in biology textbooks today to huckster evolution.
First of all, the genetic code was copied from an already existing cell. And reactions to Venter’s accomplishment have received criticism from other scientists. Even while it was hailed as the creation of artificial life, there are many scientists who flatly disagree. They say that the reaction was overblown, taking issue with Venter’s claim of having created a truly synthetic cell and responses from scientists are not in the minority but are coming from all corners of the science world. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/
Dr. Venter did not actually create a new life form, but in fact copied a pre-existing genome from an already existing cell. It’s like they took a car body, with all the wiring and components still in it, and placed an engine inside, and then claimed they invented a brand new car.
Rather than creating a stand-alone new life form cell, experimenters point out that Dr. Venter got a big boost by placing the synthetic genome into a preexisting cell, which was naturally inclined to make sense of the transplanted DNA and to turn genes on and off. In other words, without the preexisting cell, Synthia would never have had a chance. Thus, the scientists say that it’s not accurate to label the experiment’s product a true “synthetic cell.” http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/05/20/did-craig-venter-just-create-synthetic-life-the-jury-is-decidedly-out/#more-15116
First of all, it is still an invalid argument to say that because scientists have yet to synthesize a cell completely from scratch, the modern evolutionary synthesis is incorrect. The conclusion does not follow from that premise.
But even if this were a valid argument, one would have to acknowledge that this is an argument with an expiration date. Prior to this announcement, many scientists might have estimated that we were still 20-30 years away from making a completely artificial cell. However, with this announcement that a new genome had been chemically synthesized from scratch and introduced into a bacterial cell, to create a new type of bacterium, those estimates probably need to be cut in half.
I wonder what the creationists will say then?
It is not what I say but what scientists say and they, not I, say “Not so fast!”. Lets get the facts straight on this. Reactions to Venter’s accomplishment have been mixed to say the least. While it has been trumpeted as the creation of artificial life, many scientists said the reaction was overblown, and took issue with Venter’s claim of having created a truly synthetic cell. But many experts say that since Venter copied a pre-existing genome, he didn’t really create a new life form at all.
Here’s why: “To my mind Craig has somewhat overplayed the importance of this,” said David Baltimore, a leading geneticist at Caltech. Dr. Baltimore described the result as “a technical tour de force” but not breakthrough science, but just a matter of scale…. “He has not created life, only mimicked it,” Dr. Baltimore said in The New York Times.
In addition, many experts note that the experimenters got a big boost by placing the synthetic genome in a preexisting cell, which was naturally inclined to make sense of the transplanted DNA and to turn genes on and off. Thus, they say, it’s not accurate to label the experiment’s product a true “synthetic cell.”
So a preexisting cell was necessary for it to work, and it is not in fact accurate to label the experiment’s product a true “synthetic cell.” So it is not a true synthetic cell. It is only a mimic. It is mislabeled as a “new life form”. It is not one at all, but a mimic and one that of necessity, had to use the copy of the genome of an already, existing cell and not a cell of its own making. Yes, oops. Oops to a new life form that is.
Oops:
American scientists (Craig Venter) announced yesterday that they have created a new life form in a test tube. Although rudimentary (single cell organism) is has vast implications.
How say you now?
“chiefly that all the major groups (phyla) of life which we know today appear in the Cambrian with no evolutionary ancestors.”
Sorry, wrong.
Anthocerotophyta appeared in the Upper Cretaceous;
Bryophyta appeared in the Permian;
Marchantiophyta appeared in the Upper Devonian;
Lycopodiophyta appeared in the Silurian;
Pteridophyta appeared in the Carboniferous;
Pteridospermatophyta appeared in the Upper Devonian;
Coniferophyta appeared in the Carboniferous;
Cycadophyta appeared Lower Permian;
Ginkgophyta appeared in the Mesozoic;
Gnetophyta appeared in the Permian; and
Anthophyta appeared in the Cretaceous.
Care to try again?
Incidentally, I’d just love to see your evidence that there has been a vast effort over the years to synthesize a cell. Are there any statistics that you can point to that show that what you claim is actually true? Any surveys published in the peer-reviewed literature? Anything like that?
My “basis for denying the evidence for evolution–the fact that scientists have not yet synthesized an artificial cell?” and “Thats it? Really?”
No, I’m afraid that’s not it. That’s not all. Its only a fraction of the reason that evolution remains inconclusive in proof. There are reasons based in biology, archeology, paleontology, etc, e.g., paleontologists, archeologists and evolutionists have long pointed out the problem for the evolution theory,chiefly that all the major groups (phyla) of life which we know today appear in the Cambrian with no evolutionary ancestors. This is why evolutionists refer to it as an “explosion” of evolution. There are no groups which have been identified as ancestral to any of the phyla, and geologically these phyla seem to have appeared suddenly and simultaneously. The evolutionary conundrum is this absence of ancestors. Each of the phyla represents a basic blueprint, or unique body plan. Evolution’s deepest paradox is that in rock layers above the Cambrian no new or different body plans appear. What is found are compound eyes, intricate apendages, all completely formed already. Plants already appearing fully flowered, all already highly complex.
Why haven’t we seen any new animal body plans continued to crawl out of the evolutionary cauldron during the past “hundreds of millions” of years? Or why haven’t we seen new apendages, more new species? According to evolutional theory, enormous and radical evolutionary changes have taken place in this time, and evolution has half a billion” years? The starfish, for example, has shown no evolutionary changes at all, none whatsoever. 95% of all known fossils are of invertebrates, do these same invertebrates appear gradually? Absolutely not, they appear in the Cambrian, and in an already fully mature state.
So no, I’m afraid that’s not it. There is so much more “roaring silence” in the inability proof of evolution.
Incidentally, there actually “has been a vast effort over the years to synthesize a cell.” And despite the vast amounts of money spent on experiments and research, no hard evidence has been produced about how any RNA could evolve into a complete simple living cell. That fact remains.
“[S]cientists in experiments have failed to create life on their own after multiple decades of attempts and millions upon millions of dollars in experiential endeavors.”
That’s it? Really? That’s your basis for denying the evidence for evolution–the fact that scientists have not yet synthesized an artificial cell? By that logic, since scientists have spent so much more time, effort, and money trying to create a sustained nuclear fusion reaction without success, you must likewise conclude that a sustained nuclear fusion reaction is impossible, right?
Of course, nothing you have said so far, not one single thing, calls into question in even the slightest way, all the things that science has learned about how life has developed on Earth. Once again, it is an invalid criticism to say that because science cannot yet explain some things, the many things that science does explain should be disregarded. You certainly have provided no reasonable basis for discounting all the things that science has learned.
By the way, the premise of your flawed argument is likewise flawed: you seem to be imagining that there has been a vast effort over the years to synthesize a cell. That is simply not true. While some researchers have investigated prebiotic systems over the years, these investigations have been nowhere near the scale of such efforts as sequencing the human genome or investigating the causes of cancer.
The literal translation or meaning of science is “knowledge” and this knowledge is always changing, yet scientists in experiments have failed to create life on their own after multiple decades of attempts and millions upon millions of dollars in experiential endeavors. Science is in a constant state of change, just as is knowledged. Revising here, overturning this hypothesis and so on. That is the point of this article. Scientific theories and evolutionists continue to hold to this day that life began in the oceans from a concentrated organic complex from which particular chemicals “randomly or accidentally” produced life. Yet there remains no conclusive evidence that life emerged spontaneously or by happenstance. So again the fact that there is no conclusive proof remains and so we can openly ask; what experimental evidence or scientific reports have revealed that scientists have ever created a living organism that is self sustaining and becomes a cell-dividing prokaryotes (called binary fission)? The answer is of course, zilch.
“From what I understand, the very origin of homochirality (the synthesis of homiciral amino acids) is the focus of science concerning the origin of life, true?.”
False. Scientists exploring early life are looking at a number of things. It would be inaccurate to say that homochirality is the “focus” of this area. Additionally, we already know a great deal about how homochiral peptides form. For one thing, a simple peptide replicator (which can have as few as 8 amino acids) can amplify the proportion of a single-handedness in an initially random mixture of dextrorotary and levorotary fragments. We also know that some amino acids (notably serine) form stable homochiral clusters. These clusters can form the template for homochiral heteropeptides, through a substitution reaction.
The larger point, however, is that because science is a dynamic field, there is always more to learn. There are now, and may always be, unanswered questions in science. But through the process of scientific investigation, we have learned vast amounts about the development of life on Earth. It is an invalid criticism to say (as you seem to) that because science cannot (yet) explain some things, the many things that science does explain should be disregarded.
From what I understand, the very origin of homochirality (the synthesis of homiciral amino acids) is the focus of science concerning the origin of life, true?. The fact is that non-optically pure mixtures of sugars or amino acids can not, stand alone, be used to make proteins and the RNA and DNA that are absolutely essential to make a living organism from a non-living one & have it become a cell-dividing prokaryote . That is the point. Scientists can not create life nor can they explain the origin of life. Neither can science use experimental processes to reproduce any naturalistic origin of life.
They have failed to produce amino acids or sugars to create Ribonucleic acid, which directs the manufacturing of and building of proteins and necessary codes for the genome that is present in certain organisms as well as the Deoxyribonucleic acid, a chemical residing inside the nucleus of cells which job is to carry genetic instructions that is necessarily required to make living organisms. In what study have these two acids joined to create a new living organism? Surely we would have seen this on Time or Newsweek, somewhere, right?! I would like to see what experimental evidence or scientific reports have claimed to have scientists create a living organism that is self sustaining and becomes a cell-dividing prokaryotes (called binary fission).
“what was the cause of quantum mechanics capabilities. You simply can not have an effect without a cause, in this case, the quantum mechanics.”
What is your basis for claiming that quantum mechanics must have a cause? Quantum mechanics is not an event or an effect. It is a description of the physical world. Part of that description is the observation that some events are not precipitated by any “cause”. This observation belies your statement that “You simply can not have an effect without a cause”.
Your statements about the stereochemistry of amino acids is a non sequitur to my point about quantum mechanics. But since you mention it, you are incorrect in stating that “if a right-handed amino acid is included, the shape of the protein is changed and the protein will not work in a living cell.” Some bacteria use dextrorotary amino acids, without any difficulty.
Thank you Mr. Linton. And Mr. Funn, amino acids come in two forms called right and left-handed because one is a mirror image of the other. Proteins which contain all left-handed amino acids will connect correctly with the surrounding proteins. However, if a right-handed amino acid is included, the shape of the protein is changed and the protein will not work in a living cell. Scientists have not been able to cause amino acids dissolved in water to join together to form proteins. The energy-requiring chemical reactions that join amino acids are reversible and do not occur spontaneously in water. The conclusion is that even in extreme laboratory conditions humans have still not been able to create a living organism from non-living inorganic matter. If indeed “uncaused events” are happening all the time, then I might asked, what was the cause of quantum mechanics capabilities. You simply can not have an effect without a cause, in this case, the quantum mechanics. Even the word “mechanics” infers a mechanism is involved. Mechanisms infer a cause. Mechanisms produce effects. It takes us back to square one. Cause must necessarily preceed effect.
“Has anyone ever identified anything in the universe that was uncaused?”
Only a person with abolutely no knowledge of quantum mechanics could ask such a question, because at the quantum level, uncaused events are happening all the time.
Great article Jack. I know it will be a blessing in equipping Pastors and ministries in defending the faith. It is also a very good apologetic of the faith (Jude 3).
Thanks and may God bless!
Gary
Leave a Comment