I begin this article with a quote. (yes I know I was accused of mining quotes in my last article by a certain commenter, but I have to ask him where he got all the information stored in his brain, if not from others who did all the hard work, or did he arrive at his own conclusions spontaneously by himself)
The quote is from Fred Hoyle (Yes I know he is considered a virtual apostate in the scientific field) which goes as follows:
“I have always thought it curious that, while most scientists claim to eschew religion, it actually dominates their thoughts more than it does the clergy”
as quoted in Paul Davies book, “The Mind of God” 1992 page223 – by the way both Paul Davies and Fred Hoyle are not Christians by any means.
I suppose I could say the same for the Atheists of this world, they seem obsessed with God and his nonexistence.
Well onto the subject at hand!
Atheists satisfied with an explanation for the existence of matter, time and space in terms of General Relativity, Quantum Physics and the artful Super String Theory without briginning God into it are faced with another conundrum – the existence of Life.
Now life is easier to discern than define. The Concise Oxford Dictionary includes the phrase “Animate Life”, yet goes on to define “animate” as living. Well not much help there. The esteemed Encyclopaedia Britannica, one of the most scientifically up to date encyclopaedias in the world, after a long discourse comes to this conclusion that “No general agreement exists on what is being studied, There is no general accepted definition of life”
Yet our planet is teeming with it in millions of different species or forms, from the smallest – the prokaryotes which include all bacteria to the largest, the General Sherman tree which grows to around 270 feet. With so much life in all its diversity, it is hard not to ask some very important questions about this undefined thing called life.
One theory which we examine before spontaneous generation, which originally was expounded upon by William Herschel, the British astronomer in the early eighteenth century, popularised in the TV series “The X Files” and taken up by the scientist that is quoted in the beginning of this article – Fred Hoyle, and his colleague Chandra Wickramasinghe, professor of Mathematics at Cardiff University. This is the theory of Panspermia, that life arose in some other part of the universeand the earth was seeded with life from outer space as espoused in their book “Evolution From Space”. In an earlier book Hoyle made this statement, “it is remarkable that for the past half century, the scientific world has, almost without exception, believed a theory for which there is not a single fact.” - The Space Travellers page32. The problem with Panspermia is that it passes the buck of the origin and generation of life to some other corner of the universe without answering the fundamental question.
So the only other choice for the ardent evolutionist is “Spontaneous Generation” from inert and inanimate matter. Erasmus Darwin the grandfather of Charles became the leading proponent of the idea in early nineteenth century. However Spontaneous Generation was dealt a massive blow by the French chemist Louis Pasteur, the founder of microbiology in the 1860’s. His work disproving Abiogenesis as it came to be called was published just 5 years after Darwin’s “Origins”. Darwin, in his wisdom, never delved into abiogenesis, but proceeded with his theory life already spontaneously generated.
Many have tried to concoct life in a primordial soup in the favourable and contrived settings of the laboratory. Amino acids have been produced in some concoctions, however there are two distinct types of Amino acids popularly called “left handed” and “right handed”. All life forms use only the left handed kind. Unfortunately the right handed kind tends to destroy entire amino acid chains and the experiments all tended to produce a lethal dose of both kinds.
The other problem encountered in these experiments is that there is no reason to believe that that it is possible for amino acids to combine randomly to form anything useful. As Phillip Johnson, a Berkley Law professor explains – “Let us grant that, one way or another, all the required chemical components were present in the early earth. This still leaves us at a dead end, because there is no reason to believe that life has a tendency to emerge when the right chemicals are sloshing about in a soup. Although some components of living systems can be duplicated with very advanced technology, scientists employing the full power of their intelligence cannot manufacture living organisms from amino acids, sugars and the like. How then was the trick done before scientific intelligence was in existence?” - Darwin On Trial page103.
The fact is that even if it was shown that such molecules could be made from the chemicals which may have existed in the primitive world, it would only emphasize the necessity of the intelligent control over the chemist himself. Some small steps may be feasible by known chemical processes, the rest is downright speculation.
In fact most of it is pure speculation topped with, and obscured by scientific jargon. It’s the old chicken and the egg story (I suppose I can expect a blasting from some in the comments about this one), which came first. It is the same question as which came first, DNA or RNA, both are necessary for replicating life, both can only function together in unison, neither could have formed the other, they are both defunct without the other. But we will get into that in Part 2 of Such Is Life.
Lastly, to CaptainGaza. I don’t know what program you are referring to in your comments on my last article, as I never watched it. Obviously you did, but by the sounds of it you didn’t enjoy it. I really don’t mind you calling me an idiot. I read lots of scientific books and yes I do study the bible, seems like a lot of atheists do too. Maybe I should get you to proof read my articles, but you would probably delete the whole lot. Love the comment ennui.vp - as witty, as witty can be