Two articles, based on my recently published book Nonsense of a High Order: The Confused and Illusory World of the Atheist, provoked a heated response from many non-believers who strongly disagreed with its contents. The first was an excerpt that appeared on Aish.com, and the second was an article written by Rabbi Adam Jacobs, managing director of Aish Hatorah, NYC, and columnist for the religion section of the Huffington Post, entitled “A Reasonable Argument for God’s Existence.” That blog elicited an avalanche of 8,000 “Liked this” postings to Facebook and 6,500 comments.
Dr. Jerry Coyne, the well known atheistic/evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago, took some potshots at both Rabbi Jacobs and myself on his own blog. In a post that was long on sarcasm and short on substance, he ridiculed the idea that one could draw conclusions about the existence of God from the complete bafflement of scientists regarding a naturalistic origin of life. He also accused Rabbi Jacobs of misrepresenting a statement by the late Nobel Prize winning scientist, Francis Crick.
It would have been worthwhile for Dr. Coyne to have attended the recent Origins Conference at Arizona State University; there he could have heard Origin of Life expert, Dr. Paul Davies, explain the disputed statement of Crick in the same way as Rabbi Jacobs.
Invariably the main objections from readers fell into one of the following seven categories:
- Rabbi, this is just the old “Argument from Ignorance” or a “God-of-the gaps” argument.
- Rabbi, you ignored the implications of Darwinian Evolution.
- Rabbi, you ignored current Origin of Life research, particularly the RNA-World research.
- Rabbi, you are “quote mining” (i.e. presenting statements by scientists out of context and misleading the readers).
- Rabbi, this is just the “Argument from Incredulity.”
- Rabbi, you are “primitive, backward, superstitious and anti-science.”
- Rabbi, we must have unwavering faith in science and scientists.
In the spirit of reasoned discourse and seeking the truth, I present my response below to each of these objections.
1. “Rabbi, just because science does not know how life started does not mean that God did it.” (The Argument from Ignorance, or God-of-the-gaps)
If the argument being presented was in fact: “We do not know how life started, ergo it was created by God,” this objection might very well be valid. However, this is not the argument being presented.
The argument is as follows: All human beings from time immemorial have, based on reason and experience, operated under the principle that highly specified information (i.e. drawings on cave walls, inscriptions in stone, poetry, computer code, etc.), and functional complexity beyond a certain level (bicycle, tape recorder, computers, etc.), are always the result of intelligent purpose and intervention. This principle is not based on what we don’t know; it is based on what we do know and experience about the sources of specified information and functional complexity.
This is the reason why SETI scientists sit and wait for purposeful patterns of radio transmissions from outer space. If these scientists detected a radio transmission from the great spiral galaxy delineating in perfect Morse Code the exact chemical formula of the DNA of a fruit fly, there would only be one of two conclusions: A. We had made contact with ET, or B. Someone at NASA was playing a colossal joke on everyone. The one possibility that would not be considered, at least not by those with a reasonable grasp on reality, is that the transmission was the result of some naturalistic process guided solely by the laws of chemistry and physics that took place over a period of 300 million years, and which clothed the message in an “illusion of design and purpose.” (For those who are familiar with Dawkinspeak: Designoid transmissions)
Illya Prigogine, (Nobel Prize-Chemistry, 1977), once wrote that, “let us have no illusions…[we] are unable to grasp the extreme complexity of the simplest of organisms.” The DNA of a bacterium (the simplest type of living organism known to have existed) contains an encyclopedic amount of pure digitally encoded information that directs the highly sophisticated molecular machinery within the cell membrane.
“The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like…DNA characters are copied with an accuracy that rivals anything that modern engineers can do…DNA messages are pure digital code.” (Please forgive me for quoting the well known creationist and proponent of ID, Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden.) The obvious conclusion is that both the code and the sophisticated molecular machinery are the result of intelligent purpose and intervention. In other words, just as the highly specified hypothetical message discussed above is itself the evidence of its intelligent source, the highly specified genetic information and the extraordinarily high level of functional complexity of the bacterium, are themselves the evidence of its Intelligent Designer.
There is nothing even approaching conclusive evidence that any life form “simpler” than a bacterium ever existed. To get a range on the enormous challenges involved in bridging the gaping chasm between non-life and life, consider the following:
“The difference between a mixture of simple chemicals and a bacterium, is much more profound than the gulf between a bacterium and an elephant.” (Dr. Robert Shapiro, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, NYU)
and distinguished biologist, Dr. Lynn Margulis:
“To go from bacterium to people is less of a step than to go from a mixture of amino acids to a bacterium.”
If you wish to assert that this quantum leap was the result of some as yet unknown, undirected naturalistic process, then demonstrate it conclusively using empirical evidence like any other scientific hypothesis. If you feel that Darwinian Evolution challenges these conclusions, please see the next section.
“Rabbi, aren’t you aware that Darwinian Evolution shows us that undirected processes can produce astounding functional complexity?” (In Dawkinspeak, extrapolating from the Darwinian Evolutionary process to understand Origin of Life is called “Consciousness Raising.” In fact, as we shall see below it would more accurately be described as “putting the cart before the horse.”)
Darwinian Evolution (the truth of which I will concede for arguments sake) is based on mutations that occur in the genetic material contained in the DNA of a self replicating organism. Since Darwinian Evolution is not operative or relevant until a DNA based self replicating system is in place, it obviously cannot explain the existence of the first self replicating bacterium that contains DNA. The very best that Darwinian Evolution can tell us is the following: Once you have in place a dazzlingly sophisticated piece of molecular machinery and an astoundingly sophisticated digitally encoded system of control and self replication (DNA), the interactions between this living system and its environment (natural selection) can produce an astounding variety of living systems. All forms of life are possible if - and only if - this piece of machinery is in place.
Darwinian Evolution is testimony to the unimaginably awesome potentials and capabilities contained in the genetic material of the first living bacterium.
A paradigm-shifting insight emerges from all this. Contrary to popular belief, Darwinian Evolution is not a testimony to what can emerge from undirected processes as the skeptic would have us believe; it is a testimony to the unimaginably awesome potentials and capabilities contained in the genetic material of the first living bacterium. In other words, the process of Darwinian Evolution is not the cause of the first living bacterium; Darwinian Evolution is a process which is a result of the staggering functional complexity of the first living bacterium.
Where did it come from? Professor Thomas Nagel, distinguished professor of law and philosophy at NYU (and who describes himself as “just as much an outsider to religion as Richard Dawkins”), puts it this way:
“The entire apparatus of evolutionary explanation therefore depends on the prior existence of genetic material with these remarkable properties…we have explained the complexity of organic life in terms of something that is itself just as functionally complex as what we originally set out to explain. So the problem is just pushed back a step: how did such a thing come into existence.”
The entire façade of scientific credibility for atheism is built on Darwinian Evolution. As it turns out, Darwinian Evolution is completely irrelevant to the question of the existence or non-existence of a creator. The issue that must be confronted is Origin of Life. If you assert that the answer to this question is provided by the prior existence of an RNA World, please see the next section.
2. “Rabbi, of course a DNA-based bacterium did not just pop out of the prebiotic soup. The functional complexity of the bacterium and its genetic material is the result of a step by step process starting from a less complex RNA World, and then transitioning to a more complex DNA World." (“It goes without saying that the emergence of this RNA and the transition to a DNA world implies an impressive number of stages, each more improbable than the previous one.” Dr. Francois Jacob, microbiologist and recipient of the Nobel Prize for Medicine - 1965)
In April of 2010, two leading Origin of Life researchers, Dr. Gerald Joyce and Dr. Michael Robertson, in an article entitled “The Origins of the RNA World,” stated categorically that there is as yet no “realistic” scenario for the emergence of an RNA World and “the details of this process remain obscure and are not likely to be known in the near future.” They also candidly informed us that “this concept does not explain how life originated.”
Professor Emeritus of Chemistry at NYU, Dr. Robert Shapiro, agrees, but he is not so polite. At a lecture at the Harvard University Origins of Life Initiative he declared that “any abiotically prepared replicator before the start of life is a fantasy.” In an article for Scientific American entitled, “A Simpler Origin of Life,” he compared it to the notion of a gorilla sitting down at a keyboard containing the alphabets of every known language of mankind and typing out, in English, a “coherent recipe for the preparation of chili-con-carne.”
Interestingly enough, Dr. Leslie Orgel, (a proponent of the RNA World theory) in a posthumously published article, declared that Shapiro’s “Metabolism First” origin of life theory was based on “if pigs could fly chemistry.” Because of my deep respect for scientists, I agree with both of them. If you think you know better than Doctors Joyce, Robertson, Orgel and Shapiro, then please present a conclusive empirical demonstration. If you think that my information is not up to date, then see the following article (2/28/11) by veteran Scientific American writer, John Horgan (non-believer), entitled: “Pssst, don’t tell the creationists, but scientists don’t have a clue how life began.”
Dr. Paul Davies (atheist, physicist) was a chosen to be a member of the distinguished panel of scientists at the recent ASU Origins Conference that took place in February, 2011. Here is an excerpt from his address:
“When I was a student in London in the Swinging sixties…the prevailing view at the time was summed up by Francis Crick who said that life seems almost a miracle, so many are the conditions necessary for it to get going. What he meant by this was that it’s entirely possible that life on earth was a bizarre freak event, an aberration unique in the entire universe. That really was the feeling in those days. Today you scarcely open a newspaper without reading that scientists think that the universe is teeming with life. What, you may wonder has changed, do we now know how life began so that we can confidently say, yes, it’s everywhere? Well, we don’t know how life began…We know the mechanism whereby life evolved; we don’t know the mechanism that turned non-life into life. It doesn’t mean that it was a miracle, but it means that we have many theories, many conjectures but we don’t know what happened…What we’d really like to know, was it very likely or was it very unlikely?”
If you feel I am “quote mining” please see the next section.
3. “Rabbi, you are using the old creationist trick of quote mining.”
And I say that when you quote expert opinions in your atheistic articles, you're guilty of “quote mining.” Gee, it seems we are at an impasse. What I am trying to illustrate, of course, is that the accusation of “quote mining” is childish and trivial. Not only does it not contribute to an adult-level exchange of ideas, but it actually inhibits such an exchange.
It is perfectly valid to claim that a citation has been taken out of context, as long as you can back it up with a reasoned argument. If you have nothing more to contribute than hurling unsubstantiated accusations of “quote mining” please go back to high school and shoot spitballs.
Many times atheists back up their “quote mining” accusations by stating that despite what a scientist might have written about the difficulties in discovering the Origin of Life, he/she still believes in a naturalistic/scientific solution. This is not a valid objection. For example, Dr. Paul Davies writes in his book The Fifth Miracle: The Search for the Origin and Meaning of Life: “The miracle of life is not that it is made out of nanotools, but that these tiny diverse parts are integrated in a highly organized way…with a fine tuning and complexity as yet unmatched by any human engineering…many investigators are uneasy about stating in public that the origin of life is a mystery, even though behind closed doors they freely admit that they are baffled…The problem of how and where life began is one of the great outstanding mysteries of science.”
He then later states: “Just because scientists are still uncertain how life began, does not mean life cannot have had a natural origin.”
His first statement is a description of the scientific facts and realities on the ground. Life is unimaginably complex and we have no clue how it came about through a naturalistic process. The second statement is declaring his own personal belief or faith, that science could still find an answer. The first statement is fact; the second statement is faith and/or conjecture.
Just because a scientist personally denies the existence of a creator or believes (“I agree that conventional Origin of Life theory is flawed…I believe that better science will provide the needed answers.” - Dr. Robert Shapiro on the Panda’s Thumb website) that science will “triumph,” his personal beliefs have no weight in the objective courtroom of the intellect. Despite what many skeptics and non-believers seem to strongly feel in their gut, there is no guarantee at all that scientists will come up with a naturalistic solution to the origin of life. A feeling in one’s gut is “faith;” it is not science.
4. “Rabbi, this is just another worn out presentation of the Argument from Incredulity.”
If what you mean by this is the following: That by asking me to believe that something which exhibits the awe-inspiring level of functional complexity as a bacterium and its digitally encoded DNA could emerge through an undirected process in a prebiotic swamp - without anything even remotely approaching conclusive evidence to back up such a claim - you are straining my credulity beyond the breaking point, then you are absolutely correct. The incredibly heavy burden of proof is on you, not me. I do not have to prove that functional complexity and specified information are the results of intelligent purpose and intervention; that is a given. I also do not have to disprove the possibility of a naturalistic origin. The burden is on you to offer actual evidence that it happened. To paraphrase Bertrand Russell: I would not believe your claim that there is a china saucer in orbit between the Earth and Mars even though I could not disprove it and I don’t believe in your claim about the naturalistic origin of life without conclusive evidence.
5. “Rabbi, you are medieval, superstitious, and anti-science.”
Many atheists seem to be under the impression that we are still living in the middle ages. Scientists like Galileo are being thrown in prison for heretical scientific claims, and superstitious pagans are running around screaming that thunder is the result of the gods bowling or Zeus hammering in a nail to hang up a picture in his living room at Mt. Olympus Towers. (As an orthodox rabbi, I remind the skeptics that we moved past that stage about 3,000 years ago.)
Our current discussion is not about particular religious scriptures, dogmas, or practices. It is also not about the biblical description of creation in the book of Genesis. That is a completely different topic and must be dealt with separately. It is also not about the veracity of the revelation at Mt. Sinai. The fact that ancient peoples may have had differing beliefs about reality has no bearing at all on the fundamental question of the origin of life. Talmudic sources record debates between Jewish Rabbinic Sages and Greek and Roman skeptics that took place over 2,000 years ago. The issue under question then was exactly the same as it is now: How did life begin?
And the scientific answer is:
Dr. George Whitesides (Organic Chemist, Harvard University, highest Hirsch-index rating of any living chemist): How? I have no idea. Based on all the chemistry I know it seems astonishingly improbable
Dr. Chrisopher Mckay (Astrophysicist, NASA): The origin of life remains a scientific mystery…we do not know how life originated on earth
Dr. Werner Arber (Molecular Biologist, Nobel Prize-Medicine, 1978): Although a biologist, I must confess that I do not know how life came about…How such already quite complex structures may have come together remains a mystery to me.
Dr. Harold P. Klein (1921-2001), Astrobiologist, NASA): The simplest bacterium is so damn complicated from the point of view of a chemist that it is almost impossible to imagine how it happened.
Dr. Christian DeDuve (Cytologist, Biochemist, Nobel Prize-Medicine, 1974): How this momentous event happened is still highly conjectural, though no longer purely speculative. (If this statement by Dr. DeDuve is unclear, the following might be helpful: Wordnet Online Dictionary: Conjecture: (A) Noun - a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating…usually with little hard evidence. (Synonym - speculation) (B) Verb-to believe on uncertain or tentative grounds (synonym - speculate)
Professor Richard Dawkins (Biologist): (A) Nobody knows how it happened (Climbing Mt. Improbable). (B) “I told you I don’t know…nor does anyone else” (From the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed).
The more scientists learn about the seemingly endless layers of complexity in the simplest living cells, the more vexing the puzzle becomes.
It is critical to note that the daunting challenges scientists face in discovering a naturalistic origin of life is not due to their ignorance about the chemistry of the simplest living organisms; it is exactly the opposite. The more scientists learn about the seemingly endless layers of complexity in the simplest living cells, the more vexing the puzzle becomes.
6. “Okay rabbi, so who created the Creator?”
“Who created the Creator?” presents us with the philosophical dilemma of the infinitely regressing series of creators. Ultimately, both Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens (and perhaps Jerry Coyne also), base their denial of a Creator on the assumption that there is no answer to this question and we are therefore stuck with a naturalistic beginning. In other words, even though they admit that everything I have said up until now might be perfectly sensible or at least worthy of consideration, this particular philosophical question leaves us with no choice but to accept, that despite the utter improbability of a natural emergence of life it happened at least once because here we are. In the final analysis, the atheist denial of God is based not on science, but on philosophy.
In fact, there is a rather elementary and obvious solution to the dilemma of who created the Creator. Professor Michael Yarus, a distinguished microbiologist from the U. of Colorado, poses this dilemma in his book, Life From An RNA World, and casually mentions this elementary answer: “So how then did the designer arise? Sometimes this gambit is declined by intelligent designers who explicitly acknowledge that they are thinking of the [One, transcendent, infinite] Judeo-Christian God.”
Simply put, the philosophical dilemma of the infinitely regressing chain of creators is only applicable to a material being, not a transcendent being that exists in neither time nor space. A full presentation and elaboration on this idea is slightly beyond the scope of this essay. For a more comprehensive explanation see Chapter 5 in Nonsense of a High Order: The Confused and Illusory World of the Atheist, or the excerpt on Aish.com.
7. “Rabbi, we must have unwavering faith in science and scientists.”
From Dr. Jerry Coyne’s website, Why Evolution is True: “A rabbi proves God” (3/7/2011)
“Nope, we don’t yet understand how life originated on Earth, but we have good leads, and abiogenesis is a thriving field. And we may never understand how life originated on Earth, because the traces of early life have vanished. We know it happened at least once (and that all species descend from only one origin), but not how. I’m pretty confident that within, say, 50 years we’ll be able to create life in a laboratory under the conditions of primitive Earth, but that, too, won’t tell us exactly how it did happen—only that it could.”
In my official capacity as a rabbi, I give Dr. Jerry Coyne (yes, he’s Jewish) the traditional blessing that he should live until a 120 years. Be that as it may, I have no intention, based purely on Dr. Coyne’s proclamation, of sitting together with him in a nursing home when we are both well over a hundred years old drooling into our plastic cups, while waiting for “The Good News” that the grandchildren of his students from the University of Chicago have finally discovered the Holy Grail of Atheism: A naturalistic origin of life.
Dr. Coyne, you should live and be well. If in 50 years (and we’re both still around) you find the answer you’ve been looking for, I promise to do my best to appraise it with all the integrity and honesty I can muster. In the meantime, it is clear to me that it is the theist who has the overwhelmingly decisive intellectual advantage. May we all follow the truth wherever it leads us. I’m sure we can at least agree on that.
_(english).jpg)
_(english).jpg)
_(english).jpg)
_(english).gif)
_(english).jpg)
_(english).jpg)
_(english).jpg)
_(english).gif)
(21) Fran, October 11, 2013 2:03 AM
BIG BANG PHOOEY
I still cannot understand how anyone can sensibly believe a large explosion brings forth anything but a pile of rubble. My father was a munitions expert and he never witnessed a living being created from any of his explosions. If atheists think believing in God requires a stretch of imagination, how can they not think a big bang creation does not require a stretch of the imagination? I find it amusing to hear them say that they cannot support every facet of the big bang theory but demand that theologians be able to explain every facet of intelligent design.
(20) Stanley Hartstein, November 23, 2012 7:01 PM
Who created G-d? No one.
The question from Atheists: If G-d exists, then who created G-d? is really a nonsense question. It assumes that the believer is willing to yield on the point that G-d had a beginning. The basic description of G-d is that He created time and is independent of time. On a different point in the proof by design, I noticed that atheists feel safe when talking about the complexities of life - such as reproduction. It seems that proof of design becomes more persuasive (not that atheists are interested in being persuaded) when talking about simple designs. My favorite observation is that women are shaped like an hour glass while men taper off from the chest down. A slightly built woman can thereby hold a baby much longer than her much stronger husband could. I learned this the hard way with my children. It is clear that such purposeful design could only come from a Creator.
(19) David Glaze, October 12, 2011 8:12 PM
On the subject of who created God
There is a error in the cosomological argument which I would like to point out a which answers the question of where God came from problem. First I would like to extablish the fact that some thing cannot come from nothing. I believe all sound thinkers would agree this this. Thus we argue that everthing must a have a cause. But this argument also implies that something must have been eternal. At a minimum there must have been at lest one eternal thing which was adiquate to have cause the rest. THere must have been at lest one eternal uncaused thing. Why? Because something [ the universe] cannot come from nothing. Also this something must have been adiquate to have caused all the other things. It is not enought to say that matter or energy produce the rest. This in not a aduquate cause. There must have been something eternal and this eternal thing must have been adiquate for account for the rest. The eternal God person, spirit is the only adaquite answer. Something must allways have been. Also I do not see how the singularity which science proposes could account for this. If this singularity ever excsisted then it must have been eternal and stable. There would be no way to set it off. Like a bomb with no fuse. It could not be both eternal and stable. There is nothing to account for the big bang if matter was eternal. Nor could such an explosion account for all we find in out finely tuned universe. But the eternal all powerfull God person, he is a adiquite answer. I find his exsistant not a question but a logical nessestity.
(18) Anonymous, October 11, 2011 6:06 PM
What if
Rabbi Averick, 150 years ago we would have argued everything you are arguing now about the basic design of any animal. Darwinism put a plausible (maybe) hole in that argument. Is one to hang their faith now on the remaining unknowns regarding the origin of life? What if in say, ten years, a naturalistic origin of life theory is presented which all of the experts you quote, agree is plausible? I realize it's a what if question, but indulge me, what if?
(17) pearlman cta, July 25, 2011 9:23 PM
Nice article, in the Torah& Science reconciliation 'the recent complex creation' is the framework for how valid scientic fact is consistent w/ the Torah timeline
Nice job Rabbi Averick, (any relation to Joseph aka 'AveRech'r (Imenhotep?)) in the Torah& Science reconciliation 'the recent complex creation' is the framework for how valid scientic fact is consistent w/ the Torah timeline. Based on the two most reasonable premise consitent w/ the evidence: a complex creation the radiation build started w/ the mabul by Noach best, roger m. pearlman cta
(16) Ilan, April 12, 2011 10:42 AM
Just read section #4 - It is exactly wrong
I just read the author's section #4, attempting to show that his argument is NOT "the argument from incredulity." Yet what he writes is the very definition of the argument from incredulity: "If you can't prove A caused X, then it must be my answer, B that caused X."
Anonymous, April 12, 2011 7:11 PM
Read Section 4 more carefully
The basis of point 4 is not what Ilan said: "if you can't prove A caused X, then it must be my answer, B that caused X". It is that I Ialready have answer as to what caused X, it is B. I don't need to look for any other answers...It is only those people who for whatever reason can't accept the possibility of X (that there is an Intelligent Designer to obviously designed beings) who have a tremendous burden of proof if they want o avoid the obvious conclusion. To sum up, there is no God of the Gaps here and no Argument from Incredulity here, there is an answer, period. All Rabbi Averick is saying (in my humble opinion) is that if you want to try to find another answer then go ahead and try.. good luck Ilan!
Mike, April 13, 2011 4:29 AM
Reply to Ilan
You misread the article. The rabbi admits that he IS giving, to some degree at least, an argument from incredulity. He just doesn't believe that that robs his argument of persuasive force. Labeling something an argument from incredulity doesn't make it a false claim. For example, if in your last post you claimed you were not human and that you lived on the planet Zoltar, I might say there's no way that if aliens exist that they would reveal themselves this way, and there's also no way their reading comprehension would be so poor. That would be an argument from incredulity, and I would be right, but it would not be an empirically demonstrable argument. It would also not be the kind of proof that would fly in philosophy class. Its appeal is to common sense and intuition. Finally, though, I would agree with those who say that in this world where scientific reality often is not intuitive, that arguments appealing to common sense and intuition are of limited use.
Ilan, April 13, 2011 6:16 PM
Au contraire
To anonymous: I suggest you look through your response for the logical fallacies. "Obviously designed beings" and "the burden of proof is on you" are a few of them. To Mike: I understand the rabbi's article. He gets the Argument from Ignorance exactly wrong (though I think he was being a little tongue-in-cheek about invoking the argument). The argument in formal terms: We have phenomenon X (DNA). We have a hypothesis, A (some sort of natural development), which we don't have enough evidence for. Therefore the answer is by default my hypothesis, B (DNA was created by a creator). But it's not: we might need to find more evidence for A, or the answer could be something similar to A, or could be C, D, or E. And why A? Because the approach and methodology has explained previously unexplained phenomena in the past. B is simply "that which created unexplained phenomena."
Mike, April 14, 2011 4:38 AM
Reply to Ilan
First I have to call you out on changing your argument. First you were saying he gets the Argument from Incredulity "exactly wrong," and then when I pointed out how you misread it, it's now the Argument from Ignorance that he gets "exactly" wrong. To be exactly wrong so often takes a kind of perverted genius, wouldn't you say? Now, as for your points on the Argument from Ignorance, I agree with you up to a point, but you are missing some of the nuances in the rabbi's argument. One of those nuances has to do with the fact that it is precisely our increased knowledge of genetics and chemistry that has made naturalistic life origins seem more unlikely. To make a possibly clumsy example, imagine a puzzle is given to a child. He can't solve it, so he gives it to the smartest guy in the school. He can't solve it either. Eventually it goes to a team of logicians, mathematicians and computer scientists at MIT. They're stumped. No one wants to admit that it's "unsolvable" so they keep working on it. That's a bit like what's going on here with abiogenesis. I'm not saying they're wasting their effort--I don't know, personally. I'm just saying that it becomes more and more likely that it wasn't a naturalistic process as our scientific knowledge increases yet continues to be baffled by the question.
Anonymous, April 14, 2011 12:41 PM
reply to Ilan
I have got the jist of how Ilan makes an arugument - he doesn't give any proofs, just throws out words, like 'logical fallacies' without backing them up with any logic of his own. Unless you speak out your argument there is nothing left to say. Why don't you explain why the phrases, 'obviously designed beings' and. 'the burden of proof is on you' are logical fallacies instead of just throwing out meaningless words.
Corin, May 18, 2011 4:44 PM
Except if you knew the laws of God (because remember our Creator isn't just a random theory based entirely on the thought of some man who sits up in the sky and creates stuff), he has rules and a basis for existing. One rule is that God hides, another is that in order to find God you must give yourself up to God; these rules tell us that empirically you can't prove Gods existence. Therefore it is up to the scientists who choose to say God doesn't exist to prove that he doesn't exist using their scientific methods, to prove God doesn't exist you must adequately negate something he says to be true. Until you prove he doesn't exist, then theoretically he still does because there is no scientific way to prove he exists only ways to prove he doesn't. Until you can manage to prove he doesn't exist everything you say is just theoretically and based on emotions, which has no place in the scientific arena. In a way this whole argument is a fight between Philosophy and Science. The nature of Science makes it harder to make an adequate claim because it has to be certain and make something factual before it can be more than just spit balling. On the other hand Philosophy only requires that the concepts be sound within the context that they define, and not be negated by a scientific claim. Until Science reaches its apex we can never know if it has the means to prove a theory which negates the existence of the Judeo-Christian God. I sense that even once it does and fails to make any undeniable claims, many will still claim atheism is correct because that is how they feel.
(15) Anonymous, March 29, 2011 8:21 PM
yada yada yada
Who cares? So if you want some entity to have started the universe, suit yourself. The only important thing is that if there is [or WAS] such an entity, it clearly has no interest in our welfare. Too much human, and Jewish, history over the damn for anyone who isn't delusional to believe that.
Anonymous, March 30, 2011 11:33 AM
To 'yada yada yada'
Despite your baseless comment that anyone who believes that the Entity has an interest in our welfare, (which is probably based on your lack of knowledge about how Religion explains why bad things can happen in a world run by an Entity) the truth is the exact opposite - Jewish history in particular shows that such an 'Entity' clearly does have an interest in our welfare - and before you answer this, I suggest you expand your (apparently scant)knowledge of Jewish history by reading the Aish article on this link: http://www.aish.com/jl/h/h/48965856.html
R Klempner, April 9, 2011 12:17 AM
I feel bad for "yada yada yada"
I feel sad for the author of this comment: 1) Clearly he/she doesn't appreciate the wonders that surround us: the food that sates appetite, the friend that comforts you just at the moment when you feel low, the clothes that keep you warm, the breeze that cools you when you're hot. Or think about the last time something happended to you, and you were scared, but it ended up working out for the best. Maybe "Yada yada yada" should focus on the good things that surround him/her every day, no matter how small. 2) Clearly he/she hasn't compared Jewish history to the history of another people. American Indians and Aboriginal Australians lost their cultures and languages when removed from their homelands. The Roma (Gypsies) wandered from India hundreds of years ago and forgot they were even from India! Clearly SOMEONE has protected Jews from this fate. 3) Hitler failed. Not only that, but he inadvertently forced Jews to flee across the globe. More Torah is learned, in more yeshivos, in more countries than before the Holocaust. "Yada yada yada" clearly has a short-sighted view of historical events. Life without G-d-awareness is a scary, depressing, hopeless place.
(14) Tony Lange, March 28, 2011 5:14 PM
The more we know , the less we know
Generalizing- I would like to state that what I find really amazing is the defensive, egotistical response of most people who have attacked this article. The arrogance to assume that science is everything and with time science will give all answers boggles the mind. In fact it is surprising how little many respondents understands what “science” is about, which is both maths and our imagination. Yes as time goes by, we learn more, think we understand more, yet the universe of our ignorance (excuse the pun) , and our bafflement to understand our world just grows larger with each day. This is just the opposite to the assumption by most atheists that with time we will know the “ultimate truth”. This arrogance is beautifully pointed by the for example Taleb the author of the “Black Swan” where markets, earthquakes, the weather and universe in general is full of surprises. Surprises abound - dark matter is discovered, junk DNA is no longer junk, etc, etc, and no amount of “science” will ever allow us to get to the bottom, or is it the top, of it what ever it is ! The underlying principle simply pointed out by the Rabbi, and basically acknowledged "at the end" by most prominent physicists, biologists, etc, is : “the more we know the less we know”. Quite simply – anyone who proclaims to understand the infinite or that we ever will is quite simply a fool.
Ilan, March 29, 2011 11:31 AM
So because we don't know it we must attribute it to God?
Why don't we just say we don't know it? We may or may not find the answer someday. The ever-increasing gap in our knowledge (which indeed increases because of our increasing skill at studying and explaining and discovering the natural world) is in fact a gap - not a proof of God.
Wolfgang, March 29, 2011 6:23 PM
You might be right..but...
I'd rather believe in a G-d that doesn't exist, and die in an eternal sleep, than to die, face a G-d that did exist since the beginning and feel like a fool for not knowing what to say to His face.
Bob Applebaum, March 30, 2011 1:52 PM
Death
If you die, you wouldn't face G-d. You'd be dead.
Anonymous, March 31, 2011 1:45 AM
Pascal's Wager
Wolfgang, You are referencing Pascal's wager. My question to you is this: Why is your God the one that deserves praise? Humans have invented thousands of Gods, so why not wager on Zeus? Thor? All 'could' be the right one.
Bob Applebaum, March 29, 2011 12:55 PM
No - The More We Know, The More We Know
The reason we are not living in caves and dying in our thirties is because we have more knowledge than we did 20,000 years from now. Today we live wonderful lifestyles as a result of our accumulated knowledge. As we gain knowledge, we realize some of our former concepts were wrong and there is even more to be known. That realization is itself knowledge. Knowledge that we haven't solved many of the puzzles. The underlying principle pointed out by the "Rabbi" (I don't see how someone who says the universe evolved with the exception of bacteria is a Jewish rabbi) is what we don't know...HE DOES! That's the insult to our intelligence proposed by the "Rabbi". If we don't know, the honest answer is....we don't know.
Wolfgang, March 29, 2011 7:16 PM
Bob Applebaum
If we don't know..if that's not an affirmation of G-d's existence...it therefore cannot be a negation of G-d's existence either right?...
Bob Applebaum, March 29, 2011 11:43 PM
Right
When we don't know, we don't know. That reality, by itself, is not a negation of G-ds' existence. (Notice I used the plural, because it is not a negation of an infinite number of of G-ds' existence) It is also not a negation of unicorns, gnomes, Santa Claus, Harvey the Rabbit, etc. In an Existence Claim...where one makes the claim that something exists that is not globally observed, the burden of proof is on the claimant. The rules of logic dictate this necessity, because otherwise I could claim that frankenghosts exist, and the burden of proof would be on you to prove otherwise. That would be silly. The burden of proof rightfully is on me to show that frankenghosts exist. So the burden of proof that a singular G-d exists is on the claimant. There is no physical evidence of such a being. And there is no logical argument which supports such a singular being. So, there is no reason to believe it...nor unicorns, gnomes, Santa Claus, Harvey the Rabbit, nor frankenghosts. If you are RATIOnal, you ratio your belief to the physical evidence or logical reasoning presented. If you believe something not supported by physical evidence or logical reasoning, you are irrational. Mr. Averick has presented no physical evidence of his Creator, and his logic is faulty, being creator-of-the-gaps. I am advocating rationalism. Mr. Averick is advocating irrationalism. The choice is yours. There is nothing virtuous in being irrational.
(13) Ilan, March 28, 2011 11:05 AM
Didn't read past point #2 - no need
The author lost his case after point #2. His argument to that point is still the "Argument from Ignorance" fallacy, even though he claims it's not. He claims that the incredible complexity of RNA and one-celled organisms, and our inability to explain their origin, necessarily requires us to believe in a designer. But it doesn't - it means we don't have an explanation, and our only hope of finding one, or more accurately finding increasingly better approximations of the real explanation, lies in using the same methodology and approach to knowledge that have uncovered every other fact about the natural world that we know with certainty. The author's argument, as I see it, is that unless you (and I have a feeling he would actually say YOU as in the person speaking with him) can come up with an explanation, then his explanation must be correct. Having skimmed the rest of the article and reading point #4 I'm not any more convinced. And on the subject of not quote mining, there are other people to quote besides Paul Davies (incidentally whose version of God is the opposite of Judaism's in every sense except existing). A very good way to turn people off from religion is to base it solely on claims and approaches THAT ARE NOT TRUE. Why can't the author explain the beauty and brilliance of Judaism without using false arguments?
Anonymous, March 29, 2011 5:19 AM
reply to Ilan
Ilan, I assume then that if the SETI scientists received the message that I mentioned you of course would not accept that we had made contact with intelligent beings. After all, just because we do not know where the message came from and we have not yet figured out a naturalisitc cause of messages in morse code from outer space does not mean it came from an intelligent source, correct? If you disagree, please explain the difference between discovering an encyclopedic amount of pure digital code 3,7 billion years and receiving a message in morse code from the great spiral galaxy.
Ilan, March 29, 2011 10:43 AM
Not quite
(Well, I was right: the author does say that unless you can come up with an explanation, then his explanation must be correct.) The difference is simple: we have not received a code from outer space describing the exact DNA of a fruit fly. We do in fact have evidence of complex structures existing several billion years ago. Our current level of scientific knowledge is insufficient to explain the origin of these structures. It does not then follow that these complex structures were created by God or sent by aliens (a la Francis Crick). It means that the current state of our tools, methodology, knowledge and ideas are inadequate to discover how these complex structures arose. Given the fact that modern science is barely 300 years old, a blink of the eye in human history, it may take centuries more until we can adequately answer the question, or even realize what the proper question is. And somehow, scientists such as Dawkins who are well aware of the complexity of 3.7 billion-year-old DNA are capable of not leaping to the conclusion that it was created by God. From what I've read, Dawkins has the most honest answer: "Scientists are still working on it." And another thing I can say without knowing anything about biology: DNA is not digitally-encoded information in the modern sense. We say it is because that is closest metaphor we have, inferring from our own limited experience and theoretical knowledge. Every society tries to explain phenomena through the lens of the most advanced technology of its day. In the 1920s they analogized psychological issues to the internal combustion engine. I'm sure there are other examples. The point is that although we see something analogous to digital information, it is a hugely incorrect leap to draw conclusions that necessarily draw upon what we know with certainty about digital information ("a transmission in morse code implies a transmitter"). Still a God-of-the-gaps argument, I'm afraid.
Moshe Averick, March 29, 2011 9:16 PM
reply to Ilan
Ilan, You did not answer the question. If we received the message in Morse code, would you accept it as evidence of an intelligent alien communication or not? There are SETI scientists waiting for such a moment, what would your reaction be?
Anonymous, March 30, 2011 11:06 AM
Answer
Oh, but I did. But I'll state it again: off course I would. I understand your approach: obviously if we received a Morse code transmission from space describing DNA we would conclude that it came from an intelligent source. So we must then conclude that the existence of complex DNA 3.7 billion years ago, which we can't explain at the moment, is also a sign of intelligence. My previous post addresses the problems with this conclusion. I would add that this is an example of the "affirming the consequent" fallacy, similar to the "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacy: A transmission from space of DNA code necessarily implies an intelligent transmitter. So the very existence of DNA implies intelligence. But it doesn't - an intelligent creator is just one of the possible explanations. One of them is some sort of natural unguided development which we don't understand and will require eons of research and study to explain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent Carl Sagan is a good reference point for this debate. He wrote a book about how receiving a series of prime numbers from space would indicate intelligent life. Yet he did not attribute the emergence of single-celled organisms and DNA to "design." Read any of his books and his answer to the quandary is simple (and extraordinarily humble): "We don't know."
Ilan, March 30, 2011 11:39 AM
One more thing...
There are significant differences between the two cases: If the case of your Morse code transmission, we would have more evidence than the DNA code itself. We would know that it came on a radio frequency, that it originated in a certain place, that it was transmitted in a language or medium that we understood and that the beings sending it knew we understood, that it started and stopped at a certain time, that it was sent intentionally, and probably that it was aimed at Earth. All elements of deliberateness and intelligence, especially when combined with the content of the message. Add your own attributes if you wish. But I can't emphasize this enough: we have no evidence regarding the origin of DNA 3.7 billion years ago. None. We just know it was there. None of the qualities attributable to the SETI argument apply. There are some provisional theories that will require a great deal more research, and all of them are no doubt wrong but will get us very slightly closer to the answer. But we can't then infer from this lack of evidence that DNA would have an intelligent creator just like a coded transmission from space.
r, April 7, 2016 3:15 AM
"we have no evidence. . . none. we just know it was there. . ."
. . . says the person who has been arguing all this time about argument from incredulity/ignorance. Is it okay, then, for you and those you support to insist a claim is true based on a self-declared LACK of evidence???
(12) David, March 28, 2011 11:04 AM
This is just dumb.
You should stop wasting time on these "proofs," as they are nothing but a re-hash of the same ones over and over again, and they get no better with age. The argument from complexity is the worst-- it's been used since Paley's watchmaker, and it is unpersuasive. "Complicated things must have been made by someone." OK, for the argument to make any sense, give me a list of things that you will agree were not made by anyone, including God... you can't, because you believe God made everything. Moreover, it's easy to give examples of complex things that developed according to natural processes. This is bad science, bad philosophy and bad religion.
Anonymous, March 28, 2011 3:50 PM
both sides are wrong/right
we have to admit to ourselves that the belief that the entire universe is a freak accident, is just as "dumb" as believing that god is behind it. i dont think one side is better than the other. both sides choose to believe their side. period. lets move on!
Moshe Averick, March 29, 2011 5:11 AM
answer to David
David, Give me an example of one thing that is functionally complex above the level of a smiley face in the sand with the words, "Good morning David, How are you?" that is the result of an undirected process. Please remember we are talking about FUNCTIONAL complexity and specified information. No examples from Darwinian evolution please, they are the result of the functional complexity of the original genetic material.
(11) Mati, March 28, 2011 6:56 AM
atheist hypocrisy
I have grown tired of the hypocritcal accusations given by these people. An atheist presents to us his beliefs, his illogic, his assumptions, his religion, and does so in an Islamic style oppression and war-like "jihad." They are organized and push their "lack of religion" religion on everyone. (In quotes because there is no such thing as "lack of religion.") They are circular and accuse everyone of faith of doing what they themselves do. Why bother talking to them, let alone reasoning with them? They're gonna believe what they want instead of open-mindedly consider a different point of view. Leave them wallow in their pools of hate against faith but continue our fight for our right to believe and our right to express and act. Just remember that there cannot logically be an atheist only an agnostic. For they cannot know there is no G-d they can only believe their is no G-d. They cannot have a lack of belief until they die or their brain no longer works (coma?): As long as a person is alive and can think, there lies belief within. Only the fallacious mind has convinced himself that there is such a thing as "lack" of belief in a living human being.
(10) s, March 28, 2011 6:46 AM
universe
In the universe, scientists found something they call dark matter and dark energy. These two make up most of the universe and scienctists don't really know what they are, except a few details. The universe would need a lot of mass to hold itself together, but only has a small percent of regular mass. Plus, dark energy is expanding the universe even further. Something must be holding it together.
(9) Stuart, March 28, 2011 4:09 AM
Why do you care what these people say?
Up until the early sixties science believed that there was no beginning of time, it was some sort of continuum. Then a couple of guys from Bell Labs discovered cosmic radiation and then science came around to the conclusion that there was a beginning, just like it says in the first three words (in Hebrew) of Genesis. It's called the Big Bang. Eventually science will catch up and understand that HaShem created the universe. Until then why should I care what people who have no to little consept of HaShem have to say about this? Real scientists don't spend a whole lot of time asking these questions, so why should peole who believe in HaShem?
(8) Anonymous, March 27, 2011 11:21 PM
WAITING FOR SCIENCE TO PROVIDE ANSWERS - #2
To address your main point, that we have, based on reason and experience, operated under the principle that highly specified information, such as drawings, poetry, computer code, etc, and functional complexity beyond a certain level, are always the result of intelligent purpose and intervention: Your examples are things that are clearly man-made. We know that drawings, poetry, bicycles and computers are of intelligent design, because we designed them. They are human inventions. You cannot compare the development of life, which is a natural process, to the creation of man-made items. It is comparing apples to oranges, so to speak. In addition, your frequent allusion to "the atheists' argument that life simply popped up out of the primordial soup" in a totally undirected process is a false and disingenuous description. There are forces in nature that clearly favor the development of increasing complexity. The existence of the four main natural forces that we know of, i.e. nuclear strong and weak forces, gravity and electromagnetism, dramatically increases the odds of complex chemistry developing from lesser complexity. While entropy in the universe tends to increase, the entropy of the biochemistry of life tends to decrease. That has been clearly observed in the processes of life, and can be inferred within the primordial world. The other major error in your hypothesis is the claim that the complexity of the cell is so awesome that it must have been created, that "it's too complex to have developed naturally." The fact that we find something overwhelmingly complex and impossible to understand means nothing. It's complex to us only relative to our current level of science. The fact is that through the ages many things seemed overwhelmingly complex, and all too easy to ascribe to God, until science discovered its secrets. Once we understand something, it is then no longer necessary to invoke God as its creator.
Anonymous, March 29, 2011 5:30 AM
reply to anonymous
According to what you say, you would also agree with Ilan that if the SETI scientists received the message I described above then you of course would not accept that it was the result of intelligence. After all, the message could not possibly come from a human source therefore we could make no assumptions about it. correct? After all just because our "current level of science" can not explain the morse code, is no reason to say that in a few decades (or centuries, or millenium) we won't be able to explain the morse code from outer space in a purely naturalisitic sense according to the known laws of physics and chemistry. "You cannot compare the development of life, which is a natural process, to the creation of man made items." Anonymous, this is an example of what is commonly called "begging the question." This is exactly the question we are discussing. IS the development of life a natural process or not? You have no evidence that it is. To further clarify, we are not actually talking about the DEVELOPMENT of life, we are talking about the ORIGIN of life. You keep talking about all the examples of how the laws of chemistry and physics favor decreasing the odds against naturalistic complexity. If that is true, why do the greatest chemists and origin of life researchers in the world admit that they have no clue how life could have emerged naturalistically?
Ben, April 4, 2011 4:48 PM
testing the thesis
If we received a message it would likely be that an intelligent source sent it out, we would actually know that it originated from a certain place and sent over a certain medium, AND we know that we ourselves have created something similar. We know these bacterium exist, the question is how they came into existence. Of course, scientific hypotheses can be tested, God cannot.
(7) Alan Acker, March 27, 2011 11:03 PM
Richard Dawkins, evolutionist
You refer to Richard Dawkins as a noted creationist and ID (intelligent design, but he is neither (see, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996 ed. (W. W. Norton)). From a philosophical view, it seems silly to attempt a proof of God, which would eliminate "faith" (why hold a belief when we know). A God who requires justice (justice, justice shall you pursue) must be just. And that requires "laws" of science -- a consistent set of laws and principles across the cosmos that applies to the physical world about us. God gave us intelligence so that we might determine such laws and by continually increasing our knowledge, better our lives. Our increasing knowledge does not undermine the existence of God. Do I know that evolution occurs? Yes, because there is overwhelming evidence of its existence and we rely on it as a fact in several areas, most notably medicine and pharmacy. Do I "know" that God exists? No, not in the sense of a scientific or mathematical proof. But, do I believe in God? Yes, as firmly as I do in my existence (I think; therefore I am). The two worlds are not mutually exclusive. Evolution and the big bang and string theory and all the wonders of theoretical physics and science are truly worthy of God. A world so unfathomably large made up of particles unfathomably small. In short, a world with no end to learning. Thank God!
jason, March 28, 2011 9:11 AM
rabbi averick was being sarcastic!
its the rabbi's humorous way to show how surprising it is to hear these point from dawkins himself
(6) Bruce, March 27, 2011 10:53 PM
WAIT FOR SCIENCE TO PROVIDE THE ANSWERS
Dear Rabbi, By presenting your argument, accepting Darwinian evolution as fact, are you not admitting that the Bible's story of Genesis is a fable? And if the Bible is wrong on the very first page, doesn't that demonstrate that the Bible is not a divinely inspired work? You overlook a huge piece of logic. It's true that scientists have not been able yet to explain every detail of the development of life. However, through the ages mankind has always tended to use God and religion as a way of explaining things that we did not yet understand. Epilepsy, leprosy, and solar eclipses are just a few examples of naturally occurring things that were once thought to be secondary to God or some type of divine intervention. At one time, everyone believed that the world was flat and the center of the universe. As science advanced, those inaccuracies fell by the wayside. The fact that science has not yet found every answer is not a reason to invoke a belief in a supernatural being. Our history demonstrates clearly that, given enough time, science will find the answers. Don't forget that science is still at a relatively early phase in its own development. We have only scratched the surface of discovering the secrets of this world. In a sense, you are arguing in a vacuum, since the level of our science is still relatively primitive. Your argument could probably be paraphrased very neatly from "scientists" in the medieval age. I understand that you are not looking forward to sitting in a nursing home, drooling into a spittoon and still awaiting all the answers. But that's not a reasonable justification for making up a delusion. The burden of proof is totally on your side, not on the side of people who rationally and intelligently resist believing in a made-up, contrived fantasy. The belief in a supernatural being is just a delusion. Those of us who are rational can wait for science to help us understand the mystery of life.
Abigail, March 28, 2011 10:06 PM
reread what he wrote
Dear Bruce, You miss the point. The rabbi does not accept ND Theory as fact. He wrote (and I quote): "Darwinian Evolution (the truth of which I will concede for arguments sake)" FOR ARGUMENT'S SAKE means he was willing to concede it NOT because he accepted it but rather to prove a larger point, to wit: EVEN IF you were to accept such a theory, you still COULD NOT account for the existence of the original set of genetic code required to set the evolutionary mechanism in motion, and as he has said repeatedly in this article, no valid explanation has yet been offered by the scientific world as to how to account for the first basic appearance the bacterium's immensely complex genetic code.
Anonymous, March 29, 2011 5:36 AM
reply to Bruce
Bruce, If the SETI scientists received a message in morse code detailing the chemical formula for the universal genetic code, they would all start celebrating wildly that they had made contact with alien life; all except for Dr. Bruce, You would say, what's wrong with you guys, science has only scratched the surface, remember when primitive peoples thought they could change lead into gold? You are like them, you just don't have a naturalistic scientific explanation for the morse code. Dont' worry, science will advance and we will finally understand that morse code messages explaining chemical formulas are just natural outcomes of the laws of physics and chemistry.
(5) Anonymous, March 27, 2011 10:21 PM
Richard Dawkins a Creationist??
Unless he has recently changed his mind, Mr. Dawkins is NO creationist and certainly not a proponent of intelligent design. Last I heard him, he struck me as an apikorus of the first order -- vile and vindictive. See the above article on 1) 5th paragraph beginning with "(Please forgive me for quoting..."
Anonymous, March 29, 2011 5:37 AM
to anonymous
come on, you've got to be kidding. I know who Richard Dawkins is, it was a tongue in cheek remark!
(4) Stephen Berr, March 27, 2011 10:21 PM
That is not the question
I can agree most wholeheartedly with the idea that the leap from chemistry to bacteria is greater than the leap from bacteria to elephant. I feel that my concept of God is wrapped up in the idea that the God is the complexity of an eyeball, or of the dust mite. It was God who is the creator. Agreed. But, I don't believe that this God is an intervening God, or that this God requires prayers, nor does God hear or respond to prayers. I think that the Shehechianu is worth saying, ignoring the comment that it was God who permitted me to live to this day. When I say it I am just happy to have seen a rainbow, or enjoyed my grandchildren, or smelled the first rose of summer. I am acknowledging the complexity of the world, the mystery of the world, the wonder of the world. I am acknowledging a creator. I am acknowledging it to myself, allowing myself to be a little humble. Accepting that I am a tiny cog in the universe along with everything around me, and also that I am very important to those who are near and dear to me. That everyone is such. Any picture of a crowd scene anywhere in the world is filled with images of beings who are important to those around them, though I know them not.
(3) Jack Cohen, March 27, 2011 6:51 PM
Modern bacteria have evolved as much as we have; life's 'origin' is not a sudden turning on of a light!
Firstly, I like your argument; it's logical provided that a 'modern' bacterium was the first life form - an absurd proposal! I like the proposal of 'mesobiosis - a gradual becoming of life, from RNA/protein associations or from auto-catalytic 'rings' a la Kauffman. Doron Lancet at the Weizmann is a proposer of such mesobiosis, as is the German Wachtershauser (look'm up on Google) and many others. To point to the gap between chemistry and a modern bacterium is not to realize that the bacterium has had many more generations than us to become complex. What the original life form was like I have no idea (but Wachterhauser and Lancet do...) but there are thirty good stories of how life happened - they just don't get to modern bacteria - of course!
Moshe Averick, March 28, 2011 3:35 AM
response to Jack
Jack, Please forgive me, but you are simply uninformed about the true state of Origin of Life research. Every single theory about pre-bacterial life (including Dr. Wachterhshauser and Lancet's) are purely speculative. They all propose hypothetical pre-bacterial life because they have made the unproven assumption, effectively an article of faith, that life emerged through some naturalistic process. There is as yet nothing even approaching conclusive evidence that there are plausible prebiotic pathways to nucleobases, the particular sugars that are necessary for life, nor the phosphates. In other words there is no conclusive evidence that any type of nucleotides could have formed naturally on the earth. This is without even dealing with the problem of homochirality, nor the assembly of nucleotides into a replicator even if there were some way for them to form.
(2) Marty, March 27, 2011 6:05 PM
My head hurts
After reading all and after deep contemplation...my brain hurts. I'm sure , however, that this event was set in motion millions of years ago and happened purely by random happenstance based on the laws of chemistry and physics, LOL.
(1) ruth housman, March 27, 2011 4:16 PM
Designer's Circus
There's a local clothing store by this title, and I think of this with connection to The Endless Debate. Actually I am wondering whether G_d isn't getting tired of this game of What's My Line? Why? Because there is extant proof of the existences of G_d and that is the prevalence of massive coincidence, meaning the astonishment of connects by way of story in a life, that is already down on paper, that does defy, totally, the laws of "chance". So it's getting a little stale to read all these arguments. I think God is having a "heyday" with all of this, and laughing. It's the comic in cosmic, and as to Hey, there is a library at Brown University, called The Hay, and a Diary resides in this library that details a story, that could not be called random, as it is THAT detailed. So maybe Brownian Motion will one day, have the FINAL Word on the endless question, because you see, there is, actually PROOF. But maybe people would prefer to debate endlessly because such Proof opens a door nobody really wants to open, and it does deeply concern determinism and free will.