Where life came from, according to Richard Dawkins

The legendary atheist and evolutionary theorist Richard Dawkins appeared on WBUR, Boston’s richard_dawkins_david_shankbone_eNational Public Radio affiliate. He was debating Design advocate George Gilder.

Dawkins was a professor at Oxford University. One of his admirers had created a special endowment for him, The Charles Simyoni Chair for the Public Understanding of Science.

Minutes before the show began, Dawkins announced that he wasn’t going to debate Gilder, but insisted that Gilder talk for the first 15 minutes, then Dawkins would talk for the final 15 minutes.

I thought that was… shall we say, odd.

Anyway, a caller asked Dawkins about the Origin of Life. Dawkins replied that it was “a happy chemical accident.”

A happy chemical accident?

What do you think of that answer?

139 Responses

  1. Richard Morgan says:

    As a scientist, Dawkins must now prove scientifically that the origin of life was an accident, and philosophically that the accident was “happy”. He made the assertions, therefore he carries the burden of proof.
    I am also wondering about his choice of the word “accident”. Which of these definitions from the Oxford Dictionaries do you suppose he was referring to:

    1 An unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury:
    “he had an accident at the factory”

    SYNONYMS
    1.1 A crash involving road or other vehicles:
    “four people were killed in a road accident”

    1.2 euphemistic An incidence of incontinence by a child or animal:
    “he had a little accident, but I washed his shorts out”

    2 An event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause:
    “the pregnancy was an accident”
    (The origin of life?)

    2.1 [MASS NOUN] The working of fortune; chance:
    “members belong to the House of Lords through hereditary right or accident of birth”

    • Nate Mullikin says:

      Absolutism is the way of Belief. Science knows or it doesn’t know. There is no evidence other than Belief that your personal invisible friend created life. Focusing on this geocentricity breeds all manner of foolishness.
      Belief poisons everything.
      There is a more honest and pure way. But it isn’t easier or more comfortable.

      • Phil says:

        The belief in naturalistic evolution is every bit as much a belief system as are faith driven beliefs in origins. It is not scientific in any sense of the word, and does not conform to scientific principles in that it is 1) not observable, 2) not repeatable 3) not testable and 4) not falsifiable.

        People who adhere to naturalistic evolution and origins are not dealing in science or anything “more pure” or “honest” than people who believe in creationist origins. Both look at the exact same available evidence with a preconceived notion of the mechanism, and come the conclusion that their concept of origins correct. Both are relying completely on faith.

        • Evolution is observable in real time with real experiments that produce new species. See chapters 11-16 of Evolution 2.0.

          • We have to be careful not to conflate natural selection with evolution. The distinctions matter.

            • Old Git Tom says:

              R Lockett,
              indeed, yes; evolution is NOT natural selection (NS). ‘Evolution’ merely means change over time, & there are various theories & science that aim to explain it; NS is just one theory (actually, it’s an old & failed hypothesis).
              So ‘evolution’ is not the contentious issue. It’s as commonly observed as time & change, & as much/little understood!

              • J. Schabauer says:

                Natural Selection is past for Evolution and previous to Consciousness- as we know it out of far away visions, when humans took in hands the wheels of the Future, making it to Evolve. Evolution is change by Conscious. Before that was NS or Natural Evolution. Current Human Evolution depends on human’s interest.
                NS will continue working hard 24/7 while humans will be more focus on it’s own Evolution.
                Long ago I decided to stick to this simple theory. Life goes too fast to spend time in something we won’t see including our future generations.

              • Martin says:

                Old Git Tom…

                “NS is just one theory (actually, it’s an old & failed hypothesis)”

                OH! Really! So.. is that “actually” true? is it Tom? And you can state this as a fact because?
                Oh sorry… it was one of those.. “Its what I want to believe so thats what I’m saying” things… in the hope of sounding authoritative on the subject…
                Out of interest… what exactly is you area of expertise on this matter, and exactly where do you get the information you happily provide as fact?

                • Use your full name, Martin.

                • Old Git Tom says:

                  Martin,
                  yes; really, absolutely, incontrovertibly, natural selection (NS) is a FAILED hypothesis.
                  Recall the original aim, to explain the origin of SPECIES, NOT variation within species.
                  NS still fails to provide a COHERENT account of speciation. After 150 years, it has not produced one new species from any lab (Perry Marshall apparently disagrees, but I’ll have to wait for Father Xmas to send me a copy of his book, to see if the evolution/NS distinction is observed).
                  NS is not a scientific hypothesis becoz it is a circular proposition, so unfalsifiable. Fitness – survival – existence; so all & every species that ever emerged has ‘fitness’. There are no possible exceptions (!).
                  Educated people should be able to spot such truisms, which are not false, but entrap the unwary & dunces. They are as profoundly true as they are empty of meaning.
                  Far from explaining existent species, the NS hypothesis conflates fitness with existence.

                  • He’s right. ***Doesn’t mean evolution doesn’t happen**** it just means NS explains the survival of the fittest but not the arrival of the fittest.

                    • Old Git Tom says:

                      Perry,
                      ‘NS explains the survival of the fittest but – – – – – – ‘.
                      Er, not quite, unless I’ve missed s/thing major? In Darwin’s NS hypothesis, there is NO subbstance to the meaning of ‘fitness’, except existence of a species. Hence the non-scientific circularity. The hypothesis purports to explain the existence of a multitude of species, via the magical ‘fitness’ ingredient. But it promptly then reverses itself, to explain fitness via existence. This rapid, logical oscillation/reversal causes most people’s eyes to cross.
                      There have been post-Darwin attempts to redefine ‘fitness’, but AFAIK, none logically convincing.
                      Later NS interpretations repeat the circularity conjuring trick, with the differential reproduction rate gambit. NS merely assumes a mating competition for sexual reproduction purposes. Where is the evidence? Existence again?! But mating is only a necessary condition for existence. Species that fail to mate are automatically extinct & no longer exist. Existence itself proves no competition. That comes purely from Darwinian speculation.

                    • I don’t quite see it that way.

                      I acknowledge the tautology of NS as it is normally used. You’re right about all that.

                      But in my book, NS = survival of the fittest = outcomes of competition. There’s nothing philosophical about it. It’s playoffs in football, it’s winners and losers in business, it’s gold medalists in the Olympics etc.

                      Fitness is the ability to win a game, however it must be won. I don’t think there’s anything mysterious about that.

                      And if you ask a football coach why he won the Super Bowl, he doesn’t chant “playoffs playoffs playoffs.” He tells you about his STRATEGY and how he ADAPTED with very intentional specific responses to situations. And that’s evolution.

            • MikeC says:

              And to differentiate microEvolution (finches adapt to their environment) from macroEvolution … all species came from 1.

          • Jason Schnur says:

            There is absolutely no observable evidence of macroevolution. Seeing a chihuahua become a great dane is not evolution it is adaptation. Show me an observable, testable and duplicatable incidence of change from one life form to another, a change in kind.

            • Read chapters 11-16 of Evolution 2.0. Page after page of macrospeciation in real time.

              • Macroevolution. Fact, or fantasy ?

                http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1390-macroevolution#1982

                Micro evolution and speciation is a fact. Macro change from one kind to the other in long periods of time, the change of body plans and evolutionary novelties over a long period of time, is not a fact, not even a theory, or even a hypothesis. Its just fantasy without a shred of evidence. Show me some examples of observed facts; please provide and give me empirical data of a unorganized undirected unguided Neo-Darwinian accidental random macro-evolutionary event of a change/transition, where one “kind” can evolve into another beyond the species level (i.e. speciation) , like a organism randomly changing/transition into a whole entire different, new fully functioning biological features in an organism, the emergence of new complex functions, a new genus or higher rank in taxonomy, with the arise of new body plans, What is an evolutionary novelty? A list of most-often cited examples include the shell of turtles (Cebra-Thomas et al. 2005), flight (Prum 2005), flowers (Albert, Oppenheimer, and Lindqvist 2002), the ability of great tits to open bottles of milk (Kothbauerhellmann 1990), the transition from the jaw to the ear of some bones during the evolution of mammals from reptiles (Brazeau and Ahlberg 2006), eyes (Fernald 2006), hearts (Olson 2006), bipedalism (Richmond and Strait 2000), and the origin of Hox genes (Wagner, Amemiya, and Ruddle 2003); Ernst Mayr, a major figure of the MS, defined novelties as “any newly acquired structure or property that permits the performance of a new function, which, in turn, will open a new adaptive zone” (Mayr 1963, 602)something that we merely don’t have to just put blind faith in?

                http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15612191
                In the last 25 years, criticism of most theories advanced by Darwin and the neo-Darwinians has increased considerably, and so did their defense. Darwinism has become an ideology, while the most significant theories of Darwin were proven unsupportable.

                biology is opening the black box, and demonstrating how organisms develop. We are slowly getting out of a state of ignorance in regard of what mechanisms determines cell shape, assignment of their planes of division, tendencies to move, directions and rates of movement, modes of differentiation into particular cell types, and cell death (apoptosis).

                Where Do Complex Organisms Come From?

                http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2316-where-do-complex-organisms-come-from#4782

                (a) membrane targets and patterns
                (b) cytoskeletal arrays,
                (c) ion channels, and
                (d) sugar molecules on the exterior of cells (the sugar code)
                (e) Gene regulatory networks

                • “Its just fantasy without a shred of evidence.”

                  Read my book Evolution 2.0, chapters 11-16. If I fail to show you evidence and examples of macro evolution then I’ll personally refund all of your money.

                  You are conflating the nonsense of neo-Darwinian random mutation + natural selection with the fact that organisms adapt and change in real time. There is a Third Way of evolution and that is what I’m espousing here. See also http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com.

                  • David Stirneman says:

                    Perry, why do you reference a website that says the following?

                    It has come to our attention that THE THIRD WAY web site is wrongly being referenced by proponents of Intelligent Design and creationist ideas as support for their arguments. We intend to make it clear that the website and scientists listed on the web site do not support or subscribe to any proposals that resort to inscrutable divine forces or supernatural intervention, whether they are called Creationism, Intelligent Design, or anything else.

                    • I fully respect the Third Way’s recognition that supernatural claims cannot be subjected to the scientific method. I do not expect scientists to say “This is unsolvable, God did it, let’s go out to lunch.” This sounds a little strange to Christian ears at first, but I elaborate on this at http://cosmicfingerprints.com/?s=blind+spot – see my blog posts responding to Michael Flannery’s review of Evolution 2.0. Please take your time, this is a crucial disconnect between Christians and science.

                  • Perry

                    i think i make it pretty clear that there is no dispute about micro adaptation and speciation. There is beside random mutations even a inbuilt mechanism in organisms to do so:

                    Non random mutations : How life changes itself: the Read-Write (RW) genome 2 3

                    http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1476-non-random-mutations-how-life-changes-itself-the-read-write-rw-genome

                    The X of the whole issue is how evolutionary novelties arise. We know now that mutations and natural selection fall short to explain it, but epigenetic mechanisms are involved.
                    And CS information…..
                    Stephen Meyer extends a big deal in Darwin’s doubt about the various natural explanations, and how they all fall short to provide convincind explanations. In the end, the most rational conclusion is, that a intelligent creator is the best explanation for the origin of life, and biodiversity.

                    • Old Git Tom says:

                      Otangelo Grasso,
                      if I might suggest? You have hit on the nub of the issue with your questioning of how ‘novelties’ arise in bio-evolution. The mystery of the appearance of the new is general. Eg., we cannot explain where new/innovative ideas come from – ‘evolution’? But if the new existed somehow before, it is not new. So where did it come from?
                      Plausibly, the new comes from the inputs of constant creation. That, & continuous decay & destruction, we call time. Trivial changes are reversible, so not real time, which is unidirectional (the ‘arrow of time’). Evolution is also one-way, altho we cannot predict its directions, any more than the future is 100% foreseeable.
                      I propose we pencil in ‘God’ as the prime creator, with humankind as his/her (occasionally) privileged sub-contractors. You can then reintroduce our exiled species back into the alien ‘objective universe’ of the materialists.
                      The mystery of evolution is the same as the mystery of time – creation & destruction. You can then perhaps explain where the creative genius of Mozart, the Beatles, or Einstein came from.

                • YA BOY says:

                  no

              • Glenn says:

                Perry Marshall,
                If you have proof of speciation, show us. Your continued answers to read your book indicate that your motivation is just to sell your book. There is no proof of macro evolution.

                • Quoting from Evolution 2.0 page 129:

                  Dr. Kwang Jeon, a professor at the University of Tennessee, did an experiment where tens of thousands of bacteria took up residence inside Amoeba proteus organisms. A fierce parasitic attack ensued, killing almost all the amoeba. But in the space of a year, amoeba and bac- teria entered into symbiosis. Both modified expression of their genes as necessary, to support the mutual dependence (624, 636, 653, 652).
                  Jeon learned how to reliably trigger symbiotic cell mergers between amoeba and bacteria. It took 200 generations, about 18 months, for the cells to become fully interdependent. After that, removal of either symbiotic partner proved fatal to both (625).

                  Real-time symbiotic merger. REF http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15537083

                  Crossing the barrier of kinds:

                  Evolution 2.0 page 137

                  Bread wheat, for example, came from blending emmer wheats with goat grass, a noxious weed, meaning one of the world’s most popular crops came from blending a moderately useful crop with a useless pest (673).
                  An article in ScienceDaily titled “Two Species Fused to Give Rise to Plant Pest a Few Hundred Years Ago” (679) documents how a fungus originated from a hybrid 380 generations in the past. The researchers identified specific transpositions in the hybrid’s doubled genome that stabilized into a brand new, stable species.

                  https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120703133725.htm

                  • Old Git Tom says:

                    Perry,
                    thanks for your inputs.
                    Re the evolution of grain plants, & bacteria-plus-amoeba into new species via symbiosis, I see that as counter-evidence, against Darwin’s natural selection (NS) hypothesis.
                    NS specifies relentless competition as the engine of evolution, but as far back as the 1880s, Prince Kropotkin disagreed. He pointed to the highly complicated patterns of symbiosis & inter-dependencies in Nature. Co-operation at group/herd level is seemingly as, or more, important for survival as competition.
                    My take, rather than Kropotkin’s, is that the collective or group is the survival unit, the medium of evolution, not the individual. But the more pertinent point here is that symbiosis, or the merging of organisms, conflicts with the emphasis of NS on raw competition at individual level.
                    Your example of evolution of grasses into wheat/barley is interesting. One past theory proposed by archaeologists posited that some of our far off, ancestor gatherer-hunters, harvested & ate grass seeds. This action over many years scattered seeds, resulting eventually in ‘fields’ of grain which humans returned to periodically – the birth of farming. The point of this eg. is the interaction of humans &/or animals with plant life to speed evolution. Competition alone has little explanatory appeal.
                    So too with team sports. They do not actually evolve as such. Football remains much as it was a century ago. Rules, tactics & equipment may well change/improve, but only under the guidance of human, conscious intelligence. For which, co-operation in the observance of rules is imperative. The rules of the collective make the game, & make essential non-lethal competition possible. ‘Losers’ can always come back next year!

                    • You are right and selection happens at EVERY level – individual, tribe, species, ecosystem. It’s the same in business – product, company, niche, country, industry.

                • Old Git Tom says:

                  Glenn,
                  perlease! People don’t write serious books to make money!

            • Old Git Tom says:

              Perry,
              evolution-wise, science is a sub-branch of philosophy. If it transgresses the rules of logic, it’s not science.
              I take your point, & agree, ie., the FACT of evolution & competition are beyond dispute here. No: the point is the inability of the natural selection hypothesis to explain them coherently (fail!).
              At the key points indicated, slippery NS substitutes the FACTS of existence for what should be supporting evidence for its hypothesis. That is why NS cannot be falsified for experimental testing.
              Reproductory success is, uncontroversially, a necessity of all bio-existence. But that rules out any possible counter-example; but which does not licence NS to claim competition as its driving power.
              For one thing; as long, long ago objected, competition apparently exists, but so do complex patterns of cooperation & symbiosis. Do the two forces balance & cancel? How? NS fans, please answer.

            • Darren Saunders says:

              Fossil record. Enough said.

          • Paul cook says:

            Microevolution(getting taller fatter, skin color, hair color) , sure. Microevolution(one species evolving into another one) nope, never been observed or studied.

            • Paul,

              I’m sorry but that is not correct. For example. Weed + Grass = Wheat as I discuss in my book “Evolution 2.0.” See chapters 11-16 for real time verified lab experiments producing new species.

          • Carl Rosel says:

            While any creature was evolving. How could it possibly survive. When its lungs and heart were evolving for instance. It is an impossibility. How does billions of tons of water in the ocean become tidal twice a day by itself. We on earth are travelling approximately 107,000 kmh through space corkscrewing around the sun. What triggered that. The moon follows us every step of the way. If the moon wasn’t there and at that exact distance from earth, there would be no life. No tides. No growth. People like Dawkins prove that academic excellence does not compute into common sense or intelligence.

          • Otangelo Grasso says:

            Hi Perry
            there is a guy at Creationism Facebook group, that insists that DNA is not a language. “Genetic code” is a metaphor or analogy.

            https://www.facebook.com/groups/31425129128/

            It would be fun if you could join and refute these arguments.

        • Darren Saunders says:

          Not all beliefs are equal. I might believe the universe was farted from the posterior of a giant pink unicorn… Doesn’t make it true or even probable. Science filters beliefs to discern which are false and which are consequently better validated but never proven absolutely.

        • John Richards says:

          It IS falsifiable. Finding a fossil tooth in the Cambrian would do that.

          • Old Git Tom says:

            John Richards,
            what do you think is falsified or supported by such evidence, the natural selection (NS) hypothesis, or evolution?
            If you choose ‘evolution’, the word simply means ‘change over time’ (evolution was widely & long accepted before Darwin). It needs no proof, since time IS change.
            If you choose ‘natural selection’ – – – – well, you take your pick first.
            I sportingly warn you, the 4-dimensional space-time continuum was LOGICALLY, & necessarily, a prior creation – as time, space & matter. Therefore; no creation, no time, no evolution, no matter.
            Time is ever-present as constant creation & its corollary, destruction. ‘Science’ knows all about destruction. It’s called entropy, but the idea of creation frightens most followers of materialism. I sometimes think this pheneomenon is reflexively analogous to the outlook of the religions on sex. They are fine with marriages, christenings & funerals, but not the act of creation. Maybe they’ve been infected with scientific positivism?

            • John Richards says:

              Finding a fossil mammal tooth in the Cambrian would falsify evolution. Natural selection is observable within a few minutes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8

              • Old Git Tom says:

                J Richards,
                ‘Finding a fossil mammal tooth in the Cambrian would falsify evolution.’

                Yes, but ‘evolution’ is not the challenge: natural selection (NS) as a coherent hypothesis explaining it, is. The absence of suitably-evolving fossils preceding the complex forms of the Cambrian is NS’s doom. Darwin’s NS is falsified by its own, specified criteria.

      • Jose Schabauer says:

        Your comment- for me, is one of the best comments coming in this post for its centrism and simplicity. No comfortable what I am going to explain next- is it a belief or is it true?
        Dawkins theory is that- a theory, and we must take it as such. We should be benevolent.
        But we humans have an accountable experience of life of perhaps 10K years when it had to figured out WHY. To get where we are today they promptly realized that without Order world would be a chaotic place to live- and there’s when religions came in. Initially we were just a few and our survival wasn’t in question. But then families grew and new far away villages were to be founded. First close but over time this process continued and migration expanded all over the world- to the point where family integration disappeared, which gave place to borders, flags, identity, etc.- in other words division, just to protect its resources. Self defense.
        And who was going to be that ‘One Superior Being’ that could obtain for humanity that essential Order to prosper in peace?
        We humans created- as we are creators as well; of new generations and new understanding called Conscious Evolution, a Being above all- which couldn’t be disobeyed by current humans by no means. Therefore we created- for our benefit, a God that had the power to unite humanity supposedly for ever. It didn’t happen. And if it didn’t happen that clearly shows that it was a human creation soon to fail- because Gods do not fail, in our human understanding also created.
        How can we figure out where we come from if we were not there and miss the facts- imagination? No facts no science. We should learn first from our own history and there find the facts of our beliefs, why they raised and in the way get closer to one of the greatest mysteries we’ll deal in centuries to come. We are curious though but still far away from answers.
        OUR God was man created-for us to create Him? Perhaps. But who created all? Let’s continue making up theories. They will help- in time, get to final answers. When? PLS take a sit.

      • Nanci Anne Bunch says:

        Are scientific theories shaped by the evidence, or motivated by philosophical biases, dogmatic pre-suppositions, and speculations to support desired narratives? Prevailing beliefs presume nature is a closed system of random cause/effect, but this model cannot identify the energy or information beyond the system that caused its existence. Instead of seeking the external cause, scientific elite discard theories beyond material naturalism, distain evidence of design, plan, or purpose, and adamantly deny implications that our finite physical cosmos is an adjunct to an infinite reality beyond space and time. Ninety-five percent of the cosmos is a mystery! Does delegating the quest for truth to scientific processes that cannot discern beginning, meaning, purpose, or destiny, and relegating God to the role of moral law-giver artificially limit reality? Great scientists realize that purely naturalistic explanations cannot answer the essential question – why there is something instead of nothing.

        • JD says:

          ‘Naturalistic evolution is every bit as much a belief system’
          Yes a belief in physics, in biology, cosmology, a belief in hard facts, in peer reviewed data, in hard cold facts. Not in conjecture, not in ambiguity not in suspicion, not in hope. It knows no emotion, it deals in the balance of probabilities and certainties, it is the only ‘belief system’ where you actually get points for proving yourself wrong.
          Science is not a belief system, it is a fact.

      • MikeC says:

        Nate, You seem like one who understands the non-science needed for evolution (especially based on a total lack of transitional evidence in the face of volumes of evidence w/in species). Also the terrible problems with the laws of thermo-dynamics and 4.5B (or more) year old universe. But let’s set that aside for a moment. If “my invisible friend” doesn’t exist, then there is no right, no wrong, no purpose, no meaning, no love, no free thought, no hope, and no reason to be here. So believing in the poor science of unguided creation would leave me more miserable than you seem to be. If you’re a parent, do you ever look at your child and realize how meaningless they are? I look at mine and see God’s great gift in his image … that I get to raise these amazing creatures whom I love. Best of luck finding meaning in your meaningless world.

        • Brian Shipley says:

          Well said!
          Non-believers are stuck with the old conscience problem. They HAVE to borrow the whole religious ethic as an argument that they are humane, trustworthy, etc, and ascribe to the same morals as religious. Why? If there is no God, no purpose, why live ethically? Cheat wherever and when ever you can get away with it. Steal, lie, rape, acquire. As long as you don’t get caught, its cool! But if you accuse them of this, they get all huffy and insist they are upright and moral citizens, but the question remains. Why? There is absolutely no justification for it in their philosophy, so why do they live opposite to their beliefs?
          For myself, I believe motive is everything. What does a non-believer get out of it? Seems to me, most of their motives are negative. Desire to be accepted among others. An overweening need to feel superior and intellectual, looking down on others. Most likely though, is anger at God, and since they cannot get at God, lash out at His followers. And you notice, Christianity is the religion they don’t believe in the most?
          If atheists were truly such, they would not be so hostile over something they claim to not believe in. You cant hate what doesn’t exist. They would be just as upset over Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, etc. Arent they known myths that we teach our children? Isnt it harmful to poor children when they are good but get no presents? But not a peep. Hypocrisy?
          Having said that, I can say that this site is extraordinarily sociable about it. Evolution, God, Creation, will all start really nasty flame wars almost everywhere else.
          Until I found this author, and his very clear and elegant theory, I was of the opinion that science could not prove, or disprove Gods existence. That was fine, as given it as true, atheists have nothing to stand on, especially since they ALWAYS claim science. But with science being a wash, it comes down to faith. Their philosophy is no more scientific. Less even. There is masses of evidence that an inquiring and HONEST mind can acquire that will infer the existence of God, Jesus, His life and works, death and resurrection. By the
          established standards of witness and evidence for Historians, Archeologists, Statisticians and Lawyers.
          I cannot speak for other religions, but they don’t seem to be the target very much, and the active proponents of Theism seem to be mostly Christians too. Maybe because its easier to argue the truth?
          Perry’s Theory educated me, as I was not aware of some of this, and I had never found time to pursue ID, although it seemed to make sense. Its a 3rd way of thinking on evolution, and it very elegantly explains Creation too, consciousness, morality, etc. Purposeful. Provably purposeful.
          I noticed arguments about entropy too, trying to throw the whole theory away based on minor, possible variations, because entropy alone is a powerful argument against an eternal universe, that has always “just been there” Even suns do not last forever. They run out of fuel, collapse, etc. This sort of ending requires a beginning. Even given a lifespan of billions of years, it has to end, meaning something started it.
          As I write this, I think again of motive. Why would anyone, like Jesus taught, want to “Strain at gnats but swallow a camel?” It seems to me that a great many have decided in spite of the facts, and will believe some mighty far-fetched things, just so as to allow themselves to cling to a personal belief. How much blinder can a faith be?

        • Darren Saunders says:

          And yet those who do not believe the universe was created by some supreme being still care and love and fill their lives with meaning despite your despair at the notion you might not be the centre of the universe and the reason it was conjured into existence. Argument from petulance is not very convincing.

          • Brian Shipley says:

            Putting words in my mouth in an attempt to impugn my argument by impugning me, wont work.
            So, we will do this your way.
            Prove that you “care” and “love’ and are not just copying behavior of the other monkeys who found it evolutionally viable to go along to get along”
            There is another old phrase. “A man has two reasons to control his behavior. One is fear, the other is common sense”
            Theists could be said to have a fear of God, and thus, live humanely by his laws. Atheists, simply because its easier. Also, look at crime. Christians avoid committing crimes out of conscience, criminals avoid crime out of fear of punishment. But, will commit crimes if they think they can get away with it.
            You want to have your cake and eat it too. Throw away God, absolutes, right down to good and evil, yet claim yourself as virtuous. Sorry, its a complete contradiction, and doesn’t wash.

      • MikeC says:

        Since spontaneous generation is such an absurdly unlikely incident, Dawkins’ absolutism has him OK with the pan-spermia idea. How then does your absolutism get you past the myriad scientific problems with everything from Big Bang to Evolution. And since belief has a lot to do w/your theories … please take them thru to their only logical conclusion … and you have absolutely nothing. No purpose, no meaning, no free thought … it’s absolutely rediculous.

      • John Richards says:

        Here, here! Richard was speculating.

      • Brian Shipley says:

        There is no science whatsoever disproving God. None. Although there is however, massive amounts of evidence from witnesses and history FOR Theism. Lets throw in all the inferential evidence provided by archeology, historians, statistics. Any intellectually HONEST observer would HAVE to reject atheism. Atheists are bitter clingers, whose “beliefs” are based on a hostility towards religion, and a desperate need to feel superior.
        You denigrate “Belief” and dismiss it. Ok, show us your science disproving God. Every claim of science atheists make, always boils down to, “It just happened Dude!” Creation, the Universe, Life, Man, Conscience, etc, “a happy accident”
        You call that science? You swallow that and dare to mock Theists?
        The fact that science is real, has NOTHING to do with the existence of God. Atheists want everyone to reject God based on the fact gravity exists and your toilet flushes.
        Then, shouting “science” atheists want us to be awed at their “It just happened, Dude!” Sorry, but that is NOT science. Its as gullible as anything I could possibly imagine.
        Atheism is not based in science. Its based on hostility towards God, and will accept ANYTHING except the truth to justify itself.

    • Steven Burton says:

      it’d be that second definition,clearly. it just kind of makes sense that is was a jumble of chemicals coming together in a certain way, or particles if you will. you are currently made up of these particles, atoms, chemicals. how did they ammass them selves to as complex as you, somehow or another they started somewhere. individuals cells perhaps? those are just a bunch of chemicals dancing about obeying physical laws, being acted upon by forces. with that said the way life came to be is just as natural and ordinary as expecting rocks to tumble down a hill. in the chaos there is order and vice versa. the fact that the chemicals that make us up must have come together in the beginning to form some simple unit of life just makes too much sense if you think about it. matter forms structures and patterns and follows all sorts of physical rules and has all sorts of physical constraints that force itself into the beautiful patterns we see today. i could go on and on but I shouldn’t much have to, the point should have gotten across in the first sentence. any denial of this is purely just an attempt at honing one’s skills at debate by upholding the incorrect perspective.

      • “with that said the way life came to be is just as natural and ordinary as expecting rocks to tumble down a hill.”

        Got any proof?

        • Steven Burton says:

          Well, atoms are a mass of protons and neutrons with electrons orbiting that mass. It follows all kinds of rules with positive and negative charge, strong nuclear force, it has a gravitational pull. it moves about in certain ways with the electrons occupying certain levels and bonding to other atoms with certain rules about electron pair sharing to build molecules and the possibilities are seemingly endless in the way they can form, I mean your cells are made up of these things moving about following rules going in specific paths right now to ultimately support your conscious existence. you’re made up of a significant amount of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, calcium. to name a few, the main ones. potassium and chlorine too. all of these building blocks these atoms that are analogous to planetary solar systems. form things like your cell walls for example are made up of a phospholipid bilayer which is sort of magnetically attracted to itself, forming the bilayer which are just hydrocarbon chains that can separate in areas to allow other matter in and out of the cell. the phospholipid bilayer is actually extremely similar to the relationship soap shares with oil in that together they form a structure called a mycell which is almost exactly what the phospho lipid bilayer looks like. and of course these little spheres that we think of atoms like make up all kinds of material structures through out the universe in “inanimate” forms or i.e. ‘unconcsious’ but perhaps it’s possible they could be individually or collectively ‘conscious’ in their own right but of course we can’t know that. this material as far as we can tell makes up unconscious things as well in different concentrations in different molecular structures yet somehow or another it is also in such a delicate collection of molecular structure, concentrations, and occupying on the atomic level just the right spots in space to make a being as great and complicated as you, you are a section of the universe capable of great self awareness, you are a section of the universe that allows the universe to “experience’ itself. somehow or another the forces that control all of this matter at an earlier time had to have gotten some of these elements in the right order to create a basic single celled organism or perhaps an even more simple organism similar to a virus which isn’t even considered a living things. that managed to form other parts of the material universe on our planet into similar enough structures. i.e. somehow matter had to have came together from just natural forces pushing on it in certain directions so that the structures that came together would naturally fall into place as to self replicate coming into contact with elements that it could force into the same structure as it. ‘consciously’ or ‘unconsciously’ with slight variations so as to over time create some kind of organism that’s started life as we know it today. it just makes sense that that had to have happened.

          • “somehow matter had to have came together from just natural forces pushing on it in certain directions so that the structures that came together would naturally fall into place as to self replicate coming into contact with elements that it could force into the same structure as it. ‘consciously’ or ‘unconsciously’ with slight variations so as to over time create some kind of organism that’s started life as we know it today. it just makes sense that that had to have happened.”

            Where is the evidence that this can actually happen?

            I’ve got a $3 million prize for anyone who can solve it. http://www.naturalcode.org.

            • J. Schabauer says:

              Dear Perry,
              In the beginning there was nothing regarding Life and now we have it all. It’s like language creation- one word at the time. The previous will call for the next one and so on. No previous code was required but the will of those beings to communicate. Sounds first It just happened. Like boys talking today. They didn’t agree on having a code. They just talked. Pathways are made as we walk- a print first then a path, a road to highway turned.
              Life started with one living cell which had to come from non-life
              Elements that polluted the planet then after formation- given the conditions. It can’t be any other acceptable way.
              There were no Gods coming to earth to create life on. Have to agree on this one. Recall what people say; the simpler the better. In any case if an intelligent designer was a must He had to know from the ‘start’ how things would go – and returning to this planet was not something He had to do. Or we believe we are so important as to make God come to this infinitesimal planet among Universe to say OK I decide to start life on this planet now. It even sounds vain. What we read about God coming to this Planet to initiate life is nonsense sadly- as it is offering 3M for a living code or intelligent information from where to create things that doesn’t exist. Natural Evolution on one hand and Conscious Evolution on the other go the same way- step by step to eternity, and no motor is needed once the race is on. There is no code because this life would be a boring one. Life needs just chances to prosper. A code is something stable that never changes- in contrast to this, ever changing life?
              This simplistic explanation may help finding evidence.

          • Brian Shipley says:

            “It just makes sense” without any sort of plausible reasoning, is NOT scientific. Its the same reason used to justify the flat earth, and the sun revolving around the earth. It just doesn’t wash.
            Where exactly did the “chemicals we are made of” come from? If its so plausible, has it EVER been duplicated in a lab, using those chemicals? Given our resources and technology, it should be easy. So, an example?
            Sorry, but just saying its plausible, and throwing near infinity into the mix to make a staggeringly unlikely event theoretically possible, doesn’t cut it. Why does it “just make sense”?

            • Elliot George says:

              Another straw man. No scientist uses ‘it just makes sense’ as evidence for a hypothesis.

              The ‘flat earth’ analogy is a shot in the foot since it has a biblical origin.

              Where did the chemicals come from? Hydrogen, helium and lithium from the ‘big bang’, the other elements were forged in star fusion reactions.

              Attempts to produce organic molecules in labs have met with some success.

              • Brian Shipley says:

                The fact it is “biblical” is one of the reasons I posted it. You might want to dismiss it for that reason, but the fact remains, my analogy was perfect. Darwinian theory is no different than flat earth theory, and there is even a Flat Earth Society who believe in the fantastic, against rational evidence, just like Darwinians.
                “Some success”? Really? Such as? And
                Lots of elements were formed at the Big Bang, but last I heard, life never arose in the middle of a nuclear reaction, or a volcano. The Earth started as a sterile, molten ball.

                The “biblical” bit is why I posted it. You can dismiss it out of prejudice, but the fact remains. My analogy was correct. There is even a Flat Earth Society, that believes, despite all rational evidence. Like Darwinians.
                Really? Want to tell us about these “successes”?

      • Hugger says:

        “It just kind of makes sense” That, It just, like, HAPPENED Dude!”
        Yeah, that’s real science! Wow!

        • little hugger says:

          Want to point out where I wrote those words?
          I clicked on the link for your comment, re-read it, and I never said that. Is that all you got? You cant refute honorably, so you put words in my mouth? Or maybe another of those famous Darwinian miracles occurred? Either way, you are still wrong.

      • Brian Shipley says:

        Isnt that a very roundabout way of saying, “happy accident”?
        “primordial soup” is a cop-out. Its just “I don’t know” with a long explanation why. Vague generalities are not a theory, regardless of vocabulary.
        One thought. Given that today, earth is bursting with life of all kinds, and is embarrassingly rich in the resources needed for life to begin, according to theory. Well, why aren’t we seeing new species by the truckload? If they could come spontaneously into existence at some extremely primitive level, then mutate and multiply until they covered the earth, why aren’t they being created, spontaneously, from all these rich resources? Newly created life should be popping into existence on the dinner table. About tea time.
        Again, given the abundant rich soil, why aren’t we seeing evolution happening everywhere? If sheer chance and random variation could literally cover the bare rock of the entire earth with oodles of species everywhere, from a single accidental cell, why don’t we have evolution out the wazoo, given such ripe, ideal conditions now? Seriously, if sheer chance and random variation could cover the earth, why are we not seeing it now, with so many trillions more opportunities for random variation?
        Because the theory is wrong?

        • John richards says:

          What’s wrong with ‘I don’t know?’

          • Brian Shipley says:

            Last I checked, it was Dawkins claiming “a happy accident” which is another way of stating, “It just happened, Dude!” It has always been the go-to explanation for Darwinians, etc. Take a preposterous proposition, add infinity. Voila! a “Theory”

    • Robert DuChaine says:

      2.1 is probably what he meant.

    • Darren Saunders says:

      Cannot see forest for grammatical trees.

    • MikeC says:

      The interesting thing is that he knows science does not support spontaneous generation (aka abiogenesis) and thus is willing to entertain the thought of pan-spermia (we were planted by here aliens … which of course just makes the origin question recursive). But let’s somehow say that we are a happy accident. That rules out free thought, reason, logic, purpose, love, and all that we take for granted. Getting past the myriad scientific problems w/evolution … the worst thing for the human race would be to find it was magically true.

    • Mikki says:

      OK

    • Carl says:

      Very well done my friend. Just what I had in mind.

    • John Richards says:

      Richard Morgan must not be a scientist, or he would know that science can ‘prove’ nothing…

    • Dawkins is a very brilliant mind, but i think to simply say origin is happy accident is a simplistic approach that cannot be verify even to those who share his perspective in life. Our universe is full of mystery but of the intelligent design of life, that shows there is a designer behind it. No matter how we deny the truth we cannot suppress the facts and evidence that suggested God behind it. Chun author of when will the sun set in Africa? http://www.chunredeemingimage.com

  2. Richard Porter says:

    Just on the basis of how scientific methodology works neither evolution nor dating methods can be called science. Evoution will always remain a wishful, (get God outta here), speculation. At best you may be able to call it a hypothesis. In order to come up with a falsifiable experiment one has to assume way to much, the main thing being uniformity. In order to create a laboratory experiment with today’s atmospheric, gravitational, and the amount of UV sunlight, (amongst a host of other conditions), one has to be assuming that this is how it has always been, which died in the wool materialists catergorically do not claim. Dating methods also have to assume, how much ‘parent’ substance there was, how much ‘child’ substance and uniform rate of change … once again wway to many assumptions to come any where close to real science. In science you never have a ‘fact’ because who knows what tomorrow may hold? The best we can hope for is a working theory …

    • Richard Morgan says:

      You are surprisingly dismissive of what you call a “working theory.” You say it is the best we can hope for? Well, yes. A theory remains theoretical (in popular parlance) because it proposes a model to explain observed facts. When it is successful in doing this, it is accepted as a working theory. This is the goal of all scientific methods.
      Evolutionary theory is relatively successful in this. Sure, it is used by some as a “get God outta here strategy” but that removes nothing from its remarkably successful explanatory powers.
      Even concerning your sacrosanct falsifiability, it is impossible to reproduce exactly identical conditions from one laboratory to another, from one researcher to another. But science advances using imperfect tools handled by imperfect people.
      By your criteria, all of the historical sciences (geology, palaeontology, forensics etc) would have to be dismissed as just working theories. But that’s not the way it happens, is it?
      It is somewhat dangerous to hinge one’s religious faith on scientific proofs because, as you say, “who knows what tomorrow may hold”?
      Yesterday’s speculative theory becomes today’s accepted working theory and is likely to become tomorrow’s disproven theory. No scientist would deny that. Evolutionary theories are far from being wishful speculation. They are relatively successful explanatory models. Like absolutely all theories, they are liable to be modified as new facts come to light. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. The baby may have something very helpful to teach us. Even the bathwater can be recycled!

      • Eric says:

        Exactly right Richard, it’s important not to put God into a scientific box because eventually as science progresses He will be pushed out by discovery. Science compliments my faith, but my faith itself is the result of personal experiences that indicate to me that God is who he says he is; no means hinges on science.

      • Old Git Tom says:

        Mr Morgan,
        if you are thinking of Darwin’s natural selection (NS) theory of bio-evolution, it is preposterous to call it ‘successful’. It remains a failed hypothesis. It was never even a valid scientific one. It is a tautology; it it is self-reinforcing, circular. As such, it is not scientific, since unfalsifiable under ANY experimental test.
        The NS merry-go-round goes this way:
        1. Fitness determines survival.
        2. Survival is proved by all the organisms that exist, or ever did.
        3. Therefore, existence proves fitness, & all life-forms prove natural selection’s correctness.
        This kind of circular proposition is as unshkeably true, & idiotically unscientific, as the statement, “I am my mother’s son”.
        Darwin was an honest enuf scientist to face this deficiency, since he failed to identify any mechanism of speciation in his lifetime. After 150-odd years, nor have his materialist disciples.
        Let alone empirical proof, under lab conditions, NS enthusiasts still cannot even provide a COHERENT theory of speciation.
        I’ve been following the evolution debate for about 30 years, including reading Dawkins’ books, & following his career. As a sophisticated dogmatist, he has talents, but AFAIK, he has not done hands-on biology research for decades. He is ignorant in the areas of history, religion & philosophy. As with so many fans of materialism, & 19C scientific positivism, he is cheerfully & arrogantly insouciant about his lack of general knowledge.

        • Martin says:

          Hmmm… Old Git Tom…. There is so much wrong and false about your desperate statement I really don’t know where to start? But lets give it a go…. The “theory” of Evolution, through the “mechanism” of natural selection is an established and as yet not disproved and therefore successful scientific theory. Agreed upon and accepted the world over for more than 100 years by scientists time and time again. It is an established scientific theory, regardless of how much you don’t want it to be, it simply is, and as such is easily disprovable (fossil rabbits in the Precambrian for example) and stands as such a scientific theory, waiting to be disproved. So as you seem to disagree with this universally (within true academic circles) accepted statement, I assume you have the links to all your peer reviewed scientific papers to back up your bold statements? Or are they in fact just your ignorance of science produced as opinion? But there is more. Speciation has been clearly shown to happen, and simply denying it over and over again doesn’t make it disappear, no matter how hard you stamp your feet. As for your remarks about Dawkins.. “AFAIK, he has not done hands-on biology research for decades” …. And? That means what? That because his celebrated, well respected and still currently accepted body of work is in the past, he now knows nothing about evolution? Wow! you actually think that is an argument?? And also “He is ignorant in the areas of history, religion & philosophy” Well.. Firstly…. you are aware of his knowledge or lack of it on the subjects because? Or is it that you want to think this simply because his real and applied knowledge on the subjects clearly and decisively destroy your own ridiculous position. Forgive me for being blunt, but I thought it best to respond to you in the kind of language you seem to enjoy, like your pleasure in collecting people who disagree with you into convenient and “you hope” derogatory “name groups” like “materialist disciples” or “NS enthusiasts” “fans of materialism” when in fact you are actually describing honest respected and peer reviewed scientists… But that wouldn’t have the same ring would it… But regardless, I’m sure the scientists themselves would describe you in much politer terms… But I’m not one of them, so if its ok with you, I’ll just describe you as ignorant in the extreme… and seemingly proud of it. Good for you, most people would be ashamed to show as much publicly.

          • Old Git Tom says:

            Martin,
            agreed: natural selection is indeed popular. It’s been biology’s orthodoxy for decades. So was blatant nonsense, like ‘The Piltdown Man’. That’s why evolution theory stagnated until modernity blew in with geneticists, like Barbara McClintock (1940s).
            Dawkins may well have your respect, but not mine, or that of many others. He would have earned some, had he honestly engaged with the genetics revolution, but no. In the last of his books I read, & in docus, he was still ‘pushing’ a crude, obsolete version of Neo-darwinism. As I stated, he may once have starred as a research biologist, but for decades he has spearheaded the ‘Save Darwinism’ propaganda campaign. Darwinism is a keystone of philosophical, materialist, orthodoxy in science.
            I respect real scientists, like the brilliant Fred Hoyle. He was railroaded out of Cambridge for questioning aspects of Darwinism. I have words for the time-serving mediocrities who brought this great man down, but they are not polite.
            But please address my point. EVOLUTION is not the issue, nor speciation. What is, is NS’s utter failure to EXPLAIN them, coherently. The existence or o/wise of ‘peer reviewed papers’ proves little, except perhaps the presence of bribable scientists. Read what the ex-editor of the New England Journal of Medicine wrote of medical research papers today, many handsomely ‘funded’ by Big Farma. Plump, well-funded academics of a feather DO tend to review together.
            Dawkins is indeed deficient in knowledge outside of Darwinism. His sallies against religion are embrarrassingly amateurish stuff. He plainly has plumbed no depths of history. If he had, he would know about the origins of science within religions – Christianity, Islam & pagan. I have a scroll somewhere, that says I know s/thing about that, but as such, it actually proves little, & only impresses the gullible.

            • Neil Harrington says:

              If Richard Dawkins had ‘plumbed the depths of history’, he would also know this curious fact – he uses an atheist A – Symbol to proclaim to the world that there is no afterlife. Yet his A – Symbol is a precise COPY of a very old Egyptian afterlife symbol! It’s quite humorous, actually. Dawkins has obviously never plumbed the depths of the historical record. Yet herein is the secret – it is within all this recorded information that proof exists for the supernormal. ‘COPYING’ is a very real (sub conscious) phenomenon which can be demonstrated. And Richard Dawkins adopted A – Symbol is but one example. I have the full story of the extent of this mysterious phenomenon and it is quite alarming … for it definitely does not happen by random chance. After 50 years of research, I can prove to anyone interested that certain events are directed in some way (indicating the presence of a superior external intelligence!)

    • Steven Burton says:

      and based off of that last bit, which I will agree with, god cannot be a ‘fact’ either. however when it comes to obtaining a certain degree of probability there’s far more evidence supporting the theory of evolution then there is supporting the existence of an almighty creator.

      • Hugger says:

        That is completely untrue!
        Please, share some of this evidence? Something besides parrot like squawking about “science” Ok?
        If you examine Jesus and His life, using the accepted standards of Historian, Archeologist, Lawyer or Statistician, you would have to conclude He is real and His claims are true.
        Y’all claim science, but your “theories” are voodoo and BS. When no direct evidence is available, you use inferential evidence. There is quite a bit of it, which you simply refuse to consider because you need to feel intellectually superior, and cant let go of your security blanket.
        And after years, and many challenges, no atheist ever has come up with any evidence or proof whatsoever. Science is real. You claim science, but cannot explain your beliefs with it. So, your claim is false.

  3. BAK says:

    Abiogenesis is just one of those “happy accidents” for which materialists must give account.

    Others are: sexual reproduction, human self-awareness and, ultimately, the origin of time, space and matter.

  4. Both the first cause for the big bang, and the first cause of life appearing are huge questions. Dawkins is here in his finest dismissive form. This is what i would have said to him:

    I’d like for a moment to change the topic Richard.

    I prefer to interpret Genesis 1:2 from a pure physics point of view, and look at Genesis from the perspective that ‘the deep’ (or waters) is the primordial creation and actually representing space-time.

    Before you dismiss it, consider that modern physics has revealed that space time has waves (gravity waves) and in that peculiar 3D context, surface as well.

    If this is the case, and celestial bodies do not yet exist to produce any gravity waves in the space-time, is it possible that the spirit of God hovering over this primordial fabric of space-time, was powerful enough to produce gravity waves?

    Who would have known 3000 years ago that space-time is like waters? Gravity waves were only confirmed Sept 14th 2015, and not predicted until Einstein less than 100 years ago.

    The best way to address one like Dawkins is to humiliate him the way Isaiah did when he was confronted by utter nonsense. double down on the truth and give them a fatal dose.

    It has just been in the last week that I stumbled upon the possibility that Genesis 1 is this sophisticated, and i am trying to get the idea in the collective consciousness. Sorry it is technically off topic.

    • Thanks for posting your comments. Welcome.

      • Thank you, for allowing such an off topic post bound to illicit guffaws and stir controversy. But I do really want people to think about it. Maybe it holds water, maybe not. But for now, I think it’s been right under our nose the whole time.

        • History shows that sometimes crazy ideas pay off huge dividends. As a business consultant I can certainly attest to that, and no serious student of the history of science should disagree.

          • As you probably know better than I, we have to be extremely careful with eisegesis. I just learned the term last night. It is highly dubious if not utterly ridiculous that the author of Genesis 1 had anything like what I am suggesting in mind. What I am suggesting, if valid, would be another layer of information in the text. But if the bible is anything like DNA…

            If such a thing can be seen in the text, it may be no more useful than to simply ask ourselves what the odds are that modern theoretical physics can be coherently read into the text at all? Though we can’t be sure whether we are merely imposing meaning on the text, it is curious.

  5. James R. Cowles says:

    Life itself is a concatenation of happy accidents: happy in the sense that, absent those accidents, no one would be around to bandy semantics about words like “happy”. The earth accidentally “happened” to end up in the habitable zone of the sun with a certain chemistry suitable for (our type of) life … etc., etc., etc.

    The ignorance of evolution and the scientific method displayed in these posts is nothing short of breathtaking.

    • I fail to find a single scientific statement in your post. Where is your evidence? As in, proof of concept, that happy chemical accidents produce life or any sort of useful organization whatsoever?

    • James,

      My previous reply probably sounds a bit brusque and for that I apologize.

      That said, I don’t believe the position you just stated is any more than an arbitrary anti-religious opinion, having no scientific merit at all.

      When you subject it to scrutiny – when you put to empirical test the idea that life actually can be a “Happy chemical accident” – it crumbles in minutes. To support that, I need look no further than Richard Dawkins who claims, “Evolution produces such a strong illusion of design it has fooled almost every human who ever lived.”

      Everything that evolves, that humans have any intimate knowledge of (like software) evolves purposefully.

      If you disagree, then bring forth some empirical evidence that we can discuss.

      This is a very serious question that demands a serious answer. Happy to discuss further if you’re willing.

      • Steven Burton says:

        what purpose? does it scare you to think that it’s possible that life is meaningless?

        • Any sane and healthy person will be hostile to the idea that life is purposeless.

          • Steven Burton says:

            That’s an assumption you’ve made about the typical healthy and sane individual. As far as the knowable universe goes, it seems impossible to ever possibly find an objective reason for why it exists. there’s no objective for the universe it just is. there’s no way to measure other wise even if we were to advance our society to a space exploring one, even harness the energy of the entire universe, there would be no objective point or reason to do so. although I would still want society to do something of the sort as opposed to extinction.

            • “I would still want society to do something of the sort as opposed to extinction.”

              See, you desire purpose as well.

            • Neil Harrington says:

              Actually, you are entirely wrong. It can be proven that there is a ‘guiding force’ which is external to human intelligence
              – the illusive evidence exists within the recorded information of our history (‘the historical record’.) Events are not really what they seem – there is a lot of hidden recurrence or mysterious ‘copying’. In other words, things may recur in different settings. And it is way beyond random chance. In a word, the information I have is phenomenal.

          • Darren Saunders says:

            Hostility to the idea does not necessarily make the idea untrue. your argument seems in summary to say ‘I don’t like the idea our existence may have no meaning as determined by some supreme bring therefore life must have meaning.’

            • If you’re thirsty, it doesn’t prove there’s water. But it does suggest that it might exist.

              It’s interesting that your purpose in writing this is to tell me that there’s no purpose.

            • Brian Shipley says:

              You are trying to throw the error back.
              The theory skirts very carefully around “God” and concentrates on purpose. The problem is, the theory is being rejected BECAUSE it does a very fine job of showing purpose, inevitably translated into God/Supreme Being. The rejecters of the theory reject it for this reason, and this alone, even though it cleans up all the messes and faith based fantastical beliefs of the atheist/Darwin crowd. Flat earthers in 2016.
              What is scientific about forcing theories to conform to your beliefs, no matter how you have to twist reality?
              Thus, inevitably, the argument ends up with the same God vs Nothing points. But its true. Without Jesus, life means nothing. We are all just monkeys scrabbling in the dirt. All our achievements, our most sublime moments, all our love, pointless. I gotta wonder, when an atheist tells his wife he loves her, doesn’t he feel guilty about lying to her?

          • Neil Harrington says:

            There is proof, in the written historical record, that there is a directed purpose! It takes a long time to discover this fact, however. It took me over 50 years of research – and I am a speed reader!

  6. Nate says:

    One of the biggest differences between a Christian and a non Christian secularist is that the secularist can be wrong. This willingness to question everything is the scientific bid you keep alluding to is simple honesty.

    The deists posting here have sacrificed truth for the egotistical comfort of saying that the whole universe was created specifically for them by their invisible master, and they cannot be wrong about it ever.

    What do you do with that but go to war with the stranger who claims the same thing but with a different invisible master?

    No argument Or reason can reach you once yous choose to be firmly be convinced in spite of evidence.

    Belief poisons everything.

    • I find your comments to be no less true of secular fundamentalists like Dawkins, than Christian fundamentalists like Ken Ham. In fact I see little difference between the two.

      I was quiate willing to discard my Christianity if the scientific evidence was against it. I chose to follow the evidence where it leads. That decision took me down a very deep rabbit hole and led me to write my book Evolution 2.0. I’m still a Christian today.

      • Darren Saunders says:

        The difference is Perry that if you started emptying hospital wards with your prayers and raising the dead in the name of jesus Dawkins and co would reappraise their position as opposed to the likes of Ken Ham who have stated explicitly NOTHING could ever change their minds.

        • I think you’re giving Dawkins too much credit.

          He admits that there are “spontaneous events” that medicine can’t explain but he refuses to believe in miracles nonetheless.

          I refer you to September 2010, where the Southern Medical Journal published an article titled: Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Proximal Intercessory Prayer (STEPP) on Auditory and Visual Impairments in Rural Mozambique. The official publication can be found here and the original authored manuscript from Indiana University can be found here. 24 people were tested; hearing of deaf subjects improved by 10-60 decibels. Vision of some of the blind subjects also improved, ranging from none to 15X.

    • Nate, don’t think for a moment that just because you ‘chose’ to remain uncommitted to a metaphysical belief such as a theistic religion or materialism that you have escaped the same trap. I am afraid we are all in the same boat.

      At the foundation of your ‘belief’ is the notion that we cannot know such things. As I say in my article (and I appreciate the endorsement Perry) this mantra and dogma that ‘we cannot know’ got its intellectual foot firmly in the door of Western consciousness because of Imannuel Kant.

      The problem is that in order to objectively KNOW that we cannot know, Kant (or yourself) would have to get outside the system to verify that there is no door out, or in.

      Since you cannot know that (and neither did Kant) you must chose to believe. And like you said, “No argument Or reason can reach you once you choose to be firmly convinced in spite of evidence.”

      You can prove me wrong only by changing your mind and admitting the possibility (even if only the size of a mustard seed) that maybe, just maybe truth could be known.

      Once we do that (which is what real open-mindedness looks like), we can then ask the question, “how might that be possible?”

      It is then that we notice that if someone could come from outside, it would be possible to know truth, at least in part. Aliens would not qualify, it needs to be someone from outside space-time.

      Then we have to ask ourselves, “Are there any candidates?” That narrows our search to only one religious figure in history who had the audacity to claim such a thing.

      Anyway, that is the basic formula. It depends only upon believing in logic. Personally the logos is the only thing I trust blindly even when it leads me to conclusion I once thought impossible.

      • Nate I wish to add one correction to my last comment. I do not follow logic blindly. That is the beauty of logic, it gives sight. I can see that 1+1=2. And as we follow him (the logos) we move deeper and deeper into the light, not the darkness. I misspoke because even logic requires faith. I cannot prove it is valid, but I look at logic as Lord. And when I consider leaving him I think, “Lord, where else shall I go?”

        What I meant was, that at this point in my own journey, I trust logic almost completely. Faith has never been my strong suit even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

    • Brian Shipley says:

      Belief poisons everything? That goes both ways. Where is your science to disprove God? Where is your science to back up the claims that the universe, life, etc, “Just happened”? The incredible things atheists believe are as astoundingly gullible as any religion, ever. Then, a theory comes along that ties your beliefs together, and you rant about theists who “cant be wrong” Wow! The lack of self-awareness is amazing

      • Elliot George says:

        The first question is a Russell’s teapot of reversal of onus of proof.

        Where is your disproof of fairies?

        The second is a strawman claim. Scientists do not state that everything ‘just happened’. They honestly admit that they don’t know about origins.

        How different they are from theists who claim to know without evidence!

        • Brian Shipley says:

          You presume I am a Theist? Is that rational and scientific? Since you cannot argue your point, you must attempt to denigrate your opponent? Besides, that is a HUGE logical fallacy. Even if I were Adolf Hitler, it does not change the validity of my argument. If you want to make a rational argument, you must start with a rational foundation.

  7. Perry, I did not intend for you to publish my last comment as this site is for you to get YOUR book and ideas into the arena. The link was for you. That was very gracious, thanks.

  8. Tim says:

    Nice to read all the comments without someone hurling expletives at others.

  9. Don Smith says:

    For a prolific writer, you’d think he would have cited a better scientific proposal than that. A more adequate answer should be rolling of his tongue by now. He has been asked this question a few times, still he keeps given these inadequate answers. I wonder how much he hides his inadequacies with the attacking stance he adopts against religion.

    • Old Git Tom says:

      D Smith,
      poor Dawkins is too hagridden by dogma to perceive that his materialism has the same problem as all faith & logic systems – necessary trust in some unprovable foundation of postulate(s). Spinoza & Russell beat paths towards the same conclusion; Carnap made math-clear what St Anselm stated long before; ‘All faith is founded in doubt’.
      Weak faith is no more/less irreligious than dogmatic absolutism is
      ‘scientific’.

      • Robert Lockett says:

        It is nice to know we are not alone even though it feels like it sometimes. I am having a grand time with a couple boys on a philosophy forum about this very thing. They really believe that empiricism is scientific, and forget that it is a philosophical position.

        Here is a snippet from our discussion. I have hope that this one will get it, but he is struggling:

        logikos wrote: “I.e., scientists pretty much get ticked off at each other about competing ideas as to what encompasses the current information better. It’s no surprise if they get ticked off by someone outside the field and Craig is not a scientist, certainly not a practicing one.”

        Scientists are philosophers FIRST logikos, and I will easily sustain that shortly. Craig is right where he belongs, and so is John Lennox, and many others. Was it not you who admitted that philosophy is a school of science just a few posts ago? Whether it was you or M-theory, it matters not. In fact, philosophy is the FIRST science because science cannot proceed without a philosophical foundation.

        That is not indignation on my part btw, it is simply the hard truth.

        logikos wrote: “I think you’re correct that there are scientists who are as dogmatic as any past religious leader. That’s a problem. But there is one significant difference: religious statements are non-falsifiable, scientific statements are falsifiable, and, ultimately, that is the scientific path to figuring out what is the case.”

        We agree on the first sentence, but your second is a centuries old contradiction made popular by David Hume as he attempted to exalt empiricism above everything else. And it was Ravi Zacharias who pointed it out to me and many others. Here is what Hume said in his, ‘An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding’:

        “When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.”

        Concerning Hume Ravi says, “Hume’s own statement is neither mathematical nor experimental. It is like a universal solvent that dissolves itself. How does one make a statement that is metaphysically stated, in order to tell us metaphysics is meaningless?”

        I like to put it another way… how does one make a philosophical statement, in order to tell us that philosophy is meaningless?”

        You see logikos, Hume was incorrect. Philosophical and metaphysical claims ARE falsifiable. If you can show that a philosophical proposition is incongruous and self defeating, then it is false. Logic works in philosophy the same as it does for empirical inquiry. And because of the contradiction, your claim to the contrary is false. Philosophical propositions are highly testable, and predictive, but not with the test tube or by way of mathematics. Rather, we use ‘the logos’. The same logos we use to do mathematics and test hypothesis in the lab.

        Empiricists like Hume, Dawkins, Hawking, and the multitude of minions under their influence, are philosophers. As Craig points out, science (empiricism) cannot be justified by the scientific method. The only way it can be justified is by rational method. You are kind of back to the trick played by James Randi that I mentioned earlier, demanding a category of proof to propositions that do not apply.

        logikos wrote: “If Atkins or any other scientists don’t like challenges, the people who work in their fields will, likely, discover who was right and who was wrong.

        Religious thinkers, however, have a bigger problem in that no one can disprove the other side.”

        Yes we will find out, but I do not have to be a physicist or mathematical genius to see that Hawking is wrong when he says, “Philosophy is dead”. As with Hume, his is a philosophical statement and utter nonsense.

        No, Dr. Hawking, I love your work. I learned much from ‘A Brief history of Time’, but the fact remains sir, that it is not philosophy that is dead, but Hume, and your sanity if you are not careful.

        • Excellent.

          • Robert Lockett says:

            Thanks. It is so frustrating being patient with people, but patient we must be even when they refuse to cooperate.

            Now another person has come to save the day and trying to refute that philosophy has anything to do with science. It is the old canard, ‘science works’, why it works is irrelevant. Methodological naturalism is merely pragmatic and useful he says. But ‘useful’ toward what ends? Therein lies his missing philosophy, ‘hidden among the reeds in the marsh’ (Job 40:21).

            http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/the-absence-of-evidence-etc-74540-18.html

            • Old Git Tom says:

              Mr Lockett,
              spot on: Goedel & his Incompletness Theorem proved that no self-consistent system of logic can validate itself (sorry for my earlier mistake in citing ‘Carnap’). So, ultimately we must take it on faith that math is not just some clever but futile mental gymnastics. AFAIK, science believes in similarly ‘fundamental laws’, with no obvious means of support – on the sound grounds that they ‘work’ – they allow clever chaps to do clever things (belief can indeed work miracles!). Someone should tell Dawkins that quality quantum physicists still cannot decide if a ‘material universe’ exists, or if it would vanish if it were never observed.

  10. Hugger says:

    Dawkins is a nobody, who figured he could be rich and famous simply by positing outrageous and revolting “theories” There is no science disproving God, or Creation. Its just a lie atheists tell, like parrots. Squawk! Same with evolution. Its so full of enormous logical holes it could be Swiss cheese! Atheists mock Christians, because they have no answers, and so, MUST attack. Yet, when you look at what Atheists believe about Creation, morality, consciousness, “It just happened dude!” It takes more than religious faith to swallow. Even their so-called scientific theories sound like childrens fairytales. For their theory to work, it requires something called Dark Matter to exist, and not just exist, but it makes up 96% of the universe! Except, well, we cant find any! Even with hugely expensive, specially built, underground research facilities, over decades. Not a single bit. Maybe its under the bed, behind a dust bunny, you think?
    This is brain-washed, mind-controlled, blind faith. Also proof of insanity.
    Dawkins is just a nobody, a hater, who has figured a way to become prominent far beyond his deserts.
    So far as his science, he has none. That’s why he came up with something as childish “a happy accident” Since he challenges established thought, and claims “science” he is REQUIRED to prove his points, scientifically. He cant. All he has is lies and childishness, and an eye for n easy scam.

  11. The hardware and software of the cell, evidence of design

    http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2221-the-hardware-and-software-of-the-cell-evidence-of-design

    Paul Davies: the fifth miracle page 62
    Due to the organizational structure of systems capable of processing algorithmic (instructional) information, it is not at all clear that a monomolecular system – where a single polymer plays the role of catalyst and informational carrier – is even logically consistent with the organization of information flow in living systems, because there is no possibility of separating information storage from information processing (that being such a distinctive feature of modern life). As such, digital–first systems (as currently posed) represent a rather trivial form of information processing that fails to capture the logical structure of life as we know it. 1

    We need to explain the origin of both the hardware and software aspects of life, or the job is only half finished. Explaining the chemical substrate of life and claiming it as a solution to life’s origin is like pointing to silicon and copper as an explanation for the goings-on inside a computer. It is this transition where one should expect to see a chemical system literally take-on “a life of its own”, characterized by informational dynamics which become decoupled from the dictates of local chemistry alone (while of course remaining fully consistent with those dictates). Thus the famed chicken-or-egg problem (a solely hardware issue) is not the true sticking point. Rather, the puzzle lies with something fundamentally different, a problem of causal organization having to do with the separation of informational and mechanical aspects into parallel causal narratives. The real challenge of life’s origin is thus to explain how instructional information control systems emerge naturally and spontaneously from mere molecular dynamics.

    Software and hardware are irreducible complex and interdependent. There is no reason for information processing machinery to exist without the software, and vice versa.
    Systems of interconnected software and hardware are irreducibly complex. 2

    All cellular functions are irreducibly complex 3

    http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2179-the-cell-is-a-interdependent-irreducible-complex-system

    chemist Wilhelm Huck, professor at Radboud University Nijmegen 5
    A working cell is more than the sum of its parts. “A functioning cell must be entirely correct at once, in all its complexity,”

    Paul Davies, the fifth miracle page 53:
    Pluck the DNA from a living cell and it would be stranded, unable to carry out its familiar role. Only within the context of a highly specific molecular milieu will a given molecule play its role in life. To function properly, DNA must be part of a large team, with each molecule executing its assigned task alongside the others in a cooperative manner. Acknowledging the interdependability of the component molecules within a living organism immediately presents us with a stark philosophical puzzle. If everything needs everything else, how did the community of molecules ever arise in the first place? Since most large molecules needed for life are produced only by living organisms, and are not found outside the cell, how did they come to exist originally, without the help of a meddling scientist? Could we seriously expect a Miller-Urey type of soup to make them all at once, given the hit-and-miss nature of its chemistry?

    Being part of a large team,cooperative manner,interdependability,everything needs everything else, are just other words for irreducibility and interdependence.

    For a nonliving system, questions about irreducible complexity are even more challenging for a totally natural non-design scenario, because natural selection — which is the main mechanism of Darwinian evolution — cannot exist until a system can reproduce. For an origin of life we can think about the minimal complexity that would be required for reproduction and other basic life-functions. Most scientists think this would require hundreds of biomolecular parts, not just the five parts in a simple mousetrap or in my imaginary LMNOP system. And current science has no plausible theories to explain how the minimal complexity required for life (and the beginning of biological natural selection) could have been produced by natural process before the beginning of biological natural selection.

  12. Mark Newsom says:

    I recently read a comment made about how Dawkins is, “…disproving…: (Kraus and Braum-Smith, 2012) the design ideology of the Bombardier Beetle with his hypothesis that, “…the beetle’s defensive chemicals have become so effective due to a gradual increase in the hydrogen peroxide concentrations stored in its gland. Over time, the once weak solution of hydrogen peroxide proved to be an adaptive advantage…” (Kraus and Braum-Smith, 2012, n.p.) . I must say I expected a lot more than this weak statement. How would you “disprove” something with a hypothesis? Isn’t that speculation? Would that hold up in any courtroom? Would my research donors be satisfied in their investment if all I ended up with is a hypothesis? Regarding the perfectly designed thickness of the combustion chamber walls that protect the Beetle from self-harm he implied that all the Beetle had to do is decide it needed to grow a thicker wall. I wish we had the intellect and intentional evolution abilities of that beetle to solve all our problems since it was so easy for it make such a decision. We’d all have gills and nobody would drown. If you ascribe to secular evolution, you have faith and a belief system. Like Dawkins, believing something he did not see nor can he replicate is faith. For him to mock those who ascribe to design is simple arrogance. He allows his own presuppositions to rule out a possibility without considering it or testing it. Many Christians do the same. But remember it is not only Chrisians that believe in creation. Assumptions about what occurred so long ago are not fact. I won’t pretend to be an expert in this particular science but I am able to measure some degree of logic. If it is a theory call it a theory. If it is a hypothesis call it a hypothesis. This is a debate between faith that nature functions on its own and somehow within the limitations of certain established laws that have no author, and faith in an author that established the laws that nature functions within. And btw, humans are part of that natural realm, subject to those established laws. Or you believe all this order comes from chaos demonstrating huge amounts of faith. Don’t be haven’t folks.

    Kraus, J., Brumbaugh-Smith, CA (2012). Bombardier Defense. Reed College. Retrieved from http://www.reed.edu/biology/courses/bio342/2012_syllabus/2012_websites/jk_cb_site_nov19th/phylogeny.html

  13. Mark Newsom says:

    Awesome research on selective breeding demonstrating the very short time needed for domestication and the virtual disappearance of the original pairs in the study. Only took a few generations. Selective breeding is exactly what we do with each other naturally. With wolves, it only took one to be interested in humans to discover humans had food and humans would share that food if certain behaviors were exhibited. Behavior reward. Behavior reward. Offspring learn and so on. Great study done. Check it out.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2763232/

    • Old Git Tom says:

      Mr Newson,
      better is the Youtube docu of this experiment I watched a long way back. But the experiment fell far short of ‘proving’ Darwin’s natural selection hypothesis (NS).
      As I recall, the wild foxes were selectively paired & bred thru six generations. This produced kinds of domesticated canines with curly tails, but such techniques of domestication have been known to humanity for millennia.
      For NS to be reinforced, a demonstration of evolution of a new SPECIES, without the guidance of human intelligence, needs to be presented. All we got here was tame foxes with curly tails, which are dogs.
      Darwin himself had EXACTLY the same failure in breeding pigeons. Whatever he tried, he still got pigeons, not a new avian species. He accepted that tame animals gone back to the wild revert to ‘feral prototype’ – which just means minor variations of the self-same base species. And variation has been empirically recognized almost as long as domestication. Speciation via natural selection has not.
      Part of the stubborn problem for biology is identifying what a discrete species actually is. There are various systems/specifications, none 100% reliable. And yes, we know there is an awful lot of variability in nature. The trouble is, NS does not & cannot coherently account for it.

  14. Old Git Tom says:

    Perry Marshall,
    ‘You are right and selection happens at EVERY level – individual, tribe, species, ecosystem. It’s the same in business – product, company, niche, country, industry.’
    Fine; we have agreed Darwin’s natural selection hypothesis fails fundamentally to explain bio-evolution. But you seem convinced that its ‘competition’ component can be retained as viable ‘science’, yes? If so, I doubt that competition alone is the selection agent, or the key element in evolution. AFAIK, that key, ‘magic’ part eludes science still, since it is constant creation, & that is always hidden, mysterious, invisible in action, & only detectable after the event.
    Examples aside, logic suggests competition is more apparent than real. Certainly, it is real & overt enuf in the world’s affairs, but that should not mislead us. Eg., faster predators may well catch more prey, but the relationship between predators & prey tends towards balance, otherwise one or the other, or both, may go extinct. There is patently a far more complex game being played than raw competition.
    Again, outside bio-evolution, Olympic runners are fast, simply as an entry requirement. Over the decades, their performances improve – but not in virtue of competition alone. Better performances are also the benefit from developments in training, diet, footwear, & track surfaces. These factors in turn are the outcomes of larger, scientific, technical & social developments. So what EXACTLY is ‘evolving’ here, individual athletes, or their nationalistic –minded societies? I’d suggest, we see in this only change, not evolution. For evolution via competition demands winners by survival, & losers by extinction. Neither athletes nor their nations expire from lack of gold medals.
    In commerce too, the role of competition is important, but not all-important. It leads certainly to the profit of the more ‘efficient’, & losses to the less competitive corporations or nations. But this process tends inexorably to the elimination/attenuation of competition itself. The most successful become either dominant monopolies, or restrictive cartels. The primary aim of both is price-fixing, & so the suppression of costly rivalry.
    And so back to biology; IF competition were the core of evolution, we should expect to see the relentless winnowing-down of the number of less ‘efficient’ species. But we do not see this. Rather, we find an extravagant range of created life-forms, some so exotic they make mockery of the very notion of Spartan ‘fitness’.
    Competition theory is a lingering remnant of crude & obsolete, Victorian, materialist ideology. It’s not sound evolution science.

    • I’m sorry Tom but I think you are completely wrong about this. I agree with you on many things but not this.

      All you have to do is go out away from the city and pay attention.

      Go to an island somewhere and watch the birds, fish, insects, etc.

      Everything is subject to getting eaten by 10 other things and things are eating and being eaten ALL THE TIME. Earth is a fiercely competitive place and many adaptive mutations are simply in anticipation of what *could* happen.

      • Old Git Tom says:

        Perry,
        no need to apologize!
        Maybe I did not lay out the prob clearly. There is certainly abundant evidence of competition in nature. But this rivalry is more apparent, than real. At some higher level, harmonizing & balancing forces operate to maintain & support life in all its multiforms; like, symbiosis & intra-species support. Even, given very few examples, cross-species co-operation (humans & dolphins, etc.).
        The Darwinian schema has been discredited by modern science. By some ‘magical’ intelligence, new species do not disrupt & subjugate by ‘superior’ attributes. They are apparently ‘designed’ to fit within the prevailing macro-environment, & this environment includes most/all other populations of life-forms. IOWs, the Darwinian dichotomy between material environment & life-forms is misleading.
        Were it otherwise, the ‘ceaseless struggle for existence’, so long beloved by Darwinian ideologues, would have reduced all life to a few, or maybe one, ‘super-species’. The very notion of competition implies a minority of ‘winners’, & a majority of ‘losers’. Under Darwin rules, losers would inexorably be rendered extinct, leaving a handful of winners. The variegated life we see all around us confounds this false view.
        Humans may well be the most advanced form of life, but they are not the crowning (crowing?) fruit of some ‘tree of life’, tree being a metaphor for Nature’s Olympic podium! Modern genetics no longer sees Darwin’s ‘tree of life’, but rather bushes/networks of life.
        Competition is efficient at lower levels. Above, cooperation is more efficient for survival than competition. THAT is why ueber-social humans dominate all habitats, & why poor but cooperative farmers are putting the fiercest predators out of business globally. Humans can cooperate better becoz they have language, the supreme communications medium (‘In the beginning was – – – ‘).
        Thing is, crude NS theory is worse than useless for grasping any of the above: it’s a block, a barrier.

  15. john yafmen says:

    What an absurd thing to have a tirade over! It’s an innocent comment. He knows no more about the origin of life than you do. What would YOUR answer be? You must hate his guts for other reasons and this just set you off.

  16. Neil Harrington says:

    I have researched all this for 50 plus years – the origin of life on this planet. I was a speed reader and was able to glean facts from a mountain of books! Richard Dawkins and other atheists state that there has never been a genuine supernormal or supernatural occurrence. They claim there is no intelligence outside of life on earth. I now have definite evidence that they are wrong! This evidence lies within the historical record itself – the recorded information about our past, which is known. There are certain phenomenal patterns, which definitely cannot be attributed to random chance!! It took me a long time to detect them, but they are not difficult to understand. One of these patterns came as a massive surprise – it involves earth’s first ever verified UFO film (the Kaikoura Lights Mystery – recorded in New Zealand, in late 1978.) Precisely two months before this, Frederick Valentich vanished off the coast of Melbourne in Australia while flying a plane at 4,000 feet – this incident unfolded while he was describing a highly unusual light phenomenon, which was tracking his plane. Also seen on radar. I have evidence that these two UFO cases are connected. Two UFO cases. But they are by no means isolated occurrences!! The matching pattern which connects them is decidedly supernormal (almost beyond belief!)

  17. Muhammad Azhar says:

    What is wrong with Dawkins response, even the universe is a “happy” accident

  18. Kemal Alyürük says:

    The symmetry preferences of living world that is “all the organisms exclusively digest or synthesis amino acids and proteins with left handed symmetry” have been subject of controversy. A number of attempts were made to account for this peculiarity of life. Some authors proposes complicated mechanisms (such as elements of life was imported from outer space) while some others take it as a proof for the creationism.
    The blog at http:kemalalyurukblog.blogspot.com.tr: proposes a simple explanation for the left handed symmetry of life by claiming simultaneous formation of genetic materials with both left and right hand symmetries in the pre-biotic word. Any possible process which exterminates one of these symmetries would readily accounts for the single handed symmetry of life.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CONTACT US
221, Mount Olimpus, Rheasilvia, Mars,
Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy
+1 (999) 999-99-99
PGlmcmFtZSBzcmM9Imh0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lmdvb2dsZS5jb20vbWFwcy9lbWJlZD9wYj0hMW0xOCExbTEyITFtMyExZDYwNDQuMjc1NjM3NDU2ODA1ITJkLTczLjk4MzQ2MzY4MzI1MjA0ITNkNDAuNzU4OTkzNDExNDc4NTMhMm0zITFmMCEyZjAhM2YwITNtMiExaTEwMjQhMmk3NjghNGYxMy4xITNtMyExbTIhMXMweDAlM0EweDU1MTk0ZWM1YTFhZTA3MmUhMnNUaW1lcytTcXVhcmUhNWUwITNtMiExc2VuITJzITR2MTM5MjkwMTMxODQ2MSIgd2lkdGg9IjEwMCUiIGhlaWdodD0iMTAwJSIgZnJhbWVib3JkZXI9IjAiIHN0eWxlPSJib3JkZXI6MCI+PC9pZnJhbWU+
Thank You. We will contact you as soon as possible.
ebook
Discover the 70-Year-Old Nobel Prize-winning discovery that rendered old-school Darwinism obsolete.

Get 3 Free Chapters of "Evolution 2.0 via Email".

Click anywhere outside the form to close.
ebook
Discover the 70-Year-Old Nobel Prize-winning discovery that rendered old-school Darwinism obsolete.

Get 3 Free Chapters of "Evolution 2.0 via Email".
Click anywhere outside the form to close.
ebook
Darwin Bad
Evolution Good 
Click anywhere outside the form to close.
ebook
Rub 2 rocks together and create a cell with DNA... that's evolution, right?
Learn the truth.
Click anywhere outside the form to close.
ebook
Lava. Gas. Water.
Life?
Discover the truth.


Click anywhere outside the form to close.
ebook
Discover the 70-Year-Old Nobel Prize-winning discovery that rendered old-school Darwinism obsolete.

Get 3 Free Chapters of "Evolution 2.0 via Email".

Click anywhere outside the form to close.