So, how did life come from non-life? I can think of no better atheist to ask on this subject than Richard Dawkins. How does he answer?
“The origin of life was the chemical event, or series of events, whereby the vital conditions for natural selection first came about… Once the vital ingredient – some kind of genetic molecule – is in place, true Darwinian natural selection can follow.”
How does this happen?
“Scientists invoke the magic of large numbers… The beauty of the anthropic principle is that it tells us, against all intuition, that a chemical model need only predict that life will arise on one planet in a billion billion to give us a good and entirely satisfying explanation for the presence of life here.” (The God Delusions, 137-138)
It’s really that simple. Of course, with logic like this, it’s also simple to conclude that leprechauns exist at the end of some rainbow on some planet.
I think Varghese says it well, “Given this type of reasoning, which is better described as an audacious exercise in superstition, anything we desire should exist somewhere if we just ‘invoke the magic of large numbers.’ Unicorns or the elixir of youth, even if ‘staggeringly impossible,’ are bound to occur ‘against all intuition.’ The only requirement is a ‘chemical model’ that ‘need only predict’ these occurring ‘on one planet in a billion billion.’”
So, I’m wondering, is the best explanation possible? Well, there’s always panspermia, but that only backs the boat up and doesn’t answer the question.
Can someone answer this question: how did life come from non-life (and why isn’t it happening today)?
1 comment:
the answer is that atheism has no idea of how life began. It is the Achilles heel of Dawkins and Darwin. It claims to be the "religion of rationality" but it is irrational when it comes to its faith belief that somehow, against all the laws of scientific probability, life began and somehow not only survived and reproduced, but began to be more and more complex, violating the scientific laws of entropy.
Post a Comment