On Mon, 23 Oct 1995 20:07:57 -0400 you wrote:
>The following New York Times article was posted on talk.origins,
>thought some of you might be interested.
>
>In particular, compare the first paragraph with the last two
>paragraphs :-).
>========================================================
>"Chemist Adds Missing Pieces to Theory on Life's Origins"
>New York Times, July 4, 1995
>Page 19, Science Section
>
>by Malcolm W. Browne
>
>No one has yet shown how life originated on Earth, and the chance
>that science will ever unlock all the details of the process seems
>vanishingly small. But as molecular biologists discover how nature
>may have built unaided the maze of tiny bridges that led from inanimate
>chemicals to living creatures, hopes brighten that the ancient pathway
>to life may one day be at least dimly revealed.
>
>The latest news about the quest comes from Dr. Stanley L. Miller of
>the University of California at San Diego, a pioneer in the reconstruction
>of "prebiotic" chemical reactions -- the primeval chemistry of the young
>Earth that is presumed to have given rise to life.
[...]
>whether some guiding hand was needed for the process, Dr.
>de Duve commented: "The answer of modern molecular biology to
>this much-debated question is categorical: chance, and chance
>alone, did it all, from primeval soup to man, with only natural
>selection to sift its effects. This affirmation now rests on
>overwhelming factual evidence."
>
>But the succession of chances that created life did not operate
>in a vacuum, he said. "It operated in a universe governed by
>orderly laws and made of matter endowed with specific properties.
>These laws and properties are the constraints that shape
>evolutionary roulette and restrict the numbers that can turn
>up. Among these numbers are life and all its wonders, including
>the conscious mind."
>=========================================================
There is nothing new in this. Everything in it is covered in Thaxton,
Bradley & Olsen's, "The Mystery of Life's Origin", 1992.
They show that all these steps are not feasible by purely
naturalistic processes because of destructive forces that existed at
each step. Also, these scenarios do not explain the origin of
information.
The statement that "...chance alone, did it all, from primeval soup to
man, with only natural selection to sift its effects" is indeed an
"affirmation" but one that rests on any (let alone "overwhelming")
"factual evidence". It is an "affirmation" of *faith*, based not on
"factual evidence" but a philosophical commitment to rule God out of
the process, no matter where the evidence points.
God bless.
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave | / Oz \ | sjones@odyssey.apana.org.au |
| Warwick 6024 |->*_,--\_/ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Perth, Australia | v | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
----------------------------------------------------------------