On Wed, 21 Feb 1996 13:49:18 GMT you wrote:
[...]
DT>What is remarkable is the extraordinary persistence of the "soup" +
>"reducing atmosphere" scenarios - in the face of contrary evidence.
>We are dealing here, not with science, but with an origins myth that
>has left itself with almost no room to manoeuvre. Philosophically,
>there are no "gaps" to the continuity of "cause and effect" - but to
>perpetuate this myth, it is necessary to persevere with scenarios
>that are well past their "sell-by" date.
Good points. See my post to Brian. Darwinism *must* have a prebiotic
soup, for its creation story to maintain itself against other
challengers.
Dawkins bluster against creationism could equally apply to
Panspermia and self-organised complexity (just substitute them in
place of "God" and "Designer"):
"Organized complexity is the thing that we are having difficulty in
explaining. Once we are allowed simply to postulate organized
complexity, if only the organized complexity of the DNA/ protein
replicating engine, it is relatively easy to invoke it as a generator
of yet more organized complexity. That, indeed, is what most of this
book is about. But of course any God capable of intelligently
designing something as complex as the DNA/protein replicating machine
must have been at least as complex and organized as that machine
itself....To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking
a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves
unexplained the origin of the Designer. You have to say something
like 'God was always there', and if you allow yourself that kind of
lazy way out, you might as well just say 'DNA was always there', or
'Life was always there', and be done with it." (Dawkins R., "The
Blind Watchmaker", Penguin: London, 1991, p141)
DT>Over the Christmas break, I SAW the "primeval soup"! :)
>It was in the Evolution House at Kew Gardens in London. It was the
>first exhibit I saw on entering the building - very impressively
>bubbling away. Visitors might be excused for concluding that this
>is what scientists have concluded about how life started on earth.
One might almost think that Darwinists were trying to give that
impression? But no, it couldn't be. After all, they are *scientists*
not myth-makers! :-)
God bless.
Stephen
"How much of this can be believed? Every generation needs its own
creation myths, and these are ours." (Wilson E.O., et al., "Life on
Earth", Sinauer Associates: Sunderland, Mass., 1973, p624)
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------