Best reason for why God doesn’t exist

Big topic: why God doesn't exist. And an uncomfortable one, for most people. So I'll ease into it, before doing my best to burst some believing bubbles.

I experienced a quasi-miracle this morning. "Quasi," because it really wasn't one. But to someone religious what happened to me would be nothing short of miraculous. Aside from the fact that the miracle pointed to no-God.

A few days ago I wrote about multiple universes and my newly founded Church of Holy Fuck! Because that's what I say when I ponder the notion of many me's (and you's) populating the infinite cosmos.

I don't come across mentions of multiple universes very often. My reading usually goes off in different directions. Such as "Why I Became an Atheist: a former preacher rejects Christianity," by John Loftus.

So there I was this morning, making my way through the "Does God Exist?" chapter, and I came across…

What is the possibility of our particular universe having arisen out of an infinite VOID where there may be up to an infinite number of universes each arising out of the VOID, and where there may be no ordered laws prohibiting something coming from nothing, or something existing without beginning? Who knows?

Not me, surely. No one, really.

But I did know at that moment, or rather, feel, that something was sending a message to me. After all, what is the chance that I'd read the same sentiment about multiple universes just a few days apart, in two widely dissimilar books, when in my whole life I'd only been exposed to these thoughts a handful of times?

Well, obviously the chance is 100%, because it happened to me. Anything that happens, in fact, is absolutely certain to occur – since it did.

Religious types like to emphasize how unlikely it is that our universe could have come into being in the life-compatible fashion that it did, with gravity and other forces of nature supposedly fine-tuned to allow the formation of stars and such, which allows enough time for planets (and eventually humans) to evolve.

But Loftus points out:

Stating the odds as intelligent design (ID) theorists do is highly misleading since they presume that life must have turned out exactly as it has. All we are left with is rarity. But "rarity by itself shouldn't necessarily be evidence of anything. When one is dealt a bridge hand of thirteen cards, the probability of being dealt that particular hand is less than one in 600 billion. Still it would be absurd for someone to be dealt a hand, examine it carefully, calculate that the probability of getting it is less than one in 600 billion, and then conclude that he must not have been dealt that very hand because it is so very improbable." [quote from John Allen Paulos, "Innumeracy"]

So here's the best reason for concluding that God doesn't exist: there's no need for God.

At least, not as an explanation for why the universe is what it is. God may fulfill various human needs (sense of meaning, relief from fear of death, and so on), but there's no reason the cosmos needs a reason for existing.

Bertrand Russell observed in an interesting radio debate on the existence of God, " I should say that the universe is just there, and that's all. " Of course, he still had a lot else to say. Russell was a philosopher, after all.

This makes increasing sense to me. The more I read scientific, religious, metaphysical, mystical, and philosophical speculation about the origin of the universe, the more ludicrous all this seems.

Russell said in the interview that "the concept of cause is not applicable to the total." Similarly, Loftus writes:

Whenever it comes to unexplainable "brute facts," we reach an impasse. We all must begin with something that exists as a "brute fact." Since this is the case, agnosticism is the default intellectual position. When leaving the default position, Christians must have reasons for struggling up the ladder to a full-blown Christianity, past pantheism, deism, Judaism, and Islam. Me? It's just easier to move in the direction agnosticism already pushes me toward, atheism.

In his book Loftus discusses (and demolishes) the classic arguments for God's existence. Everyone has their favorite reasons for believing or not believing. To me, the best reason for disbelief is that no reason for the universe is necessary.

When you ask a religious believer "Who or what created God?" likely they'll answer, "God simply is. Always has been, always will be."

OK, fine answer. Seemingly there has to be a point where rationality ends, where chains of cause and effect come to an end, where human consciousness runs up against a blank wall of primal Mystery.

However, there's no need for God to be that point. The universe serves just as well. So we can just as well say, "The cosmos simply is. Always has been, always will be."

Now, this doesn't mean for certain that there is no God. It simply means that there is no need to hypothesize that God exists. Which pretty much comes to the same thing, given the lack of evidence for God's existence.

Every religion, spiritual path, or mystic teaching that I'm aware of involves a belief that the essence of God or ultimate reality is a mystery. Why, then, look far afield in a speculative transcendent realm for the Great Unknown?

The edges of the physical universe are just as mysterious. What, if anything, lies beyond the time and space we experience now? Nobody knows.

Bow down before the mystery close at hand. There's no need to believe in any other.

Comments

[tAo]

That old "God" doesn't exist, not to mention being terribly boring, and uptight...

But happily, I have wonderful and irrefutable proof that GODDESSES do:

http://video.xnxx.com/?k=goddess

http://www.xvideos.com/?k=goddess

[Roger]

Tao,

My pc has filters for Sexual content. What is in the videos, other than a cute gal?
Roger

[Jon]

Well I have read a lot of sites explaining why God does not exist I can tell you that all the sites i have read are wrong. There are tons of reasons and explaing i can say but instead I'll say two things 1 read the Book of Mormon and you'll absolutely know god exists, 2 when Jesus Christ comes again you will know witch is soon read 3 Nephi we are living 3 Nephi right now The Church of Jesus Christ Of Ladder Day Saints is the True Church Read the Book Of Mormon and You will understand I promise you can disagree with me all you want but until you read the Book Of Mormon only after that if you still think God does not exist then all i can say is wow.

[Brian]

Jon, thanks for the satirical comment. You can't be serious, right?

If you are, please start saying "wow!" Mormonism is one of the craziest and least believable religions on earth, and that's quite a non-honor, because every religion is unbelievable.

who made you anyway that makes you say God does not exist. i could hardly believe people like you do exist.

read some more so you will get to know God. what a pity, you haven't encountered him. no wonder 911 happened because you people think you can exist without God.

and after that..you still have the nerve to deny His existence.

[Brian]

You realize, I'm sure, that 9-11 was the fault of people who strongly believed in God, and believed that they were doing God's will.

[tAo]

To the recent blank un-named commenter who posted immediately above Brian (Posted by: | September 29, 2008 at 05:04 AM):

Hey you fucking jackass, for your information, it is our freedom of thought and freedom of speech to "say God does not exist".

And it's obviously "people like you" who think that they can force their beliefs upon others. Belief (or non-belief) in God is a matter of personal choice. So you had better get used to the fact that not everyone believes just as religious fanatic bastards like YOU do.

And to think that merely "read(ing) some more" will make one "get to know God" is about as dumb as you can get.

And it's also really "a pity" that YOU presume that YOU and YOUR belief is somehow superior to others who don't believe as you do about "God".

However... for YOU to also say that "911 happened because you people think you can exist without God", is extreme to say the least.

It's sick motherfuckers like YOU who like to justify and condone mass murder and destruction because of your religion.

It's wicked bastards like YOU who justify terrorism because of your religious beliefs.

And it's sick motherfuckers and wicked bastards like YOU who are the kind who are religious terrorists that commit terrorism against innocent people just because they don't believe in YOUR "God".

And after all THAT... YOU "still have the nerve" to tout your sick "God" bullshit?

GO TO HELL you insane religious fanatic, you sick wicked piece of inhuman roach-shit.

FUCK YOU, AND FUCK THE RELIGIOUS TERRORIST DOCTRINE YOU ROAD IN ON, YOU STUPID COWARDLY TERRORIST MOTHERFUCKER... IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU.

[Dallas]

Im not an atheist - but i DONT believe in what some ignorant people call god.

Whats with you lot - church of the chruchless? W.T.F.

God was created by man - someone that could drive fear into people. Another way to make some money... Not bad they have made BILLIONS - but the truth is that everybody believes in something - even if its something that nobody else believes in.

You lot believe that there is no God... Fair enough.. Go hard.

[Garreth]

Church of the churchless? Preaching the gospel of spirutal independance?

Surely that can't work can it. If you're "preaching" to someone, about what they should do, then you're not respecting their independance, thus throwing the whole idea out the window!

As for the guy who said 9/11 happened because there is a god, that is the biggest load of rubbish ever. 9/11 happened because you have a bunch of maniacs pretending they are greater than the rest of the world and think they have something to prove. They're insane, but because they claim its god talking to them, people say its their religion.

I am not saying there is no god, but as Stephen Hawking said, if there is a god, his role is now useless. Men create things, men destroy thing, men fix things. If there is a god, he doesn't need to do anything because its all done for him, so the whole notion of praying to him week in week out just strikes me as something that is a bit odd.

People are entitled to their own opinion, and I have nothing against religious people. I am against organised religion. The belief that some humans are greater than others because they claim to be closed to god, the belief that because an old textbook tells you how to live, we should all follow it, that is what annoys me.

People don't respect my independance when they choose to come to my house, trying to give me religions pamphlets.

Also apologies to any feminists.. I used the terms "men" and "him" as completely genderless words.

[Ben Chase]

yah i agree with the guy who posted at September 29, 2008 at 06:59 AM. lets pretend for a moment that god did exist. if that fucker who you seem to belive lives upstairs is so good, so forgiving, all that bull shit, than how can you blame 9/11 on us for something that as you just said, was done with out him. if it was done with out him, than this omipotent, omniesnt bastard could have just snaped his fingures and evey one that died in 9/11 would just come back. hell while hes at it he could bring back my dad. he died a year and a half ago on a motorcycle (ps dont ride motorcycles, they are death traps, and a helmet nor "god" can save you if you get in an accident) oh, and bye the way ass whole i turned 14 15 days ago. what kind of a sick fuck would kill off a good man, a father of 2 children, a good husband, and one hell of a good bartender? not one i would worship. good thing he doesnt exist, cus id have to kick his all powerful ass. and on the seventh day, i said "let their be ASS KICKING!"
suck a cock douche bag. your usless defence for killing, persicuting and intollorence is one word. GOD.

[John]

I am a weak atheist. The only reason i don't TOTALLY believe in God is because there is NOT enough evidence to prove his existance. People say Adam and Eve were the first people on Earth. Guess what? It's a proven fact that people existed before them. But here is my main reason that I don't totally believe in him: people create gods to explain the unexplainable. Some people don't know how to explain something, oh they create a god to explain it. Come on, that goes back to the first civilization of Sumer! THEY MADE MAKE-BELIEVE PEOPLE WITH ALL POWER TO EXPLAIN WHAT THEY DIDN'T KNOW!! Not only that, a lot of people would say that God is perfect. Don't you ALWAYS hear people say that "no one is perfect"? Not only that, some of the things in the Bible that people are forced to think is true is proven wrong. I am sorry, but i go with tAo on this. It is VERY possible that God was created by man. Think about what i said about the ancient people of Sumer and so on. They created gods, so why can't we? You go tAo.

[Jayme]

I don't know what this word "God" means.

[Johanna]

The main fault in your argument is that you say, "However, there's no need for God to be that point. The universe serves just as well. So we can just as well say, "The cosmos simply is. Always has been, always will be." the fault that resides within this is the lack of purpose in your reasoning. Its okay reasoning, one for who has experienced things by living their life and getting by, but not though research, or by pondering outside the culture’s own regulations. You've come to this conclusion through what? When you speak of "cosmos" your referencing to something much larger, and literally, above yourself, so why only subject your logic to what you've experienced? as for your reasoning against churches is that they're human organizations. The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose, juxtaposing that against churches in general seemingly goes against what a Christina supposedly should believe, but churches only express the basic of guidelines.

[tAo]

Johanna,

Your comment/s don't make sense at all. Its actually rather difficult to tell what it is that you are trying to say here.

These statements of yours are lacking clarity and logic and seem confused and/or contradictory:

"the fault that resides within this is the lack of purpose in your reasoning."

-- A "lack of purpose" for what? What are you refering to?

"Its okay reasoning, [...] but not though research, or by pondering outside the culture’s own regulations."

-- Research about what? And what does "pondering" prove? - nothing. And what is meant by "pondering outside" cultural "regulations"? Are you saying that a mere "pondering" somehow provides ample evidence of God? If so, then that is an absurd and unreasonable assertion.

"You've come to this conclusion through what?"

-- I assume that you are speaking to Brian. Apparently you haven't read much if any of this site if you don't already know how Brian came to his conclusions. Why don't you do that before you go jumping to ignorant conclusions such as this. At this point, your vague meaningless comments are not convincing at all.

"When you speak of "cosmos" your referencing to something much larger, and literally, above yourself, so why only subject your logic to what you've experienced?"

-- I would say because it is impossible to "subject logic" to things beyond and unknown to one's experience. Your statement here is too irrational and illogical. What are you trying to say?

"as for your reasoning against churches is that they're human organizations."

-- Fyi, churches ARE human organizations.

"The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose, juxtaposing that against churches in general"

-- This is just nonsense. "The devil" you say? This is obviously religious dogma. It severly weakens whatever it is that you are trying to say.

If you wish to debate Brian in this forum with any degree of seriouslness, then you are going to have to be a lot more specific and more reasonable and sensible, and not so vague and confused and contradictory.

It kind of sounds like you are trying to defend religious belief, but whatever your communication and argument is, at this point it definitely lacks clarity and doesn't make much, if any sense whatsoever. Perhaps you should try again.

[The 9th Configuration]

"In order for life to have appeared spontaneously on Earth, there first had to be hundreds of millions of protein molecules of the Ninth Configuration. But, given the size of the planet Earth, do you know how long it would take for just one of these protein molecules to appear by chance? Roughly 10 to the 243rd power, billions of years; and I find that far, far more fantastic than simply believing in a God."

[Brian]

Johanna, the "culture's regulations," given how religious the United States is, basically are Christian. So I'm the one who is thinking for myself, not you.

I don't totally understand your comment. But you seem to be saying that I should take God on faith, because religion and churches say that God exists.

There's also a Church of Elvis. I'm also confident that somewhere there is a Church of the Easter Bunny. Should I worship Elvis and the Easter Bunny along with God?

Where do I stop, given the many, many religions on Earth, each claiming to know the nature of God or ultimate reality?

[tAo]

Yes Brian, that is the point exactly. Johanna did seem to be implying that we should take God on faith because religion and the church says so, and because they say that God exists.

Nothing new there.

[Roger]

9th Configurations,

So what are the 1st through 8th configurations? I need to know, before I ask what the 9th is. Be careful, I just might want to know, the 10th and beyond.

You stated,

"But, given the size of the planet Earth, do you know how long it would take for just one of these protein molecules to appear by chance? Roughly 10 to the 243rd power, billions of years; and I find that far, far more fantastic than simply believing in a God."

---So what, "roughly 10 to the 243rd power" belief system are you working from?

I personally, belong to, "10 to the 255th power" church group.

Thanks for any replies,
Roger

[The 9th Configuration]

Roger,
It's a quote from "The Ninth Configuration", a film made in 1980 by William Peter Blatty of Exorcist fame. I don't know how scientifically factual it is, but no one knows for sure yet how life started on Earth.

[Roger]

9th config.

Thanks for your reply.

I wonder, how important it is, for One to know how life started on Earth? Let's say that One has scientifically found the answer, then what would One do with such knowledge? Would this knowledge be testable?

Your statements pose some interesting possibilities.

[Bryan]

u guys are fucking idiots..911 didnt happen bc we as people did not believe in god..it happened bc of terrorism and government funding ..grow the fuck up..god doesnt exist

[Ignorance is Bliss]

(Keep in mind that this post isn't meant to be in conjunction with the withstanding argument.)

I, for one, find that disproving god isn't necessary in asserting my disbelief of said god. How I see it is this:

1) God does in fact exist, and my disbelief in "him" will have a negative effect on my life and death/"afterlife". (A dictatorial god figure)

2) God does in fact exist, and my disbelief in "him" will have no effect on my life and death/"afterlife". (An "understanding" god figure)

3) God does not exist, in which case my disbelief in "him" isn't applicable.

Clearly these few assumptions, based on my perceptions and experiences, mind you, cause me to sway towards disbelief for reasons involving a "safety net" for my "judgment" after death. This of course being negated in the scenario involving no god.

There are two kinds of people who don't believe in god. The kind that make other "Atheists" (used as a blanket label, no offense to those who don't prefer this term) look like logic-less dipshits, and the "Athiests" that use logic a reason to dispute their opinion.

To tAo,

I applaud your views, and while I probably wouldn't have used as much profanity as you did, what you said needed to be said. Thank you.

[Catherine]

To be honest, I really don't like people that have a one sided view on things. How can you ever say "God is real, end of story."
How can you ever say "God is not real, end of story."
You have absolutly no idea how you came around right?
I mean, at the end of the day, I would go for atheism, because the bible does contradict itself alot.
There are millions of religeons out there, so what makes anyone so sure the THEIR God is real?
It could have been a flying tree as a God, & you still would insist on it being the one true god.
It all makes no sense to me.
Arguing for Christian sides though, the world does seem extremely complex, & extraordainarily complicated to have just come around by itself.

[Ignorance is Bliss]

I understand what you mean about complexity, but you have to look at the bigger picture. With carbon dating putting the earth's age at around 4.5 Billion years old, one would assume that the complexity you speak of could be easily managed. Think about how long you have lived. It feels like forever to you, right? Now think about 4.5 billion years.

Your Age:4,500,000,000

The earth is old.

[Catherine]

Catherine who commented Feb 09, 2009 at 8.16am was not me! There are three Catherines commenting, Catherine from before, Catherine Mueller and the new Catherine mentioned above. To make things easier, I will change my name for future comments.

Brian, Thanks for an interesting and entertaining Blog-site. It really is a great deal of fun!

Catherine from before.

[GingaRei]

If the observable universe were the size of a quarter(90-fuck-billion light-shit-years), the rest of the universe would be the size of the earth. I wonder if god existed what the hell he was thinking when he made so much space for one species. Too bad god doesn't exist things would have been nicer. Oh well!

[Codee]

3.1: The law of biogenesis states that life comes only from previous life. Therefore, the idea of an origin of life from nonliving molecules contradicts a major law of science. REPLY: When one pays attention to the context in which biologists speak about the law of biogenesis, one can see that the law is intended merely as a denial of the old doctrine of spontaneous generation, according to which "smaller organisms could arise spontaneously from mud or organic matter" (Strickberger 1990:10). Consider this now amusing example, by the seventeenth-century physician J. B. Van Helmont, as quoted by Monroe Strickberger:

If you press a piece of underwear soiled with sweat together with some wheat in an open mouth jar, after about 21 days the odor changes and the ferment, coming out of the underwear and penetrating through the husks of wheat into mice. But what is more remarkable is that mice of both sexes emerge, and these mice successfully reproduce with mice born naturally from parents...But what is even more remarkable is that the mice which come out of the wheat are not small mice, not even miniature adults or aborted mice, but adult mice emerge! (Strickberger 1990:11)

It is this kind of thing that the law of biogenesis is meant to contradict. The gulf between adult mice somehow being generated from wheat and soiled underwear on the one hand, and origin-of-life hypotheses like the RNA world on the other, should be readily apparent.

Ultimately, after origin-of-life researchers have explored every avenue, it may turn out that the law of biogenesis should in fact be taken to be universal. But to take the law to have such a scope now, when origin-of-life studies are still relatively new and progressing just fine, would be premature.

3.2: Amino acids in living organisms are all left-handed, but in nature, equal amounts of left-handed and right-handed amino acids form, so one would expect them to occur in equal proportions in living organisms if abiogenesis were true. REPLY: There is no consensus on how this problem is to be resolved, but there are several possibilities that continue to be explored. According to chemist Andre Brack, there are two classes of proposals: "those which call for a chance mechanism and those which call for a determinate mechanism resulting from an asymmetrical environment originating from the universe or from the Earth." (Brack 1998:5).

Chance proposals call for a random fluctuation in small samples of molecules, which is amplified until the basic chemical processes come to favor one enantiomer (one of the two kinds of "handed" molecules) over the other. Brack describes one example:

In a rather simple kinetic model proposed by Franck, an open flow reactor, run in far-from equilibrium conditions, is fed by achiral compounds and form two enantiomers reversibly and autocatalytically. If the two enantiomers can react to form an irreversible combination flowing out of the reactor, by precipitation for instance, and if certain conditions of the fluxes and concentrations are reached, the racemic production may become metastable and the system may switch permanently toward the production of either one or the other enantiomer, depending on a small excess in one enantiomer (Brack 1998:5-6)

Proposals for a determinate mechanism include parity nonconservation (though Brack thinks the effect is too weak), asymmetry in the weak force (also thought by many to have too small and effect; but see Service 2000), circularly polarized light acting on the Earth's surface (which Brack discounts), and circularly polarized synchrotron radiation from neutron stars acting on interstellar clouds (which Brack thinks is plausible).

Three extra points are worth making: (i) the proposals involving determinate mechanisms typically do not propose that these mechanisms are themselves sufficient to establish one enantiomer over the other; rather, they propose that determinate mechanisms create small excesses of one enantiomer, which are then (just as in the random fluctuation models) amplified into dominance by normal chemical processes. (ii) The weak force proposal not only predicts left-handed amino acids, but right-handed sugars as well, so it is suggestive that the two sugar components of nucleotides are in fact right-handed. (iii) The molecules on the Murchison meteorite generally occur more often in right-handed form (Cronin 1998:135); while this does not, of course, explain why life on Earth uses left-handed amino acids (while earlier studies revealed an excess of left-handed amino acids on the Murchison meteorite, these findings appear to be in dispute, so the meteorite does not yet indicate an unequivocal solution to the problem), it also demonstrates that nature does not prefer equal proportions of both enantiomers for all molecules in all inorganic situations. There is absolutely no reason to believe that a natural origin of life would result in organisms using molecules of both handedness.

3.3: Nucleic acids cannot replicate without the help of specific proteins, but the needed proteins cannot form unless specified by nucleic acid sequences. Therefore, it is not possible for a genetic system to have formed naturally. REPLY: The fact that modern genetic systems require both nucleic acids and proteins to function does not mean that a stepwise evolution of such systems is impossible. Proposals for the origin of modern genetic systems typically fall into one of two categories:

1. Proposals that invoke simpler genetic systems (not necessarily based on nucleic acids) which do not require proteins to function (either because the genetic components are self-catalyzing or else because catalysis is mineral-based). The prime example of a genetics-first proposal is the "RNA world" hypothesis, according to which,

when life emerged, RNA performed two major enzymatic activities. First, it functioned as a replicating enzyme and replicated itself without a protein. Second, at a later stage, RNA started to catalyze the different processes involved in protein synthesis. Gradually, following processes of natural selection, the proteins synthesized in this manner became the efficient enzymes known to us today and could replace the RNA enzymes. Later, the change from RNA to DNA took place. (Fry 2000:136)

A few other proposals that invoke simpler genetic systems include:

* Albert Eschenmoser's pyranosyl-RNA hypothesis (Eschenmoser 1994).
* Stanley Miller's urazol-substituted RNA hypothesis (Kolb et al. 1994).
* Peter E. Nielsen's peptide-nucleic acid (PNA) hypothesis (Nielsen 1993).
* Graham Cairns-Smith's clay mineral precursor hypothesis (Cairns-Smith 1982 and 1985).

2. Proposals that invoke free-standing metabolisms (not necessarily based on proteins) with very rudimentary non-nucleic acid hereditary mechanisms. Some current "metabolism-first" proposals include:

* Freeman Dyson's "double-origin" hypothesis (Dyson 1985)
* Stuart Kauffman's autocatalytic theory (Kauffman 1993; see also Chapter 3 of Kauffman 1995)
* G�nter W�chtersh�user's pyrite hypothesis (W�chtersh�user 1992)

None of these hypotheses, or any of the many other hypotheses and variations on hypotheses, have yet gained a consensus, and in fact some of these hypotheses suffer from serious and well-known problems, which may or may not be patched up in the future. But it should be clear that it is simply not possible to stipulate in advance, as the creationists do, that the interdependence of modern proteins and nucleic acids demonstrates that genetic systems could not have come into existence naturally. The question of whether or not a natural origin of life is possible can only be settled by waiting for the researchers to exhaust their hypotheses. (Much of the information for the response to this criticism was gathered from Chapters 11 and 12 of Fry 2000; interested parties are strongly encouraged to read the book for more details.)

3.4: Meteorite bombardment of the early Earth would have destroyed any new life, and there is too little time between the bombardment and the first signs of life for life to have come into existence naturally. REPLY: (i) Life may have evolved in areas which were protected from the worst of the bombardment, for instance, near deep-sea vents (Fry 2000:119). Some prebiotic synthesis may also have been accomplished in space, and then delivered to the Earth by meteorites, shortening the time needed for the origin of life.

(ii) Even assuming we knew that life came into existence comparatively rapidly, nothing about this would contradict the idea of a naturalistic origin of life; all it would mean is that researchers must evaluate mechanisms that operate appropriately fast. And, in fact, we find that many proposals for the origin of life do involve rapid mechanisms. Stanley L Miller even opines that "a period of perhaps 10,000 years for [the origin of life] is not impossible" (Miller 1992:3).

3.5: Cells are too complex to have come into existence all at once by pure chance. REPLY: This is true, but irrelevant to origin-of-life research, since no origin-of-life researcher supposes that cells came into existence all at once or by chance. The origin of the first cell is supposed by all researchers to have been a stepwise process, far from the creationist caricature of a sudden organization of loose proteins into a fully functioning prokaryotic cell with all of its complexity. Nor is the origin of the first cell supposed to have been a chance occurrence. As Iris Fry explains, "origin-of-life theories rely on various organizing principles, including selection mechanisms and catalysis, that are supposed to have limited and constrained the wide scope of prebiotic chemical possibilities, thus constructing the scaffolding out of which the living arch eventually emerged" (Fry 2000:196).

3.6: There are too many different combinations of amino acids and nucleic acids for a given enzyme or DNA sequence to come into existence without the guidance of a Creator. REPLY: Although these kinds of arguments do demonstrate that a particular enzyme or DNA strand surely could not have come into existence all at once by pure chance, such demonstrations are irrelevant to origin-of-life research, since no origin-of-life researcher supposes that modern enzymes and DNA strands came into existence by chance. As Iris Fry explains, "origin-of-life theories rely on various organizing principles, including selection mechanisms and catalysis, that are supposed to have limited and constrained the wide scope of prebiotic chemical possibilities, thus constructing the scaffolding out of which the living arch eventually emerged" (Fry 2000:196). It is also worth pointing out, of course, that enzymes with many different configurations can have identical or similar effects, meaning that no one particular enzyme must necessarily be generated in order to carry out a specific function.

3.7: The second law of thermodynamics rules out abiogenesis. For life to come into existence spontaneously would be like a whirlwind blowing through a junkyard assembling the loose parts into a functioning pickup truck. REPLY: (i) The second law of thermodynamics poses no barrier to abiogenesis, since all of the various environments in which abiogenesis has been hypothesized to occur are open systems, receiving a constant influx of energy from outside sources (e.g. from the sun, from electric discharge in the atmosphere, from deep sea vents). Some creationists respond that the second law of thermodynamics requires an already existing complex system to catalyze reactions even in open systems; however, there is in fact no stipulation in the second law of thermodynamics about such complex systems being required. Additions such as these are pure concoctions of creationists desperate to rule out abiogenesis by any means possible, and misleadingly presented by them as though they were part of the real law.

(ii) As for the whirlwind analogy, the reactions governing chemicals at the molecular level bear absolutely no analogy to the behavior of scrap metal in the presence of wind. Many atoms and molecules spontaneously join together to form larger molecules, and many others do so in the presence of added energy. For instance, many important biochemicals, including amino acids and nucelotides, have been produced in experiments and found on meteorites. Spectroscopic data even reveals the existence of organic molecules in interstellar gas clouds; concerning these molecules, Martin Olomucki writes that

in many of the organic interstellar molecules we find compounds which are precursors of biological molecules: hydrogen cyanide, which can generate amino acids and nucleic bases; formaldehyde, the precursor of sugars; cyanoacetylene, an important condensation agent, etc. These molecules are able to form even under extreme conditions of temperature and high concentration of interstellar media. Apparently ubiquitous in the Universe, they must certainly have existed on the surface of the primitive Earth, as well as on other planets: traces of amino acids, which are already more complex chemicals, have been identified in lunar dust and meteorites. (Olomucki 1993:46; see also Miller 1992:17-20)

Research has even yielded a host of autocatalytic molecules, some of which present characteristics like imperfect replication (perfect replication would not allow the diversity necessary for evolution) and even recombination (Rebek 1994).

References

A. Brack (ed.). 1998. The Molecular Origins of Life: Assembling Pieces of the Puzzle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

I. Fry. 2000. The Emergence of Life on Earth: A Historical and Scientific Overview. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

A. G. Cairns-Smith. 1982. Genetic Takeover and the Mineral Origins of Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

A. G. Cairns-Smith. 1985. Seven Clues to the Origin of Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

J. R. Cronin. 1988. Clues from the origin of the Solar System: meteorites. pp. 119-146 in Brack 1998.

F. Dyson. 1985. Origins of Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

A. Eschenmoser. 1994. Chemistry of potentially prebiological natural products. Origins Life Evol. Biosphere 24:238-240.

S. A. Kauffman. 1993. Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution. New York: Oxford University Press.

S. A. Kauffman. 1995. At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity. New York: Oxford University Press.

V. M. Kolb, J. P. Dworkin, and S. L. Miller. 1994. Urazole is a potential precursor to uracil. Origins Life Evol. Biosphere 24:107-108.

S. L. Miller. 1992. The prebiotic synthesis of organic compounds as a step toward the origin of life. pp. 1-28 in Schopf 1992.

P. E. Nielsen. 1993. Peptide nucleic acid (PNA): a model structure for the primordial genetic material? Origins Life Evol. Biosphere 23:323-327.

M. Olomucki. 1993. The Chemistry of Life. New York: McGraw-Hill.

J. Rebek Jr. 1994. Synthetic self-replicating molecules. Scientific American 271(1):48-55.

J. W. Schopf (ed.). 1992. Major Events in the History of Life. Boston: Jones and Bartlett.

M. W. Strickberger. 2000. Evolution. Boston: Jones and Bartlett.

G. W�chtersh�user. 1992. Groundwork for an evolutionary biochemistry: the iron-sulfur world. Prog. Biophys. Molec. Biol. 58:85-201.

Recommended Reading

I. Fry. 2000. The Emergence of Life on Earth: A Historical and Scientific Overview. New Brunswock: Rutgers University Press.