Debating Islam It is a well known fact that Islam is hostile towards Christ...
Who inspires Islam?Muslims believe that their book, the Qur'an, was 'sent down'...
Is hell unfair?There are people who complain that a God of love could never...
Copyright 2007 TheBook.co.za
Dawkins, history deniers and science deniers
|Created by Gerard de Vos|
Category: Evolution related
Dr Richard Dawkins writes a summary of all his years of accumulated evidence about evolution, in his latest book: 'Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact' (R Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth, Bantam Press, 2009, p 8). Then he calls those who deny that evolution is a fact 'history deniers' (Ibid, p 7).
Let us forget for one moment about the grand claims that dinosaurs became birds, and begin at the very beginning of life. For a scientist, trained as a biologist, who has had all the benefits of science, well equipped laboratories and well stocked libraries with thousands of scientific journals, he should be able to answer this very simple question: The genetic code is 'built' on a spiral 'ladder' of phosphates, sugars (deoxyribose), and the nucleotides. Obviously this structure is constructed of various elements (atoms). This 'structure' is built by the 'instructions' of the genes on the structure. How does he explain the origin of the genetic code, with its staggering information content, scientifically? He says, no reputable scientist denies the fact of evolution (Ibid, p 9). If that is so, and he himself is a scientist, where are the empirical scientific proofs (not conjectures) that answer the question? If evolution is such a fact, they must have cracked the riddle of the origin of the genetic code.
Besides that, they must explain how the cell got its ribosomes (to manufacture protein), mitochondria (for energy production), nucleus (with its genetic information), plasma membrane all at the same time, since they are all interdependent. His explanation for the fact that a cell is breathtakingly complicated is 'The key to understanding how such complexity is put together is that it is all done locally; by small entities obeying local rules, (Ibid, color print, p 12-13). We want scientific experiments, not smart reasoning. The problem is indeed serious, as is written: 'The problem of the origin of life is not unique - it only represents the most dramatic example of the universal principle that complex systems cannot be approached gradually through functional intermediates because of the necessity of perfect coadaptation of their components as a precondition of function. Transitions to function are of necessity abrupt' (M Denton, Evolution, A Theory in Crisis, Adler and Adler, 1986, p 270). It was impossible that such a complex cell could have slowly developed by evolution. Either it was fully functional or non-existent.
This issue of the beginning of life has to do more with logic than having all the knowledge: the vehicle will not work if there is no fuel in its tank; if it has no engine to use the fuel; no intelligent computer that tells it when to ignite the fuel, to turn the engine, to let out the exhaust gases. It is precisely the same with the cell: to give the impression that all the complexity of a cell arose step by step over long periods of time by natural processes, is to deny all scientific evidence and laws of nature. To believe that, is to become a science denier. Evolutionists, by their faith in the miraculous creative power of nature, have to be science deniers. That is why they will employ words like 'probable,' 'might have,' 'likely,' 'could have' when explaining the basics of life. We want an answer to the question: how did life begin? To shout at creationists, to label them ignorant history deniers living in the Ice Age, doesn't help at all. Give the evidence that it was possible for complex biological life to arise naturally by itself and that will be enough.
Science should not be confused with speculation and smart reasoning. Science is based on testable, observable and repeatable experiments and past events cannot be investigated. So evolution is excluded as science. To be accused of being history deniers (creationists), is much better than to be guilty of being science deniers. Science has served society well by its myriads of inventions that make life so much easier and better (for example, medicines, communications, transport, agriculture). Evolution has contributed nothing. To be a history denier who believes in science, is much better than to be a science denier.