March 12, 2011 | David F. Coppedge

Don’t Tell the Creationists

John Horgan, a blogger for Scientific American, wanted to use this headline 20 years ago, but the editor didn’t let him.  Now that editor is gone, so Horgan let the cat out of the bag: “Pssst!  Don’t tell the creationists, but scientists don’t have a clue how life began.”  Well, he just did.
    Horgan lamented that the situation is even more lamentable today.  Based on Dennis Overbye’s “romp into theories of the cradle of life” published in the New York Times last month, Horgan concluded, “Geologists, chemists, astronomers and biologists are as stumped as ever by the riddle of life.”  You name it: protein-first, DNA-first, metabolism-first, RNA World (an erstwhile leading contender) – they’re all stumping the scientists with insurmountable problems.
    “The RNA world is so dissatisfying that some frustrated scientists are resorting to much more far out�literally�speculation,” Horgan continued.  By that he means panspermia.  He realizes that Crick’s old escape route doesn’t solve anything: “Of course, panspermia theories merely push the problem of life’s origin into outer space.  If life didn’t begin here, how did it begin out there?
    Horgan ended by comforting himself with the argument that creationists have a similar problem, how to explain the origin of God.  “And at least scientists are making an honest effort to solve life’s mystery instead of blaming it all on God.

Creationists don’t blame God; they thank Him and worship Him for the marvel of life.  Do you see the anti-Creator hysteria that leads evolutionists to frantic rants of desperation to keep from admitting the obvious—that life was created?  Thanks to John for being honest enough to admit the problem (something the snooze media almost never do), but then he played dog in the manger: “We might be clueless, frustrated, desperate, empty-handed and broke, but nobody else gets to play the origins game.”  Let’s fix his last sentence: “At least we clueless power-hungry pseudo-scientific demagogues can blame God instead of making an honest effort to follow the evidence where it leads.”
    In the new anthology about naturalism, The Nature of Nature (ISI, 2011), Christian de Duve (see 03/01/2011) tried to defend methodological naturalism as the best approach for science, but then had to confront the problem of the origin of life.  Even though he clearly admitted that the problem is unsolved, he appealed to vast periods of time for the improbable (online book) to happen and expressed his faith that naturalism would solve it some day over the rainbow.  He thus issued promissory notes for futureware backed with the collateral of reckless drafts on the bank of time (07/02/2007).  But it’s not God-of-the-gaps when the gaps get wider; it’s naturalism-of-the-gaps (03/02/2011).
    Could any other human activity get away with this?  Does the losing team get to play the series?  Does the town drunk get to be Grand Marshall? (maybe in the Doo-Dah Parade).  Does the least qualified get the job? (only with affirmative action).  Does the loss leader get to push out the competition? (Well, sometimes, but that is tactics, not honest business.)  All right, then; if evolutionists are the losers, the Darwine drunks, the least qualified, and the loss leaders, let’s call for reform.  Get the dogs out of the manger.  How about a showing up with a nice kitty: a huge sabertooth cat (02/28/2011).
    For a response to Horgan’s old chestnut about who created the Creator, watch sabertooth Sarfati pounce on CMI.

(Visited 73 times, 1 visits today)

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.