This semester we are going throug Lee Strobel's book "A Case for Faith" with our small group. The book basically takes a hard look at the world's critical questions to Christianity through interviews between the author and several of today's renowned scientists, professors, and theologians. Our current chapter addresses the creation vs. evolution debate... we put toghther these sort-of "cliff notes" to help guide our group through this meaty chapter.... It's not entirely referenced as far as scientists names and sources... but all of that info is in the book if you want to see for yourself, I encourage you to pick up a copy. It's a great book, and the info is thouroughly 'backed' in the book for the analytical and scientific minds :)
Anyways, I thought I'd share the short-hand version of the chapter with those of you who are intrigued by this debate:
Evolution/Darwinism : Basically states that the origin of life started by non-living chemicals on the earth, [if given enough time which is scientifically unlikely] were combined to create living cells.
** In order for this to be possible the exact 20 out of 80 types of amino acids (Much more complex than 1 or 2-sided cells) had to have linked together in exactly the right sequence to form proteins which are the building blocks of life. (this is not even taking into consideration the complexity of DNA and RNA, the ability to store info, reproduce and process energy)
Theory 1: Random Chance
Hypothesis: That the right combination of 100 Amino Acids found each other and linked together in exactly the right order/sequence by chance to form a protein.
Conclusion: Odds are nearly impossible 1 in 110 w/ 60 zero’s after it. “Scientists simply don’t believe it anymore”
Theory 2: Chemical Affinity
Hypothesis: Amino acids are “biochemically pre-destined” inherently attracted to each other in a way that would cause them to link up in the right sequence to make a protein.
Conclusion: Debunked – Not just 10, but 250 proteins tested. Results demonstrate no chemical preference in sequence. Even author, Kenyon, has repudiated the idea.
Theory 3: Self-Ordering Tendencies
Hypothesis: If energy is passed through a system at a fairly high rate, the system becomes unstable and will actually rearrange itself into an alternate and somewhat complicated form.
Conclusion: High level of information required to order the amino acids to create protein molecules. There is a significant difference between the “order” found in some nonliving things and the “specified complexity” of living cells.
Theory 4: Seeding from Space
Hypothesis: Building Blocks of life came from somewhere else in space, either sent by extra-terrestrials or Amino Acids were in a meteorite that fell to earth over 3.8 billion years ago.
Conclusion: 1) At these velocities, at least 10 to 15 miles per second the temperatures you reach on impact are so high that you end up frying just about anything. 2) Even if meteorites did deliver amino acids to earth, you still have not solved the Origin of Life problem, how did these cells assemble into amino acids??
Theory 5: Vents in the Ocean
Hypothesis: Vents may have provided an environment where the beginning of life might have been nurtured from very simple molecules all the way to living cells and primitive bacteria.
Conclusion: 1)“Granted, the vents might provide an unusual energy source that could prompt some chemicals to become reactive, but it never addresses the assembly problem.” 2) the high temperatures of these superheated vents would destroy rather than create complex organic compounds
Theory 6: Life from Clay
Hypothesis: “life somehow arose on clays whose crystalline structure had enough complexity to somehow encourage prebiotic chemicals to assemble together”
Conclusion: 1)“crystal is nothing more than redundant information. It’s far, far short of the specified complexity that living matter needs. 2) “No one has been able to coax clay into something resembling evolution in a laboratory; nor has anyone found anything resembling a clay based organism in nature”
What's funny to me is that as I read through this chapter the second time with the intention of drawing this "highly scientific" information, I had to chuckle at how ridiculous these hypotheses sound... it almost humored me that supposedly super intelligent scientists even entertained these ideas....
The conclusion reached by the Walter L Bradley PHD, the scientist/researcher interviewed, and most of today's scientific community is well summed up in his statement "I think that people who believe that life emerged naturalistically need to have a great deal more faith than people who reasonably infer that there's an intelligent designer."
So my question is... the folks out there claiming to be "darwinists": Have they really investigated what they "claim" to believe? ... or is it just another sorry excuse to deny faith???