Evolution - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Evolution PowerPoint presentation | free to view - id: 17127-OTA1M



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Evolution

Description:

National Geographic Channel and Magazine. Time Magazine ... Gore, Rick, 'The Once and Future Universe,' National Geographic, 163(6),p. 704-748, June 1983. ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:461
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 111
Provided by: georg85
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Evolution


1
Evolution
2
Evolution
  • Atheists Agenda
  • Why Do People Believe It?
  • Evolution the Scientific Method
  • Origin of the Universe
  • Proofs of Evolution
  • Dinosaurs and Man
  • Believers and the Age of the Earth

3
Evolution
  • What You Wont Read in Your
  • 10th Grade Biology Textbook!

4
Moody, Paul A. (1962), Introduction to Evolution
(New York Harper Row).p.1X Organic
evolution is the greatest principle in biology.
Its implications extend far beyond the confines
of that science, ramifying into all phases of
human life and activity. Accordingly,
understanding of evolution should be part of the
intellectual equipment of all educated persons
5
Dr. Chester Pierce, Chester (1973), Professor of
Education and Psychiatry at Harvard University at
a lecture presented at Denver, Colorado seminar
on childhood education Every child in America
entering school at the age of five is mentally
ill, because he comes to school with certain
allegiances toward our founding fathers, toward
our elected officials, toward his parents, toward
a belief in a supernatural Being, toward the
sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity.
Its up to you teachers to make all of these sick
children well by creating the international
children of the future Michaelsen, Johanna
(1989), Like Lambs to the Slaughter (Eugene, OR
Harvest House).p26
6
Bozarth, G. Richard, The Meaning of Evolution,
American Atheist (February 1978), pp. 19,
30. Atheism is sciences natural ally. Atheism
is the philosophy, both moral and ethical, most
perfectly suited for a scientific civilization.
If we work for the American Atheists today,
Atheism will be ready to fill the void of
Christianitys demise when science and evolution
triumph. Without a doubt humans and
civilization are in sore need of the intellectual
cleanness and mental health of atheism.
p 30
7
Bozarth, G. Richard, The Meaning of Evolution,
American Atheist (February 1978), pp. 19,
30. Christianity has fought, still fights, and
will fight science to the desperate end over
evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and
finally the very reason Jesus earthly life was
supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve
and the original sin, and in the rubble you will
find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take
away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not
the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is
what evolution means, then Christianity is
nothing!
8
Dr. C.F. Potter, Honorary President of the
National Education Association Education is
thus a most powerful ally of Humanism, and every
American public school is a school of Humanism.
What can a theistic Sunday schools meeting, for
an hour once a week, and teaching only a fraction
of the children, do to stem the tide of the
five-day program of humanistic teaching?
Potter, Charles Francis (1930), Humanism A
New Religion (New York Simon Schuster).
9
Evolution is the Driving Force
An absolute faith in science became the driving
force behind the progressives.... The most
important idea that would influence the educators
was that of evolutionthe notion that man,
through a process of natural selection, had
evolved to his present state from a common animal
ancestry. Evolution was as sharp a break with the
Biblical view of creation as anyone could make,
and it was quickly picked up by those anxious to
disprove the validity of orthodox religion.
Blumenfeld, Samuel L. (1984), NEA Trojan Horse
in American Education (Boise, ID Paradigm).p.43
10
What Will You Say ?
When your teenager comes home from school one day
and says My biology teacher has been telling us
all about evolution, and has shown us
scientifically that it is true. If evolutions
true, you dont need God. Ive seen the proof for
evolutionwhich is why I dont believe in God any
more.
Think it cant happen in your town?
11
The Indoctrination Doesnt Happen Overnight
12
Darwin
I had gradually come, by this time, to see that
the Old Testament, from its manifestly false
history of the world and from its attributing to
God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no
more to be trusted than the sacred books of the
Hindoos sic, or the beliefs of any barbarian
Thus disbelief crept over me at such a slow rate,
but at last was complete. The rate was so slow
that I felt no distress. Barlow, Nora, ed.
(1959), The Autobiography of Charles Darwin
(1809-1882) with Original Omissions Restored (New
York Harcourt, Brace, and World). Darwin,
Francis (1898), Life and Letters of Charles
Darwin (New York D. Appleton).
13
The Indoctrination Doesnt Happen Overnight
  • Saturday morning cartoons
  • Discovery Channel, PBS Nova
  • National Geographic Channel and Magazine
  • Time Magazine
  • Local newspapers
  • 10th Grade Biology Class
  • Freshman Biology Class at College

14
God Directed Responsibility
  • Children are a heritage of Jehovah and the
    fruit of the womb is his reward (Psa 1273).
  • Gifts from the Lord, sent to us for safekeeping,
  • Bring them up in the nurture and admonition of
    the Lord (Ephesians 64).
  • The spiritual instruction of a child is not an
    option. It is not something we do if we have the
    time or if we find it convenient. God has
    given us, as parents, the awesome responsibility
    of introducing our children to His covenant, and
    of teaching our children His Word.

15
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge
(Hosea 46).
16
Was Darwin Wrong? or Why Dont More
Americans Believe in Evolution?
Quammen, David (2004), Was Darwin Wrong?,
National Geographic, 20652-35, November 2004
17
Feb 2001 Gallup Poll
  • believed in the Genesis account
  • believed in theistic evolution
  • believed in evolution
  • had no opinion

45 37 12 6
Quammen, David (2004), Was Darwin Wrong?,
National Geographic, 20652-35, November.
18
31 college graduates 53 college
graduates 17 college graduates
Gallup Poll
Bishop, George (1998), The Religious Worldview
and American Beliefs about Human Origins, The
Public Perspective, August/September, pp.
39-48. Newport, Frank (1993), God Created
Humankind, Most Believe, Sunday Oklahoman,
A-22. Sheler, Jeffery L. (1999), Is the Bible
True? (San Francisco, CA HarperCollins). Moore,
David W. (1999), Americans Support Teaching
Creationism as Well as Evolution in Public
Schools, On-line, URL http//www.gallup.com/po
ll/releases/pr990830.asp (Princeton, NJ Gallup
News Service). Major, Trevor J. (1991), In the
NewsNational Beliefs Polled, Reason
Revelation, 1148, December.
19
CBS News November 22, 2004
Americans do not believe that humans evolved,
and the vast majority says that even if they
evolved, God guided the process. Just 13 percent
say that God was not involved Poll
Creationism Trumps Evolution (2004), CBS News
Polls, On-line, URL http//www.cbsnews.com/stor
ies/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml
20
  • AP / NBC News
  • October 1981
  • Only evolution should be taught 8
  • Only creation should be taught 10
  • Both evolution and creation should be taught
    76
  • Not sure 6
  • 86 of Americans want creation taught

21
  • of Readers Favoring the Teaching of the
    Scientific Evidence for Creation in Public
    Schools.
  • American School Board Journal, Mar 1980 67
  • Glamour magazine, August 1982 74
  • People for the American Way Poll (New York
    Times), Mar 2000 79
  • Glanz, James (2000), Survey Finds Support is
    Strong for Teaching 2 Origin Theories, The New
    York Times, p. A-1, March 11.

22
In his monthly From the Editor National
Geographic Editor Bill Allen wrote David
Quammen explains how scientists, by using
techniques unheard of in Darwins time, are
finding more evidence than ever of the
evolutionary links among all living things.
Allen, Bill (2004), From the Editor, National
Geographic, 2065no page number, November. .
23
Why is Evolution Not Believed? If you are
skeptical by nature, unfamiliar with the
terminology of science and unaware of the
overwhelming evidence, you might even be
tempted to say that its just a theory, like
planetary motion, electricity, atomic theory.
Quammen, David (2004), Was Darwin Wrong?,
National Geographic, 2065p.4, November.
24
  • Why is Evolution Not
  • Believed?
  • Scriptural literalism
  • Creationist proselytizers and
  • political activistsinterfering with the
  • teaching of evolutionary biology in public
    schools.
  • Honest confusion and ignorance.
  • Sources of information are haphazard at best
    half-baked nature documentaries and hearsay.

Quammen, David (2004), Was Darwin Wrong?,
National Geographic, 2065p.6,8, November.
25
Why Believe in Evolution? All Intelligent
People Do
26
  • Huxley, Julian, Issues in Evolution, edited by
    Sol Tax (Chicago University of Chicago, 1960).
    p. 41.
  • The first point to make about Darwins theory is
    that is it no longer a theory, but a fact. No
    serious scientist would deny the fact that
    evolution has occurred, just as he would not deny
    the fact that the earth goes around the sun.

27
Goldschmidt, Richard B., Evolution, As Viewed by
One Geneticist, American Scientist, vol. 40
(January 1952), p 84. Evolution of the animal
and plant world is considered by all those
entitled to judgment to be a fact for which no
further proof is needed.
28
Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, (1982),
pp. 130. It is absolutely safe to say that if
you meet anybody who claims not to believe in
evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or
insane (or wicked, but Id rather not consider
that).
29
Zirkle, Conway. Evolution, Marxian Biology and
the Social Scene (Philadelphia, PA University of
Pennsylvania Press). 1959. p.19. Practically
every educated man believes in evolution.
30
Science, Dec 1981 Evolution is the cornerstone
of the biological sciences. No serious
scientists dispute this. Biologists have no doubt
that evolution occurred. They even know what
drives it.
31
Biology for You, 1958. All reputable biologists
have agreed that evolution of life on earth is an
established fact.
32
Chambers, Bette (president, ASA), Isaac Asimov,
Hudson Hoagland, Chauncey D. Leake, Linus
Pauling, and George Gaylord Simpson (Sponsoring
Committee), A Statement Affirming Evolution as a
Principle of Science, The Humanist, vol. 37, no.
1 (January/February 1977), p. 4 There are no
alternative theories to the principle of
evolution, with its tree of life pattern, that
any competent biologist of today takes seriously.
33
  • Huxley, Julian, Issues in Evolution, edited by
    Sol Tax (Chicago University of Chicago, 1960).
    p. 41.
  • The first point to make about Darwins theory is
    that is it no longer a theory, but a fact. No
    serious scientist would deny the fact that
    evolution has occurred, just as he would not deny
    the fact that the earth goes around the sun.

34
Why Do People Believe in Evolution? So That
Theyre Not Labeled
  • Ignorant
  • Stupid
  • Insane
  • Incompetent
  • Uneducated
  • Not serious
  • Unreputable

Is That So?
35
  • 1982 Industrial Chemist Poll
  • 44 believed God was involved
  • 21 believed in the Genesis account
  • 23 believed in theistic evolution
  • 38 supported the teaching of creation

36
  • 1982 Industrial Chemist Poll
  • 44 believed God was involved
  • 21 believed in the Genesis account
  • 23 believed in theistic evolution
  • 38 supported the teaching of creation

37
Creation Research Society
  • Founded in 1963 by 10 scientists.
  • Membership 1700 over 600 with a Masters or PhD
    in an acceptable field of Science.
  • Members must agree that
  • The Bible is inspired by God and is historically
    and scientifically true, including all of
    Genesis.
  • All basic life was created in the 6-day week of
    Genesis
  • The Noachian Flood was global.
  • Salvation is only through Jesus Christ.
  • http//www.creationresearch.org/hisaims.htm

38
Great Scientists of Past Days Have Believed in
God
39
Johann Kepler
  • On discovering the laws of planetary motion
  • Oh, God, I am thinking Thy thoughts after Thee.

40
Isaac Newton
Stated that his scientific work was directed to
those discoveries that would most work with
reasoning men to a belief in the Deity.
41
Michael Faraday
On his deathbed was asked, Mr. Faraday, what are
your speculations now?, replied I have no
speculations I know that my Redemeer liveth.
42
Why Believe in Evolution? Pressure
43
Why Do People Believe in Evolution? So That
Theyre Not Labeled
  • Ignorant
  • Stupid
  • Insane
  • Incompetent
  • Uneducated
  • Not serious
  • Unreputable

44
Goldschmidt, Richard B., Evolution, As Viewed by
One Geneticist, American Scientist, vol. 40
(January 1952), p 84. Evolution of the animal
and plant world is considered by all those
entitled to judgment to be a fact for which no
further proof is needed.
45
Frazier, Kendrick, Competency and Controversy
Issues and Ethics on the University
/Pseudoscience Battlefield, Skeptical Inquirer,
vol. 8 (Fall 1983), p. 2. Every professor
should have the right to fail any student in his
class, no matter what the grade record indicates,
and should even have the right of retracting
grades and possibly even degrees if such gross
misunderstandings are publicly espoused after
passing the course or after being graduating.
46
Patterson, John, Do Scientists and Educators
Discriminate Unfairly against Creationists?
Journal of the National Center for Science
Education (Fall 1984), pp. 19-20. Creationists
often complain that their theories and their
colleagues are discriminated against by
educators. As a matter of fact, creationism
should be discriminated against. No advocate of
such propaganda should be trusted to teach
science classes or administer science programs
anywhere or under any circumstances. Moreover, if
any are now doing so, they should be dismissed. I
am glad this kind of discrimination is finally
catching on, and I hope the practice becomes much
more vigorous and widespread in the future.
47
Why Believe in Evolution? Evil, Pain Suffering
48
  • Fits Evolution
  • Survival of the fittest
  • dog eat dog
  • might makes right
  • its a jungle out there
  • If man is just an advanced ape, then why should
    he be exempt from the perils that befall all
    other animals?
  • How could a merciful, loving, omnipotent,
    omniscient God permit all of the evil, pain and
    suffering?

49
Why Believe in Evolution? Mistakes made by
Religious People
50
  • Children sacrificed to appease gods
  • Crusades and other wars fought in the name of
    God.
  • Spanish Inquisition
  • Puritans and witch burning
  • Adulteration of religion by Televangelists
  • Everyday hypocritical behavior by many professed
    God-fearing people

51
Why Believe in Evolution? The Alternative is God
52
Keith, Sir Arthur, (as quoted by Croswell,
1972). We believe it (evolution-GAT) because
the only alternative is special creation, and
that is unthinkable.
53
Professor D. M. Watson, Chair of Evolution
University of London, (1929). evolution itself
is accepted by zoologists, not because it has
been observed to occur or can be proven by
logically coherent evidence to be true, but
because the only alternative, special creation,
is incredible.
54
Why Believe in Evolution? Evidence
55
Evolution and The Scientific Method
56
The Scientific Method DefinitionWebsters New
Collegiate Dictionary, 1981
  • Principles and procedures for the systematic
    pursuit of knowledge involving
  • the recognition and formulation of a problem
  • the collection of data through observation and
    experimentation and
  • the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

57
  • Chambers, Bette (president, ASA), Isaac Asimov,
    Hudson Hoagland, Chauncey D. Leake, Linus
    Pauling, and George Gaylord Simpson (Sponsoring
    Committee), A Statement Affirming Evolution as a
    Principle of Science, The Humanist, vol. 37, no.
    1 (January/February 1977), pp. 4-6.
  • Creationism is not scientific it is a purely
    religious view held by some religious sects and
    persons and strongly opposed by other religious
    sects and persons. Evolution is therefore the
    only view that should be expounded in
    public-school courses on science.

58
What You Wont Read in Your 10th Grade Biology
Textbook!
59
Kitts, David B., Paleontology and Evolutionary
Theory, Evolution, vol. 28 (September 1974), pp.
458-472. Kitts was Professor of Geology,
University of Oklahoma. p 466. Evolution, at
least in the sense that Darwin speaks of it,
cannot be detected within the lifetime of a
single observer.
60
Patterson, Colin, Senior Paleontologist at the
British Museum of Natural History in London in a
personal letter to L. Sutherland. It is easy
enough to make up stories of how one form gave
rise to another, and to find reasons why the
stages should be favoured by natural selection.
But such stories are not part of science, for
there is no way of putting them to the test.
61
Ehrlich, Paul R., and L. C. Birch, Evolutionary
History and Population Biology, Nature, vol. 214
(April 22, 1967), p. 352. Our theory of
evolution has become one which cannot be refuted
by any possible observations. Every conceivable
observation can be fitted into it. It is thus
outside of empirical science but not
necessarily false. No one can think of ways in
which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or
based on a few laboratory experiments carried out
in extremely simplified systems, have attained
currency far beyond their validity. They have
become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by
most of us as part of our training.
62
Whitten, Professor of Genetics, University of
Melbourne, Assembly Week address,
1980. Biologists are simply naïve when they
talk about experiments designed to test the
theory of evolution. It is not testable.
63
Gould, Stephen Jay, Professor of Geology and
Paleontology, Harvard University, The Validation
of Continental Drift, Ever Since Darwin, W.W.
Norton, 1977, p. 161. Facts do not speak for
themselves they are read in the light of theory.
Creative thought, in science as much as in the
arts, is the motor of changing opinion. Science
is a quintessentially human activity, not a
mechanized, robot-like accumulation of objective
information, leading to laws of logic and
inescapable interpretations.
64
Jastrow, Robert, Ph.D., Director, Institute for
Space Studies, USA, The Dinosaur Massacre,
Omega Science Digest, March/April, 1984, p.
23. Now and then a scientist stumbles across a
fact that seems to solve one of the great
mysteries of science overnight. Such unexpected
discoveries are rare. When they occur, the
scientific community gets very excited. But
excitement is not the barometer of scientific
validity. The case of the disappearing dinosaurs
is a fascinating demonstration that science is
not based on facts alone. The interpretation of
the facts is even more important.
65
Pilbeam, David, Rearranging our Family Tree,
Human Nature (June 1978), pp. 39-45. I know
that, at least in paleoanthropology, data are
still so sparse that theory heavily influences
interpretations. Theories have, in the past,
clearly reflected our current ideologies instead
of the actual data.
66
Eiseley, Loren C., The Immense Journey (New York
Random House, 1957). p. 199. With the failure
of these many efforts, science was left in the
somewhat embarrassing position of having to
postulate theories of living origins which it
could not demonstrate. After having chided the
theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle,
science found itself in the unenviable position
of having to create a mythology of its own
namely, the assumption that what, after long
effort could not be proved to take place today
had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.
67
Bethell, Tom, Agnostic Evolutionists, Harpers,
vol. 270 (February 1985), p 51. What most
people do not know is that for much of this
century, and especially in recent years,
scientists have been fighting among themselves
about Darwin and his ideas. Scientists are
largely responsible for keeping the public in the
dark about these in-house arguments. When they
see themselves as beleaguered by opponents
outside the citadel of science, they tend to put
their differences aside and unite to defeat the
heathen, the layman sees only the closed ranks.
68
Bouroune, Louis, Ph.D., (Former President of the
Biological Society of Strasbourg Zoological
Museum, later Director of Research at the French
National Centre of Scientific Research), as
quoted in The Advocate, March 8,
1984. Evolution is a fairly tale for grown-ups.
This theory has helped nothing in the progress of
science. It is useless.
69
Tahmisian, T.N., Ph.D., Atomic Energy Commission,
The Frisco Bee, August 20, 1959, as quoted by
N.J. Mitchell, Evolution and the Emperor's New
Clothes, 3D Enterprises Ltd, 1983, title
page. Scientists who go about teaching that
evolution is a fact are great con-men, and the
story they are telling may be the greatest hoax
ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one
iota of fact.
70
Patterson, Colin, Speech at the American Museum
of Natural History, New York (November 5, 1981).
Dr. Patterson is a senior paleontologist at the
British Museum of Natural History, and editor of
its journal, as well as author of the book
Evolution. One morning I woke up and something
had happened in the night It struck me that I
had been working on this stuff for twenty years
and there was not one thing I knew about it.
Thats quite a shock to learn that one can be
mislead so long Either there was something wrong
with me, or there was something wrong with
evolutionary theoryThen I woke up and realized
that all my life I had been duped into taking
evolutionism as revealed truth in some way.
71
The Origin of the UniverseThe Big Bang
72
The Big Bang
  • All matter compressed into a single microscopic
    particle.
  • 14-18 billion years ago It exploded and
    rapidly expanded.
  • Based on evidence that galaxies further from
    earth are moving faster.
  • Radiation

73
  • Patrusky, Ben, Why is the Cosmos Lumpy?
    Science 81 (June 1981), p. 96.
  • Few cosmologists today would dispute the view
    that our expanding universe began with a banga
    big, hot bangabout 18 billion years ago.

74
Davies, Paul C., What Hath COBE Wrought? Sky
and Telescope (January 1993), pp. 4-5. It is
then possible to imagine the universe coming into
being from nothing - entirely spontaneously,
without violating any laws.
75
Gore, Rick, The Once and Future Universe,
National Geographic, 163(6),p. 704-748, June
1983. scientists now calculate that
everything in this vast universe grew out of a
region many billions of time smaller than a
single proton
76
What You Wont Read in Your 10th Grade Biology
Textbook!
77
Hoyle, Sir Fred, The Big Bang under Attack,
Science Digest, vol. 92 (May 1984), p. 84. (Hoyle
originated and later repudiated the Steady State
Theory. He lectures at Cambridge
University). Was there ever really a big bang?
Even as greater and greater numbers of people
have come to believe that the universe began with
one great eruption, others have seen a persistent
weakness in the theorya weakness that is
becoming ever harder to overlookAs a result of
all this, the main efforts of investigators have
been in papering over holes in the big bang
theory, to build up an idea that has become ever
more complex and cumbersome. I have little
hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs
over the big-bang theory.
78
The Big Bang
Hannes Alfven, Swedish Nobel Laureate quoted from
Lerner, Eric J., The Big Bang Never Happened,
Discover, vol. 9 (June 1988), p. 79 There is
no rational reason to doubt that the universe has
existed indefinitely, for an infinite time. It is
only a myth that attempts to say how the universe
came into being either four thousand years ago or
twenty billion years ago.
79
  • Darling, David, On Creating Something from
    Nothing, New Scientist, vol. 151 (September 14,
    1996). p. 49
  • What is a big dealthe biggest deal of allis
    how you get something out of nothing. Dont let
    the cosmologists try to kid you on this one. They
    have not got a clue eitherdespite the fact that
    they are doing a pretty good job of convincing
    themselves and others that this is really not a
    problem. In the beginning, they will say,
    there was nothingno time, space, matter or
    energy. Then there was a quantum fluctuation from
    which Whoa! Stop right there. You see what I
    mean?

80
  • First there is nothing, then there is
    something. And the cosmologists try to bridge the
    two with a quantum flutter, a tremor of
    uncertainty that sparks it all off. Then they are
    away and before you know it, they have pulled a
    hundred billion galaxies out of their quantum
    hats You cannot fudge this by appealing to
    quantum mechanics. Either there is nothing to
    begin with, in which case there is no quantum
    vacuum, no pre-geometric dust, no time in which
    anything can happen, no physical laws that can
    effect a change from nothingness into
    somethingness or there is something, in which
    case that needs explaining.

81
Narlikar, Jayant, Was There a Big Bang? New
Scientist, vol. 91 (July 2, 1981), pp.
19-21. These arguments should indicate to the
uncommitted that the big-bang picture is not as
soundly established, either theoretically or
observationally, as it is usually claimed to be.
Astrophysicists of today who hold the view that
the ultimate cosmological problem has been more
or less solved may well be in for a few surprises
before this century runs out.
82
The Origin of Life
83
Wald, George, in Biological Science An Inquiry
Into Life (Harcourt, Brace World, Inc., 1963),
748 pp. p. 42 If life comes only from life,
does this mean that there was always life on the
earth? It must, yet we know that this cannot be
so. We know that the world was once without life
- that life appeared later. How? We think it was
by spontaneous generation.
Anyone remember what Louis Pasteur proved?
84
  • Wald, George, The Origin of Life, in The
    Physics and Chemistry of Life (Simon Schuster,
    1955), 270 pp. p. 9.
  • One has only to contemplate the magnitude of
    this task to concede that the spontaneous
    generation of a living organism is impossible.
    Yet here we are as a result, I believe, of
    spontaneous generation.

85
Origin of Life
Wald, George, The Origin of Life, in The
Physics and Chemistry of Life (Simon Schuster,
1955), 270 pp. p. 12 The important point is
that since the origin of life belongs in the
category of at-least-once phenomena, time is on
its side. However improbable we regard this
event, given enough time it will almost
certainly happen at least once. Time is in fact
the hero of the plot
86
The time with which we have to deal is of the
order of two billion years. What we regard as
impossible on the basis of human experience is
meaningless here. Given so much time, the
impossible becomes possible, the possible
probable, and the probable virtually certain. One
has only to wait time itself performs miracles.
87
Origin of Life
Rennie, John (2002), 15 Answers to Creationist
Nonsense, Scientific American, 287181,
July Biochemists have learned about how
primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other
building blocks of life could have formed and
organized themselves into self-replicating,
self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for
cellular biochemistry. Astrochemical analyses
hint that quantities of these compounds might
have originated in space and fallen to earth in
comets, a scenario that may solve the problem of
how those constituents arose under the conditions
that prevailed when our planet was young.
Creationist Nonsense?
88
What You Wont read in Your 10th Grade Biology
Textbook!
89
Hofstadter, Douglas R., Gödel, Escher, Bach An
Eternal Golden Braid (New York Vintage Books,
1980), p. 548 There are various theories on the
origin of life. They all run aground on this most
central of all central questions How did the
Genetic Code, along with the mechanisms for its
translation originate? For the moment, we will
have to content ourselves with a sense of wonder
and awe, rather than with an answer.
90
Scott, Andrew, Update on Genesis, New
Scientist, vol. 106 (May 2, 1985), pp.
30-33. Take some matter, heat while stirring
and wait. That is the modern version of Genesis.
The fundamental forces of gravity,
electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear
forces are presumed to have done the rest. But
how much of this neat tale is firmly established,
and how much remains hopeful speculation? In
truth, the mechanism of almost every major step,
from chemical precursors up to the first
recognizable cells, is the subject of either
controversy or complete bewilderment.
91
Crick, Francis, Life Itself Its Origin and
Nature (New York Simon Schuster, 1981) p.
51-2. (Nobel Laureate, discoverer of DNA) If a
particular amino acid sequence was selected by
chance, how rare an event would this be? This
is approximately equal to 10260, that is, a one
followed by 260 zeros. An honest man, armed with
all the knowledge available to us now, could only
state that in some sense, the origin of life
appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so
many are the conditions which would have had to
have been satisfied to get it going.
92
Hoyle, Sir Fred, quoted by Anonymous in Hoyle on
Evolution, Nature, vol. 294 (November 12, 1981),
p. 105. The chance that higher life forms might
have emerged in this way is comparable with the
chance that a tornado sweeping through a
junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the
materials therein.
93
Hoyle, Sir Fred, The Intelligent Universe (New
York Holt, Rinehart Winston, 1983), p. 20 If
there were a basic principle of matter which
somehow drove (in)organic systems toward life,
its existence should easily be demonstrable in
the laboratory. One could, for instance, take a
swimming bath to represent the primordial soup.
Fill it with any chemicals of a non-biological
nature you please. Pump any gases over it, or
94
through it, you please, and shine any kind of
radiation on it that takes your fancy. Let the
experiment proceed for a year and see how many of
those 2,000 enzymes proteins produced by living
cells have appeared in the bath. I will give the
answer, and so save the time and trouble and
expense of actually doing the experiment. You
would find nothing at all, except possibly for a
tarry sludge composed of amino acids and other
simple organic chemicals.
95
Hoyle - 3
How can I be so confident of this statement?
Well, if it were otherwise, the experiment would
long since have been done and would be well-known
and famous throughout the world. The cost of it
would be trivial compared to the cost of landing
a man on the Moon. In short there is not a shred
of objective evidence to support the hypothesis
that life began in an organic soup here on the
Earth.
96
Hoyle, Sir Fred, and Chandra Wickramasinghe,
Evolution from Space (New York Simon Schuster,
1984), 176 pp., p. 148 No matter how large the
environment one considers, life cannot have had a
random beginning. The same is true for living
material. The likelihood of the spontaneous
formation of life from inanimate matter is
97
one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it.
It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole
theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup,
neither on this planet nor on any other, and if
the beginnings of life were not random, they must
therefore have been the product of purposeful
intelligence.
98
Yockey, Hubert P., A Calculation of the
Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by
Information Theory, Journal of Theoretical
Biology, vol. 67 (1977), p. 377 The warm
little pond scenario was invented ad hoc to
serve as an explanation of the origin of life.
It is unsupported by any other evidence and it
will remain ad hoc until such evidence is found.
One must conclude that, contrary to the
established and current wisdom, a scenario
describing the genesis of life on earth by chance
and natural causes which can be accepted on the
basis of fact and not faith has not yet been
written.
99
Channelview High School 2005 Biology Textbook,
p. 269
The primordial soup model propose explanations
of the origin of the chemicals of life.
Biology (Holt, Rinehart and Winston),2004,
Chapter 12, History of Life on Earth, p. 269.
100
Wickramasinghe, C., Interview in London Daily
Express (August 14, 1981). (Wickramasinghe is
Professor of Applied Math Astronomy, University
College, Cardiff). From my earliest training as
a scientist, I was very strongly brainwashed to
believe that science cannot be consistent with
any kind of deliberate creation. They did
calculations based on the size and age of the
universe (15 billion years) and found that the
odds against life beginning spontaneously
anywhere in space were 10 to the power of 30.
101
At the moment, I cant find any rational argument
to knock down the view which argues for
conversion to God. We used to have an open mind
now we realize that the only logical answer to
life is creationand not accidental random
shuffling.
102
Dawkins, Richard, The Necessity of Darwinism,
New Scientist, vol. 94 (April 15, 1982), p
130. The more statistically improbable a thing
is, the less can we believe that it just happened
by blind chance. Superficially the obvious
alternative to chance is an intelligent
Designer.
103
Hoyle, Sir Fred, and Chandra Wickramasinghe,
Evolution from Space (New York Simon Schuster,
1984), 176 pp., p. 148 Once we see that the
random probability of life originating at random
is so utterly miniscule as to make it absurd, it
becomes sensible to think that the favourable
properties of physics, on which life depends, are
in every respect deliberate. It is almost
inevitable that our own measure of intelligence
must reflect higher intelligence even to the
limit of God.
104
Life on Other Planets
105
What You Wont Read in Your 10th Grade Biology
Textbook!
106
Sagan, Carl, ed. (1973), Communications with
Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (Boston, MA MIT).
P. 46. Sagan estimated that the chance of life
evolving on any given single planet, like the
Earth, is one chance in 1x102,000,000,000 That
is one chance out of 1 followed by 2 billion
zeroes! This figure is so large that it would
require 6,000 volumes of 300 pages each just to
write the number!
107
Borel, Emile (1962), Probabilities and Life (New
York Dover). Borels law of probability states
that the occurrence of any event, where the
chances are beyond one in one followed by 50
zeroes, is an event that we can state with
certainty will never happen, regardless of how
much time is allotted and regardless of how many
conceivable opportunities could exist for the
event to take place.
108
Pollard, William G., The Prevalence of Earthlike
Planets, American Scientist, vol. 67
(November/December 1979), p. 653 It is almost
certain that no other planet in our solar system
now supports the phenomenon of life. There is a
deeply ingrained conviction in the great majority
of mankind, to which the appeal of science
fiction and fantasy bears witness, that the
universe is so constituted that if an opportunity
exists for life to originate, it will be
actualized, and if an opportunity exists for
hominids to evolve, that too will be actualized.
Whatever may be the basis for such convictions,
it clearly must be sought outside the domain of
science.
109
Naeye, Robert, OK, Where Are They? Astronomy,
vol. 24 (July 1996), p. 42 If one chooses to
shun speculation and stick solely with
observations, one can ask the same question that
Nobel physicist Enrico Fermi put forth in 1950
If the Galaxy is teeming with intelligent life,
where are they? The sobering reality is that
there is no observational evidence whatsoever for
the existence of other intelligent beings
anywhere in the universe.
110
  • Science, December 1981
  • Biologists have no doubt that evolution occurred.
    They even know what drives it.

How Does Evolution Occur?
About PowerShow.com