From Moshe Averick, author of The Confused World of Modern Atheism, at Algemeiner:
Atheists Still Waiting for the Origin-of-Life Messiah
… In other words, despite the prodigious amounts of energy invested by people like Richard Dawkins in spreading propaganda to the contrary, Darwin provided exactly zero evidence to support an atheistic view of biology. Nothing has changed at all; the awe and wonder of the miraculous design and engineering that characterizes every single living creature on earth points as clearly to Divine creation in our day as it did in the period before Charles Darwin published his famous treatise.
In their heart of hearts, non-believers like Richard Dawkins understand that the Origin of Life problem means that their so called “scientific atheism” stands on a foundation of thin air and wishful thinking. That is why they longingly cast their eyes towards the horizon in hope of the imminent arrival of the atheist Origin of Life messiah who will finally explain how life can come from non-life without the involvement of that annoying Creator. More.
The OOL Messiah means well, Reb, but he can’t seem to get started. We see a lot of those types here where I live too …
Rev. Averick also wishes us all a happy Jewish-and-Gentile New Year.
See also: Maybe if we throw enough models at the origin of life… some of them will stick?
Follow UD News at Twitter!
I like the quote by Pross that Averick highlighted
Indeed “Certain basic laws of physics [coupled with mathematical probability] preach the same sermon”. The mathematical probability for a ‘simple’ cell forming spontaneously, when working from the thermodynamic perspective, explodes into gargantuan proportions over the ‘rough’ estimates of probability when working from proteins alone.
From proteins alone, we find this probability:
Even though one in 10 to the 41,000th power is certainly impressive, Professor Harold Morowitz shows the Origin of Life ‘problem’ escalates dramatically over the oft cited 1 in 10^40,000 figure when working from a thermodynamic perspective:
Dr. Morowitz did another probability calculation working from the thermodynamic perspective with an already existing cell and came up with this number:
Also of interest is the information content that is found to be in a ‘simple’ cell when working from the thermodynamic perspective:
Dr Andy C. McIntosh, who is the Professor of Thermodynamics at the University of Leeds. (which is, I believe, the highest teaching/research rank in the U.K.), states that information “is non-material and constrains the local thermodynamics to be in a non-equilibrium state of raised free energy”
Moreover, Dr. McIntosh holds that regarding information as independent of energy and matter ‘resolves the thermodynamic issues and invokes the correct paradigm for understanding the vital area of thermodynamic/organisational interactions’.
Of related note, information has now been experimentally shown to have a ‘thermodynamic content’
For many years Darwinists denied that information was even in the cell. Many Darwinists claimed that information was ‘just a metaphor” that they could just as well do without, and as such they are at a complete loss to explain why biological life is so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium. That Darwinian materialists have no real clue as to exactly why biological life is so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium is made evident by these following two articles:
In fact, recent advances in quantum biology have left these grossly inadequate 19th century materialistic assumptions of Darwinists in the dust and have effectively empirically falsified Darwinian claims that information is ’emergent’ from a material basis:
That non-material information should be found to be running the show in biology, while completely unexpected by Darwinian materialists, is expected on the Christian worldview:
Verse and Music:
Supplemental notes:
Verse and Music:
The Confused World of Modern Atheism…one the best book titles of all-time!
Thinking themselves wise they became fools. Pitiful creatures.
Look, that OOL-M guy is just SLOW, okay? For no particular reason, the band got ahead of him and people started to dance. Like, what do you expect? So when he arrived … the party …
I have been asking the world’s most known authorities on OOL and many evolutionists who seem to be convinced that there are no gods, what evidence persuaded them to believe that life originated without an intelligent creator. Can anybody guess what answers I got from Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Joe Felsenstein, Larry Moran, Nick Mitzke and many, many more?
Bornagain77 @ 1:
“I like the quote by Pross that Averick highlighted
Atheists Still Waiting for the Origin-of-Life Messiah – Moshe Averick – September 23, 2016
“And here precisely lies the [origin of] life problem…it is not just common sense that tells us that highly organized entities don’t just spontaneously come about. Certain basic laws of physics [coupled with mathematical probability] preach the same sermon – systems tend toward chaos and disorder, not toward order and function… Biology [i.e. a naturalistic origin of life] and physics seem contradictory, quite incompatible”
Dr. Addy Pross, professor of chemistry, Ben-Gurion University, Israel. – What is Life: How Chemistry Becomes Biology, Oxford University Press, 2012 –”
I like that quote by Pross too, especially the line M.Averick left out at the very end:
“No wonder the proponents of Intelligent Design manage to peddle their wares with such success!”
I don’t blame you personally for this display of conspicuous dishonesty. You quoted M.Averick accurately and gave your source, so you’re in the clear. But what does this say about M.Averick’s basic honesty? Do you think HE saw that line? Personally, I’m sure he did.
I invite any UDer to read, “What is life?” by Addy Pross. Just don’t expect to find any support for Intelligent Design in it.
MatSpirit, and exactly why would you think the sentence “No wonder the proponents of Intelligent Design manage to peddle their wares with such success!” is a problem for ID? Do you, Pross, or any Atheist, have any real evidence that unguided material processes can create ‘simple’ life?
A classic response. I show you that M.Averick is pulling a fast one and you ask why that’s a problem for ID.
MatSpirit, he admits that ‘common sense that tells us that highly organized entities don’t just spontaneously come about’ and also admits “No wonder the proponents of Intelligent Design manage to peddle their wares with such success!” and you think this is a problem for ID?
Since you apparently do think this is a problem for ID, I asked you specifically what your, his, or any atheist’s, evidence is that unguided processes can create ‘highly organized entities’. I quoted Tour, as well as Shapiro, and I also listed the astonishing complexity of mycoplasma to boot so as to drive the point home as to the severe difficulty being addressed on any naturalistic OOL theory. Whereas you did not list any evidence whatsoever but only accused Averick of ‘pulling a fast one’.
Now MatSpirit, for you to pretend that OOL is not a severe problem for Darwinists and that Pross, or any other naturalist, has it all figured out, is to truly try to ‘pull a fast one.’
Since you listed no actual evidence to back up your unstated claim that ‘highly organized entities’ can ‘spontaneously come about’, I took the liberty of googling Addy Pross. This review of his book is interesting in that it reveals that he tries to use semantics, instead of any actual empirical science, to skirt around the severe OOL problem:
MatSpirit, I guess just writing down a bunch of misleading, incomplete, equations and misleading flow diagrams, and dresses it up in popular press awe, is enough for you to believe OOL is all figured out?
I hate to break it to you Mat, that is not called science but is called being gullible.
I guess I’ll have to make this a little simpler.
This is a thread on Rabbi M.Averick and how wonderful and trustworthy an ID supporter he is. Yet, the first paragraph of your first reply reveals that the wonderful and highly trustworthy M.Averick told a whopping pro-ID lie by omission.
By leaving out the last sentence, he makes it look like Pross is approving and advocating ID when he’s really setting the stage for the rest of the book explaining how he thinks life started and revealing his true contempt for those peddling ID wares.
The question I asked is what does this say about M.Averick’s honesty? If his pro-ID lies are all right with you, just say so. If not, what kinds of problems does he create for this lauditory thread? Do you still trust his word?
MatSpirit, and does not the very title of his book, which is right beneath the Pross quote, make it abundantly clear that he is a naturalistic atheist?
What part of “What is Life: How Chemistry Becomes Biology” do you not understand? The implication is as plain as day!
If that title does not get the point across that he is anti-ID in his book then nothing will, not even the sentence that you are crying about.
Moreover Mat, if all you have got is bitching and whining about how Averick should have quoted Pross for one more sentence after his selected quote, so as to suit your own personal tastes, instead of any real empirical evidence that unguided material processes can actually create life, then you’ve got absolutely nothing of any real substance so as to counter the claim that ‘common sense tells us that highly organized entities don’t just spontaneously come about’.
As Averick stated, your materialistic/atheistic theory is based on thin air and you still await your OOL Messiah to deliver you from your delusions.
The answer to my @5 is: None.
No scientist I know has ever given me one piece of evidence that persuaded him to believe that live could have originated without an intelligent and obviously more powerful than humans creator.
BTW: I was going to ask Jack Szostak that question at one of his public addresses, but they were screening the questions and they snuffed me out… I’m pretty sure though that he doesn’t have even one real piece of evidence…but he got a Nobel Prize…
For a group that spends so much time and energy complaining about other people’s morals, UD is remarkably obtuse about their own.
We’re not talking about Pross or his book. What does M.Averick’s LIE about Pross’s book say about M.Averick?
It’s a pretty simple question. You should be able to answer it in one sentence. I would suggest something like, “He shouldn’t have lied.”
Mat, if the ultimate answer to the salient question of “What is Life?” really were that it is merely “Chemistry Becomes Biology”, to what specific chemistry do you, and Pross, appeal to so as to establish what is true and to what specific chemistry do you appeal to establish what is false? Is some chemistry more true than other chemistry, or is all chemistry equally true?
And what about consciousness? If the ultimate answer to the salient question of “What is Life?” really were that it is merely “Chemistry Becomes Biology”, to what specific chemistry do you, and Pross, appeal to so as to establish what is conscious and what is not conscious? Is some chemistry more conscious than other chemistry?
Do you consider yourself fully alive if you are not conscious? If not, then why do you accept “Chemistry Becomes Biology” as an acceptable definition for life?
Most work a day Americans consider life to be much, much, more than mere chemistry, and if your materialistic philosophy can’t even explain the simplest parts of life, i.e. self replication, much less the most important part of life, i.e. consciousness, why do you think anyone should pay attention to you or any of your atheistic scientists?
Your atheistic delusions simply have no connection to the real world!
Moreover, you yourself can’t even live as if materialism were actually true:
Apparently you missed my message 13. The question I asked is about the subject of this thread, Rabbi M.Averick:
“What does M.Averick’s LIE about Pross’s book say about M.Averick?”
The OP quoted some of his clap-trap about OOL. I call it clap-trap because I read his first book and know that he’s apallingly ignorant about all things biological. Then YOU quoted M.Averick quoting a paragraph from Pross in which Pross, a legitimate scientist, seems to be anti evolution and pro-ID. I’ve got that book and I knew he’d left off the last line that shows he actually believes the opposite. You were evidently fooled by M.Averick and quoted his deliberate misquotation of Pross approvingly.
So the questions now are:
1: How does it feel to be lied to and consequently embarrassed by Rabbi M.Averick?
2: Does this change your opinion of him?
Mat, 1. Averick did not lie as readers can see for themselves. And even if he did lie, how can mere chemistry possibly be embarrassed about a lie?
2. My opinion of Averick is as high as ever whereas my opinion of you has sunk to new lows (as if mere chemistry can have opinions).
“BA77: 1. Averick did not lie as readers can see for themselves.”
Wikipedia disagrees: (Look up “Lie”)
“A lie is a statement that the stating party believes to be false and that is made with the intention to deceive.”
“Lying by omission: Also known as a continuing misrepresentation, a lie by omission occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception.”
“2. My opinion of Averick is as high as ever whereas my opinion of you has sunk to new lows.”
This is pretty good. M.Averick tells a lie, you embarass yourself by passing it on, then you call the person who shows you the lie names and reaffirm your good opinion of M.Averick.
I think there are some important clues here to IDs lack of status outside of conservative religious circles..
“(as if mere chemistry can have opinions).”
As if mere electrons can play Pac-Man.
MatSpirit, why is this false narrative that Averick lied so important for you? I hold that this moral argument that you are currently, unsuccessfully, trying to use is so important for you precisely because you have nothing else, i.e. no real empirical science, to go on. Yet, ironically, objective morality can only be based in Theism. It is ludicrous to think that some of the actions of chemistry are more morally right than other actions of chemistry. Yet according to Pross’s own book, which you are bent on defending from Averick’s supposed immoral lie, all of biology ultimately ultimately boils down to mere chemistry. It is a self defeating moral argument for you, an atheist, to be making!
Since they have no real science to base their claims on, Darwinian atheists constantly use the ‘argument from evil’, as well as other Theistically based arguments, so as to try to establish the supposed scientific legitimacy of atheism and of Darwinian evolution in particular. Darwin used the Theistically based argument from evil in his book ‘Origin’ and atheists/Darwinists continue to use such Theistically based arguments today.
Moreover, ALL of science, especially including Darwinian evolution itself, is dependent on basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and our ability to comprehend that rational intelligibility. ,,, Where Darwinian evolution goes off the rails, theologically speaking, as far as science itself is concerned, is that it uses bad liberal theology to try to establish the legitimacy of its atheistic claims, all the while forgetting that it itself is dependent on basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and of our mind to comprehend it. (July 2016)
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-612345
Moreover, if atheistic materialism were actually true it would result in catastrophic epistemological failure:
Basically Mat, you, and all other atheists, need God even to have the ability to deny Him in the first place:
Verses, Video and Music:
As to Mat’s claim “mere electrons can play Pac-Man” here are a few notes:
Mat, here are a few more quotes to get your objective moral feathers all ruffled up:
MatSpirit:
I presume this is the same Pross who proposed the laughable “life is a kinetic state” approach?
That was a big red herring rabbit hole Matzke sent us down a couple of years ago. Let me know if you need a refresher on how that discussion concluded.
—–
BTW, I would also be willing to cite Pross as someone who understands the problems with traditional OOL scenarios. That doesn’t mean his own alternative idea is any good.
BA77: “MatSpirit, why is this false narrative that Averick lied so important for you?”
A better question would be why are you so desperately defending his lie?
I think the answer is that OOL is about the only God-sized gap in our knowledge that ID has left. However it happened, it happened billions of years ago and left no fossils we know of. If some fossils did by some miracle survive, they’re molecules, too small to be seen even in a microscope and are thus unlikely ever to be found.
For icing on the ID cake, all the rocks we know of that are that old and might contain fossils have been melted and remelted several times by geological forces. We literally had to go to the geologically dead moon to find intact rocks from that era to date.
And face it, that God sized gap IS all you have left. Dembski’s been canned, Behe’s Irreducible Complexity died before it reached its first birthday and got washed over the Edge of Evolution, the rest of your ID scientists are non entities and, worst of all, the big ID donors have given up and cash is short. The Discovery Institute is laying off!
So ID is reduced to keeping it’s eyes closed, covering its ears and demanding that science explain exactly how life started RIGHT NOW or ID wI’ll declare victory. And while you’re doing that, dont mention that the only answer to the OOL problem that Christianity has ever produced was decisively proven wrong back in the nineteenth century.
Meanwhile, you’ve gone back to bluffing with yards of quotes, mostly from IDers or misunderstood scientific articles which have been taken out of context and that’s basically not worth arguing with since step one in every argument would be to explain your errors and ID has its eyes and ears covered.
So you go back to praising loudmouth know-nothings like the good Rabbi and telling each other how deceived every scientist in the world is and how science isn’t even possible without Jesus and atheists believe they have no minds and I’ll go back to munching my popcorn and watching the fun.
Adios.
@22:
Wow, talk about a lot of projection, denials, and misrepresentations.
—–
Other than the part about the lack of financial support for ID, which has always been a challenge. 🙂
MatSpirit, for an atheist who does not believe in objective morality, but only in subjective morality, you certainly waste an extraordinary amount of time trying to prove that Averick ‘sinned’ against some objective moral that is binding to all humans by telling a lie.
He certainly did not lie as anyone who reads the title of the book, which Averick listed right under the quote, understands. But Mat, what if he did sin in this instance by telling a lie? And what about all the other instances that you, me, he, and everyone else on the face of the planet has committed a sin? Not only the sin of lying but also all the other multifarious sins associated with lusting and hating, and etc.. etc..? Exactly Whom have we sinned against when we break such objective morality? According to Atheists no one has ever really sinned since objective morality does not really exist but is only illusory in nature, i.e. totally subjective based on personal preferences. But please note that you yourself are not acting as if morality is merely subjective, i.e. illusory, in this instance but are acting as if Averick has really broken some overriding moral code that is binding to all humans.
So exactly Whom does anyone really sin against when we break such overriding objective morals? The truth of the matter is that all sin that is committed is ultimately sin that is committed against God Himself since it is His objective morality, not our own subjective morality, that has been broken.
Moreover, because of our inherent imperfection, it is impossible for us to ever make full restitution for our sin against God. Only the perfection of Christ is able to make full restitution and pay the ultimate penalty for sin which was and is death.
Verses, videos, and music
Mat. after throwing a fit about a supposed lie told by Averick, horror of horrors, you yourself ‘lied’ and falsely claimed that OOL ‘is the only God sized gap IS all you have left’.
Contrary to what you believe, let us be VERY clear to the fact that ALL of science, every displine within science, is dependent on basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and the ability of our mind to comprehend that rational intelligibility.,,,
Moreover, if we cast aside those basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and the ability of our mind to comprehend that rational intelligibility, and try to use naturalism as our basis for understanding the universe, and for practicing science, (i.e. methodological naturalism), then everything within that artificially imposed atheistic/naturalistic worldview, (i.e. sense of self. observation of reality, beliefs about reality, even reality itself), collapses into self refuting, unrestrained, flights of fantasies and imagination.
And although Theists are often accused of making ‘God of the Gaps’ style arguments, as Mat himself has falsely accused Theists of doing in his post at 22, the fact of the matter is that, as science has progressed, it is the Atheist himself who has had to retreat further and further into ‘Materialism/Naturalism of Gaps’ style arguments. i.e. into “Science will figure out a materialistic answer to that mystery some day” style argument.
To clearly illustrate the ‘materialism of the gaps’ style argument that atheists are now forced to use, the materialistic and Theistic philosophy make, and have made, several contradictory predictions about what type of scientific evidence we will find.
These contradictory predictions, and the evidence now found by modern science, can be tested against one another to see if either materialism or Theism is true.
As you can see when we remove the artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy (methodological naturalism), from the scientific method, and look carefully at the predictions of both the materialistic philosophy and the Theistic philosophy, side by side, we find the scientific method is very good at pointing us in the direction of Theism as the true explanation. – In fact science is even very good at pointing us to Christianity as the solution to the much sought after ‘theory of everything’
Verse and Music:
bornagain77 @ 25: Great points, as usual. Thank you.
bornagain77 @ 24: “MatSpirit, for an atheist who does not believe in objective morality, but only in subjective morality, you certainly waste an extraordinary amount of time trying to prove that Averick ‘sinned’ against some objective moral that is binding to all humans by telling a lie.”
Priceless! The irony is always lost on these poor fools. They simply cannot comprehend the irony and hypocrisy embedded in almost everything they say. Hopelessly deluded fools!
Dear MatSpirit,
This article is quite old but this is the first time I viewed it. I saw your comment that I was dishonest in the way I presented Dr. Pross’ citation. Of course I was aware of the last line in his paragraph. I quoted it in my book to show the schizoid attitudes of atheistic scientists. I.E. He presents in his book a most compelling case for ID and then at the end accuses ID’ers of “peddling their wares”. He does not even realize that everything he actually wrote supports the notion that life could never have started by itself. Perhaps you thought I was trying to imply that Dr. Pross supports intelligent design, if that is the way it seemed I apologize. I had no intention of portraying him as a supporter of ID, I just cited his words to illustrate the issue. I try never to marshal evidence for my views from supporters of ID, I almost exclusively use my opponents own words to demonstrate that a naturalistic origin of life is essentially impossible. Here is the full citation in my book:
“Dr. Pross and I are in agreement on just about everything he has written:
• The notion of a naturalistic origin of life seems “absurd” and “impossible.”
• Natural forces push in the direction of chaos and disorder not towards super-sophisticated functionally complex systems like a refrigerator and certainly not a bacterium which is many orders of magnitude more complex.
• Not only is the notion of a Creator of life the obvious “common sense” conclusion but it is also in consonance with basic principles of Physics and mathematical probability.
• The notion of a naturalistic origin of life seems to contradict the most fundamental principles of Physics.
If Intelligent Design is the common sense answer and in line with Physics and mathematical probability why does Dr. Pross feel it necessary to pejoratively describe its proponents as “peddling their wares”? In truth of course, it is just the opposite. It is the anti-common sense, anti-principles-of-physics, anti-mathematical-probability atheistic scientists who are “peddling their wares.” It is terribly disappointing when a man of Professor Pross’ caliber makes such a blatantly self-contradictory and non-scientific statement in order to pay homage to the faith of Scientific Naturalism.”
Atheists Still Waiting for the Origin-of-Life Messiah.
I love it!