Origin Of Life

The “slam dunk” case for a naturalistic origin of life is … um … whoop whoop

Spread the love

Moshe Averick,the ID community Reb and author of Nonsense of the Highest Order, writes to say,

In a post on his blog Why Evolution is True, Dr. Jerry Coyne took some potshots at Rabbi Adam Jacobs and myself about an article by Jacobs on the Huffington Post “A reasonable argument for God’s existence”When all was said and done, Dr. Coyne summed up his “slam dunk” case for a naturalistic origin of life:

“Nope, we don’t yet understand how life originated on Earth, but we have good leads, and abiogenesis is a thriving field. And we may never understand how life originated on Earth, because the traces of early life have vanished. We know it happened at least once (and that all species descend from only one origin), but not how. I’m pretty confident that within, say, 50 years we’ll be able to create life in a laboratory under the conditions of primitive Earth, but that, too, won’t tell us exactly how it did happen—only that it could. ” -Jerry Coyne

Can you imagine going before a judge and arguing you KNOW that the defendant is guilty, but the court will have to wait 50 years for the evidence?”

Yes, I can imagine it, and I can already hear “Case dismissed!”

Which is where origin of life studies really are, and remember, Coyne said it himself. I’ve said the same thing a dozen times – that OOL is a futile pursuit because the answer is probably unavailable. Guess they don’t need me to point it out any more if one of our moral and intellectual superiors has said it.

The mere fact that a bunch of people are putting out papers in the field only shows … what? That it’s a winner?

The Reb invites anyone who is young enough and assumes they will around in 50 years to meet in Hyde Park at Jerry Coyne’s house near the U. of Chicago in March of 2061, and he will serve lunch and show us the results of his research.

Mark the month, youths and maidens, and wait for details.

2 Replies to “The “slam dunk” case for a naturalistic origin of life is … um … whoop whoop

  1. 1
    Bantay says:

    Coyne says here…

    “….abiogenesis is a thriving field. And we may never understand how life originated on Earth”

    In a thriving field (with no direct evidence), who, pray tell, is paying for his lack of understanding?

  2. 2

    How can one trust Jerry Coyne, a pragmatic liar?

    “This disharmony [between science and religion] is a dirty little secret in scientific circles. It is in our personal and professional interest to proclaim that science and religion are perfectly harmonious. After all, we want our grants funded by the government, and our schoolchildren exposed to real science instead of creationism. Liberal religious people have been important allies in our struggle against creationism, and it is not pleasant to alienate them by declaring how we feel. This is why, as a tactical matter, groups such as the National Academy of Sciences claim that religion and science do not conflict. But their main evidence—the existence of religious scientists—is wearing thin as scientists grow ever more vociferous about their lack of faith.”

Leave a Reply