The origin of life, and the man behind the curtain.

Posted on February 10, 2020 By

origin of life

Much as Dorothy’s dog Toto pulled back the curtain to reveal a hidden man creating the illusion of the Wizard of Oz, one can pull back the curtain on the illusion of unintelligent natural mechanisms causing the origin of life. And when the curtain is pulled back on the most often cited evidence for these alleged mechanisms, there is actually a man hidden back there. Yes, the origin of life debate can be every bit as entertaining as the Wizard of Oz, so sit tight!

Abiogenesis is the term which refers to the evolution of living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances as a result of allegedly unintelligent natural mechanisms. And the Miller-Urey experiments from the early 1950’s are a crucial piece of evidence, almost universally cited by those who tout an unintelligent cause for life. As Wikipedia states:

The Miller–Urey experiment (or Miller experiment) was a chemical experiment that simulated the conditions thought at the time (1952) to be present on the early Earth and tested the chemical origin of life under those conditions. Considered to be the classic experiment investigating abiogenesis, it was conducted in 1952 by Stanley Miller, with assistance from Harold Urey, at the University of Chicago and later the University of California, San Diego, and published the following year.

Since the Miller-Urey experiment demonstrated that simple chemicals can gradually evolve into more complex organic compounds— it is argued—there is no need to cite an intelligent agent as creating life from non-living matter. But when the curtain is pulled back on this argument, we find a man hiding behind the curtain! (identity to be revealed later)

The elephant in the room: What maintains the order produced by random natural processes?

The philosophical conclusion that unintelligent natural processes can create life from non-life can only be reached by ignoring the elephant in the room: What maintains this order once it is produced? 

By taking a look at the world around, to observe how natural processes actually work, one can confidently conclude that natural processes cannot be the source of this preservation of order. Without directed external effort to counteract natural forces, sooner or later, your clean room will get dirty, your car will break down, your clothes will wear out, and complex organic molecules will break down to their more simple constituents. This tendency of natural processes to produce disorder from order (as we all observe on a daily basis) is an aspect of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Dr. W.M. DeJong studied Mathematics and Thermodynamics at the University of Technology in Delft, The Netherlands, and is consultant and researcher of innovation and change at INI-Consult. He points out the fatal blind spots of the research of scientists who tout an unintelligent cause for life, such as Ilya Prigogine and Miller-Urey. Unintelligent natural processes can produce order, but only on a very limited and temporary basis. For example, energy flows from wind blowing sand on a beach could produce orderly ridges in the sand. But once the direction or speed of the wind changes, this order would be more quickly destroyed. DeJong writes:

Ilya Prigogine has shown that ridges in the sand can emerge by random energy flows; but he overlooked that these ridges are not maintained by these random energy flows; the next day they disappear again and are replaced by other ridges in another direction. Prigogine has also shown that living nature is constantly transforming molecules, cells and organisms into more complex structures; but he overlooked that this ordering is driven by the DNA program present in any cell, and not by random energy flows.

In the chemical industry simple molecules are transformed into complicated molecules by directed energy flows, not by random natural processes. If random, natural processes would be able to turn chaos into order, complicated molecules would become available for free; all energy problems on earth would be solved and the chemical industry would be out of business.

And the man behind the curtain is…(drumroll please)

As DeJong notes, it was actually an intelligent agent, STANLEY MILLER HIMSELF, who prevented the building blocks of DNA molecules (amino acids) from breaking down again by applying directed external effort to preserve the order temporarily produced by random processes in the Miller-Urey experiments. Simply put, Miller used his knowledge of what constitutes a chemical building block for life to transport these chemicals to distillation flasks, so as to preserve them from being destroyed, and allow them to achieve the necessary concentrations. But unintelligent natural mechanisms possess no such knowledge of which chemicals need to be preserved, nor knowledge of the concentrations of these chemicals necessary for life to emerge, nor any ability to preserve:

Secondly, order that emerges from undirected external forces not only has a temporary character, but does not expand, unless directed external effort is supplied. This law of nature is clearly illustrated by the famous Miller experiment. Random flashes of electricity can turn basic organic substances into the building blocks of DNA. But the next moment, new flashes may destroy these building blocks. The larger the building blocks, the faster they will be destroyed again. Therefore, Miller transported the building blocks formed towards a distillation flask, sheltering them from destruction by new flashes of lightning, resulting in the production of a more and more concentrated organic soup. Miller’s experiment confirms the second law, and shows that the order in a system can only be maintained and increased by directed external effort.

It is often supposed that organic molecules have a natural bias to order themselves into increasingly complex structures. It is thought that if an advantage fluctuation of chaos arises, the molecules will move to a nearby, higher and maintained level of order; after some time, a subsequent advantageous fluctuation of chaos will arise and another a step of increasing order will be set; et cetera. More accurate assessment of this line of thought, which is handed by Miller and Prigogine, shows, however, that (1) the emergence of order in chaotic systems is only temporary; (2) the maintenance and further expansion of the order that may emerge in chaotic systems demands directed external effort; and (3) the chaotic processes in living nature that sometimes are turned into order are strongly influenced by the DNA programs of the organisms involved.

It turns out that an intelligent agent named Stanley Miller was the source of the directed external effort  which preserved the complex amino acids of the Miller-Urey experiment, and NOT unintelligent natural processes. But Miller’s role is hidden behind the curtain of atheist philosophy, much like the man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz. When it comes to the origin of life from more simple non-living matter, atheist philosophy must insist that we, “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!” 

Dean Overman also comments on this fatal blind spot of atheist philosophy. He does so in the context of responding to atheist biologist Richard Dawkins’ assertion that, since monkeys typing on typewriters could eventually produce a meaningful sentence, similar random processes could eventually produce a useful set of genetic instructions. As Overman points out, Dawkins startlingly  fails to notice that a useful piece of genetic code must be preserved  for it to be useful. But what preserves useful genetic code, thereby preventing it from being wiped away by the same natural forces which generated it in the first place? Only an intelligence with knowledge of what constitutes a useful sequence of genetic code has such a capability. Overman writes:

…For the monkey to preserve the correct letters in the sequence requires an assumed intelligence apart from and greater than the intelligence of the monkey. This intelligence must have knowledge of the letters which construct a meaningful sentence. Without such an intelligence, no principle exists for deciding which letters should be preserved. Natural selection does not qualify as such an intelligence, because it is a process, not something like an intelligent mind which knows the alphabet and the structure of a meaningful sentence. Dawkins cannot have it both ways. He cannot logically assert that a process without the characteristics of a mind has the characteristics of a mind and the knowledge required to ‘know’ which letters to preserve. Such an assertion fails because it assumes a self-contradiction. Cadit quaestio. [Latin for: “Case closed.”]

Your intuition is correct: Knowledge of what needs to be preserved requires a KNOWER

In short, our human intuition is correct when we sense that an intelligent agent (or a knower) is necessary to know which complex chemical compounds need to be preserved in order for life to emerge. Even atheist biologists such as Richard Dawkins cannot escape this powerful intuition. In his book The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins writes:

“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”

Douglas Axe, Professor of Molecular Biology at Biola University, eloquently explains how our intuition regarding the necessity of a knower (an intelligent agent possessing knowledge) is CORRECT when it comes to the origin of life, in his book Undeniable:

In our experience, skill always requires discernment—the ability to distinguish the right things from the wrong things and the right way from the wrong way—and discernment in turn requires knowledge. The moment we recognize this—that a project that requires knowledge has been completed—we immediately infer that one or more knowers must have been behind the work. This follows naturally from our design intuition.

Axe continues by citing the example of a robot designed to clean the floor of a swimming pool:

When we watch a pool robot do its work, we see that all its little actions add up to a completed whole project: the cleaning of a pool. We know that tackling such projects requires knowledge, and our design intuition tells us there’s no substitute for knowledge. But we don’t for a moment think the busy whole that did the work—the pool robot—knows anything. Instead, we recognize that the robot is the successful outcome of a much more impressive whole project, namely the design and manufacture of a working pool robot. The scores of busy wholes who contributed to that project were human beings: inventors, engineers, designers, machinists, assembly-line workers, project managers, and so on.

It is just that intense ideology requires atheist scientists such as Dawkins to ignore their intuition. Regarding this point, Norman Geisler and Frank Turek comment in their book I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be An Atheist:

Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA and another ardent Darwinist, agrees with Dawkins about the appearance of design. In fact, the appearance of design is so clear he warns that “biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” Crick’s little memo to biologists led Phillip Johnson, author and a leader in the Intelligent Design (ID) movement, to observe, “Darwinian biologists must keep repeating that reminder to themselves because otherwise they might become conscious of the reality that is staring them in the face and trying to get their attention.”

Seventeenth century British naturalist John Ray, considered to be the founder of modern biology, was really onto something when he wrote the following nearly 300 years ago:

“A wonder then it must be that there should be any man found so stupid and forsaken of reason as to persuade himself, that this most beautiful and adorned world was or could be produced by the fortuitous concourse of atoms.”

Our culture declares the stance that life emerged from unintelligent mechanisms to be “scientific,” whereas the stance that life emerged as the result of an intelligent agent is “religious.” But neither stance is either scientific or religious. Rather, both stances are meta-scientific (“meta” is the Greek word for after or beyond) or ontological (ontology is the branch of philosophy which discusses the nature of being), as I discuss in my post about the straw-man fallacy. As an excerpt from my post titled The Cultural Smokescreen Which Obscures God notes:

Like fish who do not realize they are swimming in water, we can easily fail to perceive the extent to which culture shapes, and often distorts, our perception of the world. In our culture, male babies wear blue, and female babies wear pink. And typically, only women wear skirts. But is there something intrinsically  feminine about skirts, or the color pink? No, there isn’t. In traditional Scottish culture, for example, men commonly wore skirts known as kilts. The idea that skirts and the color pink are feminine is something which our culture invented, but which has no intrinsic reason for being true. Conversely, giving birth is  intrinsically feminine.

cultural construct  is something which is arbitrarily determined by culture, but which doesn’t have any intrinsic or logical reason for being true. And the common view that belief in God is “religious,” whereas atheism and agnosticism are “non-religious” and “scientific” is a groundless cultural construct…every bit as much as the stance that pink is a feminine color. Despite being not culturally inclined towards theism, the Nobel-Prize winning, Harvard University biologist George Wald endorsed the meta-scientific stance that life is the result of an intelligent mind (read: God) when he wrote the following in his address to the Quantum Biology Symposium titled Life and Mind in the Universe:

“It has occurred to me lately—I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities—that both questions [the origin of mind and the origin of life from nonliving matter] might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality—the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create: science-, art-, and technology-making animals.”

When it comes to the origin of life debate, we aren’t in Kansas anymore, Toto.


  1. Chase says:

    Stop doing drugs, they’re not good for you and seem to have damaged your mind. Fake magic is real and real magic is fake. Because you can’t comprehend something is not a reason to leap into magic for the explanation. Your fake science (lack of understanding) does not appear to be anymore valid than your philosophy about it….and that’s all it is.

    • Ad Hominem fallacy
      Chase, this is yet another Ad Hominem (Latin for “to the person”) fallacy. A personal attack against the person making an argument (in lieu of a logically constructed rebuttal to his argument) demonstrates a withdrawal from rational discourse, and therefore a tacit acknowledgement that your stance cannot withstand logical scrutiny.

      Your logical fallacy is Ad Hominem

      A copy and paste from the above post:

      ad hominem

      You attacked your opponent’s character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument.

      Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone’s case without actually having to engage with it.

      Example: After Sally presents an eloquent and compelling case for a more equitable taxation system, Sam asks the audience whether we should believe anything from a woman who isn’t married, was once arrested, and smells a bit weird.

      Next, comparing belief in God to belief in magic commits the Argument from Incredulity fallacy. Argument from Incredulity

      A copy and paste from the above post about the logical fallacy of Argument from Incredulity:

      The popular fallacy of doubting or rejecting a novel claim or argument out of hand simply because it appears superficially “incredible,” “insane” or “crazy,” or because it goes against one’s own personal beliefs, prior experience or ideology. This cynical fallacy falsely elevates the saying popularized by Carl Sagan, that “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof,” to an absolute law of logic. The common, popular-level form of this fallacy is dismissing surprising, extraordinary or unfamiliar arguments and evidence with a wave of the hand, a shake of the head, and a mutter of “that’s crazy!”

      The important point is that, just because something lies outside or your belief system, doesn’t mean that it is “magic” or “superstition.” As an illustration, consider the story of the King of Siam, as reflected upon by Craig Keener in his book Miracles.

      Because the king lived in a tropical region, before the advent of mass communication and rapid transit, his perceptual framework did not allow for the possibility of frozen rivers. Hearing from Dutch visitors about riding horses on top of rivers that became so cold that they became hard like stone, this ruler “knew that the men were liars.” The king’s inference was a logical one based on the reality with which he was familiar. But one must not confuse reality itself with the reality with which one is familiar.

      The king responded with incredulity when the Dutch visitors told him about rivers that became hard enough for horses to walk on them. Because the king used his own perceptual framework (which was limited by his narrow experiences) to be the determinant of truth, he committed the logical fallacy of Argument from Incredulity.

      Similarly, when you use your own limited perceptual framework to be the determinant of truth, and thereby judge belief in God to “superstition” or “magic,” you commit this logical fallacy.

      Here is a simple fact: The natural universe (which includes the properties of space, time, matter, and energy) came into being at the cosmological event known as the Big Bang. Because it is a logical absurdity to suggest that something can cause itself, the cause of the universe must necessarily be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, and energy-less. Indeed, it would every bit as absurd to suggest that a person could give birth to himself as it would be to suggest that something within the natural universe could be the cause of the natural universe.

      Scientific confirmation of the universe’s beginning has caused much sorrow among scientists ideologically committed to atheism because, for centuries, most atheists have hung their hat on belief in an eternally existing universe in order to do away with God…no beginning, therefore no Beginner. Robert Jastrow is an astronomer, physicist, and the founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. As a self-described agnostic, Jastrow found the theistic implications of the Big Bang distasteful, yet inescapable. He therefore describes his realization of these theistic implications as “like a bad dream” in his book God and the Astronomers:

      “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

      And it is actually more than just theologians who have postulated God as the spaceless, timeless, immaterial, and energy-less cause for the universe. Physicist George Stanciu and philosopher Robert Augros provide an excellent nutshell explanation of why a mind (read: God) is the cause for the natural universe in their book The New Story of Science:

      “In the New Story of science the whole universe–including matter, energy, space, and time–is a one-time event and had a definite beginning. But something must have always existed; for if ever absolutely nothing existed, then nothing would exist now, since nothing comes from nothing. The material universe cannot be the thing that always existed because matter had a beginning. It is 12 to 20 billion years old. This means that whatever has always existed is non-material. The only non-material reality seems to be mind. If mind is what has always existed, then matter must have been brought into existence by a mind that always was. This points to an intelligent, eternal being who created all things. Such a being is what we mean by the term God.”

      Some readers may be inclined to think that a mind which exists independent of time, space, matter, and energy is just an ad hoc explanation, arbitrarily cooked up in the heads of religious folks. But such readers would be greatly mistaken. An immaterial conscious mind is required to explain the famous observer effect in physics. The observer effect refers to the conclusion of modern physics that, prior to observation by a conscious observer, particles exist only in an immaterial form known as a possibility wave (or probability wave). It is only after an observation is made by a conscious observer that these possibilities “collapse into actuality,” thereby taking on material form. Readers who find this bizarre or difficult to understand are in good company. Even the world’s most elite physicists are amazed and puzzled by the observer effect. But it has been repeatedly scientifically verified. (Please read Johns Hopkins University physicist Richard Conn Henry’s article The Mental Universe, and University of California, Berkeley physicist Henry Stapp’s book Mindful Universe for a more thorough exploration of this subject). Physicist Richard Conn Henry explains how people with atheistic leanings recoil at the clear theistic implications of modern physics:

      “Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the illusion of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism.” [“Solipsism” is defined as “the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.”]

      Indeed, the founder of quantum physics himself, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist Max Planck, was referring to a mind which exists independent of (and serves as the cause for) space, time, matter, and energy, when he wrote:

      “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”

      Planck also wrote:

      “As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”

      An atheist is free to cook up alternative explanations for a “mind [which] is the matrix of all matter,” in the above words of the founder of quantum physics. But, unless such an atheist can produce evidence, and a logical argument to support such an alternative, he has not produced a coherent counter explanation.

  2. You’re right–abiogenesis has no complete theory. But the problem with an argument like this is that when science does answer this question with sufficient confidence that the result can be called a scientific theory, you’ll just run off and point to a new unanswered question. You’ve made your position undefeatable, because there will always be unanswered scientific questions.

    But then, of course, your argument will simply be, “Science has unanswered questions; therefore, God,” which isn’t much of an argument.

    • Bob,

      I think you and I have been here before (several times). One of the fundamental deceits of atheist philosophy is that science “explains things.” Science only deals with the material level of causation. A complete description of material causes for life does not amount to an explanation for the origin of life. As an illustration, suppose we were able to describe in exacting detail every single aspect of how a Chevrolet Corvette is manufactured. Would this rule out the need for human agents (designers, engineers, plant workers) in the manufacturing of the Corvette? No, it wouldn’t, and to suggest as such would be a complete non-sequitur (does not follow). The two following statements commit the same category mistake because they confuse material causes with a complete explanation:

      “Life was not caused by God, but rather, by natural processes.”

      “Automobiles are not caused by people, but rather, by manufacturing processes.”

      The notion that greater understanding of the mechanisms behind the origin of life in the future will rule out the need for God is therefore fallacious. Indeed, the question of whether life was caused by unintelligent natural mechanisms or an intelligent agent is not a scientific question. Rather, it is a meta-scientific question which one can only answer by applying one’s reason to the facts at hand. Indeed, a person who receives an explanation from bare science should be just as concerned for his mental health as a person who receives an explanation from the walls of his house. DO NOT BE DECEIVED!…science cannot provide explanations, only people can. Questions such as whether or not life was created by an intelligence lie beyond or after science, and are therefore meta-scientific (meta is the Greek word for beyond or after), or ontological (ontology is the branch of philosophy which concerns the nature of being). Roy A. Varghese elaborates on this crucial point in The Wonder of the World:

      If we ask what are the laws that govern the universe, we are asking a scientific question. If we ask why does a structure of laws exist, we are asking an ontological question. The data of science can, of course, serve as the starting point for ontological study but that study will require ontological and not scientific tools.

      Now certain scientists might respond that they’re only interested in cold hard facts, not so-called meta-scientific or ontological ones. But it’s easy to show that even the most hard-headed experimentalist can’t get away from the ontological realm even for an instant. I ask:

      How do you determine that something is a “cold hard fact?” You make a mental estimate by weighing the evidence for and against, and you try to find out if the premises warrant the conclusion or if known facts support the hypothesis.

      All of these mental acts are ontological judgements. You can’t arrive at a judgement by pouring the facts into a test-tube or peering at them through an electron microscope. So even to do “hard” science, to generate, evaluate and categorize data, you need to go beyond hard facts and concrete reality.

      Just think about it…how would one support a claim such as, “We can only accept as true that which scientific experimentation and observation can tell us,” using nothing but scientific experimentation and observation? With a chemistry experiment involving a Bunsen burner and test tubes? With a biology experiment involving a microscope and a petri dish, perhaps? The very premise that “science alone can reach conclusions” is a conclusion that science alone cannot reach, and is therefore self-refuting. Belief that science alone can provide ultimate explanations is religious in nature, and is referred to by philosophers as scientism, as I elaborate upon in I Believe in Science! Why Do I Need Religion?.

      But science has provided us with air travel, amazing medicines, computers, and a whole list of other advances! Considering such facts, shouldn’t we just listen to what science has to tell us? In reply, Freeman Dyson, who holds the professorship in physics at Princeton University formerly held by Albert Einstein, comments in his 2011 essay How We Know, that the usefulness of scientific theories should not be confused with their truth:

      Among my friends and acquaintances, everybody distrusts Wikipedia and everybody uses it. Distrust and productive use are not incompatible. Wikipedia is the ultimate open source repository of information. Everyone is free to read it and everyone is free to write it. It contains articles in 262 languages written by several million authors. The information that it contains is totally unreliable and surprisingly accurate. It is often unreliable because many of the authors are ignorant or careless. It is often accurate because the articles are edited and corrected by readers who are better informed than the authors.

      …The public has a distorted view of science, because children are taught in school that science is a collection of firmly established truths. In fact, science is not a collection of truths. It is a continuing exploration of mysteries.

      …Science is the sum total of a great multitude of mysteries. It is an unending argument between a great multitude of voices. It resembles Wikipedia much more than it resembles the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

      Confusion of science and ontology absolutely permeates atheist thought. All logical arguments presented in favor of either theism or atheism are meta-scientific or ontological arguments which must be constructed upon what we currently know, not upon what scientific observation and experimentation may reveal some bright and shining day in the future. In point of fact, merely assuming atheism to be a default position, and suggesting that scientific observation may someday produce an argument for atheism, commits the logical fallacy of Argument from Ignorance. As the Wikipedia post for Argument from Ignorance notes, “Appeals to ignorance are often used to suggest the other side needs to do the proving. Rules of logic place the burden (responsibility) of proving something on the person making the claim.” And a statement such as, “God is not needed for the origin of life because unintelligent processes can perform this task” is a positive claim, not a mere lack of belief in God.

      Following are a few introductory pieces of evidence which lead to the meta-scientific conclusion that life was created by an intelligent agent (read: God):

      1) The genetic code (the language of life) uses symbolic representation in the most literal (not figurative or metaphorical) sense, as I describe in The Case for God is Not a Case of the God of the Gaps. Information science (not to mention everyday common sense) tells us that symbolic representation is BY NECESSITY the product of an intelligent agent, because what a symbol serves to represent is entirely arbitrary. For example, the letters C-A-T serve as a symbolic representation of a furry animal that purrs and meows only because the intelligent agents who created the English language arbitrarily assigned this meaning to this set of symbols. There is no chemical or physical relationship between these symbols and what they serve to represent, only a MENTAL relationship.

      2) Physicists and mathematicians are able to actually mathematically quantify the information content which natural laws are capable of producing, and it falls FAR FAR FAR short of the information content contained in the genetic code of even the simplest living thing. I delve into this topic in Darwinist Detective Work.

      Ok, Bob, now the ball is in your court. What pieces of evidence based on what we currently know from science can you use to reach the meta-scientific conclusion that life is the result of unintelligent natural mechanisms? Please note that, as I have explained above, an Appeal to Ignorance such as “we don’t know, but someday science will figure it out” does not work because science alone cannot figure out or explain anything.

  3. Chase200mph says:

    Formal reasoning is used to evaluate the form of an argument, and to examine the logical relationships between conclusions and their supporting assertions. Arguments are determined to be either valid or invalid based solely on whether their conclusions necessarily follow from their explicitly stated premises or assertions. That is, if the supporting assertions are true, must the conclusion also be true? If so, then the argument is considered valid and the truth of the conclusion can be directly determined by establishing the truth of the supporting assertions. If not, then the argument is considered invalid, and the truth of the assertions is insufficient (or even irrelevant) for establishing the truth of the conclusion. Now where does anything you post cover any of this??

    • It sounds like you would like my argument in the format of a syllogism:

      Premise 1) Life was either caused by an intelligent agent or by unintelligent natural mechanisms.

      Premise 2) Whatever caused life needs the ability to preserve the complex chemical compounds necessary for the origin of life, and also needs to be able to produce the information content codified in the genetic code.

      Premise 3) Unintelligent natural mechanisms do not have the ability to know what complex chemical compounds need to be preserved, nor the ability to perform any preservation.

      Premise 4) Unintelligent natural mechanisms are not capable of producing the information content necessary for producing the set of genetic instructions codified in the genetic code (as I discuss in Darwinist Detective Work).

      Premise 5) Therefore, unintelligent natural mechanisms are not capable of producing life from non-life.

      Conclusion) Life was caused by an intelligent agent.

      Chase, I would love to address any objections you have to the above argument, presented syllogistically.

      Scott

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *