CD Rogers chemist and ex-associate professor of organic chemistry wrote an Op-ed in today’s (22/11/2010) Natal Mercury http://www.themercury.co.za/attacking Darwin’s theory of Evolution: I quote the last three paragraphs only as I cannot find the link for it.
It is obvious then that natural evolution of first life is statistically impossible and then it follows that it required an 'intelligent designer'; Darwinian evolution does not even get past the first hurdle.
As each tenet of evolution comes under fire, it seemed ironic that it has been advances in science that are responsible.
As intelligent design gains credibility, one now needs faith to be an atheist.
and earlier on the former atheist said:
...evolution and atheism were the only reasonable and intellectually sound 'faiths' to have.
All this changed five years ago when a young doctor challenged me to prove evolution was fact. As startling literature, she gave me Ralph Muncaster's book [i]"A Skeptic's Search for God"[/i]....
I cannot comment on the technical stuff and conclusion he's come to and wondered whether anyone here could provide some comment.
I can’t comment on the technical stuff either, but what I do know is this:
I do not think there is any evidence to support a claim such as “As intelligent design gains credibility…” and, regarding the statement: “All this changed five years ago when a young doctor challenged me to prove evolution was fact.” Just because there are gaps in our knowledge about how exactly we came to be here, is not sufficient evidence for me to say - oh that must mean god did it. Lack of sufficient evidence for evolution does not constitute sufficient evidence for the existence of god.
Darwinian evolution does not even get past the first hurdle
Evolution doesn't deal with this hurdle. And we don't call it "evolution" as he slyly implies above - we call it abiogenesis. And it happened. Whether magically or naturally. However life started, even if by godditit, evolved afterwards it did.
As intelligent design gains credibility, one now needs faith to be an atheist.
In what universe is ID gaining credibility???
Brian, the guy is a twat and he clearly is clueless.
Cyghost I fully agree he’s a twat but I would like to f… him up in a response but don’t have the ammunition or the credibility (not that he has), so if someone with this can do it it’d be great. He got enormous exposure: a total of 732 col/cms. The book I quoted deals with abiogenesis and he says that zero progress has been made in explaining how first life began…they had no clue…FFS. It’s this type of shit that requires a serious OP ED with someone like Hitchens/Dawkins or even our own George Claassen…
He is making elementary mistakes. Mistakes even our dear old teleo don’t make any more. And his claim that ID is gaining credibility is laughable. Ask him to back that up with some data
It would also be helpful to know which specific “tenet[ s ] of evolution” Rogers thinks have “[ come ] under fire” through “advances in science.” As cyghost has pointed out, abiogenesis doesn’t fall within the ambit of evolutionary theory; it is a problem of biophysics and biochemistry. As tenets of evolution, “descent with modification” and “[ natural ] selection” stand as firm today as they ever did – unless Rogers has some brand new information that has yet to permeate the biological sciences.
As Lilli has already pointed out. Even if they did disprove evolution, this would in no way prove goddidit, and particularly doesn’t prove their {particular flavour of god}didit.
Also there seems to be an idea among theists that if they simply disprove evolution then all atheists would suddenly have no room for being atheist.
As if there are only two options available: evolution or theism (and of course their particular brand of theism too). There were atheists before evolution, and if evolution were to be proved wrong (extremely unlikely considering the enormous amount of evidence for it), there would be atheists after it.
It does make me think their faith isn’t too strong if they have to attack truth of evolution so vigorously, as if they had to accept it, they would have to become atheists themselves.
Anyway I can’t read the article, it wants me to log in, so I can’t comment on it (besides I’m not that clued up on the topic), but the arguments rarely change from what I’ve seen, I’m sure that talkorigins linked below will answer most, if not all of the claims made.
Also, this guy is completely ignoring the numerous Christians who believe in evolution. I have to be fair to them, in my experience, it’s only the odd hard-liner that will try to assault evolution as fictitious. Most moderates accept evolution as some kind of divinely inspired process. Which kinda breaks this guys’ point completely.
As if there are only two options available: evolution or theism (and of course their particular brand of theism too). There were atheists before evolution, and if evolution were to be proved wrong (extremely unlikely considering the enormous amount of evidence for it), there would be atheists after it.
@ DNA That’s exactly what he positing:
Muncaster argues that this first living cell either started by a chance,random,natural process (evolution), or by some sort of purposeful, supernatural, intelligent design (creationism). There was no third way.
He (Rogers) then carries on analysing Muncaster’s statistical analysis (this immediately becomes suspicious) to prove it impossible to produce the first cell by random chance.
He used five ‘logical’ steps:
Cell components must form and gather
components with the correct specifications must appear in the same place at the same time
Correct components must be properly assembled
Destructive elements present must not overwhelm cell assembly
Cell assembly must be energised with life
Quoting Sir Frederick Hoyle:
“the likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40 thousand zeros. It is enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution”
he omits Hoyle’s theory of evolution from space or his reputation among evolutionists e.g. Hoyle’s fallacy))
argumentum in absurdum?
Actually, it’s more properly known as “argument by being a wilful numbskull.” As the talkorigins article makes plain, Hoyle’s (and similar) counters to abiogenesis are flawed because they incorrectly assume that all of the various components and mechanisms of a functioning cell must have come into existence at the same time in the same place, an ill-informed assumption of which cretinists and IDiots have yet to divest themselves. Nor are they likely to do so, given their morbid attraction for straw men.
Also, atheism and divine cretinism/IDiocy are not the only options. An intelligent designer need not be a deity. It’s just that Rogers and his ilk will then ask who designed this designer, but never admit that the same question about their divine interlocutor is equally valid. They’ll try to baffle you with ex recto (Ta, cyghost) fabrications like “necessarily existent being” and similar semantic abracadabra.
With a little help from my friends >:D 8), I posted this article to The Mercury. Thanks for your contributions. I’ll keep you posted on responses, if any.
[quote]Your Op Ed of November 22, 2010 by CB Rogers cannot go unchallenged.
The argument that “the tenet’s of evolution have come under fire due to advances in science and now Darwinian evolution does not get past the first hurdle” is absurd and demands peer reviewed references instead of dated arguments by persons such as Sir Frederick Hoyle (refer for example to Hoyle’s Fallacy) and Ralph Muncaster, a well-known Christian, anti-evolution campaigner, neither of whom have any credibility whatsoever in the scientific community.
It would be helpful to know which specific “tenets of evolution” Rogers thinks have “come under fire” through “advances in science.” The fact that abiogenesis doesn’t fall within the ambit of evolutionary theory is conveniently ignored by Rogers; it is a problem of biophysics and biochemistry. In addition, there is no evidence to support a claim such as “As intelligent design gains credibility…” in which sphere of society is this credibility growing? Lack of sufficient evidence for evolution does not constitute sufficient evidence for the existence of god. Rogers’ argument to this effect is not only disingenuous but fundamentally flawed. As tenets of evolution, “descent with modification” and “natural selection” stand as firm today as they ever did – unless Rogers has some brand new information that has yet to permeate the biological sciences.
Hoyle’s (and similar) counters to abiogenesis are flawed because they incorrectly assume that all of the various components and mechanisms of a functioning cell must have come into existence at the same time in the same place, an ill-informed assumption of which cretinists and IDiots have yet to divest themselves.
Also there seems to be an idea among theists that if they simply disprove evolution then all atheists would suddenly have no room for being atheist as if there are only two options available: evolution or theism (and of course their particular brand of theism too); an argument posited by Rogers in his article, as well. There were atheists before evolution, and if evolution were to be proved wrong (extremely unlikely considering the enormous amount of evidence for it), there would be atheists after it.
The article by Rogers indeed requires faith as it lacks scientific rigour and fails dismally in logic. It is a pathetic attempt to discredit Darwin and more significantly atheism.
Oh, you can be sure that if The Mercury publishes your retort, there will be no end of ignorant dopes leaping to the defence of their marginally less ignorant advocate Rogers. All he manages to demonstrate is that occupying an academic post is no failsafe guarantee against propounding absurdities and non sequiturs. Also, they probably won’t publish any further letters of yours on this particular topic in order to avoid it becoming an ongoing discussion.
BTW, I see you’ve left my “cretinists and IDiots” intact. If they publish it, they’ll probably edit that out by reason of some misplaced sense of political correctness.
(Emphasis aded.) Ooopsie, that only struck me too late. Fred Hoyle was a well-respected astronomer (and sometimes mathematician and Sci-Fi writer), so it would be wrong to say of him that he has no “credibility whatsoever in the scientific community.” As indicated, his objection to abiogenesis (as being a statistical improbability of such magnitude to render the spontaneous generation of life practically impossible) is premised on a conspicuously faulty conception. However, Hoyle can rightly be said not to have had “any credibility whatsoever in the biological sciences community.” Let’s hope that it’s understood that way.
Wow! I’m learning great new things here. What an argument! ;D
That and cyggie & Mefiante’s “ex recto”, which is classic.
I remember thoroughly enjoying Hoyle’s Andromeda novels many decades ago, but it does seem his biological science was a tad or two off the mark. Seems his religious preconceptions got in the way of good science.
