Last Update: 15 Aug 00

Return to "Evolution vs. Creationism" essay


You seem unable to separate the individual particles themselves from their various combinations.
(R) Not at all. Quite the contrary. The basis of biology and chemistry is molecules, not atoms. You are implying that it is the latter, when we both know it is the former. You are the one attempting to blur the distinction between the atomic and molecular level. At the latter level, there is a distinction between living and nonliving things (living molecules are much more complex and organized in general).
(MB) Sorry, but you're choosing to begin the process at too high a level. While it is true that biology and chemistry deal with molecular events, those molecules are *still* composed of atomic and subatomic particles -- which was my focus.
    Additionally, there's no such thing as a "living molecule". It takes far more than one molecule to produce anything that can be described as "living" -- unless, of course, the meaning of "living" is greatly trivialized to include all things which contain any number of "living" molecules. This will necessarily run into problems when considering carbon compounds which may contain such molecules but are most assuredly not "alive".
    So, the problem still remains. How do you want to define "living"? It can't be purely a molecular complexity issue, since there are tremendously complex non-living molecules.

Living things are just different combinations of the same particles which also combine to make non-living things. If you disagree, what unique addition(s) can be found in living things?.
(R) We've circled back to my original point. The answer is information and organiations to a level of specified complexity. The complexity is neccessary to generate life's processes, reproduction and digestion, among others. These cannot be done randomly. They require a specific set of pathways, vary small in comparison to the random set available. In fact so small, their isn't once chance in the history of the universe that they could have been or will be generated.
(MB) Unless, of course, you understand that "randomness" is not an issue in the building of such molecules. Chemistry is not a random process. Atoms and molecules can only join together in a relatively few ways. Since there are so many molecules in the universe, the laws of chemistry and physics suggest that they should easily be able to form anything that does not violate those laws. An understanding of the self-assembling chemical nature of certain molecules is the key here -- not any bogus probabilities.

The very fact that you and I are having this conversation is conclusive proof that you are wrong. This is true whether or not you believe in a natural or a supernatural origin of life.
(R) With this we close. You are a faithful, religious man. This is a very basic statement of your faith. No amount of empirical evidence to the contrary will disuade you from your beliefs, because this is your foundational dogma. So we are done.
(MB) Don't confuse "religious faith" with "scientific confidence". The former is based on emotion alone while the latter requires evidential support. I will believe absolutely *anything* that has compelling evidential support -- no matter how distasteful I might find it or what previous ideas I would have to discard.
    Religion has no evidence to support its ideas. Science has more than I could ever study in a lifetime. Therefore, the choice between them when looking for answers is ridiculously easy. If you have any empirical evidence whatsoever to support the religious view, please bring it up. I won't hold my breath, however, since I know that there is none to bring up. If any existed, Creationists would be all over it instead of concentrating solely on futile attacks against science.
    The religious adherent can only rarely be converted by evidence because his beliefs are not based upon evidence. He believes what makes him feel better. That may produce peace of mind but, as the saying goes, it's a lousy way to run a railroad. Another saying tells us that "ignorance is bliss", but only the religious adherent is blissful in his ignorance. Will this dissuade you from *your* beliefs?

Created with Allaire HomeSite 4.5 .......... Last Update: 15 Aug 00
Go to next reply

Return to "Evolution vs. Creationism" essay

Back to Philosophy page