Quest for a Creatorless Origin of Life - 22

Last time we saw how the author in his book, The Ancestor’s Tale, based his “tale” on an acceptance, firstly of the evolutionary development of species through a succession of forms, and, secondly of the cause of that evolution being errors in transmission of the genetic code from one generation to another. He refers to the Canterbury Tales project as a good illustration of how evolution of organisms occurs.

In the case of the Canterbury Tales, there is no doubt that human error was the cause of many differences among the manuscripts. But it is also true that there was some revising in the form of additions or changes. Unlike evolution of the species, each revision was the result of Chaucer’s design to enhance the Tale. The change was the result of deliberate effort and thought process.

This shows the lack of validity in the claim that “so similar are the techniques and difficulties in DNA evolution and literary text evolution, that each can be used to illustrate the other” - p. 159. In fact, the starting point in the notion of DNA evolution is the assumption that succeeding generations of an organism evolved into a different form of life. The difference between genomes - the genetic structure of an organism - of differing species are interpreted as having occurred at a time taken from the imaginary time-scale which was built by the evolutionists.

It is not uncommon to hear from a biologist about the wonderful design they have seen in their detailed study of an organism. Design, which is defined as “a plan or scheme conceived in the mind” demands a Designer. The Creator of that organism clearly possesses super-human abilities, not only designing that single organism, but that of the entire community of plants and animals in that habitat.

The author has shown elsewhere his attitude towards any belief in a supernatural Creator, i.e., The Blind Watchmaker (1986), where he argues that the evident design in nature can be explained by evolution. Twenty years later he went further to publish The God Delusion (2006), presenting a range of arguments against the existence of God, and criticizing religion in general.

The preference is rather to believe in the “natural selection” of those error-produced mutations in organisms - that only those individuals with the best ability to survive and reproduce in their particular environment will survive, and all the rest will not. Note that this a belief, not a fact which has been demonstrated by scientific testing, whose report have been subjected to rigorous peer review.

Blind faith has been placed in a latter-day replacement of Aristotle’s doctrine of vitalism - an attribute or property of nature in which every living thing was permeated with a “life force” which was inherently different from the forces actuating on inanimate matter.

That modern faith is in emergence. Some scientists have been looking for a fundamental law of nature that describes the emergence of complex ordered systems, including every living cell, from simpler components. A concentrated effort to formulate a precise definition of emergence with a useful mathematical formulation has been unsuccessful, and so it remains a blind faith.

Our appeal to all, including Richard Dawkins, is to read the Bible for yourself - it would be “folly to answer a matter before he hears (or reads) it” - Proverbs 18:13, when it promises that those with the humility to do so can be among “the meek” who “shall inherit the earth.”