Definitions (Evolution)

by dhw, Thursday, April 03, 2008, 18:19 (5865 days ago) @ George Jelliss

Nothing raises atheist hackles more than the suggestion that atheism requires faith in chance. No doubt that is why George made every effort to underplay the role of chance in his own definitions, particularly of evolution and Darwinism. Notable absentees from his list were "abiogenesis" and "mutation" ... reference to the former was restricted to "the evolution of self-replicating molecules (i.e. the origin of life)", and the latter to "variations in the genetic characteristics". No mention of chance there. - The golfing tragedy would be described by most of us as an accident, i.e. an event "without any apparent cause, purpose or design". The golfer did not intend to mishit the ball, to knock it over the fence, or to hit the walker. The walker did not intend to be hit by the ball, to miss his step, or to fall off the cliff. What we have here is a chance combination, and once the different factors come together, the laws of nature do indeed go into operation. The grand, natural finale would not have taken place, however, without that initial chance combination of factors. - It's exactly the same with the origin of life as George describes it. This requires "the coming together of the appropriate chemical components in a suitable environment, this requires a certain amount of chance..." Let's stop there. It is precisely this "certain amount of chance" that I am referring to. Without the chance combination (an event or series of events, following your step by step scenario, without apparent cause, purpose or design), there would have been no life ... and this is not a minor matter to be skated over. The combination of those chemical factors is something so complex that scientists still haven't figured out how it could possibly happen. They can't reproduce it ... and even if they could, that would be the result of a conscious, intelligent procedure and not an unconscious groping in the dark. George continues: "once all the necessary factors are in position the laws of chemical reaction take over and it may be that the process thereafter is as inevitable as falling off a cliff." You are right. Once all the necessary factors for producing life are in position, life may be produced. You might just as well say that if you get six correct numbers in the lottery, you may become a millionaire. The chance combination comes first, and without it you have nothing. - All my dictionaries and reference books give "spontaneous generation" as an alternative name for "abiogenesis", but none of our contributors have ever used it. Personally, I find it a clearer description. Why is it a silly jibe? - I thought my statement that abiogenesis is "a cornerstone of atheism" was self-evident, but since for some reason you have taken that too as a jibe, perhaps it needs further explanation. If you do not genuinely believe in the spontaneous self-generation of life through that initial, so far inexplicable chance combination of chemical components, how can you discount the possibility that life originated through design? (Just "possibility" ... the agnostic, not the theist position.) My point, very simply, is that rejection of the theory of design is essential to atheism (= disbelief in the existence of a god, i.e. a designer), and you can only reject it if you believe that in the beginning there was no design (= abiogenesis).