I always find it amusing when misguided people try and use logic to prove the existence of that which does not exist. The latest attempt comes from Canada Free Press (!). Shall we gloss over the obvious failings of this article (there are many, like assuming that all reproduction is reliant on two genders, certain organs, which just isn’t true)? I could pick apart every argument he clumsily puts forward, but quite frankly we’ve all been down this path before, and it’s not a challenge, nor is it entertaining. I encourage you to take up the opportunity in the comments though.
Let’s look at the crux of the article’s argument.
No one in their right mind would claim that 10,000 hundred story buildings built themselves from randomness, even over time. Yet those who doubt the existence of a Creator believe that an entire universe, containing all of the billions of elements necessary for life to form, may have come about without a builder. As such, they give credence to billions of times more coincidences to having come about.
Now clearly, I am an Atheist. And I know many other Atheists. Yet I’ve never heard any of them claim that buildings can build themselves. Likewise, we don’t claim that humans have built themselves. The above quote really belies the author’s complete lack of understanding of evolution. It would appear that the author’s intention is to argue that the sheer complexity of the universe means that it cannot have happened randomly. Something must have sparked this surge of life. And that something must be “The Creator”. What isn’t clear is how a being so complex that they can create a universe of this complexity was created themselves. And how the being that created that being was created? if you assume that anything of any complexity must have been created, there really is no beginning. It’s one of the most flawed, illogical, self-defeating arguments I’ve ever had the misfortune of stumbling across (thank you Richard Dawkins!).
And by the way, if the Author doesn’t realize that the opening line alone means that he’s floated into the land of Personal Incredulity, he should read some real books. Not the hokum pokum the exploitative Anthony Flew churned out.
So what do we have on the other side of the argument? I was fascinated to read in New Scientist about experiments that have shown bacteria making massive evolutionary hurdles in just 44,000 generations. To be clear, these bacterium have evolved to a point where they have lost one of the limitations that effectively defined them as a species. It would appear that the seeds were sown as early as the 20,000th generation, which is a truly remarkable find. What makes this even more remarkable is the fact that this has been reproduced. It’s evolution “on-tap”.
Both pieces of news came across my inbox the same day, and really serve as a microcosm of the two sides of the argument. On the one side we have the religious, regurgitating the same old flawed, defeated, arguments in new and badly written diatribes. On the other side we have science. Tests, experiements, results and reproducable scenarios. The absurdity of the fact that such a so-called argument even exists is clearly evident.