Answers in Genesis on Primordial Soup

THIS is yet another follow-up to Hot Primordial Soup News which we posted a couple of days ago about a new theory that life a rose from chemical energy in hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor, rather than beginning in a “primordial soup” of organic molecules in the ocean.

We already gave you the Discoveroid reaction: Klinghoffer Jokes about Primordial Soup. Now we have a comment from Answers in Genesis (AIG), one of the major sources of creationist wisdom.

AIG’s response to the primordial soup news appears in their latest weekly news summary: News to Note, February 6, 2010. That’s the feature where they bring us “news from the biblical viewpoint.”

The first item at that link is: New Research Rejects 80-Year Theory of ‘Primordial Soup’ as the Origin of Life. Most of what they say is a repeat of the news which you already know. We’ll skip that. Our excerpts will be from their introduction of the topic, and then their conclusion. The bold font was added by us:

Although Darwinists have not yet established how life could have arisen from non-life, they often make vague references to a “primordial soup” as the progenitor of the first life. They suppose that the soup contained the right pre-biotic chemicals and that an external source of energy transformed a spoonful of it into a self-reproducing entity.

Yeah, those scientists are crazy. Oogity Boogity is a much more logical explanation.

Anyway, AIG then describes the news of the latest theory. After that they conclude with this:

It seems that evolutionists themselves have done an excellent job finding problems with other evolutionists’ origin-of-life tales. None of the speculative ideas, however, have explained away the need for a leap of faith — to believe that just the right molecules organized in just the right way by chance, assembling themselves into an organism capable of reproducing itself.

AIG is a young-earth creationist outfit, and they don’t like leaps of faith? Since when? Anyway, they raise the “improbability” objection. We’ve dealt with that extensively in a three-part essay that starts here: The Inevitability of Evolution (I). You’ve probably seen it before, so we’ll give only one brief excerpt:

This kind of argument — which is essentially saying “I don’t believe it!” — could be employed against more than evolution. A creationist could look at the current totality of English history, or the biosphere, or whatever, and impulsively exclaim that it’s “impossible” for such to have occurred without outside guidance. But is it really?

If England is impossible, so of course is the rest of human history. So are you, because the innumerable events leading to your conception are vast beyond comprehension. Everything is impossible to such a mentality. At what point does reductio ad absurdum intervene to put an end to this nonsense? “Never,” replies the creationist.

We’ll resist quoting ourselves again, but you might check out what we say about “the odds” in part 3 of that series. We wrote that a while ago, and we still like it.

Anyway, now you’ve heard from AIG. They really don’t care what the new theory says, or whether it’s better than the old theory. They reject it because they insist that the odds are against life’s appearing by any natural means. That’s their position and they’re sticking to it. Well, why not? They’re creationists.

Hey, we have a reply AIG: If you guys think the appearance of life is so improbable, let’s consider another improbability — Uranus. No, this isn’t a joke. We’re really talking about the seventh planet. There it is, way out there, big and blue. It has a specific composition and mass. It’s got some recently-discovered rings and a bunch of moons. Okay, what are the odds against Uranus’ being where it is, what it is, with all those moons and stuff? Huh? Huh?? What are the odds?

See how it works? Using creationist logic, it’s not just life — everything is impossible. So the next time a creationist claims the odds against life or evolution “prove” that it’s a miracle, you can respond: “Oh yeah? So’s Uranus!”

Update: See Institute for Creation Research on Primordial Soup.

Copyright © 2010. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

2 responses to “Answers in Genesis on Primordial Soup

  1. “and they don’t like leaps of faith?”

    As a matter of fact, I think they *love* leaps of faith. I think that their statement “None of the speculative ideas, however, have explained away the need for a leap of faith” is saying, “You MUST use a ‘leap of faith’ to explain this because it’s otherwise impossible”. Especially with such “speculative” ideas as, ya know, someone who has actual evidence and testable ideas. We’re parsing creationist logic (oxymoron?), so we could be talking ourselves in circles.
    Just like they do.

  2. This is what the Discoveroids do! They take pieces of stories to try to prove their defective biblical theories ( to try to prove their defective bible) and they never mention that new research, based on updated information, has perhaps, led to a better explanation of the way things really are . Yeah, Discoveroids… Rhymes with Hemorroids… [edited]