Institute for Creation Research on Primordial Soup

OUR happiness is complete. This is probably our last follow-up to Hot Primordial Soup News which we posted over a week 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. Then we gave you Answers in Genesis on Primordial Soup, the view of one of the major sources of creationist wisdom.

Now, just in time for your weekend, we have feedback from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — truly the fountainhead of creationist wisdom. They have this fine new article at their website: Critique of ‘Primordial Soup’ Vindicates Creation Research. Here are some excerpts, to which we’ve added bold font for emphasis:

Where, when, and how did life arise on earth? These questions have intrigued mankind for centuries. Evolutionary theorists have tried to answer them, but without definitive success. And now even their prized “primordial soup” recipe has failed them. Where can they turn next?

Yes, it’s all collapsing around us. Let’s read on:

In the 19th century, French chemist Louis Pasteur conducted repeatable experiments that demonstrated the impossibility of life arising spontaneously from non-life [footnote to an ICR article]. Although he is widely credited with disproving “spontaneous generation,” some theorists simply added imaginary long spans of time to that general idea and re-branded it “chemical evolution.” This holds that life on earth started in a “primordial soup” of chemicals and then evolved over millions of years into the life forms observed today.

Louis Pasteur? Aaaargh!! That ancient creationism is addressed in the Index to Creationist Claims. For a more detailed discussion, see: Spontaneous Generation and the Origin of Life. We continue:

[A] new report has finally faced the fact that chemicals do not evolve in soup.

Aaaargh!! Here’s more:

The belief that life arose solely through natural processes is not based on scientific observation, but on the atheistic logic of naturalism. It stands to reason that since humans are here, then “those who deny the Creator’s existence must believe [spontaneous generation] happened once upon a time.” [Footnote to an ICR article.]

Doncha love it when creationists presume to explain the errors in your thinking? Moving along:

Science clearly points to a supernatural cause for life, but the atheistic worldview denies the supernatural. So, no matter how unscientific the primordial soup hypothesis was proved to be, it remained a prominent fixture in public school biology textbooks because it fit a particular preconception — and because evolutionary theory didn’t have anything better to offer.

Stubborn atheistic worldview! Now ICR asks an important question:

So, why is it that soup-denying scientific observations ― which creation advocates have been pointing to for so long, like the instability of RNA in soup, and the destructive power of ultraviolet light and oxygen ― are now permitted a voice in an evolutionary journal?

Let’s see what ICR thinks the reason is:

It is because Lane and his colleagues were able to suggest another purely naturalistic possibility. Instead of primordial soup, they presented “the alternative that life arose from gases (H2, CO2, N2, and H2S) and that the energy for first life came from harnessing geochemical gradients created by mother Earth at a special kind of deep-sea hydrothermal vent.”

ICR figured it out! The new proposal is a scientifically testable idea, and that’s why it’s published in a credible journal. But ICR isn’t fooled by that. They say:

Even if “primordial soup” gets replaced with a “primordial vent,” science will continue to demonstrate that a theory of life coming about in the absence of a living Creator falls short of reality.

Ka-powie! And here’s the stunning conclusion:

Why have scientific critiques coming from those who suggest God as an alternative source for life not been published in the standard scientific journals? As demonstrated by this new study, it is not due to the quality of the science, but to how well the proposed alternative fits into the particular belief system of the scientific elite. Censorship never leads to good science.

So that’s the story on primordial soup. Those horrible scientists, despite their doubts about the primordial soup theory (for which no one was Expelled, by the way), still won’t accept The Truth of Oogity Boogity.

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

11 responses to “Institute for Creation Research on Primordial Soup

  1. “Why have scientific critiques coming from those who suggest God as an alternative source for life not been published in the standard scientific journals?”

    What kind of “scientific critique” could they add? “No, you’re wrong, God did it”? Somehow that seems like a discussion-ender and adds nothing to our understanding of the universe.

  2. Ka- powie! Oogity boogity!!!! Goddidit!!!!!!!!!!!

    LOL!!!

  3. Why do creationists pant like dogs near a bitch in heat when it comes to attempting to use the latest scientific findings to discredit the process of using the scientific method to discover what is true?

    If science is so misguided, why use its findings at all? Oh, that’s right: because behind all the broken thinking and empty assertions that informs the highly touted oogity boogity hypothesis, even the reptilian brain of discoveroids grasps that science is a tool for gaining knowledge about what’s true.

  4. help my logic circuits are broken

    “atheistic logic”

    For example, the following atheistic logic is flawed:
    1. A implies B but there is no God
    2. B implies C but there is no God
    3. Therefore, though I deny God, A implies C, though there is no God

    Corrected, monotheistic logic:
    1. God implies A, B; not C. D.’s E.
    2. Also, his messenger

    Dangerous polytheistic logic:
    1. Jupiter implies A
    2. Adramelech implies B
    3. Minerva implies C

    903. Lord of the Dance implies S(34 primes)

    Confusing pantheistic logic:
    1. A implies B
    2. B implies A
    3. It all just is, ok

    Agnostic logic:
    1. I dunno

    Actually, those kinda sucked. Somebody make a better list.

  5. help, started drinking a little early, did we? Oris this copied off a Dr. Bronner’s soap?

  6. Actually I think the atheist logic would go like this:

    A implies B
    B implies C
    therefore A implies C
    I didn’t see god in there? Did you?

  7. Albanaeon says: “Actually I think the atheist logic would go like this …”

    Nope. It goes like this:

    1. Logic works.
    2. Therefore the bible is true.

    See: Creationism and Logic.

    Ooops! I thought you meant creationist logic.

  8. Shame on you Curdge! Misreading and misresponding to posts is MY job…

  9. help my logic circuits are broken

    When is early?

    re albanaeon: “I didn’t see god in there? Did you?”
    Hence the rejection of god since if there is no direct reference to god, it must be an attempt to deny him and is immoral and atheistic etc. etc.

  10. Uh no. The atheist’s position is often there is no evidence so we aren’t going to behave like there is. When there is evidence, we’ll change our minds. Pretty simple and not in the least bit immoral. I am not entirely sure HOW it could be immoral since it has no detrimental effect on anyone. Before you try to bring up some BS de-humanizing or Nazi’s or something, try to keep in mind that an atheist’s moral choices are the same as a theist’s, we just don’t accept that there are supernatural consequences, only natural ones.

  11. help my logic circuits are broken

    “The atheist’s position is often there is no evidence so we aren’t going to behave like there is.”

    Are you seriously suggesting that is what the ICR meant by “atheistic logic”?