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.
[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.