The Discovery Institute is descending deeper into the bottomless pit of creationism. Their latest blog post (by Klinghoffer, of course) is Marcos Eberlin: Chicken-and-Egg Questions Suffuse Life, Pointing to Intelligent Design. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:
Here’s another good question to ask the next Darwinist you meet: Explain the causal circularity that suffuses life.
Circularity? What’s he talking about? He explains:
Distinguished chemist Marcos Eberlin is the author of the new book Foresight: How the Chemistry of Life Reveals Planning and Purpose [Amazon listing], which carries an impressive three endorsements from Nobel Prize-winning scientists. He explains in a great article up now at The Stream [a Discoveroid-friendly website], “The Chicken-and-Egg Problem Is Everywhere in Biology.”
Lordy, lordy. That’s one of the oldest creationist clunkers, and it’s not surprising. Eberlin is a Discoveroid fellow-traveler — see Discoveroids Triumph Over Adversity. Wikipedia has an article on Chicken or the egg. They say:
The question represents an ancient folk paradox addressing the problem of origins and first cause. … By the end of the 16th century, the well-known question seemed to have been regarded as settled in the Christian world, based on the origin story of the Bible. In describing the creation of animals, it allows for a first chicken that did not come from an egg. However, later enlightenment philosophers began to question this solution.
Although the question is typically used metaphorically, evolutionary biology provides literal answers, made possible by the Darwinian principle that species evolve over time, and thus that chickens had ancestors that were not chickens, similar to a view expressed by the Greek philosopher Anaximander when addressing the paradox. If the question refers to eggs in general, the egg came first. The first amniote egg — that is, a hard-shelled egg that could be laid on land, rather than remaining in water like the eggs of fish or amphibians — appeared around 312 million years ago.
Let’s get back to Klinghoffer. He thinks the Chicken-and-Egg problem is a big one for biology. He tells us:
The chicken reference is not just a metaphor. The problem of a baby chicken and its egg is the “archetypal example” of a conundrum that unguided evolution is powerless to solve. [Gasp!]
If your Darwinist brain is unable to understand what Klinghoffer is saying, he puts it in simple terms for you:
It takes the form: “To get A we need B, but to get B we first need A. We can’t have one without the other. To get both together, we need foresight — an engineer capable of planning for the future.” In biology, there are many A’s, and many B’s.
Are you beginning to grasp the enormity of the problem? Good! Klinghoffer continues:
Other examples he describes: the structure of cell membranes, and the relationship between DNA and RNA and proteins. Both are at the foundation of life. The phenomenon of causal circularity is a “circle that points” to intelligent design. Read the rest over at The Stream.
Please, dear reader, when you comment on this, let’s not have any jokes based on a crude meaning of “stream.” And now we come to the end:
You could pose the question to one of our Darwinist critics and see if you can get a meaningful reply. As Dr. Eberlin advises, don’t be satisfied with handwaving or question-begging explanations. Nor, I would add, with the usual snarky put-downs that pass for responses.
Klinghoffer has given us is a crude version of the “first cause” argument — one of the five proofs of Thomas Aquinas. Go ahead, dear reader — read them all. They will lead you to Yahweh a/k/a the Intelligent Designer — blessed be he!
Copyright © 2019. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.