Last week we wrote How Life Began — Problem Solved?, at the end of which we said: “It’s going to be fun to see the creationists’ reactions.”
The only reactions we’ve seen so far have been from the Discovery Institute. The very next day they wrote Origin-of-Life Claims: Triple Header or Strike Three?, which was so chaotic and bizarre that we ignored it. It was nothing more than a mindless spasm — quite understandable, given their claim that the origin of life is impossible by natural means.
But today they finally posted something we can read. It’s by Casey Luskin, our favorite creationist, and it’s titled “Solution” to an Origin of Life Puzzle Highlights the Need for Careful Planning by an Intelligent Investigator. Casey says, with bold font added by us:
Last week they … solved a major puzzle in the origin of life. Science reports that “Researchers may have solved origin-of-life conundrum,” claiming that a new paper in Nature Chemistry may show that many building blocks of life could have been created through organic chemistry on the early Earth.
It’s taken the Discoveroids a week to recover sufficiently to be able to post that. The origin of life is one of the key miracles attributed to their intelligent designer — blessed be he! — but if it’s something that can be shown to have a natural origin, then the entire rationale for their creationist cult is gone.
A possible origin of life by natural means is the one thing the Discoveroids hoped would never be discovered — at least in their lifetimes. It’s like spending the last 20 years of your life writing 900 page book titled “Why Hoffa’s Body Will Never Be Found,” and then, just as you submit the manuscript to your publisher, someone digs up his carcass. Let’s read on:
The Science report starts with what I’ve called in the past a “retroactive confession of ignorance.” What’s that? It is an admission that scientists didn’t know something — but suspiciously, these kinds of admissions come only after evolutionists think they have solved some problem. Not only do these make you wonder what unsolved evolutionary problems they’re refusing to admit right now, but the risk is that their “solution” itself won’t stand up to scrutiny. That would leave the confession twisting awkwardly in the wind.
Wow — that paragraph is a classic. Definitely a keeper. The rest of Casey’s post is long and dreary, but we found a couple of other gems within it. The way we’re going to excerpt them doesn’t give you the full context, but if you care to see his whole essay, it’s there for you. Okay, here’s another:
… I asked an organic chemist who has some experience with these sorts of experiments, and he indicated that their research involves far too much investigator meddling and planning for it to represent unguided natural processes: [quote omitted].
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! The “organic chemist” he checked with was probably Michael Behe. As for that chemist’s clunker about “investigator meddling” in lab work, we wrote about it long ago. It’s number three in our Ten Laws of Creationism, which we quote:
The Law of Reproducible Results: Anything found in nature was Designed, unless it can be reproduced in the lab. Corollary: Anything intentionally done in a lab is not natural; it’s a purposeful result. Therefore, all lab results are evidence of Intelligent Design.
Here’s more from Casey:
Indeed, if this mechanism did work then it would seem to be a stroke of incredibly good luck, as even the technical paper admits: [quote omitted]. Isn’t that fortunate — that the very molecules produced by these chemical pathways “turned out to work.” Moreover, the reactions had to be finely-tuned — they had to have just the right amount of UV light, etc., so as to allow the reactions to proceed forward but prevent degradation of the molecules.
Moreover, all that’s being created here are the precursors to monomers like amino acids and nucleotides. Assuming you could get those monomers, you would have to then form biomolecular polymers RNA and proteins — but forming polymers is a lot more complicated than one might expect. As I explained recently, forming proteins or RNA molecules requires dehydration synthesis — something extremely unlikely to occur under natural conditions: [Casey’s quote of his own writing is omitted].
Oooooooooh — it’s unlikely! Hey, that’s number 8 in our Ten Laws:
The Law of Supernatural Superiority: Whenever two explanations of a phenomenon are presented, one natural and one supernatural, the latter is always better. Naturalistic bias must be avoided.
Moving along in Casey’s essay:
And so the retroactive confessions of ignorance that have accompanied this paper remain, but the “solution” to the problem doesn’t really alleviate our ignorance. Indeed, nothing has been done yet by origin of life theorists to alleviate our ignorance of how to solve the information sequence problem.
Ooooooooooh — information! Verily, the origin of that magical substance remains a miracle. See Phlogiston, Vitalism, and Information.
Okay, that’s enough. Now you know that you can ignore the recent research. Casey has used his formidable intellect to show that life is impossible, therefore Oogity Boogity!
• • • • • • • • • • •
. . Permalink for this article