Abiogenesis: The Holy Grail of Atheism
By Michael David Rawlings
March 6, 2011
Years of experience have shown me that most atheists are more obtuse than a pile of bricks. They are either breezily unaware of their metaphysical biases or are unwilling to objectively separate themselves from them long enough to engage in a reasonably calm and courteous discussion about the tenets of their religion: namely, abiogenesis and evolution. While science's historical presupposition is not a
metaphysical naturalism (or an
ontological naturalism), most of today's practicing scientists insist that the composition of empirical phenomena must be inferred without any consideration given to the possibility of intelligent causation. The limits of scientific inquiry are thereby reconfigured as if they constituted the limits of reality itself, the more expansive potentialities of human consciousness be damned. In other words, if something cannot be readily quantified by science, it doesn't exist, regardless of the conclusions that any rational evaluation of the empirical data might recommend. Hence, should one reject what is nothing more than the guesswork of an arbitrarily imposed apriority, one is said to reject science itself, as if the fanatics of scientism owned the means of science.
The Rest
Warning: this article attempts to address the philosophical/theological implications of what is currently known from the findings of research in the field of prebiotic chemistry; hence, it is posted in the religious forum rather than the science forum. On the other hand, with regard to the scientific aspects of the article, the research was vetted by experts in the fields of biochemistry and microbiology, by friends, both ID scientists and evolutionists. Naturally, the latter would not necessarily agree with my thesis regarding the deleterious effects of Darwinian naturalism on scientific methodology and what I hold to be the only viable explanation for the origins of life and the process of actualization, but the presentation of the science itself is objective, accurate and sound. In other words, because this work unabashedly posits, albeit, based on the findings of scientific research, that life could not and did not arise in the primordial world via the processes of natural causality, it is not strictly a scientific work, but one that evaluates the potentialities of ultimate origins of which we are all cognizant whether we acknowledge them to be pertinently valid or not.
Scientifically, as things stand now, we cannot say with any certitude how life began. We can only consider what scientific research has shown about the monomeric, chemical precursors of life, the extent to which they were available and the apparent conditions under which they travailed. I submit that the evidence strongly indicates the necessity of an intelligent designer; that is to say, I go beyond the Pasteurian law of biogenesis:
all live is from live.
Yes, there are alot of atheists who are out just to
try to disprove God and/or mock Christians and seem to have their fingers plugged in their ears, saying, "nah nah nah, nah nah, nah,nah, I can't hear you", lol. However, I have seen a few people here on USMB though, that aren't like that at all. There are a few who just stay out of it.
M.D., if you'd like and don't know about it yet, I'd like to share with you a YouTube Channel called Thunderfoot. It seems to me, this guy is like the "king" of atheists (who mock God, etc) on YouTube. He has a huge and faithful following, it blows my mind away.
He's pretty educated in science, and I believe may hold a position somehow in the field.
Thunderfoot (TF) has dedicated alot of his videos to mocking God and Christians and Creationism, etc. He has a whole series of videos called "Why Do People Laugh At Creationists". (WDPLAC)
Here is one of TF's (WDPLAC) videos in relation to abiogenesis:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxtbcOEtpoE]YouTube - ‪Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 25)‬‏[/ame]
"In this episode Jonathan Wells of the creationist organization The Discovery Institute is taken to task over his bizarre assertions that the inability of a burst cell to spontaneously reassemble means that abiogenesis must be impossible.
I thought I'd share this with you, because you may be interesed as you have the knowledge and know how of the science to perhaps refute him. If you're not interested, please just disregard.
It personally blows me away that he's got 137K + suscribers and over 8million views and some of his videos have 10's of 1000's of views. There seems to be such a huge atheist movement in the last decade alone; atheists who are out to mock God or try to disprove ID, instead of just saying, "I don't believe in God" and letting it be and live their lives.
.
