|| Print ||
We recommend "Landscape" print layout.
Theory of Darwinism (Origin of Species – 1859). In 1973, Dr. Francis Crick, Nobel Laureate for discovering the DNA structure and Leslie Orgel, chemist at California’s SALK Institute, rejected the notion of a random, chance start to life on earth. First, life as we know it depends on traces of the rare element molybdenum, and it is argued that it would more likely have evolved on a planet in which the element was more abundant. Second, there is but a single genetic code to all life, and, if it had developed by chance in ‘some primordial ocean,’ then with multiple chance beginnings, more than one genetic code would be expected. The idea that life could have arrived by meteorite is rejected, because of the radiation damage during its long space journey. The field of possibility, therefore, has been narrowed to the choice between miraculous supernatural creation and life having been deliberately brought to earth by intelligent extraterrestrial beings in the remote past. [i] Of course that theory (Panspermia) requires faith in the spontaneous generation of life on some other planet and a seeding visit from galactic space. In 1979, Sir Bernard Lovell, British physicist and radio astronomer, the first Director of Jodrell Bank Observatory from 1945 to 1980, made the following statement in his book In the Centre of Immensities: “The operation of pure chance would mean that within half a billion year period the organic molecules in the primeval seas might have to undergo 1050 (one followed by fifty zeroes) trial assemblies in order to hit upon the correct sequence. The possibility of such a chance occurrence leading to the formation of one of the smallest protein molecules is unimagibably small. Within the boundary conditions of time and space we are considering it is effectively zero.”[ii] In 1980 an historic conference was held in Chicago’s Field Museum, attended by 160 of the world’s top paleontologists, anatomists, evolutionary geneticists, and developmental biologists. The content of the conference directly challenged the uncertain position of the neo-Darwinian theory, which had dominated evolutionary biology for the previous decades (“neo” because this was already a theoretical “mutation” of 1930 on the 1859 initial theory). The most important outcome of the meeting on which most were agreed was that the small changes from generation to generation within a species can in no way accumulate to produce a new species. This was a radical and major departure from the “evolutionary” faith. Before the conference a scientist could fail an exam or lose a job for not subscribing to the neo-Darwinian mechanism. After 1980, that unbelief is no longer worthy of excommunication. The “punctuated equilibria” theory took a rather prominent position at this conference and, although not accepted by the die-hard neo-Darwinists, was generally well received and will undoubtedly occupy tomorrow’s textbooks as the new faith.[iii] In 1981, Sir Fred Hoyle, atheist, and professor of astronomy at Cambridge, wrote in his article “The Big Bang in Astronomy,” for New Scientist: “Anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with the Rubik cube will concede the near impossibility of a solution being obtained by a blind person moving the cube faces at random. Now imagine 1050 blind persons (standing shoulder to shoulder, these would more than fill our entire planetary system) each with a scrambled Rubik cube and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling (random variation) of just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order. Life must plainly be a cosmic phenomenon.”[iv]
[i] Ian Taylor, In the Minds of Men: Darwin and the New World Order (Toronto, TFE Publishing, 1991), pp.195 and 196.
[ii] Bernard Lovell, In The Centre of Immensities, (London: Hutchison, 1979), p.83. Cited in Taylor, In the Minds of Men, pp.201 and 202.
[iii] Ibid., p.166.
[iv] Fred Hoyle, The big bang in astronomy,” New Scientist, London 92, 19 November 1981, p.571. Cited in Taylor, In the Minds of Men, p.202.