The Origin of Life

Dear SS(sincere seeker):

Could you listen to what Dawkins said about "...no evidence about what the first step in making life was, but we do know the kind of step it must have been. It must have been whatever it took to get natural selection started."

Has Dawkins rigorously proved " natural selection"? "No evidence ...yet we do know?" Is that a blind faith or good reasoning? You tell me. Yet he uses "natural selection" to deny the existence of any complex being because they are not probable and not possible...etc. Do you start to see the circular reasoning here?

I am quoting Dawkins' own words. For details, see the brief article  clip below.

I hope you rethink seriously, why you embrace " Evolution" without carefully scrutinizing it? I agree the default value is not" God exists" if Evolution theory fails to stand on its own feet. Yet that other more reasonable alternative that "God creates this universe and all the creatures" should be considered again, right?

May God open your eyes!

BH

Dawkins: The Greatest Show on Earth

Dawkins: The Greatest Show on Earth – The Origin of Life
Richard Dawkins, in The Greatest Show on Earth, has very little to say concerning the most fundamental challenge to standard materialistic thinking, namely the problem of life’s origin. In chapter 13 of his book, Dawkins writes:

We have no evidence about what the first step in making life was, but we do know the kind of step it must have been. It must have been whatever it took to get natural selection started.Before that first step, the sorts of improvement that only natural selection can achieve were impossible. And that means the key step was the rising, by some process as yet unknown, of a self-replicating entity.

Dawkins is overlooking or ignoring a host of key points here. As Dawkins himself concedes, natural selection can only occur in organisms which are capable of reproducing or replicating themselves. But surely any self-replicating mechanism must exhibit a definable minimal level of complexity, let alone the necessitude of functional, and thus sequence specific DNA and protein molecules. As theoretical biologist Howard Pattee explains in his The Problem of Biological Hierarchy: “There is no evidence that hereditary evolution occurs except in cells which already have…the DNA, the replicating and translating enzymes, and all the control systems and structures necessary to reproduce themselves.” In order to invoke a materialistic pathway which can account for the origin of specified information in DNA, the naturalist must invoke a process that itself depends upon pre-existing sequence specific DNA molecules. Yet, the origin of these molecules is precisely what the thesis seeks to explain. And let us not forget that it is not merely the sequence of base-pairs comprising the information in DNA which is the chief concern at this point -- but the problem becomes even deeper when confronted with the paradox of the origin of the genetic code itself...