Naturalistic explanations of the origin of life cannot explain the origin of life. Image courtesy of Wikipedia.
Joel Kontinen
In naturalistic speculations about the origin of life, the tail wags the dog. As they only accept one game - the one that excludes both design and intelligence - their suggestions usually range from the outlandish to the bizarre.
Writing in New Scientist, Nick Lane acknowledges that cells contain "amazing nanoscopic machines". However, he also speculates about “simple cells” (actually an oxymoron since cells are always anything but simple) that “don't have the right cellular architecture to evolve into more complex forms.”
He also says that “there is an extraordinary energetic penalty for growing larger”. In spite of this, he sees “a freak accident” as the catalyst for growing more complex cells.
There is a much more logical way to explain the origin and development of life. But, as Harvard biology professor Richard Lewontin put it, they “cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
Source:
Lane, Nick. 2012. Life: is it inevitable or just a fluke? New Scientist 2870: 32-37.
Posts
