Re: The origin of life

Susan Brassfield (Susan-Brassfield@ou.edu)
Mon, 22 Nov 1999 14:13:35 -0600

>>"Earth-Science Reviews, 47(1-2): 71-93
>>The origin of life
>>J.H. McClendon
>>105 Bush Street, Ashland, OR, USA
>
>[...]
>
>Thanks to Art for this abstract. This full text of this article is currently
>available as a 991 kb *.pdf file from:
>
>http://www.elsevier.com/cas/tree/store/earth/sub/1999/47/1-2/1084.pdf
>
>The article is 23 pages long and it is an excellent overview. Elsevier's free
>offer of this article on the Web ends 31 December 1999.
>
>McClendon is saying that science will probably never know how life began
>on Earth because: 1. the record of that time has been permanently
>obliterated; 2. origin of life simulation experiments have come to an
>impasse; and

this is out of context. You should read the sentences that follow that
statement.

>The synthetic organic chemistry of 'prebiotic' compounds has come to an
>impasse. Although many monomers have been shown to occur in
>simulations, nucleic acid-type polymers resist our efforts. Proteins of
>regular structure are likewise missing. Most of this work has involved
>chemistry in solution, attempting to simulate primordial conditions. ***But
>other approaches may yet yield fruit,**** such as the clay genes of Cairns-
>Smith (1982, 1985) and the primitive autotrophs of Wachtershauser
>(1994). Catalysis on mineral surfaces may be needed to provide the
>stereospecific environment for biopolymer synthesis.

It is widely stated by abiogeneticists that we may never know exactly how
the first replicating organism formed, but it is widely known that we may
discover one or more ways it *could* have happened.

>IMHO when this finally sinks in, the cultural implications of this will be
>immense. The general public looks to evolutionary science to provide its
>naturalistic creation myth.

you, yourself, have posted statistics that prove this isn't true, at least
not in the U.S.

>As Phil points out:
>
>"Biological evolution is just one major part of a grand naturalistic project,
>which seeks to explain the origin of everything from the Big Bang to the
>present without allowing any role to a Creator. If Darwinists are to keep
>the Creator out of the picture, they have to provide a naturalistic
>explanation for the origin of life." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", 1993,
>p103)

So even Johnson admits that God resides in the dark corners of our
ignorance and as light advances, Christian God retreats. You and he
obviously hope that the darkeness surrounding abiogenesis will not retreat
and leave the Christian God some place to be.

>If the scientific materialists cannot tell people how we began, then they
>might start thinking seriously about that other alternative...!

yeah! The Great Sky Lizard, shat the Egg of the Universe on the Backporch
of Heaven. Or Tiamat gave birth to it all. Or Spiderwoman wove it all . . .
or, I'm sure you could come up with another alternative.

Susan

----------

For if there is a sin against life, it consists not so much in despairing
of life as in hoping for another and in eluding the implacable grandeur of
this one.
--Albert Camus

http://www.telepath.com/susanb/