A modern myth is that creationists are biased and that evolutionists are neutral. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Francis Crick is a good example.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Long before he ever discovered DNA’s structure, he held strong atheistic views. The news article1 even reported that Crick’s distaste for ‘religion’ was one of the prime motives that led to his discovery, and also said, ‘The antipathy to religion of the DNA pioneers is long standing. In 1961 Crick resigned as a fellow of Churchill College, Cambridge, when it proposed to build a chapel.’ [1.]
- Do you imagine that a person who would resign from a college because it wanted to build a chapel will tell you the truth about origins?
- Do you believe that someone with a strong antipathy to 'religion' (i.e. Christianity) will tell you the truth about Origins? Do you think they'll reveal their doubts to you? Do you think they'll be above inventing fairy tales to support Materialism? Do you think the sad puddles that slosh their way to committee meetings to force churches to remove crosses will be honest about Origins? Do you believe that people with a strong motivation to disprove 'religion' (i.e. C) will tell you the truth about Origins, about how impossible it is?
- Do you think that someone who would rather believe in 'panspermia' than a creator is going to be honest when he/she talks about origins?
- Do you think people who find the idea of a creator unacceptable are going to be honest about origins?
2. 'Even Crick himself was quoted as saying, ‘An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.’ [1.]
- Why does Crick say 'almost' a miracle. Wouldn't an honest man admit it would have to indeed be a miracle?
3. 'Crick reasoned that life could not have evolved from non-living chemicals under any conceivable earth conditions. But the idea of a creator was unacceptable, since it would go against his atheistic faith. He affirmed this when he said, ‘People like myself get along perfectly well with no religious views.' [1.]
- Crick defines religion as a belief in god, thus saving himself from the notion he too has a religion. But he can't save himself from this; as we all have worldviews.... and his is just different that's all. Prof. Crick is just as finite, fallen and fallible as any of the rest of us. This means he too must believe things on faith. This is the fate of all human beings. Being a professor doesn't allow you to opt out; doesn't allow you to escape this. (No; not even tenure will allow a person to buy their way out of the human predicament :=)
4. 'Crick has refined this idea to directed panspermia. To overcome the huge hurdles of evolution of life from non-living chemicals on earth, Crick proposed, in a book called Life Itself, that some form of primordial life was shipped to the earth billions of years ago in spaceships—by supposedly ‘more evolved’ (therefore advanced) alien beings.' [1.]
- Do you think a person so committed to materialism will be honest about origins?
- In the end this is what it comes to; a creator or aliens. [Science fiction is the 'religion' of atheism if you will; it's a substitute for Christianity.] Materialism can't do the job; as even Crick admits. It's impossible for inert matter to snap its fingers and (presto) become a living organism. The people who honestly believe this (if there are any) believe it only because they don't realize the magnitudes of impossibility that are involved. The more one studies the subject the more one realizes how impossible it is. (Why would inert matter want to be anything more than inert matter? Inert matter has no desires, no wishes :=)
- There's no such thing as 'life' itself. The word life is an abstraction. This isn't a world that has 'life' in it; it's a world full of living organisms. These aliens couldn't have planted 'life' on earth; they could only have planted actual living organisms. That being said (as Bates points out) how could they have known what would happen to those living organisms? (I see no way such an organism could have survived.)
Notes;
1. Designed by aliens? Discoverers of DNA’s structure attack Christianity - article by Gary Bates
2. The official theologian of Panspermia is the late Kurt Vonnegut. ['The big space F*]
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
