Author notes

TORNADO IN JUNK SCIENCE

alschroeder

on Oct. 5, 2014

Continuing a look at the origin of reality…largely inspired and derived from George F.R. Ellis' brilliant brief book, BEFORE THE BEGINNING. He is NOT responsible, though, for the liberties I've taken with his logic or how I've chosen to illustrate it.
The problem of abiogenesis is a fascinating one. The unlikeliness of DNA/RNA–an enormously complicated molecule, but such a self-reproducing molecule is needed for any life and evolution to take place–is a stumbling block for many, and caused longtime atheist Anthony Flew to consider a Creator the most likely answer towards the end of his life. Many of the explanations given–self-reproducing crystals in clay, for instance, as precursors to DNA–are dubious at best.
Here one is sorely tempted to attribute the miraculous to the mysterious. I personally don't, although I can understand the temptation.
However, the fact that amino acids are found in nebulae argues that, in effect, the field of possible chemical laboratories is much wider than the earth—in fact, universe-wide. Such a huge number of "laboratories" makes the odds much more respectable. That, combined with the self-organizing properties of some amino acids, makes me doubt anything miraculous—in need of direct, divine intervention– in the origin of DNA/RNA.
However, Dawkins' argument that God is the "ultimate 747" is flawed—not on the complexity side, but on two counts: first, the need for an infinite regress of divine Designers for other Designers. If the Originating Inelligence created space-time, then He/She/It's no more in need of further sequence than Hawking/Hartle's four spatial dimensions that (somewhow–without sequence!) became three spatial dimensions and one time dimension. It's just in this case the original "condition" would be intelligent and complex. (Question: could no-time, instead of having literally no sequence, instead mean that an eternity of happenings–thoughts, plans, etc. happen in literally no time? Or was it just emerge as that complex? Either way would have this intial comlexity.)
Secondly, Dawkins–I'm not sure deliberately, or if he missed it, as did most of his critics–made an invalid comparison. A multiverse of at least a sextillion sextillion "universes" is much more complex, by any reasonable standard of complexity, than a single universe and a Creator, who admittedly must have a model of the complex universe in His/Her/Its mind…just as a pair of animals (say, a mother and its child, or maybe a beaver and its dam might be a better comparison) are much less complex than a million-animal biosphere. A Creator only adds to the complexity more than the multiverse itself if you take the multiverse, not a single universe, as a given.
Interesting philosophical slight of hand. You can read Dawkins' thoughts from THE GOD DELUSION here and judge for yourself.


Next time: THE PROBLEM OF EVIL (PROLOGUE)