do you like this quote?

Question

"The probablity of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing factory."

Professor Edwin Conklin

Answer 1

The only thing that I believe concerning the origin of our world (universe) is that I don't know because I wasn't there. And frankly, I haven't found that it makes a difference in the life that I live.

I will say that the scientific approach is more convincing to me than the bed-time story I was told as a child.

Answer 2

Only if it was one factory explosion. Let's do it to a billion bible factories and see what happens.

Scientists *have* produced matter - twice - which fit the predictions of abiogenesis and life appearing from nothing. As predicted, all life requires is the right building blocks and enough time for an accident to occur. Scientists did it twice in fifty years, the Earth had billions to do it.

Conklin is a liar who pretends the formation of life is a one-time, all-or-nothing proposition. Life occured from nothing on Earth after billions of years of lifelessnees, of lightning strikes hitting pools of water, methane, carbon dioxide and other simple molecules.

Ancient Earth was an alphabet soup. If you stir the soup and letters long enough and often enough, eventually the word "life" will appear on top. Those who argue against abiogenesis and evolution are wilfully ignorant about the subject; Conklin and others of your ilk are not just uninformed, you _choose_ not to be informed out of fear, hoping to avoid having to rebut arguments stronger than yours.

No matter how often the cretinist - oops, creationist - house of cards is knocked over, you keep claiming it stood up to a waving fan. Meanwhile, your best shot with a "canon" doesn't make a dent in evolution which is a mountain evidence, built brick by Crick.


.

Answer 3

Reasoning by analogy makes for a great quote in the oneupsmanship domain but it's hardly satisfying intellectually. Note that evolution, combined with cosmologies that posit an infinite universe creation/destruction cycle, provides a mechanism that allows life to change based on
environment-advantageous species mutations. What's missing, of course, is what is the foundation of life itself? What is the thing that has always been -- forget about god, let's just think of process, etc.? How did that always exist? And how did it have these mechanisms -- however simple -- that resulted in time, space, sentience, etc.? What is animal 'instinct' and what the heck is the underlying mechanism for a mutation? All of these questions brings us much closer to the issue than, I think, the well-intentioned analogy from Conklin.

Answer 4

He died in 1952; I wonder what he'd make of current research that is showing the probabilties of life beginning as being much greater than expected. (The secret is apparently enclosing the 'primordial stew' in a membrane. Membranes occur naturally and limiting the number of possible interactions increases the probability of ones that led to life occuring.)

But biographies say that he 'was a deeply religions man' and would have preferred to work as a preacher, but had to take up employment as a teacher of just about everything in order to pay off his university fees. It's clear where his bias lay.

Answer 5

That Professor has clearly incorrectly calculated the probability. It looks like that's because that quotation is over 50 years old (not to mention being from a 'deeply religious man'). Oh, the things we have learned in 50 years.

In fact, it's highly probable that life arose in the conditions existing on the planet.

Please read the link.

Answer 6

Then Professor Edwin Conklin, of whom i have never heard, is an idiot, or he has been very carefully edited.

Incidentally, that quote was made before the second world war, before the discovery of DNA. You present it as being modern. As I say, carefully edited.

Answer 7

I do. Professor Conkin is by no means the only educated person to acknowledge the scientific veracity of creation. Here are some other quotes:
“ As a scientist, I look at the world around me, and observe engineering mechanisms of such remarkable complexity that I am drawn to the conclusion of intelligent design being behind such complex order. ”
—ANDREW MCINTOSH, MATHEMATICIAN, WALES, UNITED KINGDOM
“ The complexity of nature clearly points to a Creator. Every biological and physical system, once understood, shows incredible complexity. ”
—JOHN K. G. KRAMER, BIOCHEMIST, CANADA
“ The order of the living world is plainly evident. It was set up by a superior Power that I personally call God. It is here that faith agrees with scientific truth. Far from contradicting it, it completes it, providing a simpler understanding of our universe. ”
—JEAN DORST, BIOLOGIST, FRANCE
“ I cannot imagine the universe and human life without an intelligent beginning, without a source of spiritual 'warmth' that lies beyond matter and its laws. ”
—ANDREY DMITRIYEVICH SAKHAROV, NUCLEAR PHYSICIST, RUSSIA
“ Each animal is in some way uniquely designed to suit its particular environment, and I cannot help but attribute the complexity of the design to a Creator, rather than to random evolutionary forces. ”
—BOB HOSKEN, BIOCHEMIST, AUSTRALIA
"In my years of doing scientific research, I have never encountered a conflict between a proved scientific fact and a teaching of the Bible. Often, seeming conflicts are caused by a lack of knowledge—either of a scientific teaching or of what the Bible really says." -- ALTON WILLIAMS, Nuclear Physicist.

Answer 8

Dear Kiki: The quote seems to have spawned answers that go back to the argument of Science and evolution - or a God of Creation. May I add my two cents worth? What happened to the integration, in our minds, of the reality of both?

Atheism and Agnosticism have been, (amongst a host of other "reasons") due to not wanting to believe in anything that can not be proven. Not wanting to be duped! Of course this leads to not acknowledging there is anything but physical matter and the brain or the Intellect. Nothing more. Nothing integrated. We just use our Intellect.

Science has decided God can NOT be disproved or thrown away, after all. Physics has found itself smack up against Him , and is desperate to prove Him. (String theories (all 5) or M-Theory). But I tell you, He will never be a mathematical formula unless , and until , soul or spirit-mind within, is willing to bring forth its Knowledge of its Creator (which it shares with His divine Presence) . As Einstein was inspired. (They are still debating his calculations, after all this time !) Only soul/spirit can direct a Scientist to proper understanding of the Order of Creation. Science is, after all, inspiration - inspired to know of it's Self. But, then, at best, you have still a cold calculation of Science - about the Created and it's Creator - with no experience of His divine nature; the ecstasy, the unlimited-ness, the Unopposed force of the Creative Being, of Who we are a part.

The Intellect is of logic and reasoning. It deduces and judges. God is Knowledge and Knowing. . . meaning He contains within Himself all possibilities for Created life, all understanding of form, and all conceivable outcomes.

The Great Separation, the major factor of the Intellect's desire to deny the soul/spirit-mind, has caused a failure in our willingness - to acknowledge that BEHIND the Intellect lies Spirit: The Seat of your Knowledge. Until you understand soul/spirit - you can not know your Self, or have proper perspective of your world.

Intellect is a mental exercise. It changes, shifts, and alters. But, Knowledge is unalterable.

The evolution of earth contains the factors of the Creator existing along with it. Integration.

Humility is often learned later in life. . ..

Best regards, Lana

Answer 9

Yes I agree very much to that quote. But one in a million does happen sometimes. Especially since there are a million worlds being created every minute.

Answer 10

Yes