Has anyone ever seen this ?

Question

Consider this startling admission by Nobel Prize winner George Wald (1906–1997):
"There are only two possible explanations as to how life arose. Spontaneous generation arising to evolution or a supernatural creative act of God. . . . There is no other possibility. Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others, but that just leaves us with only one other possibility. . . that life came as a supernatural act of creation by God, but I can’t accept that philosophy because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution.5"
"If a theologian had argued this way, he would be accused of letting his religious assumptions interpret the facts. But when a scientist follows a similar methodology in defense of evolution, hardly anyone blinks a questioning eye because the declaration is made in the name of science"

The sad part is that many have to wait until some man in a white lab coat says it, in order to even begin to think for themsleves and be critical of todays science, which has more of a reason to lie in order to control than any religion. religion produces independent thinkers. Rarely do the controllers let the truth come out because they wish to protect their institutions and power. They now have many people following them worse than the most illiterate peasants believed in false religion.
George Wald, “Origin, Life and Evolution,” Scientific American (1978). Quoted in Joe White and Nicholas Comninellis, Darwin’s Demise: Why Evolution Can’t Take the Heat (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2001), 46.

Answer 1

Wow, an honest evolutionist. There are many more statements of this nature made by scientists. Evolution remains propped up by propaganda and outdated science. When it was conceived no one had any idea of the complexity of one cell or the necessity of biological polymers to have the proper chirality, or the fact that DNA is literally a written language that writes out the code for every structure that makes up our bodies. Its the blind leading the blind, everyone thinking someone else has proved evolution when no such proof exists.

Answer 2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducibly_complex

Is that what you are referring to: Because notice in the first sentence it says 'DISCREDITED ARGUMENT' There is no logic in your question. You say something can't spontaneously generate, yet then again you say it must have been created by a spontaneously generated god. I'm sorry, but I'm gonna have to give you THUMBS DOWN.

From your post you obviously have an understanding of psychology whether you know it or not, but your logic is faltered. Scientists can't lie to protect their institutions, because they would be pounced on like mice by the rest of the scientific community who would not benefit from their findings financially, and would benefit from exposing them greatly. That's whats so great about science and so lame about religous lies. Please study theories like evolution before you claim them as abstract as something like religion. Although they have in common that they are both unproven, one is actually based on scientific evidence.

PS: I notice irreducile complexity is not EXACTLY what you are referring to (but it does seem very similiar to George Wald's theory), but it is more the argument that all machine must have an intelligent designer. Still, god must be defined as a machine too, no matter how complex, which pretty much discredits the whole argument, and you can't simply claim god free of the confines of logic like 'Well, he exists otuside of space and time.' because that is called arguing from ignorance. (Not trying to be offensive, that's seriously how they define that)That is stuff the early 1900's. Sorry, but this is 2006.

Answer 3

"It is still true that with almost negligible exceptions all the organic matter we know is the product of living organisms. The almost negligible exceptions, however, are very important. It is now recognized that constant, slow production of organic molecules occurs without the agency of living things. If the origin of life is within the realm of natural phenomena, that is to imply that on other planets like the earth, life probably exists - life as we know it"
-- George Wald

More meaningless quote mining.

Answer 4

I think that whatever GOD is.. it is such a huge, beyond our wildest imaginations, source of pure energy and Love. That we human beings are just too small to understand the exact nature of what god really is. I have to hope that peices of all forms of religion and spiriuality are right to a degree. Imagine trying to explain the internet to an ant. For me it is just easier to believe that sometime in the course of my post existence I will have all these answers an more.

Answer 5

No, I haven't seen this before, but thank you for sharing.

It makes a rather interesting point.

I prefer to think that there are people that treat science as a religion and take a lot of "fact" on faith. Best wishes.

Answer 6

Yes

Answer 7

The real deal, though, is that there can be a blending of divine and natural for the creation of advanced life.

Answer 8

Biologists are one of the dumbest people in the world. It's not even possible for the healthcare industry to execute quality work .

Answer 9

Ego / Pride...keeps the overwhelming majority from God...

Answer 10

Interesting....

To answer your original question, no, I have not seen this. Do you have a link to the original story, article, etc.?