Posted by
ValiantForTruth on Wednesday, March 09, 2011 12:11:19 PM
"Living things are specified with incredible delicacy and precision down to the level of individual molecules and atoms. It is simply impossible for a random mixture of relevant and irrelevant molecules and atoms to individually sort themselves out, expell those which are irrelevant, and then assemble those which remain thereby giving life to non-life." -Nobel Laureate, Francis Crick (1981).
This quote from Francis Crick is historically significant because he is one of the first to see that the DNA molecular is in part a biochemical storage device of coded genetic information that is decoded in the living cell to produce proteins from chains of amino acids linked together according to the linear sequences contained in DNA.
At this point the scientific community was at a crossroad. But rather than abandon their autonomous reason that had come to be a necessary criteria for science and bow to the self-revealed God, the theory of modern panspermia has increased over the ensuing years. Here are some quotes from one of its leading defenders...
"No one has ever demonstrated that Earthly life can be produced from non-life, at least on Earth. The maxim: only life can produce life, has never been discredited. Therefore, based purely on the facts and scientific evidence, the only reasonable explanation is that the first living creatures to appear on this planet were produced by other living things which arrived on Earth safely encased in the debris which was bombarding this world during the Hadean eon."
"...no attempt is made to explain the origins of life. However, given the incredible vastness and unknown age of the universe, and the little blue dot we call Earth, isn't it reasonable to assume life would have emerged somewhere in the cosmos long before it appeared on this insignificant spec of dust? Certainly, the world does not revolve around us, the Earth is not the center of the solar system, and our planet is not at the center of the biological universe."
[Life on Earth Came From Other Planets by Rhawn Joseph; http://journalofcosmology.com/Cosmology1.html]
This is an example of what we mean by neo-science. Note what he is saying...
Given the scientific evidence of biogenesis, the ONLY reasonable explanation for life on earth is panspermia. So, to disagree with Rhawn Joseph, PhD is to be unreasonable. And what is his basis for such and authoritative statement? 'Based PURELY on the FACTS and scientific evidence'. Is this a true statement or an example of neo-science?
We do not doubt that there are 'facts and scientific evidence', but the radical departure from the scientific method common to the neo-scientists is that their opinions are expressed as conclusions. And as with all men, their opinions are always consistent with their presuppositions. The result is that presupposition enters into what they call science.
In the second quote he is careful to avoid the OOL problem because panspermia has no answer. Rhawn Joseph, PhD asks the rhetorical question that he wants to answer with more opinion based on presupposition...
"...isn't it reasonable to assume life would have emerged somewhere in the cosmos long before it appeared on this insignificant spec of dust?"
Note his opinion offered as a conclusion:
"Certainly...our planet is not at the center of the biological universe."
The opinion of Rhawn Joseph, PhD is certainly ONE possible explanation, but the evidence does not exist to say that his is the ONLY explanation. The methods used by these men as well as the darwinites are particularly hypocritical because they accuse other men of bringing religious presupposition into their science. We must revise our definition of neo-science to include the panspermians as well as the darwinians...
Neo-science is the hypocritical practice of including presupposition into what is called scientific conclusion.
I have reviewed enough of the writings of Rhawn Joseph, PhD to get a flavor of his anti-theist world view. We give him credit for rejecting darwinism, but he is a good example of what is written of such men in the context of 2 Timothy 3...
'always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth'.