|
Review Summary: Lab synthesis |
Date: 2008-10-14 |
|
| |
Details: Lab synthesis: thats what these experiments on the origins of life are.
The authors show a lot of impossibilities plaguing the atheist origins of life hypotheses and how their research require an enourmous amount of design. Well, with design, even God can do it right?
Very good book, easy to read, easy to grasp. You may disagree about some theological stuff, but the purely scientific analysis is quite a bomb on the atheist head. |
| |
|
Review Summary: Uses Research Gathered From The Scientific Community |
Date: 2008-09-03 |
|
|
| |
|
Details: If you are a Christian, this book will give you a solid base to argue for a Creator. If you are an Atheist, this book will make your preconception of how life began. I have not seen a reference in this book that the scientific community could honestly claim lacks credibility (NASA, The Journal Science, and Stanley Miller just to name a few). With this research, Hugh Ross and Fazale Rana succeed in casting doubt on all notable theories for the origin of life on this planet. Going one by one, they builds an exhaustive case against terrestrial and extra-terrestrial theories. From the requirements for the formation of nucleic acids to the probability of proteins originating naturalisticly to the problem of homochirality to the chicken and egg conundrum of ribosomes and protein, this book never fails to find flaws in current origin theory. This is must read for anyone interested in the subject of how life began. |
| |
|
Review Summary: Origins of Life: Biblical and Evoluntionary Models Face Off |
Date: 2007-05-21 |
|
| |
|
Details: Rana and Ross overwhelm us with a force of biochemical legerdemain; inundating the reader with biochemical reasons why currently acceptable theories of a natural origin for life on earth are impossible. After many pages of biochemical detail they end each chapter with a God card, inserting a "creator" as the only viable explanation for the origin of life. So if we don't yet have a biochemically acceptable explanation for a natural origin of life on earth, God must have done it. The basic error in reasoning by these two authors is to be found in the Latin phrase, argumentum ad ignorantium, which basically reminds the reader, and hopefully logical thinker, that simply not having a currently available biochemically proven explanation to the origin of life does not allow you to substitute a miracle. Historically, scientific gaps in our understanding of natural phenomenon are often filled with religious notions; it's no different for Rana and Ross. Ron Stephens |
| |
|
Review Summary: A Good Overview of the Origin of Life Issue |
Date: 2007-02-18 |
|
| |
Details: Positive:
a.) They point out that the presupposition of methodological naturalism limits possible explanations a priori, and thus, it begs the question under dispute.
b.) They show that life appeared on earth very early and suddenly.
c.) They show that the earth or anything extra-terrestrial would not have been able to create a primordial soup on earth much less sustain its existence. They also show from geologic evidence that the oceans of the early earth were "primordial soup"-less.
d.) They show that the minimum complexity for life to begin is so astounding that it might as well be impossible (i.e. far greater than all the probabilistic resources of the universe).
e.) They show that naturalistic origins couldn't have happened anywhere in our solar system or beyond.
Negative:
a.) Their exaltation (p.32) of the sanctity and objectivity of "science" and scientists is simply nauseating. The idea that scientists are objective seekers of truth who will change their view once the evidence is against them, firstly, goes against human nature and, secondly, goes against the doctrine of Original Sin. Scientists may think that they are seeking after the truth in an objective manner, and the empirical method may be perfect in theory. However, their human nature and spiritual state will determine their worldview which, in turn, determines the way in which they interpret the data. Their view of scientists (they being scientists themselves) is the typical, popular media image of infallible priests in white coats who have the right to pontificate on what is and is not truth (even though the empirical method can't logically take them that far). "Professing to be wise, they became fools..." (Romans 1:22).
b.) Related to a., they assume the philosophy of science called positivism, and as a result, they say that supernaturalists bear the burden of proof in demonstrating the existence of supernatural intervention. Of course, assuming positivism simply begs the question in favor of an autonomous/humanistic worldview. It also assumes the Aristotelian/Thomistic nature/grace dichotomy which is (unfortunately) so popular today. The Biblical worldview states that the existence of God is obvious to man (Romans 1:19-20), but man, due to original sin, has suppressed that clear truth (Romans 1:18, 21-22). As such, the Biblical philosophy of science should be to glorify God by taking dominion over the earth (i.e. instrumentalism), and so, it should start with the belief in Creation and not seek to derive it. [Also, see c. below.] A skeptic/"free-thinker"/know-it-all may respond by asserting that such thinking binds one down to dogmatism and is fideistic. However, such an assertion simply begs the question against the Christian doctrine of Original Sin (as pointed out above) and in favor of humanistic autonomy. "Free-thinker"-ism is no less dogmatic (bound down to presuppositions) than is Christianity.
c.) Similar to arguments from silence, God-of-the-gaps reasoning isn't always fallacious. If one starts with the belief that God created the world, then the consistent failure to explain the existence of life naturalistically is (to use scientific terminology) a predicted hypothesis. It is a confirmation of passages like Romans 1:21-22 and 1 Corinthians 1:18-31. |
| |
|
Review Summary: Real Science |
Date: 2006-09-04 |
|
|
| |
Details: Having recently read "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins, it was a delight to appreciate some real scientific investigation and discussion. The materialists sneer at religion and invite believers to analyze the facts. Well, that is what is done here with great diligence; all of the known naturalistic theories for the origin of life are considered in the light of latest research. The discussion is entirely objective and although it reaches "the wrong conclusion" for those who have closed their minds to the idea that God might have been involved, the ball is now in their court to refute this analysis.
In contrast with the ID arguments espoused by Behe, Dembski, Johnson and others, Rana and Ross take the argument right into the camp of the naturalists. They show that there was no such thing as a primordial soup nor the chemical processes that would have been able to do anything with such a soup. This book, along with The Wonder of The World by Roy Varghese and The Hidden Face of God by Gerald Schroeder represent convincing evidence against everything that materialists stand for.
|
| |
|
out of 26 Reviews
