The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Science, God, and the ultimate evolutionary question

Until science proves the origin of the very first cells, many will wheel out God as the default expl

By Andrew Zak Williams Published 30 November 2011 12:36

Until science proves the origin of the very first cells, many will wheel out God as the default explanation.

No-one who has visited Richard Dawkins' website recently would have failed to notice the prominence given to an award being offered of up to 2 million dollars. Unfortunately for most of us, nobody will be granted the funding unless they put together a proposal for scientific research into the origin of life on our planet.

It's hardly a surprise that the site should draw attention to the award. After all, however much we think that we know about evolution, science is far from providing a confident explanation of the origin of the very first cells from which all life evolved. Until this gap in scientific knowledge is filled, many believers will continue to resort to God as the default explanation. For some, it must have been God who planted the first living cells on the planet, before leaving the stage and letting evolution take over. For others, the fact that no-one can prove how life originated sounds the death knell for evolution itself but is music to the ears of those who believe in Adam and Eve.

But are they right? Is science incapable of explaining the emergence of the first cells from which all life originated without the need for God?

In 1953 biologist Stanley Miller set up an experiment in the lab, intended to recreate what scientists call the earth's "primordial soup" when life first appeared 3.5 billion years ago. He created a sealed environment comprising boiling water and electric probes to simulate the effect of lightening on some of the young planet's hot waters. Thrown into the mix were methane, ammonia and hydrogen, the gases believed to be present on the early earth. The aim was to see whether anything related to life would form. Within a week, five amino acids had appeared in the water. This was a stunning result. After all, amino acids are the molecules which join up to form proteins inside living cells.

But to create proteins - and therefore life - amino acids must be strung together in a very specific order. And cells require DNA to do this. But how could something as complex as DNA have come into existence? Miller's experiment didn't answer that.

A possible explanation was found after a meteorite, slightly older than earth, crashed down in Australia in 1969. Amazingly one of the DNA bases was found inside the rock. Since the early earth was bombarded by meteorites for millions of years, this raises the tantalising possibility that DNA and RNA could have arrived here on meteorites around the time that life first appeared on the planet. This provides a partial explanation of how the amino acids could have developed into life.

But there are problems with the idea that life began in a Miller-like primordial soup. Analysis of ancient rocks has made it plain that at the time that life appeared, the earth was no longer rich in methane, ammonia and hydrogen. Besides, any soup would have been thermodynamically flat. This means that there was probably nothing to force the various molecules to react with each other, whether or not extraterrestrial DNA and RNA molecules were also present. And so far, scientists haven't been able to explain how the necessary molecules would have come together without a cell membrane.

But there is a different theory which addresses all these concerns.

It is well-known that the continents have been drifting apart throughout the lifetime of the planet. This is due to the movement of tectonic plates below the oceans. As these plates strike each other, new rocks are exposed to the sea water. This creates alkaline hydrothermal vents. The water physically reacts with the rocks and this releases heat along with gases reminiscent of Miller's experiments. As a result, warm alkaline hydrothermal fluids percolate into the cold oceans and, near the vents, structures are created which look rather like stalagmites and which are riddled with tiny compartments. These compartments could have been ideal places for chemical compounds from the gases to concentrate and combine to form early life in a fairly enclosed environment.

Although the existence of these vents had been predicted decades ago, it wasn't until 2000 that one was discovered in a part of the Atlantic Ocean which has been named Lost City. Scientists have analysed the cell-sized pores in the structures which were found there and concluded that they were almost ideal reaction vessels for producing the first life. What's more, the chemical imbalance between the sea water and the gases could have created an electrical charge which in turn possibly caused the chemical reactions needed to kick-start the creation of life.

But as I mentioned earlier, it's not sufficient to work out how the first amino acids may have appeared. It's also necessary to explain how DNA could have come onto the scene. Unfortunately DNA can't evolve without proteins. And proteins can't evolve without DNA.

Many scientists believe that the answer lies in the RNA World Theory. In 2007 it was discovered that nucleotides (and so RNA) could grow in simulated vents. At around the same time a scientific paper was published which concluded that RNA may have developed by living inside mineral cells in the vents. Biochemist Nick Lane believes once that had happened, RNA may have changed to DNA virtually spontaneously.

And so the hydrothermal vents theory provides a plausible account of how the first life could have formed on earth along with the DNA which was necessary to replicate it. But the theory certainly has difficulties. In fact, a similar theory based on a different type of vents, black smokers, is now generally given short shrift by the scientific community. Perhaps the hydrothermal vents theory will likewise come unstuck.

This is a difficult area of science. No doubt whoever receives that award, will have to work hard to earn every cent.

Andrew Zak Williams has written for the Independent and the Humanist and is a contributor to Skeptic Magazine. His email address is: andrewbelief@gmail.com

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Richard Dawkins Science Religion God

More from Andrew Zak Williams

View the discussion thread.

88 comments

Thu, 2012-04-26 16:21 — Nude0007 (not verified)

We shake our fists at believers, not some mythical god. Ignorance is frustrating, and often evokes anger at refusal to acknowledge reality. Why does that surprise you? The difference is lack of agreeing with the FACTS, not our opinion, an important distinction theists refuse to acknowledge (see second sentence).

Thu, 2011-12-01 20:25 — Flashbuck (not verified)

@Broga

Dawkins has debated with dozens with a christians and bishops so what you on about you loser? What he does though is go for the lightweights. But when the heavy weight theists challenge Dawkins he runs a mile, as he did very recently in Oxford leaving everyone laughing at him.

Fri, 2011-12-02 20:03 — jankaas (not verified)

William Lane Craig thinks murdering children is an act of God, and a commendable one.

he is not worth the time of day.

Thu, 2011-12-01 14:58 — Ian5

PaulV, science cannot address something that does not exist: MEANING, to believe in evolution, as I do, requires the acceptance that life on this or any planet has no purpose or meaning. Religion does not require any meaning either beyond "god says so it is" trouble is God in all his forms has made a real hash of things.
Flashbuck; What trite rubbish, Dawkins is a busy scientist and author but you expect him to be at your beck and call to debate what, something your too brainwashed to listen to...with who , and lying show one Dawkins statement to be a lie...

Here's a lie for you, Mary and Joseph go to Bethlehem for a census, historically proven lie.

Fri, 2011-12-02 20:07 — jankaas (not verified)

@Flashbuck

so which God did Einstein believe in, or are you just trolling about?

oh, and you missed Hawking off your list of god-botherers. why is that exactly?

Wed, 2011-11-30 16:02 — Mo (not verified)

I agree, Mike1000. We atheists (assuming you are one) need more Christians to read essays like this to be taught how desperate their arguments are. Believers - science is on the march, filling your God-of-the-Gaps one by one.

Fri, 2011-12-02 20:09 — Buckskins (not verified)

Jackass, did I say I believe in God, and what is your definition of "God" Do you believe in a Creator, or do you believe you can make something from absolutely nothing. Please refrain from any more childish attempt at insult and respond like a grown man. Prior to your commenting on your nick please think of it a term of endearment.

Wed, 2011-11-30 16:08 — AndyPW

Fri, 2011-12-02 20:50 — jankaas (not verified)

"Jackass........Please refrain from any more childish attempt at insult and respond like a grown man."

tried that with you at 17:25 on this very thread. so i'll just follow your lead into the gutter Fuckskids.

then there are questions from you, so in the spirit of debate Fuckskids i will answer them;

" did I say I believe in God"
no, i just asked you a question. which you've not answered.

"and what is your definition of "God""
since i just don't 'do' religion, i can't answer that.

"Do you believe in a Creator"
same answer.

"do you believe you can make something from absolutely nothing."
maybe, maybe not. physics is weird. you should know that.

so that's me answering several of your questions. now how about you answer the single one i asked you earlier today Fuckskids? this one; who made God?

Thu, 2011-12-01 15:22 — Flashbuck (not verified)

@Ian -

HaHaHa - Dawkins desperately runs all over promoting his second rate ranting books but when it comes to facing up to the leading theistic debating he starts making excuses. Phht!

As for Joseph and Mary... whatever. Just like all atheistic you like to change the subject and start picking stuff out of the bible to have a pop at Christians. Pathetic. Theism or even Deism which is about the existing of a certain kind of God is not dependent on Christianity or the bible and so to pluck stuff out of the bible and laugh at it just shows you have an adolescent straw man agenda. Fact.

Thu, 2011-12-01 20:59 — Tom Graff (not verified)

It's always amusing to me to listen to the High Priests of Scientism try to sell us on their quirky Faith in the "Just So" stories of life's creation (The Big Bang did it! the Black Holes did it! The Multiverses did it! The String Theories did it. The quarks n' Fuzzballs did it! The Imaginary Anti-Matter did it! Gravitational Fluctuation did it!)
It does get a bit tiresome, though...
Stephen Hawking has been talking,
Hawking Faith in what's unseen;
Rub the lamp and there you have it!
We can see just what he means!

Yep, no Deity is needed,
Nope, now God need not apply.
Church of Po-Mo Speculation:
“Just So” stories in the sky.

Humanism's same ol' same ol',
Trace it back to Babel's Tow'r....
Scientism's Holy Temple,
Deconstruction's finest hour.
(continued....http://www.tomgraffagnino.com/singing-hymns-to-gravity/

Fri, 2011-12-02 21:13 — Buckskins (not verified)

Jackass.
"who made God?"

You really and truly don't know?

I did.

The above response to your post is due to your inability to hold an adult conversation.

Wed, 2011-11-30 17:16 — Chir0n

@swatantra nandanwar- We all KNOW this do we? (absolutely, completely and without any doubt?) You seem so emphatic when not even scientists KNOW this for sure (one of the points of this piece).

Empiricism aside, the thing that makes the scientific method a superior response to curiosity than religious absolutism is the fact that, unlike fundamentalist religion, science is able to say "we're not certain" when that is the case.

Fri, 2011-12-02 21:21 — William (not verified)

Ian,

With all due respect, you really have no idea what you are talking about. There are so many errors and ridiculous assertions in your posts that I don't know where to begin.

1) Regarding Arthur Brooks research, as I originally stated he found that religious conservatives were much more charitable than secularists including in non-religious charities. In fact, if secular liberals gave blood as often as religious conservatives do, the blood supply of the US would increase by 45%!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

Fri, 2011-12-02 21:25 — William (not verified)

2) Regarding the stated reason by Dawkins why he avoided William Lane Craig in the debate (allegedly Craig supports genocide).

This was a cop-out and convenient excuse that Dawkins grabbed out of a hat when the spotlight was on him and it was getting unbearably embarrassing. It is also a flat out lie. If you examine this youtube video, you can see why this is not a very good excuse:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DKM-QKAg7U

But if Craig is a supporter of genocide (which he is not) than Dawkins owes it to the world to debate him and highlight this for all the world to see, so even granting the flawed premise the excuse doesn't hold much water and really makes Dawkins look like an immature little brat.

Fri, 2011-12-02 21:30 — William (not verified)

3) Regarding the Crusades and the Inquisition. There is a good case to be made that the Crusades originated as a response to Islamic aggression, who were pushing into Europe. (Turkey used to be a Christian nation, in fact).

What were these countries supposed to do exactly? Just let the Muslims take over and impose their culture?

And during the Spanish Inquisition, around 2000 people were executed over several decades about 500 years ago. While I grant that this is unacceptable, it pales in significance to the MILLIONS of people who have been slaughtered in atheistic regimes during the much more recent 20th century.

And in any event, how do the actions of the people in the Crusades or Inquisition disprove the teachings of Jesus and the apostles? It is a logical fallacy to judge a belief system based solely upon the actions of some of its adherents.

I also note that you are being rather selective in your assessment of Christians. You pounce at any chance to portray them as violent murderers (using examples from hundreds of years ago) but conveniently ignore the vast majority who are peacefully living their own lives or the ones who spend their entire lifetimes in third world countries giving aid and medical assistance to the poor.

Your arguments are ridiculous, and you've said nothing to convince anyone to be an atheist.

Fri, 2011-12-02 21:39 — jankaas (not verified)

"You really and truly don't know?

I did."

so you knew and then forgot Fuckskids? yeah, right. course you did...

Sun, 2011-12-04 13:42 — Ian5

Who said anything about hanging around, they could be simply produced just like CO2 degrade, be utilised in another reaction etc. You believers certainly have a strange idea about chemistry. Search.???? That requires intelligence. But yes a very long time, far more than 6,000 years. If the conditions are right for the formation or synthesis of one chemical they are probably right for the other 3. Propagate, you mean breed? Generated, synthesised , but not propagate. Heck again, right match and propagation....its a chemical soup not a marriage agency. Its happening an incalculable number of times each day here on earth today..

Fri, 2011-12-02 21:41 — jankaas (not verified)

@William

"you've said nothing to convince anyone to be an atheist."

intriguing. so what would persuade you to become atheist?

Sun, 2011-12-04 14:24 — Can not believe (not verified)

I need to start by saying I am an atheist for morons to consider fairly the point I will make.

Somone above wrote: "The whole point here is you don't need faith to explain the origin of life. This article shows that science is surely getting closer to explaining it".

Now the honest scientist would say - as this article has not - we do not have a clue how the complex structure of the first cell can have come into being. Describing the ingredients and saying we are close will not do due to the complexity. Therefore for someone to say "science is getting there" and "will answer it" they are no different from faith based religions.

Thu, 2011-12-01 15:44 — DS (not verified)

"to believe in evolution, as I do, requires the acceptance that life on this or any planet has no purpose or meaning." - I'll take it your post has no purpose or meaning then?

Lots of vitriol here. Ughhh.

Sun, 2011-12-04 14:47 — Ian5

Can not Believe: Disagree, scientists have a good idea/theory about the formation of the first cells. Protocells have been created in the lab..

Actually saying were getting there is valid, compare our knowledge of living processes and the physical nature of the universe today with just 100 years ago. Darwin postulated a theory, about 100 years later the mechanism was uncovered and proven. Scientist said if there was a big bang then we should be able to see its effects, postulated space would be 3 degrees above absolute, and hey guess what. Now the delivers tell us the bible is not the word of god, but the inspired word of god.... The honest scientist would tell you we have great ideas on how this or that occurred, we have proven evolution, we are progressing every day.

Sun, 2011-12-04 15:57 — Can not believe (not verified)

Ian - remember I am an atheist and do think early cells evolved. But the protocells that scientists have created do not show a good theory about how these could have emerged without the scientists. It is the equivalent of car mechanics saying they have built a car after they have put an engine in the shell of the car. They can understand how the engine works but do not have the first clue how the engine could have got to that stage without them. To claim otherwise would be a lie and should not be comparable to your random selection of postulations which should be spoken of individually in context.

Because of such hurdles, what you are saying is absolutely the same as religious belief - you are just in denial.

Also I tend to disagree with your oversimplifications about 'believers'. You assume that the 'word of God' must be interpreted in the way you choose. Augustine of Hippo 1400 years before Darwim for example did not believe Genesis to be scientific account but alagory. Your idea of religious backtracking in the face of science might apply to some but not all - to get post-structural it is you who creates the back-tracking. Indeed, Science once said the Universe was permanent and time one directional, Christians said it had a beginning (this is why Hoyle didn't like the big bang) and that it was possible for something to exist outside of time.

Now I do not think the reasons Christians thought this was correct - but I use it to highlight that your arguements can be thrown at a whole host of individuals.

Sun, 2011-12-04 17:44 — Ian5

I agree with your reasoning, but science is advancing. Ah good old Augustine, trouble is the "intelligent design" Young earth fraternity, Ussherites etc don't seem to share that view Now when was the world created? That is the bible taken in a literal sense. Let me see , a direct quote from a Christian site " The scriptures tell us Noah was 600 at the year of the flood, so that puts the flood at 6023 years after creation " Which leads to a world created 11,013 years before Christ. Yep I want that taught as science.....As for a permanent Universe, well, it possibly is, but its form may change, there may be previous Universes science does not preclude this..time in a straight line how novel..In many respects time is the only true infinity, anything coming from a singularity must be finite, so no matter how vast we see the universe it is still finite.

I'm odd, I think the Universe yoyo's in and out from big bang to singularity to big bang and has done so for time scales my mind at least cannot quite comprehend. Ah but what started it all....well thats where I hold up my hands and say don't know, no idea. Me my existence is just pointless. But to deny the evidence of evolution or the age of the earth etc on the basis of a book that is not even remotely contemporary with its main figure , heck show me the Hobbit.

Thu, 2011-12-01 23:13 — Ivan White (not verified)

Any debate between a scientist such as Dawkins, who believes in evolution because he's studied the overwhelming evidence for it, and a Christian who KNOWS that the Bible is true because it says it is, is pointless. Being religious means being certain about things for which no human being can be certain.

Read about the case of Edgardo Mortara and see where religion gets you:-
http://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t157-what-does-the-case-of-edgardo-...

Thu, 2011-12-01 15:52 — Ian5

Haha you Christians et al run all over promoting your fairy tales, then cry foul when your questioned...How big were the dragons baby Jesus confronted?

DS if your so sad and intellectuality challenged not to be able to understand that if there is no god and evolution exists then life is without purpose, even Richards selfish gene. My life has the purpose I choose, yes choose to give it. I don't need fake tablets to have morals.

Thu, 2011-12-01 23:46 — Kershan (not verified)

Flashbuck; I've seen Dawkins debate with Christians and it was embarrassing for all concerned. They just don't understand science, its terminology or its motivation. He has given plenty of plausible explanations as to why he limits the number of religious zealots he debates with. I'll dig out a link when I'm not on my phone. Don't forget he is actually a scientist and debates using evidence as his tool, not blind faith.

Sun, 2011-12-04 19:39 — atheism (not verified)

although i am not an american and an atheist, i live in america in a place saturated with religion and go to a university run by a religion. surprisingly, there are evolutionary biologists here who are super-duper religious as well. and even if science does show how the first cells were created, these religious people will think that this thing called god created the ideal situation for the creation of that first cell. that is what these people have done with evolution as well. i have had people tell me that darwin was right about how god works. these people keep moving the goal posts in their favor every time. so, i don't think answering this question will settle this debate.

Fri, 2011-12-02 01:01 — Flashbuck (not verified)

@Kershan

Christians don't understand science? Are you for real? Some the world's greatest scientists are and were christians!!!! The guy who first proposed the Big Bang theory was a Catholic Priest!!!! Etc etc etc etc etc.

And though he wasn't a Christian, nevertheless Einstein still believed in the existence of God, and I'll take Einstein before Dicky Dorkins anyday, since Einstein certainly knew a few things about the nature of the universe, certainly more than you, loser.

Sun, 2011-12-04 20:10 — Stephen Gibbs (not verified)

Jankass: "why? like all great artists, like any self respecting genius; you have to know your materials, you have to be able to make your own materials, to appreciate the way it's put together, and how it reacts under specific conditions."

Knowledge of the paintbox components(scientific knowledge) makes no difference to the peculiar appearance of the artwork which can only be engaged with via the imagination (aesthetically, not scientifically).

Evidence of the parts doesn't reveal the spacial relation of the component parts of the complex whole (which can only be grasped as art - or in the metaphors of text).

But I agree we need both. Good point.

Mon, 2012-02-06 10:34 — Andyb (not verified)

" Until this gap in scientific knowledge is filled, many believers will continue to resort to God as the default explanation."

That is wishful thinking. The kind of people who reject evolution and modern science completely in favour of the biblical story of creation who simply refuse to believe in any discovery in this area. They are immune to reason and evidence.

Wed, 2011-11-30 20:05 — daniel (not verified)

too many atheists act like finding the origin of life will disprove god. can god not work within the confines of science? not all theists believe god + magic = life. not all christians believe god created the earth in six literal days. many christians admit that they do not know the methods by which their god created the earth. they just believe he did, through science or otherwise. in the end it is a philosophical difference, not a scientific one. atheists believe the universe came into being on its own, theists believe it came into being by intelligent design. many christians react to science as if it is the dark lord fighting against jesus, this is because they are dumb. don't lump all christians or theists into this category; some christians believe in science too. atheists act just as close-minded as fundamentalists when they refuse to acknowledge the possibility that there could be an intelligent designer behind the universe. we just don't know; christians call it faith. atheists adamantly refuse to say they don't know, they just say they don't know yet.

Sun, 2011-12-04 20:46 — jankaas (not verified)

"Knowledge of the paintbox components(scientific knowledge) makes no difference to the peculiar appearance of the artwork which can only be engaged with via the imagination (aesthetically, not scientifically)."

true. but, appreciating the scientific factors involved (i.e. oil paint components, physics of light etc) means the aesthetics effects can be honed and targeted. the artist gains even more control over the emotive response. in a similar vein you'll find that musicians will experiment with the science of their craft, like Hendrix or Kraftwerk.

"But I agree we need both. Good point."

thanks.

Sun, 2011-12-04 20:54 — jankaas (not verified)

"there are evolutionary biologists here who are super-duper religious as well. "

and some of them are super-duper dudes too. my absolute favourite is Kenneth MIller, a practicing catholic. in Kitzmiller v Dover he presented irrefutable arguments that sank the case made by Intelligent Design proponents. man deserves a medal. his religion does not get in the way of facts. his faith is personal, and stays out of the class room.

so there's hope. good luck to you!

Tue, 2011-12-06 13:38 — Stephen Gibbs (not verified)

"Stephen, think the aesthetic effect is the minor consideration, could I not have the same aesthetic as Piccasso or Rembrandt, but be blessed as I am with the dexterity of a mountain gorilla. I think its in all of us, but the ability to reproduce is in limited supply. When I hear a great pianist perform my first response is one of envy."

Ah Ian, but I hazard your phizog has an 'air of something' which is profoundly unique which is beyond capture outside of aesthetic comprehension since its encounter won't reduce to atomic form. We cannot use the denotative language of science here but only allude connotatively e.g. via long forms of text or in poetic form.

The human mind moves at such a pace with such multiple variable that existence can't be isolated through a method that points to a component of truth; a changing context always changes the truth itself.

Tue, 2011-12-06 14:37 — Ian5

Stephen, oh that sounds rather like ID perhaps James Le Fanu and the concept of the mind v body which supposedly materialist properties of the chemical genes cannot be responsible for.

I'm all for allowing ID into the science class room, just get it published in peer reviewed recognised science journals and get its "theories" rated 3 sigma or above, and then you let scientist attack it . Ah but you don't like it being attacked, but if its in the science curriculum it must be attacked from all sides. My hard drive is material, yet it also stores vast quantities of data without any material additions. body and mind.

Wed, 2011-11-30 22:03 — K Rodgers (not verified)

no Daniel. Faith is believing in something because of nothing more than Chinese whispers. Someone somewhere once made up a story and either they or others said it was true in order to control other people.

Atheists in general say we don't know, I haven't met one who says "we don't know yet" because that would be as arrogant as those who say their God is the right one.

Most of us realise we will never know one way or the other, but we would rather take the path of wisdom and worship at the alter of science than take the route of deities and worship some religion that tries to play catch up with what we can prove about the world we live in.

Mon, 2011-12-05 00:06 — Al Shaw (not verified)

Interesting theories about early origins-of-life issues.

But can the atheist truely explain why anything exists at all, as opposed to nothing?

Thu, 2011-12-01 16:35 — Ian5

Oh flashbuck..name the thesist that so frieghtened RD, and your prefered deity I'm sure I've enough vitriol to spare.
RA, Zeus, you name it its all oppressive mumbo jumbo

Wed, 2011-11-30 22:17 — Big Bill (not verified)

Great article. And yes K Rodgers, you're right. The whole point here is you don't need faith to explain the origin of life. This article shows that science is surely getting closer to explaining it. Not that you need faith to explain anything, mind you, it's just what believers do and then they justify it by pointing at these gaps in our knowledge.

Mon, 2011-12-05 00:20 — Des Demona (not verified)

@ Al Shaw

Can you explain it without resorting to stuff made up about Genesis and the world being made in 7 days?

Or is that the word of god and so is literal. Or is it the case that the word of god moves depending on how much science progresses?

Why am I even arguing with you! Oh well , at least I can. One of the good things about a secular democracy.

Fri, 2011-12-02 10:37 — Kershan (not verified)

@Flashbuck, I partly take your point but you're responding to something I didn't say. I meant the Christians I've seen RD debate with don't understand science and the scientific method, and they use what they *think* is scientific language to, I dunno, convert Dawkins, and are doomed to embarrassing failure.

Look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fjx7hZbqmjQ

The guy he's debating with comes across as a nice guy, but when presented with evidence contrary to his own beliefs he just retreats into his shell.

And here's why RD doesn't debate with creationists: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhmsDGanyes

And as for Einstein believing in god - that's a common misconception, I'm afraid. There's plenty of documented material to prove that he held no such beliefs. Have a quick look here: http://www.skeptically.org/thinkersonreligion/id8.html

However you are right in your central argument, namely that merely being a Christian makes you reject all science. I did not and I would not say that. But frankly it's irrelevant whether *some* of the world's greatest scientists were Christians. I'm sure some were. I'm sure some were Muslims; some were atheists; some were Jews; and no doubt many believed in Zeus.

Sat, 2011-12-03 14:58 — Ian5

William, selective well to list all of the crimes committed in his name would probably require most of Amazons cloud capacity. Oh I make no distinction between the god of the Jews, Christians and Muslims. you just can't agree on a messiah, the God is the same.

well firstly if your god is omnipotent, then he is responsible for or complicit in every single murder that has ever been committed, for every person that dies of Malaria and so and so and so ....is your God omnipotent?

If your a Christian, should we not all be in the Garden of Eden, did not God sacrifice his son for "our" sins, so all is forgiven ,great back to paradise...but no, nothing changed.

Which parts of your bible are myth, name just 3 , or is it all literal? If myth why would God need myths? Heck William you Christians say loads that make me glad I'm an atheist.

Sat, 2011-12-03 15:16 — Stephen Gibbs (not verified)

Analysing the chemical compounds in Picasso's paintbox doth virtually nothing for the experience of his creations. I think you may be missing the point to life dear friend. Are secular humanists trying too hard I wonder?

Sat, 2011-12-03 15:40 — Ian5

How many secular humanists get up in a pulpit on a regular basis and spread the word, me thinks its the religious that go out proselytizing, heck we get Mormons, Jehovahs and others on a regular basis.
Stephen, if you had read my early posts,,I find no point in any life. Evolution does not allow for a purpose to life, its reliant on error and chance.

Fri, 2012-01-20 15:32 — Steff (not verified)

To William who said..

'3) Regarding the Crusades and the Inquisition. There is a good case to be made that the Crusades originated as a response to Islamic aggression, who were pushing into Europe. (Turkey used to be a Christian nation, in fact).

Without religion there would have been no Muslim, no Christian conflict so no one would have been called in the name of any God and there would have been not retaliation.

No religion = no conflict = no crusades = no death in the name of your imaginary friend.
What were these countries supposed to do exactly? Just let the Muslims take over and impose their culture?

Thu, 2011-12-01 00:52 — jorgge dawkins (not verified)

Forgive me here but I want to comment on the boycott in which students (Muslims and Christians) took the biology course will talk about evolutionism in England:
'
Would be hilarious were not tragic, is indignant that exist within universities humans with beliefs in saints, gods, etc. messiah. Imagine a work of diagnosing a patient: "God willing you will be healed and healthy," in my opinion this work should be processed and your Diploma Cassado anyway if I believe in some being Onitudo because I see a doctor? I was so very hypocritical and idiotic but being a man I felt conscious of my look imediantamente medicine, science and want to be diagnosed by someone who has no invisible friends, imaginary. Evolution has never clashed with Creation because it will be even difivilimo someone find a bat or a talking donkey ae. We have to be immune from the perverse and immoral religious consolation English students and those who boycotted the lecture on Evolution send a message:
put professionalism above their personal beliefs but not consseguirem rid of their superstitions, rather than open offices a "tent" and will be visionaries, to bless his premonitions and body of medical patients .. brothers in faith because it is WHAT Terao, people disoriented, unbalanced to warmly accept your prayers, prayers or mantras.

... (of God ... The need to offer a pathetic brainless flattery .. (Hitchens. ..)
jorgge dawkins.

Thu, 2011-12-01 16:57 — DS (not verified)

"to believe in evolution, as I do, requires the acceptance that life on this or any planet has no purpose or meaning."

"My life has the purpose I choose, yes choose to give it."

What's it like to live with that kind of contradiction?