Tuesday, 28 June 2011

A question for creationists.

I'm well aware that this blog doesn't yet have a massive readership, but my view count continues to go up quasi-steadily, so I'm going to go ahead and try this and see what I get.

I posed a question today to a YEC I debate with fairly often on Twitter. He gave me a brief and unsatisfying answer and then disappeared before answering my clarifying question. Life happens to us all, and I'm hoping he'll be around later to further refine his answer. Of course, at that point, I may just ask him to do so here.

The following question is for those who believe in a literal Creator, be it old-Earth or young-Earth. It's for those of you that think abiogenesis is simply too improbable to be believed, and the first inklings of life must have been Created, whether or not you believe evolution took over from there.

Two of my recent posts have focused on scientific findings, findings which help to erode the idea that a Creator is necessary at all. They're indirect evidence, I know, but every bit helps. I posited in one of those articles about the logical conclusion of this science, and I'm curious as to how that conclusion would affect the creationist community.

Suppose that tomorrow a revolutionary scientific finding was announced. A scientist has been working in a lab for the past however-many years, and he has managed to get life to form itself. By this I mean, he set up a sterile room, filled it with water, ammonia, methane, perhaps some other simple organic chemicals, flooded it with sunlight, perhaps created artificial tides and tidal pools - in other words, simulated the Earth as we believe it was ~4.5 billion years ago. And in this mishmash of chemistry, water, and light, self-replicating molecules formed, and began spreading. He's held off announcing it, though, and he kept watching, and now, after years of study, these molecules have - all on their own, without any prompting - formed simple pseudo-cells which have begun competing with each other.

In short, he's created brand-new life watched brand new life form, using only simple chemistry and time.

The question, then, is how would this discovery affect you? Would it be a crack in your faith? After all, if it can happen over the course of a few years in a lab, certainly it must be possible over millenia on Earth. Would it destroy your faith, to prove that life literally needs no creator? Or can you think of arguments against it, arguments that you think shows that all of this doesn't prove that a creator is unnecessary?

I'm genuinely curious. This experiment, of course, has not happened yet, but I'm betting that it will, and I don't think it'll be all that long. Harry Lonsdale, a very-wealthy very-atheist has just recently announced that he's going to give someone a rather large grant to attempt this very experiment. What if they succeed? How will you react? What will you say?

Are any creationists willing to play this hypothetical game with me? I'm hoping so.

To all my lovely atheist readers, if you're curious about the answers to this question as well, spread the word. I know it sounds like a cheap plug, but the more creationists we can gather in here, the more answers we can get, and I'm just not that popular yet. Give me a hand, if you can!


  1. //In short, he's created brand-new life, using only simple chemistry and time.//
    Is this a Creation experiment or an Evolution experiment, as this line says 'created'?
    If it were an evolution experiment then life would have to form from NOTHING.
    How about the terms be that the scientist starts with nothing and have the chemicals, the lab and life form from that? That would make the experiment in evolutionary terms more realistic.
    Otherwise a creationist could claim easily 'contamination' and we wouldn't want that would we? I know that is what evolutionists always seem to claim when something 'dates' younger than it should after testing.

  2. Ah, yes, you're absolutely right. I've fixed my phrasing gaffe, thank you for pointing it out.