Changes

There have been a number of proposals regarding the '''origin of life''' on earth.  However, the various proposals fall into two schools of thought.

There have been a number of proposals regarding the '''origin of life''' on earth.  However, the various proposals fall into two schools of thought.

One, held by [[Creationism|creationists]], is that life originated divinely/[[supernatural]]ly.

One, held by [[Creationism|creationists]], is that life originated divinely/[[supernatural]]ly.

The other school of thought is that non-life became life solely by means of natural processes.  This is commonly referred to as ''abiogenesis'' and "chemical [[evolution]]".<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html</ref><ref>http://www.creationbc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=86&Itemid=85</ref>  

The other school of thought is that non-life became life solely by means of natural processes.  This is commonly referred to as ''abiogenesis'' and "chemical [[evolution]]".<ref name="creationresearch.org">http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html</ref><ref>http://www.creationbc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=86&Itemid=85</ref>  

High profile evolutionists [[P.Z. Myers]] and Nick Matzke, agree that the origin of life is part of the evolutionary [[paradigm]], as does [[Richard Dawkins]].<ref>[http://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life]</ref>

High profile evolutionists [[P.Z. Myers]] and Nick Matzke, agree that the origin of life is part of the evolutionary [[paradigm]], as does [[Richard Dawkins]].<ref name="Origin of life">[http://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life]</ref>

The proposal that first life came about through natural processes has not fared well in recent times. The prominent origin of life researcher [[Stanley Miller]] said the origin of life problem was more difficult than he or anyone else had imagined.<ref>[http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html Why Abiogenesis is impossible]</ref> Due to the necessity of an [[Intelligent design|intelligent agent]] and the natural forces that a naturalistic origin of life faces, it is impossible for life to have arisen naturally (see: [http://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life]).<ref>[http://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life]</ref> <ref>[http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html Why Abiogenesis is impossible]</ref>

The proposal that first life came about through natural processes has not fared well in recent times. The prominent origin of life researcher [[Stanley Miller]] said the origin of life problem was more difficult than he or anyone else had imagined.<ref name="Why Abiogenesis is impossible">[http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html Why Abiogenesis is impossible]</ref> Due to the necessity of an [[Intelligent design|intelligent agent]] and the natural forces that a naturalistic origin of life faces, it is impossible for life to have arisen naturally (see: [http://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life]).<ref name="Origin of life"/><ref name="Why Abiogenesis is impossible"/>

== Current status ==

== Current status ==

Prominent origin of life researcher Klaus Dose wrote about the "immensity of the problem" for naturalistic explanations of the origin of life and stated, "At present all discussions on principle theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance."<ref name="CfF" />

Prominent origin of life researcher Klaus Dose wrote about the "immensity of the problem" for naturalistic explanations of the origin of life and stated, "At present all discussions on principle theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance."<ref name="CfF" />

In 1996, John Horgan wrote in [[Scientific American]]: "The origin of life is a science writer's dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion." <ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/orignl01.html#orgnflfmjrprblmschcknndgg</ref>

In 1996, John Horgan wrote in [[Scientific American]]: "The origin of life is a science writer's dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion." <ref name="members.iinet.net.au">http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/orignl01.html#orgnflfmjrprblmschcknndgg</ref>

Even [[Stanley Miller]] of the famous Miller-Urey experiment, wrote in ''Scientific American'' that the "problem of the origin of life has turned out to be much more difficult than I, and most other people, envisioned.<ref name="CfF" />

Even [[Stanley Miller]] of the famous Miller-Urey experiment, wrote in ''Scientific American'' that the "problem of the origin of life has turned out to be much more difficult than I, and most other people, envisioned.<ref name="CfF" />

Horgan also wrote that Stanley Miller had referred to current proposals of the origin of life as "nonsense" and "paper chemistry". <ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html</ref>

Horgan also wrote that Stanley Miller had referred to current proposals of the origin of life as "nonsense" and "paper chemistry".<ref name="creationresearch.org"/>

Stanley Miller, however, wasn't the first to highly disparage the existing proposals that scientists had come up with for the origin of life though natural means.  Chemist and science writer Andrew Scott in 1988 said that "[d]ue to this scarcity of financial resources the study of the origins of life has been forced to become a most efficient and cost-effective industry from just a thimble-full of facts the scientists engaged in that study manage to generate a virtually endless supply of theories!"<ref>Quoted by Jones, Stephen E., [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/orignl02.html#orgnflfscntfcthrsnvblscntfcthrsnthrgnflfllthrsndxprmntsthrndnstlmtrncnfssnfgnrnc Creation/Evolution Quotes: Origin of Life #2]</ref>

Stanley Miller, however, wasn't the first to highly disparage the existing proposals that scientists had come up with for the origin of life though natural means.  Chemist and science writer Andrew Scott in 1988 said that "[d]ue to this scarcity of financial resources the study of the origins of life has been forced to become a most efficient and cost-effective industry from just a thimble-full of facts the scientists engaged in that study manage to generate a virtually endless supply of theories!"<ref>Quoted by Jones, Stephen E., [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/orignl02.html#orgnflfscntfcthrsnvblscntfcthrsnthrgnflfllthrsndxprmntsthrndnstlmtrncnfssnfgnrnc Creation/Evolution Quotes: Origin of Life #2]</ref>

[[File:Francis_Crick.jpg|thumb|right|thumbnail|200px|[[Francis Crick]] ]]

[[File:Francis_Crick.jpg|thumb|right|thumbnail|200px|[[Francis Crick]] ]]

The attempt to explain the origin of life faces numerous difficult problems which is why the theory has not fared well in recent times:

The attempt to explain the origin of life faces numerous difficult problems which is why the theory has not fared well in recent times:

#'''Chicken or the Egg problem regarding [[DNA]] and [[protein]]s''': John Horgan wrote: "Many investigators now consider nucleic acids to be much more plausible candidates for the first self-replicating [[molecule]]s. The work of [[James Watson|Watson]] and [[Francis Crick|Crick]] and others has shown that proteins are formed according to the instructions coded in DNA. But there is a hitch. DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of catalytic proteins, or [[enzyme]]s. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins. To those pondering the origin of life, it is a classic chicken-and-egg problem: Which came first, proteins or DNA?" - (John Horgan,[science writer], "In The Beginning...," ''[[Scientific American]]'', Vol. 264, No. 2, February 1991, pp.100-109, p.103)"<ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/orignl01.html#orgnflfmjrprblmschcknndgg</ref>

#'''Chicken or the Egg problem regarding [[DNA]] and [[protein]]s''': John Horgan wrote: "Many investigators now consider nucleic acids to be much more plausible candidates for the first self-replicating [[molecule]]s. The work of [[James Watson|Watson]] and [[Francis Crick|Crick]] and others has shown that proteins are formed according to the instructions coded in DNA. But there is a hitch. DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of catalytic proteins, or [[enzyme]]s. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins. To those pondering the origin of life, it is a classic chicken-and-egg problem: Which came first, proteins or DNA?" - (John Horgan,[science writer], "In The Beginning...," ''[[Scientific American]]'', Vol. 264, No. 2, February 1991, pp.&nbsp;100–109, p.&nbsp;103)"<ref name="members.iinet.net.au"/>

#Complexity of the [[cell]]: [[Molecule|Molecular]] [[biology|biologist]] Michael Denton wrote regarding the complexity of the cell: "To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by [[molecular biology]], we must magnify a [[cell]] a thousand million times until it is twenty [[kilometer]]s in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like [[London]] or [[New York City|New York]]. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity... Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which-a functional [[protein]] or [[gene]] - is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?"<ref>Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Burnett Books, London, 1985, pages 328 and 342</ref>

#Complexity of the [[cell]]: [[Molecule|Molecular]] [[biology|biologist]] Michael Denton wrote regarding the complexity of the cell: "To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by [[molecular biology]], we must magnify a [[cell]] a thousand million times until it is twenty [[kilometer]]s in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like [[London]] or [[New York City|New York]]. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity... Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which-a functional [[protein]] or [[gene]] - is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?"<ref>Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Burnett Books, London, 1985, pages 328 and 342</ref>

#[[Catch 22]] problem regarding [[oxygen]] and the early [[earth]]: Mike Riddle cites the "catch 22" dilemna regarding oxygen on the early earth in regards to a hypothesized naturalistic origin of life: "If we were to grant the evolutionists’ assumption of no oxygen in the original [[atmosphere]], another fatal problem arises. Since the [[ozone]] is made of oxygen, it would not exist; and the [[ultraviolet]] rays from the [[sun]] would destroy any biological molecules. This presents a no-win situation for the evolution model. If there was oxygen, life could not start. If there was no oxygen, life could not start. Michael Denton notes: What we have is sort of a “Catch 22” situation. If we have oxygen we have no [[organic compound]]s, but if we don’t have oxygen we have none either."<ref>Riddle, Mike, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/can-natural-processes-explain Can natural processes explain the origin of life?] 17th May, 2007 (Answers in Genesis).</ref>

#[[Catch 22]] problem regarding [[oxygen]] and the early [[earth]]: Mike Riddle cites the "catch 22" dilemna regarding oxygen on the early earth in regards to a hypothesized naturalistic origin of life: "If we were to grant the evolutionists’ assumption of no oxygen in the original [[atmosphere]], another fatal problem arises. Since the [[ozone]] is made of oxygen, it would not exist; and the [[ultraviolet]] rays from the [[sun]] would destroy any biological molecules. This presents a no-win situation for the evolution model. If there was oxygen, life could not start. If there was no oxygen, life could not start. Michael Denton notes: What we have is sort of a “Catch 22” situation. If we have oxygen we have no [[organic compound]]s, but if we don’t have oxygen we have none either."<ref>Riddle, Mike, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/can-natural-processes-explain Can natural processes explain the origin of life?] 17th May, 2007 (Answers in Genesis).</ref>

Noted [[Physics|physicist]] and [[bioinformatics|bioinformatician]] Hubert Yockey, who worked under [[Robert Oppenheimer]] on the Manhatten Project wrote the following regarding the crucial role the [[philosophical]] presuppositions play in the origin of life issue:

Noted [[Physics|physicist]] and [[bioinformatics|bioinformatician]] Hubert Yockey, who worked under [[Robert Oppenheimer]] on the Manhatten Project wrote the following regarding the crucial role the [[philosophical]] presuppositions play in the origin of life issue:

{{cquote|Faith in the infallible and comprehensive doctrines of [[Dialectical materialism|dialectic materialism]] plays a crucial role in origin of life scenarios, and especially in [[exobiology]] and its ultimate consequence the doctrine of advanced extra-terrestrial civilization. That life must exist somewhere in the solar system on ‘suitable planets elsewhere’ is widely and tenaciously believed in spite of lack of evidence or even abundant evidence to the contrary.<ref>http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an [[Creation Research Quarterly]] September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel</ref>}}

{{cquote|Faith in the infallible and comprehensive doctrines of [[Dialectical materialism|dialectic materialism]] plays a crucial role in origin of life scenarios, and especially in [[exobiology]] and its ultimate consequence the doctrine of advanced extra-terrestrial civilization. That life must exist somewhere in the solar system on ‘suitable planets elsewhere’ is widely and tenaciously believed in spite of lack of evidence or even abundant evidence to the contrary.<ref name="genesispark.org">http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an [[Creation Research Quarterly]] September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel</ref>}}

Yockey's statement regarding the philosophical presuppositions playing a crucial role in origin of life scenarios can be seen in regards to Sir [[Francis Crick]] the Nobel Prize winning biologist who was the British co-discoverer of the structure of [[DNA]].  Crick has described himself as an [[agnostic]] with "a strong inclination towards [[atheism]]."<ref>Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit: a Personal View of Scientific Discovery, Basic Books reprint edition, 1990, ISBN 0-465-09138-5, p. 145.</ref> In 1973, Francis Crick and the chemist [[Leslie Orgel]] published an article in the ''International Journal of Solar System Studies'' (Icarus) which posited that life may have arrived on [[earth]] by a process they called "[[Directed panspermia|Directed Panspermia]]".<ref>http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-04zzz.html</ref> The abstract for the aforemention Icarus article states that Directed Pamspermia is a "theory that organisms were deliberately transmitted to the earth by intelligent beings on another planet."<ref>http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-04zzz.html</ref>  

Yockey's statement regarding the philosophical presuppositions playing a crucial role in origin of life scenarios can be seen in regards to Sir [[Francis Crick]] the Nobel Prize winning biologist who was the British co-discoverer of the structure of [[DNA]].  Crick has described himself as an [[agnostic]] with "a strong inclination towards [[atheism]]."<ref>Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit: a Personal View of Scientific Discovery, Basic Books reprint edition, 1990, ISBN 0-465-09138-5, p. 145.</ref> In 1973, Francis Crick and the chemist [[Leslie Orgel]] published an article in the ''International Journal of Solar System Studies'' (Icarus) which posited that life may have arrived on [[earth]] by a process they called "[[Directed panspermia|Directed Panspermia]]".<ref name="spacedaily.com">http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-04zzz.html</ref> The abstract for the aforemention Icarus article states that Directed Pamspermia is a "theory that organisms were deliberately transmitted to the earth by intelligent beings on another planet."<ref name="spacedaily.com"/>  

[[Image:6748yuhg.jpg|right|thumb|250px|[[Michael Behe]]]]

[[Image:6748yuhg.jpg|right|thumb|250px|[[Michael Behe]]]]

In 1992, the popular magazine ''Scientific American'' published an interview  which explored Crick's belief in the hypothesis Directed Panspermia.<ref>http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an [[Creation Research Quarterly]] September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel</ref> [[United States|American]] [[Biochemistry|biochemist]] and [[Intelligent design|intelligent design]] advocate [[Michael Behe]] wrote concerning the interview: "The primary reason Crick subscribes to this unorthodox view is that he judges the undirected origin of life to be a virtually insurmountable obstacle, but he wants a naturalistic explanation."<ref>http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an [[Creation Research Quarterly]] September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel</ref>

In 1992, the popular magazine ''Scientific American'' published an interview  which explored Crick's belief in the hypothesis Directed Panspermia.<ref name="genesispark.org">http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an [[Creation Research Quarterly]] September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel</ref> [[United States|American]] [[Biochemistry|biochemist]] and [[intelligent design]] advocate [[Michael Behe]] wrote concerning the interview: "The primary reason Crick subscribes to this unorthodox view is that he judges the undirected origin of life to be a virtually insurmountable obstacle, but he wants a naturalistic explanation."<ref name="genesispark.org">http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an [[Creation Research Quarterly]] September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel</ref>

[[Young Earth Creationism|Young earth creationist]] Gary Bates went further in criticism of Directed Panspermia and wrote that "Crick’s atheistic faith leads to absurd [[pseudoscience]]".<ref name="Bates">Bates, Gary, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/125 Designed by aliens?], ''Creation'' 25(4):54–55, September 2003</ref>

[[Young Earth Creationism|Young earth creationist]] Gary Bates went further in criticism of Directed Panspermia and wrote that "Crick’s atheistic faith leads to absurd [[pseudoscience]]".<ref name="Bates">Bates, Gary, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/125 Designed by aliens?], ''Creation'' 25(4):54–55, September 2003</ref>

{{cquote|Although he tried to solve the problem of the source of intelligence for the creation of [[DNA]] without [[God]], Crick only succeeded in pushing the problem into outer space where...it cannot be tested.  After all, if such alleged aliens, in turn, were not created by a greater intelligence than themselves, then how did they evolve from non-living chemicals in the first place?<ref name="Bates" />}}

{{cquote|Although he tried to solve the problem of the source of intelligence for the creation of [[DNA]] without [[God]], Crick only succeeded in pushing the problem into outer space where...it cannot be tested.  After all, if such alleged aliens, in turn, were not created by a greater intelligence than themselves, then how did they evolve from non-living chemicals in the first place?<ref name="Bates" />}}

===Atheist Philosopher Doug Jesseph and the Origin of Life===

===Atheist Philosopher Doug Jesseph and the Origin of Life===

In October of 1997, atheist [[Jeffery Jay Lowder]], a founder of [[Internet Infidels]], stated that he believed that in regards to [[atheism]] "the most impressive debater to date" was [[atheism|atheist]] [[philosophy|philosopher]] [[Douglas Jesseph]].<ref>http://www.infidels.org/infidels/newsletter/1997/october.html</ref> Yet Doug Jesseph claimed in a debate with [[William Lane Craig]] in 1996 that the origin of life had a detailed atheistic explanation(s).<ref>http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/doug_jesseph/jesseph-craig/jesseph1.html</ref> As noted earlier, in 1996, John Horgan wrote the following regarding what the highly respected origin of life researcher [[Stanley Miller]] believed to the case regarding naturalistic explanations of the origin of life: "Miller seemed unimpressed with any of the current proposals on the origin of life, referring to them as “nonsense” or “paper chemistry.”"<ref>http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp</ref>  In addition, as stated earlier, in 1996, John Horgan wrote the following in ''[[Scientific American]]'': "The origin of life is a science writer's dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion."<ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/orignl01.html#orgnflfmjrprblmschcknndgg</ref>

In October 1997, atheist [[Jeffery Jay Lowder]], a founder of [[Internet Infidels]], stated that he believed that in regards to [[atheism]] "the most impressive debater to date" was [[atheism|atheist]] [[philosophy|philosopher]] [[Douglas Jesseph]].<ref>http://www.infidels.org/infidels/newsletter/1997/october.html</ref> Yet Doug Jesseph claimed in a debate with [[William Lane Craig]] in 1996 that the origin of life had a detailed atheistic explanation(s).<ref>http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/doug_jesseph/jesseph-craig/jesseph1.html</ref> As noted earlier, in 1996, John Horgan wrote the following regarding what the highly respected origin of life researcher [[Stanley Miller]] believed to the case regarding naturalistic explanations of the origin of life: "Miller seemed unimpressed with any of the current proposals on the origin of life, referring to them as “nonsense” or “paper chemistry.”"<ref>http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp</ref>  In addition, as stated earlier, in 1996, John Horgan wrote the following in ''[[Scientific American]]'': "The origin of life is a science writer's dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion."<ref name="members.iinet.net.au"/>

== Biblical creationists and the issue of intelligent life on other planets ==

== Biblical creationists and the issue of intelligent life on other planets ==

== 2009 origin of life debate ==

== 2009 origin of life debate ==

[[Image:Stephen Meyer.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] published an article favoring [[intelligent design]] in a peer reviewed science journal which had traditionally only published material advocating the [[evolution|evolutionary]] position.<ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1489</ref>]]

[[Image:Stephen Meyer.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] published an article favoring [[intelligent design]] in a peer reviewed science journal which had traditionally only published material advocating the [[evolution]]ary position.<ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1489</ref>]]

In 2009, Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] and Dr. [[Richard Sternberg]] debating Dr. [[Michael Shermer]] and Dr. Donald Prothero concerning on the topic of the origin of life.<ref>http://greatcloud.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/audio-of-stephen-meyer-vs-michael-shermer-debate/</ref> The [[Discovery Institute]] declared concerning the debate:  

In 2009, Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] and Dr. [[Richard Sternberg]] debating Dr. [[Michael Shermer]] and Dr. Donald Prothero concerning on the topic of the origin of life.<ref name="greatcloud.wordpress.com">http://greatcloud.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/audio-of-stephen-meyer-vs-michael-shermer-debate/</ref> The [[Discovery Institute]] declared concerning the debate:  

{{cquote|To call the debate a massacre would be a discredit to Sitting Bull. The only thing I can say is that Shermer needs to add a point to his booklet on how to debate "[[creationism|creationists]]" — namely, leave Donald Prothero at home in his van by the river...

{{cquote|To call the debate a massacre would be a discredit to Sitting Bull. The only thing I can say is that Shermer needs to add a point to his booklet on how to debate "[[creationism|creationists]]" — namely, leave Donald Prothero at home in his van by the river...

Some of the best points came later in the debate, when Sternberg slammed Prothero with factual put down after factual put down, citing the current literature time and again. His command of the subject matter — from population genetics to [[Junk DNA|junk DNA]] — was so far and above beyond Shermer and Prothero's knowledge, so far above their pay grade, that it was almost painful to watch him school them point after point. As I said before, shortly you'll be able to watch the debate for yourself. But be warned, it isn't pretty.<ref>http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/12/ouch_intelligent_design_guys_p.html</ref>}}

Some of the best points came later in the debate, when Sternberg slammed Prothero with factual put down after factual put down, citing the current literature time and again. His command of the subject matter — from population genetics to [[junk DNA]] — was so far and above beyond Shermer and Prothero's knowledge, so far above their pay grade, that it was almost painful to watch him school them point after point. As I said before, shortly you'll be able to watch the debate for yourself. But be warned, it isn't pretty.<ref>http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/12/ouch_intelligent_design_guys_p.html</ref>}}

An audio copy of the debate has been made available to the public.<ref>http://greatcloud.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/audio-of-stephen-meyer-vs-michael-shermer-debate/</ref> In addition, the debate is available at YouTube.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3ThFiBLxtU&feature=PlayList&p=6C0852528AD4F139&playnext_from=PL&index=0&playnext=1</ref>

An audio copy of the debate has been made available to the public.<ref name="greatcloud.wordpress.com"/> In addition, the debate is available at YouTube.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3ThFiBLxtU&feature=PlayList&p=6C0852528AD4F139&playnext_from=PL&index=0&playnext=1</ref>

== Creation Science and Intelligent Design Theorist Views ==

== Creation Science and Intelligent Design Theorist Views ==

[[Creation Science|Creation scientists]] hold that God supernaturally created the various animals and plants on earth and naturalistic explanations are implausible.  They offer numerous arguments on why naturalistic explanations of the origin of life are inadequate.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/origin.asp</ref> <ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=caGCTtPi-aMC&pg=PA107&lpg=PA107&dq=mood+and+conference+and+origin+and+life+and+bradley+and+grim&source=web&ots=iyVq9fDDDR&sig=ub92i66wAgY0UslPEM1WLlxSl9M</ref>

[[Creation Science|Creation scientists]] hold that God supernaturally created the various animals and plants on earth and naturalistic explanations are implausible.  They offer numerous arguments on why naturalistic explanations of the origin of life are inadequate.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/origin.asp</ref><ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=caGCTtPi-aMC&pg=PA107&lpg=PA107&dq=mood+and+conference+and+origin+and+life+and+bradley+and+grim&source=web&ots=iyVq9fDDDR&sig=ub92i66wAgY0UslPEM1WLlxSl9M</ref>

Dr. [[Stephen C. Meyer]] argues that naturalistic explanations for the origin of life have failed and that inference to the best explanation for the origin of biological information is an [[Intelligent design|intelligent cause]].<ref>http://www.macrodevelopment.org/library/meyer.html</ref> In ''[[Darwin's Doubt]]'', he writes:

Dr. [[Stephen C. Meyer]] argues that naturalistic explanations for the origin of life have failed and that inference to the best explanation for the origin of biological information is an [[Intelligent design|intelligent cause]].<ref>http://www.macrodevelopment.org/library/meyer.html</ref> In ''[[Darwin's Doubt]]'', he writes:

*[[Origin of life on Earth]]

*[[Origin of life on Earth]]

==External Links==

==External links==

'''Creation science articles and videos:'''

'''Creation science articles and videos:'''

Audio:

Audio:

 

* [http://www.khouse.org/6640/DVD79-1/ DNA by Design Stephen C. Meyer, PhD - Audio]

[http://www.khouse.org/6640/DVD79-1/ DNA by Design Stephen C. Meyer, PhD - Audio]

==References==

==References==

[[Category: Creationism]]

[[Category:Creationism]]

[[Category: Origin of Life]]

[[Category:Origin of Life]]