As good journalists often do, Strobel opens this chapter with a compelling story. He recounts the story of how Ronald Keith Williamson is wrongly convicted of a murder in
He then goes on to establish the link between atheism and evolutionism, citing Richard Dawkins as saying that
Miller’s “life in a test-tube” experiment was based on faulty data; therefore life could not have come from nonliving chemicals.
I can’t blame Strobel for not mentioning this, since his book was published in 2000, and this press release came out in April 2005 (a month prior to this writing.)
Among the statements in the article are as follows:
Next Bradley goes on to discuss various ideas about the mechanics of how evolutionists say that life on earth evolved. He mentions The “Random Chance” theory (which no one believes anymore), “Chemical Affinity” (that the chemicals needed for life were inevitably attracted to one another), “Self-ordering tendencies” (that life formed from self-organizing matter), “Seeding from space” (the idea that life originated somewhere else and ended up on Earth. I quite agree with Bradley that this only postponed the question of how life came to be.), “Vents in the Ocean” (that life originated near hot-springs in the ocean), and “Life from Clay” (that live evolved in clay rather than in water—I don’t really get this one.) I’m not going to get into detail on these, as I don’t have the time. I’m going to skip to the real crux of the matter.
Not convinced. Actually, I don’t even think the objection for which the chapter was named was even adequately addressed. Most of the chapter was did not even address evolution, but abiogenesis—the origin of life. As I mentioned before, even proving a divine origin for life would not disprove evolution. It could still be believed that God just got the process started. Nor would proving a natural origin for life prove that no god exists. It’s just that such a proof would point towards the credibility of a belief that there is no intelligent creator, which is what I think Richard Dawkins meant when he said that