Science Radio Telescope

What’s the best argument against design as an explanation for the origin of life?

Here’s a great story from Jennifer Kabbany, writing for The College Fix, about a physics professor at Ball State who had to battle against the best argument against intelligent design:

Physicist Eric Hedin was canceled before the term cancel culture was even coined.

He taught a very popular class at Ball State University for six years called “Boundaries of Science” before pressure from atheists in 2013 prompted campus leaders to cancel the course.

Hedin never taught “Boundaries of Science” at Ball State again, but he continued teaching physics there and even got tenure. Eventually he left the Indiana campus to take a job at Biola University, a private Christian school in Southern California.

He has a new book out, telling the story of what happened to him:

More recently Hedin has revisited the Ball State experience that thrust his name into the national spotlight and made him the poster boy for intelligent design for a season. Earlier this year he published the book “Canceled Science: What Some Atheists Don’t Want You to See.”

“Canceled Science tells the dramatic story of the atheist campaign to cancel Hedin’s course, reveals the evidence the atheists tried to bury, and explores discoveries that have revolutionized our understanding of the nature and origin of matter, space, and even time itself,” the online book description states.

Hedin, in an interview with The College Fix on Tuesday, said his book comes at a time when there’s more evidence than ever for intelligent design.

The rest of the article is an interview, I thought this was interesting:

Do people who have not studied this issue in depth truly understand the mathematical enormity of the fine-tuning argument? It’s not just “the chances are low” that life arose by chance.

Honestly, as a physicist I would be willing to say the physical reality chance of life originating on its own by natural processes within this universe is zero, not just low. It’s because the universe is not infinitely big. There is a finite universe. We don’t have an infinite amount of time, the universe has a finite age, roughly 13.8 billion years. That limited time, limited spatial extent of the universe means that there’s a limited amount that any natural randomness could generate. The probabilistic resources of our universe fall short of what is necessary to develop even one large functional protein molecule that would be just one of tens of thousands of different protein molecules that are needed for human life to exist. It’s almost to me desperate to keep trying to think that this could have happened by chance.

I think the College Fix article is a great article to share. It’s important to understand how secular leftists – who were raised to believe in the power of naturalism through science fiction – respond to actual experimental data. They don’t have any evidence for their view, but they do have one very powerful argument for naturalism – “I’ll end your career and starve your family if you disagree with atheism”.

2 thoughts on “What’s the best argument against design as an explanation for the origin of life?”

  1. I understand, having been there, why atheists are only getting the small part of “science” that sort of, kind of, affirms their beliefs. They don’t know where to look, being blind and all.

    I also understand why atheists reject the truth in the rare circumstances that they inadvertently bump into it. Their desire to sin is great.

    What I don’t understand is why atheists would want to cancel the truth that they are “certain” is the equivalent of flat earth, etc. I never got that far in my atheism. Yes from the Biblical standpoint they tried to cancel the One Who is Truth on the Cross even though that failed. But it makes no sense on atheism for those who truly seek the scientific truth wherever it might lead them.

    I think the power of evidential apologetics is for those atheists who are willing to be intellectually honest. That might be a pretty small percentage of atheists but it’s still a lot of people.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. It is obvious now that with origins, the pseudo science is the atheist world view and it is only trying to deflect from how shallow and weak their view is when they toss out pseudo claims against intelligent design


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s