The History Channel

8/8/2019 The History Channel

1/7

The History Channel: How Life Began

GilDodgen

I watch very little television, but I enjoy The History Channel (THC). Ive learned a lot from it. When it comes to

hard science and engineering they do a very good job. Ive particularly enjoyed their programs about the history

of aviation, since Im a software engineer in the aerospace R&D industry wi th hundreds of hours of airtime in

hang gliders and have a special interest in aerodynamics and aviation history.

When it comes to aviation, THC gets it right, virtually all of the time.

It was thus with trepidation that I watched How Life Began last eve ning. The title of the show was a dead

giveaway about what I would see, hear, and experience. The title of the show should have been How Did Life

Begin? and the answer should have been, No one has the faintest idea.

But no, we are presented with endless speculation that doesnt withstand even the most trivial scrutiny, and are

given the impression that science has the solution well in hand, with only minor details to be filled in.

We are also greeted with the usual obligatory assurances that religion and evolution are perfectly compatible,

if one has a proper intellectually and materialistically enlightened interpretation of religion*. White -collared Fr.

Coyne is prominently displayed as an apologist for this thesis, and assures viewers that intel ligent design is

superbly unnecessary as an explanation for the origin of life. Eugenie Scott would be proud of him.

The big problem with How Life Began is that no hard questions are ever asked, much less addressed. We take a

journey into the Life, Inc. factory, where all the mysteries of the origin of life are explained.

In the life factory we are given an introduction to basic chemistry. The simple chemical elements hydrogen,

oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon (with a few trace elements) are mixed in a vat with liquid water. We are also

given a grade-school education about the temperature range under which water is a liquid. We are then told

about the marvels of the carbon atom, which can produce millions of chemical compounds.

We are then treated to a discussion about amino acids and how they make up proteins. (The obvious implication,

presented through computer-generated graphics showing increasingly complex molecules forming spontaneously

in an aqueous environment, is that proteins can be generated by stochastic processes.)

We then learn about the DNA molecule, and how it engenders self-replication, with no explanation as to how it

could have possibly originated.

We then learn about the cell wall, with no explanation as to how it could have possibly originated.


2/7


3/7

Eric Anderson

06/' '

/'

008

10:36( )

Thanks0G

1 2 3

Too bad that this nons4

ns4

isstill pass4

d off ass4 5

ious programming, particularly when

some very interesting and challenging questionscould have been asked. I didnt get a chance to watch

it, but from your description, it sounds like a propaganda piece, more than a scientific documentary.

3

Berceuse

06/6 6

/6

008

11:147 8

I remember seeing thisshow come up when I waschannel surfing. I just clicked the info button, read

it, rolled my eyes, and watched something else that wasnt a waste of timealthough I was indeed

curious how intellectually bankrupt the broadcast would be.

4

Robert Lockett06/

9 9

/9

008

11:36@ A

Gil thank you for that. It issad. Let them tell their gospel and call it science.

Mt 24:24 For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to

deceive even the electif that were possible.

5

Chemfarmer

06/B

3/B

008

1:

B

8C

D

AsGil said, no one has any plausible idea of how life began, or even how any of the individual systems

might have developed. About three months ago, I heard Professor George Whitesides, a world-famous

organicchemist who is part ofHarvards Origin of Life project say this at a national chemistry meeting

(asmuch of a quote as I can remember): I was trained as a sophist, and I can postulate explanations

for things as well as anyone. And I do not have a single religiouscorpuscle in my body. But I have to

say that I have absolutely no idea how life began.He went on to say that there are some really

intelligent people in the ID camp, and that dismissing them with derision was not a useful response.

6

QuadFather06/

E

3/E

008 F

:E F

G

H

All I have to say is

Can Nature make a rock so big it cant move?

7


4/7

Granville Sewell

06/I

3/I

008 P

:33Q

R

Did they give the Time magazine (Jeff Kluger) recipe for cooking up life:

He [Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientistsmake whenever they try to take down evolution,

asking, for example, how something ascomplex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from

the earths primordial soup. The answer is it couldntand it didnt. Organicchemicals needed eons of

stirring and slow cooking before they could produce compounds that could begin to lead to a living

thing.

8

bevets

06/S

3/S

008

4:34T U

Nobody understands the origin of life. If they say they do, they are probably trying to fool you. ~

Kenneth Nealson

9

MaxAug

06/V

3/V

008

7:14W X

IMO, this is the current status of OOL research and all:

1. Metabolism first people refuted the replicator first hypothesis.

2. Replicator first people refuted the metabolism first hypothesis.

So the best answer they have right now is based on emergence (of the gaps): Gather a bunch of

chemicals in some environment and then life appears as an emergent property of the system. They have

no idea how did this happen, but hey, we dont like cdesign proponentists nor their designer, so shut up

or else!

Or maybe theres an even easier solution: life just had to happen in at least one of those infinite

multiverses (of the gaps) right? ;p

10

BarryA

06/Y

4/Y

008

1:1

a

b

Thanks for slogging through the show and giving us an overview. I tried to watch it, intending to do that

very thing. But after about 15 minutes the boredommeter reached stupefying, and I gave it up as no

good. Gil, I am amazed you were able to endure the program from beginning to end. Your ability to

tolerate facile blithering and trivialization on a grand scale is astonishing.

I wonder, is it possible to trivialize grandly? Ifso, the producers of thisshow achieved it.


5/7

11

StephenB

06/c

4/c

008

10:11d

e

Barry A: I wonder, is it possible to trivialize grandly (a nice turn of phrase)

The character that Sam Neil played in Jurassic Park made the point as eloquently as anyone. He and the

two kids are sitting around looking at the freshly laid egg of a tyrannosaurus Rex and trying to make

some sense of it. Suddenly, the answer to an age old question breaks into hisconsciousness. Eyes

beaming with wonderment, he slowly breaks into a smile and shares his newfound wisdom: Life found a

way. Thats the argument from naturalism, plain and simple.

12

GilDodgen

06/f

4/f

008

10:3f

g

h

I wonder, is it possible to trivialize grandly?

Apparently so. This was a case of truly virtuosic trivialization.

Gil, I am amazed you were able to endure the program from beginning to end. Your ability to tolerate

facile blithering and trivialization on a grand scale is astonishing.

Apparently Im a masochist. This is undoubtedly a vestigial remnant ofmy heathen past. It is

illuminating, however, to see what the opposition has to offer in the way of apologetics.

My comment is that of the big bad mutant dude after being slammed around by the Incredible Hulk: Isthat all you got?

13

redox

06/i

4/i

008

11:38p

q

I had a similar reaction as you did GilDodgen. 2 main jaw droppers were:

The movie was different than the book. It wasnt at all a respesentation of the actual state ofchemistry

and the technical discussion of OOL. No indications why research hasmoved from one theory to the

next; guess researchers just like multiplicity of ideas?

The worst and most amazing of the jawdroppers was how it portrayed each theory. A presenter

discussed what their research was about and then they or the voice over basically said those who

disagreed with their theory didnt like it. No technical reasons about why others thought there wasnt

much merit in the path they were taking. The most egregious example was how they talked about

Stanley Miller. Paraphrasing: He was a crassman, and didnt like new ideas or ideas that arent his

own. Wow. Hmm, so his published technical critiquesmust have been my imagination. They painted


6/7


7/7

The History Channel

Documents

Transcript of The History Channel