More importantly, it's an explanation of how cells work now, after 4 Billion Years of evolution.
He knows damned well that no one thinks the original cells used the complex structures that have evolved, which he keeps describing.
He knows damned well that they have found so many alternative ways to do the things he's saying are impossible without some Designer that we can't even tell which of the methods is the most likely, and thus worthy of the most resources to research, so we have different teams looking at all of them (NASA/JPL has a great set of links to the different teams working on the abiogenesis question, and the methods they're investigating, but I don't feel like digging it up again) to try to figure out how it occurred naturally.
Given that for 9/10ths of life on earth, there was nothing but bacteria doing the evolving, and a bacterium's generational time is measured in hours or at most days, not years, the 4BY timeline of our evolutionary heritage represents literally a trillion generations, in order to get where our DNA-based systems are, today.
And no, to answer your question. I was a theist when I started my degree, and the more I learned about how life actually works and how it evolved on this planet, the less I thought some "Designer" was necessary... especially while memorizing biosynthetic pathways (you have my sympathies!) for Biochem. In particular, I was put off by learning how things worked, and then watching guys like Ken Hamm deliberately (it has to be deliberate!!) lie to audiences, when they came to my university, about what science knows and how it works.
By the time I graduated, I was an outspoken atheist.
He knows damned well that no one thinks the original cells used the complex structures that have evolved, which he keeps describing.
He knows damned well that they have found so many alternative ways to do the things he's saying are impossible without some Designer that we can't even tell which of the methods is the most likely, and thus worthy of the most resources to research, so we have different teams looking at all of them (NASA/JPL has a great set of links to the different teams working on the abiogenesis question, and the methods they're investigating, but I don't feel like digging it up again) to try to figure out how it occurred naturally.
Given that for 9/10ths of life on earth, there was nothing but bacteria doing the evolving, and a bacterium's generational time is measured in hours or at most days, not years, the 4BY timeline of our evolutionary heritage represents literally a trillion generations, in order to get where our DNA-based systems are, today.
And no, to answer your question. I was a theist when I started my degree, and the more I learned about how life actually works and how it evolved on this planet, the less I thought some "Designer" was necessary... especially while memorizing biosynthetic pathways (you have my sympathies!) for Biochem. In particular, I was put off by learning how things worked, and then watching guys like Ken Hamm deliberately (it has to be deliberate!!) lie to audiences, when they came to my university, about what science knows and how it works.
By the time I graduated, I was an outspoken atheist.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
