Ah, well.
Meet Christophe FinipolscieDid you know that the power in your muscles comes from a myriad of tiny chemicals which have legs that actually walk?
Did you know that this is total BS? Motor proteins do not
walk, if by “walk” one means, with
intent. Even humans and other animals do not walk with complete intent; a lot of walking is auto-pilot. Motor proteins act according to well understood biochemical processes that pose no problem to science and do not in any way betoken some kind of rudimentary mind or purpose.
Did you know that the only known mechanism for biological Evolution is based on the living cell, and therefore it is impossible for it to explain the origin of the first cell - the origin of Life?
Did you know that this is also total BS? This is the usual creationist trope — the cell is so complex, it is not possible to explain how it arose. But the first cell
evolved, over a long period of time. The first replicators subject to natural selection were
simple. Trying to explain exactly how life began is difficult, because it happened so long ago, leaving little evidence. It may never be possible to explain how the first simple replicator arose, but that does not mean it is impossible
in principle to do so, and indeed, science has discovered
many plausible pathways to abiogenesis. This guy either has no idea what he is talking about, or he is lying.
Scientists are still desperately trying to find another chemical mechanism for the origin of Life through the study of 'Abiogenesis'. They are not even close.
Desperately? Whatever could account for such a loaded (and inaccurate) word? Let me guess: The poor scientists are in this (nonexistent) mad, frantic struggle because unless they succeed,
naturalism goes out the window. Complete piffle. Evolution itself is a well understood, fully naturalistic process even if we never pinpoint exactly how life began. Also, scientists are
not trying to find “another chemical mechanism” for abiogenesis. The ones we have are just fine and dandy, thanks. It is merely a matter of pinning down the exact sequence of events from among well understood processes.
There are many aspects of Life which seem to break the core principles of science.
No, there are not.
- by it seeming to be an assembling influence/force;
Not even sure what he is trying to say here.
- requiring sterile chemicals to make choices and perhaps even to have a crude degree of awareness.
Absolutely nothing in chemistry, biochemistry or evolutionary biology requires “sterile chemicals” to make choices or have any awareness whatever. Do snowflakes “choose” to make the patterns that they do? Does water “choose” to freeze? Do hydrogen and oxygen “choose” to combine to form water? What twaddle!
Do you know the examples which demonstrate this?
None do.
When you realise the issues which have been thrown up by scientific research, you begin to wonder if the principles on which mainstream theory is operating need to be modified and possibly broadened.
Science always modifies and broadens its theories. We know far more about evolution and biology than Darwin could even hope to know, for example.
The other question which I am often asked is - why are so many people unaware of these proven facts?
Because they aren’t facts, proven or otherwise.
I cannot say, but when you know them you are then free to reassess the story which you thought you knew, and perhaps allow you to make better decisions about your life.
What a giant
non sequitur!
Make better decisions about your life? What decisions would those be — to find Jesus, maybe?
This guy is either some kind of ID/creationist or maybe some species of New Age/panpsychist. None of what he writes has any bearing on science, or even correctly characterizes science.