Here's what my friend Shivanand Sheth had to say on my article titled 'Darwin Rules'. I had to put it here.
"Darwin was a lovely guy. I always use the words "Survival of the fittest" in appropriate conversations as a mark of tribute to him. And I 100% agree with the theory of evolution. It is a perfectly valid theory which has enough undoubtable evidence in support of it and i admire the guy's intelligence for being able to put it all together. The ONLY way that humans have descended are by evolving from Monkeys and whatever the monkeys evolved from, and whatever the things that whatever the things that monkeys evolved from, evolved from. (By the way just returned home after seeing King King.. I felt like the gorilla had more brains than me)But the question is not about evolution or chemicals combining. It's about 'Life'. There is a vast difference between few chemicals combined in just the right proportions a few million years ago to create life and experiment demonstrated formation of complex organic molecules from basic carbon, hydrogen and oxygen when the weather of a few million years younger earth was mimicked in the laboratoryI just did a comprehensive google search regarding Miller Urey experiments and have gone through atleast 20 different authentic sites before posting this. These are just some of the excerpts i have found on all the sites i went through that i am posting here.
"These discoveries created a stir within the science community. Scientists became very optimistic that the questions about the origin of life would be solved within a few decades. This has not been the case, however. Instead, the investigation into life's origins seems only to have just begun."
"At present, the relevance of the experimental results of Miller and Urey are being questioned, since the atmospheric conditions used in the experiment are not thought to accurately reflect those of the early earth."
"The molecules produced were simple organic molecules. Far from a complete living biochemical system, but the experiment established that the hypothetical processes could produce some amino acids that are present in a biological system"
"The experiment did not produce amino acids, only some chemicals which may lead to the development of amino acids. And amino acids are not life either."
Infact NONE of the sites offered me any information which had a positive conclusive statement. Anyway i also stumbled upon "http://www.ucsd.tv/miller-urey/" which i found really funny, and i failed to create life there too.
Now the basic common flaws mentioned on almost all sites are:
1)The weather conditions created by the scientists were only assumed to be similar to ones present on early earth and that there is no means of knowing what the exact weather was like when life began.
2)Nothing close to 'life' was ever created. Only things created were new 'life-like' chemicals from old chemicals.
3)The experiment was carried out in 1953. Almost all modern scientists disagree with the results of the experiment today. ("Icons of Evolution - Science or Myth" by Jonathan Wells. Check it out on print.google.com)
I'd like to stupidly analogise a point here which i think is appropriate (The time is 1.30 am now, and anything my sleepy mind is deciding to analogise at this moment has GOT to be stupid)
It is argued that people construct a God to believe in, whenever they need a 'miracle', whenever they found no answers to their curiosity and that God is just their fantasy that they hold onto for a while in a moment of weakness.Similarly to me it seems that the people who attempt to find answers to everything, who try to find valid explanations to seemingly complex questions, those who are focussed on trying to find answers that negates the need for the existance of a God, too are, in a way, disillusioned. For them a 'miracle' is the formation of a few chemicals, discoveries which seem to answer fundamental questions of our existence somewhat but only to throw open more questions and more tasks upon them to 'unprove' the existence of God. Most don't have a clue about how to go about with their experiments to find the right evience, but they do have a blind belief that yes it is possible. Someday. Each new finding gives them the hope that questions can be answered without attributing everything to God. This too is a belief they start hanging onto when they don't have answers to find, and their basis for such a belief is just a little 'chemicals combining to make more chemicals'...whether it is valid or not- it is just something new for them which gives them hope.I find that this 'Hope' of continuing with the quest to find evidence, the belief that they can prove everything by science and logic, the fact that they 'just know' that God didn't do anything is pretty similar to the 'Hope' that the majority have in which they believe that life cannot and just couldn't have formed 'by itself'. They 'Just know' that God did do everything. They too might have their belief based on facts and myths with no validity, but the belief is enough in itself.
You have just mentioned the aspect of evolution. I'd like to mention the broader picture of life. Life as i see it is much more complex. It is intelligent. Life comprises complexities of breath, energy, the raw desire for having sex, the perfect fit of the male with the female, the feeling of hunger, the need for all the organisms to eat, the need to sleep, emotions like fear, love, lust, jealousy, even in the most primitive organism basic essentials are present... it's not just about DNA mutating to make a human being out of a bacteria.. Such things cannot be explained just by 'at one point of time intelligent forms evolved'I feel that there has to be a God who governs the 'Laws of life' - the law of hunger, law of sleep, the law of good and evil natured organisms, the law of the need for a breath, the law of reproduction, the design of the genitals, the law of a sperm combining with an egg, in fact the law of evolution and the law of the survival of the fittest as well.It's just that the inquistive scientific man is in the continuous process of finding the footprints left by a God without realising that what he is unraveling are just the fingerprints on that footprint.
I have no idea if i could convey what i felt appropriately... anyway though i do believe in a higher power's existene for sure, i do not believe that he is responsible for everything per se. and as i have mentioned in a fellow blogger's comment - my faith is very flexible- the day that science can explain everything, i'll stop believing in God."
You won't be surprised that I copied it from the comments section to the main page now that you've read. It is so well written. I never thought that Shiv would actually think so much on a serious topic, especially when he knows he is not doing this to impress a girl. Frankly Shiv, I am happy to see you do something so unexpected. Take it as a compliment. (I couldn't degrade the standard of the rest of your write-up by including that poem you wrote in your school days. Yeah, mention not.)
Now coming to the point.
Firstly, the authenticity of the Miller-Urey experiment should not be over-emphasised. I know it created chemicals that were too simple for life. The point that I was trying to make is that they succeeded in creating complex molecules from simpler ones. This is just a small trailer of what would have happened when life originated. There are a number of theories for that too. Its almost impossible to know what exactly happened until the day another experiment that creates 'living' 'breathing' organisms from scratch succeeds. Miller-Urey experiment only proves that physical forces are enough to create life.
Secondly, the definition of life must be objective. I am not over-simplifying things, but as I've said somewhere, if you leave the links in between, the answer would look too simple to be true. Define intelligence, emotions, desires, needs (perfect fit of the male with the female? Where is that male?) and all that you find too 'complex' for a simple DNA mutation to explain for. Nothing's outside the laws of nature and physics. I'll tell you what is the most difficult thing to define. Consciousness.
My quest as a scientist is not to disprove the existence of God. Its only a part of my job. (I am being very humble.)There is this hunger to solve this puzzle of who 'I' am. I can't delude myself by accepting God as the answer. It distracts me from the path of truth. My hopes are not resting on the answer. I live life at the sensory-motor level, more of sensory actually. But knowledge is a craze. I have to know this. Scientists don't need to hold on to a hope or an imaginary achievement to continue with their work. The pleasure of working is their reward. Newton didn't set out to find why does the earth suck when he actually found it.
When you think of God you close your eyes. But when you are confronted by the truth, your eyes are open wide in amazement. Thats not a miracle. Its a realization.
Also I want to mention that logic is not a belief. As Ayn rand put it, 'A' is 'A'. You look at it from whichever angle you want to, 'A' would exist as 'A'. The ultimate Truth doesn't depend on its observer to be true.
I personally find it inappropriate to classify science. Science is the game of solving every puzzle around me. Be it the world, life, relationships, my consciousness, my self or me.