In it, Duane Gish (of all people) suggests that any theory of life from non-life without the guiding hand of god is a fairy tale.

As a scientifically literate person, this annoys me to no end.

If the question is whether it is possible to get life from non-life, the answer quite simply is: yes. The Miller-Urey experiments did that; the only real debate is about whether they properly replicated the early conditions of earth. But the fact is that they proved that it is possible to create organic compounds from inorganic compounds. The only ’scientist’ who says differently is Jonathan Wells (and he doesn’t say differently; he just lies by omission.) http://www.natcenscied.org/icons/icon1millerurey.html

Once again, the ‘god of the gaps’ theory said that life from non-life is simply impossible. Science has gone on to show that it is POSSIBLE. The ONLY questions are: whether it is mathematically plausible, and whether it can be done given the constraints of the early earth’s atmosphere. In typical creationist style, though, the video simply advises us that research into this area is fruitless because (wrongly) life from non-life is IMPOSSIBLE.

Of course, that is bad theology too! The bible suggests that god breathed life into dust and out came us. Well, God took a non-living speck of dust and put ‘life’ into it (and who knows what disembodied ‘life’ is or if the concept is even intelligible). Therefore, God created living things from non-living matter. (I am not sure how to get around the FACT that if (p1) dust is not living; and (p2) God breathed life into it, that the logical inference is that (c) god created living things from non-living things.)

And I have not even mentioned the fact that evolution in no way stands or falls on abiogenesis! ATHEISTIC evolution stands or falls on abiogenesis.

Ouch! There is so many things wrong with the ‘banana as atheist’s nightmare’ bit that it is quite seriously scary that someone would use it as an argument (I would hae entertained it for 10 seconds and tossed it aside for fear of people laughing at me. Apparently, Ray Comfort is so used to people laughing at him that this is a poor incentive.)

Dr. Pangloss, anyone? Doesn’t Ray and Kirk’s “argument” sound a bit like something already parodied hundreds of years ago? Could they have also joined Pangloss in saying that the nose is the atheist’s nightmare because it was so obviously designed to hold glasses?

The second problem - highlighted by the pineapple - is also a big problem for intelligent design: the minute you hold up an example of perfect design to illustrate the point of theism, you open your nose up to others bringing in examples of inane design as ‘proof’ of atheism.

The third problem is that the ‘anana argument’ is (like the first cause argument) circular. One could say that the banana exhibits perfect design, as if it was designed for us to eat it. One could conversely say, though, that if it was not conducive to us eating it, we would not eat it, and hence, not even think of using it as an example of design. (f it were not easy for us to grab, peal, and munch, we simply would not eat it as a raw snack.)

Now, I wonder if Ray and Kirk can explain the plethora of berries and shoots in the wilderness that are very easy for us to munch on but are hazardous to our health. If God designed the banana just for us, and we know this because it is so easy to munch on, are those berries and shoots - which are just as easy to munch on - also designed for us? If so, why are they poisonous? If not, why are they so easy to munch? Either way, one of the ‘tenets’ of the ‘banana argument’ have to give.

I hope no one uses the banana argument in bio class. Let’s limit it to the nutrition piece of health class.

I blogged about this a while back and added a couple more you’ll want to look at - the peanut butter argument, and also one clever YouTube reply to the banana argument with a pineapple! :)