On his "Creation Insights" website, Briney has a page entitled, "Evidence for the supernatural origin of life." He divides the so-called evidence into three categories:

• law of science
• law of probabilities
• experimental observation

In the first section of his page, Briney explains the success of the scientific method over thousands of trials, including Pasteur's disproving the theory of spontaneous generation. Briney uses this, what he calls the "law of biogenesis," to argue against spontaneous generation. His points can (and have been, during his 2002 debate with Doug Krueger) stated as such:

If we take a critical look at this argument, two of the premises actually contradict themselves. The first premise asserts that cells only come from pre-existing cells, but the third premise declares that cells came from a non-cellular supernatural being. Simply put, Briney cannot have it both ways. As the rules of logic dictate, any argument with contradictory premises is invalid.

Interestingly enough, none of the college textbooks used in any of my biology courses includes a "Law of Biogenesis." What Briney may be thinking is the component of cell theory that states that all cells come from preexisting cells.
This is another misapplication of a scientific principle (which Briney has shown his affinity for doing with his arguments based on the laws of thermodynamics). The idea of "cells from cells" was more directed toward distancing science from spontaneous generation, not abiogenesis.

The issue with abiogenesis is, "what is considered life?" While it is true that nobody has observed a cell simply assemble in a laboratory, there is plenty of evidence that what we would today consider biological activity occured on simpler, smaller scales in the distant past. DNA in mitochondria and chloroplasts as well as the RNA World concept support the former existence of self-sustaining, replicating entities that may not fit today's definition of "life."

What Briney fails to do in the first section is argue against abiogenesis, which differs in that the theory of spontaneous generation proposed that modern life arises from nonliving matter, whereas abiogenesis posits that nonliving molecules combined to form proto-life forms that eventually evolved to the organizational level of modern life.

Yes, the sudden appearance of a cytochrome c protein is very unlikely. However, no part of any scientific theory proposes that cytochrome c, or any other protein, suddenly appeared fully formed. Evolutionary theory says that the cytochrome c in humans descended from cytochrome c in humans' ancestors. See here for several sequences of cytochrome c.

(Special creation, on the other hand, does propose that humans (and their cytochrome c) popped into existence. Does Briney apply the same "calculations" to special creation?)

Furthermore, Briney's statement that the "mathematical calculation for impossibility" is 10³⁰ is illogical. (Of course, Briney really means one in 10³⁰, or 10^-30. Confounding this statement, however, is his citation of Emilé Borel's "law of chance" saying that an event with probability of one in 10⁵⁰ is impossible.) [Edit: Briney has since changed his page to agree with the actual figure in Borel's book.] If I have a die with 10³⁰ sides, and I try to roll it, will it float? Or for a more realistic approach, if I shuffle a deck of 52 cards, what were the chances that they would end up in the order that they did? That'd be one in 52!, or less than 10^-67, so shuffling a deck of cards must be impossible. "Mathematical calculations for impossibility" can be used to show the impossibility of events with a probability of 1; or as Dr. Michael Plavcan of the University of Arkansas puts it: using that reasoning, "I can prove that I don't exist!" If Yockey truly believes that those probabilities are accurate, and that they make evolution impossible, why is Yockey -- as Briney's webpage specifically mentions -- an evolutionist?

For a more detailed rebuttal of these (and the following) calculations, please see our response to Briney's Questions for Evolutionists.

But of course, that number is based on a modern cell, complete with 124 modern proteins, assembling spontaneously. Again, this is not what any theory of abiogenesis says. As pointed out above, ancient life was not like modern life.

Each of Briney's "probability" sources fails to consider that evolution is not only a progressive process but also a non-random process. Any calculation based on probability of random assembly of parts is flawed, and any calculation based on assembly of a modern structure is meaningless. Briney has failed to make the case that life originating on Earth is either improbable or impossible.

For some great information regarding the "probability" of abiogenesis, go to this talkorigins page.

Briney's section on experimental observation makes the following points regarding abiogenesis:

Why does Briney keep insisting on using the descriptors "chance" and "random" when the process is neither? The existence of this list on his website belies the assertion.

To Briney's credit, this list bears at least some resemblance to the information given here. However, since Briney is aware of this, why has he been presenting probabilities that ignore this sequence? According to Briney's own statement, someone who presents false information either is lying or ignorant. Since Briney knowingly presented false information, we can conclude no less than the former.

Even high schoolers are taught about the Miller-Urey experiment. Briney, who has a Ph.D., has no excuse for not knowing that this experiment produced amino acids, which are the monomers for proteins. He should also know of Juan Oro's work that produced monomeric components of nucleic acids. Briney also acknowledged at his September 2005 seminar that he is familiar with the RNA World hypothesis, which supports the model's replicating polymer stage. He is also obviously familiar with mitochondrial and chloroplast DNA, which very strongly support the protobiont/proto-cell stage. For Briney to claim that experimentation "without exception" fails to support the model only serves to damage his already shaky credibility. Perhaps Briney was just suffering from selective amnesia when he made that statement.

Briney is still relying on the argument from ignorance, or "God of the Gaps" reasoning. Concerning "experimentally devised life," please see our response to Briney's Questions for Evolutionists.

Briney finishes his page with quotes that show that abiogenesis has not been proven in the laboratory. This not only is not news to evolutionists, but it underlines the point that most scientists think the current model isn't the least bit unreasonable. Briney has completely and utterly failed to prove supernatural origin of life.

-- MAT