29 complex, should not the same conclusion be drawn from the facts about it? It was with good reason that Princeton University biology professor Edwin Conklin once said: "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."4s In this regard note what the well-known evolutionist and anthropologist Loren Eiseley says in Journeg: his book The Zm-e "Intensified effort revealed that even the supposedly simple amoeba was a complex, selfoperating chemical factory. The notion that he was a simple blob, the discovery of whose chemical composition would enable us instantly to set the life process in operation, turned out to be, a t best, a monstrous caricature of the truth. 'With the failure of these many efforts sdence was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found Itself in the u n e n v i able position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, a f t e r long effort, could not be proved t o take day had, toin A book does not result from a truth, taken chance coordination of ink moleplace in the cules or an accident in a printing p r i m e v a 1 factory, yet it is simple compared DOES LIFE COME FROM NONLIVING MATTER?
A
pasL"60
to a single living cell