The science data demonstrates that life’s origination from purely naturalistic processes is simply impossible, but macro-evolutionists still have faith in naturalistic “miracles.” Abiogenesis (chemical evolution) is simply impossible under natural conditions.
The scientific evidence demonstrates clearly that macro-evolutionary theory has no scientific answer for any question about life’s origin and the scientific data have directed many science researchers to theories about a Creator and Designer God for explanations related to life’s beginning. Today, there is much misinformation and false answers being presented to the public by Darwinists within the scientific community to support macro-evolutionary dogma surrounding origin of life questions.
The macro-evolutionary model teaches that roughly 15 billion years ago the universe evolved from a “Big Bang” cosmic expansion, approximately 4.5 billion years ago the planet Earth evolved into existence, and roughly 3.5 billion years ago chemicals began forming in the “primordial soup” where the chemicals bonded together to form molecules and the molecules bonded together to form the first living cell.
On the other hand, the creation model teaches in Colossians 1:16 and elsewhere in God’s Holy Scriptures that God created everything both visible and invisible. This terminology describes the atoms, which are matter’s basic unity, the molecules and their specific atomic arrangements, the amino acids and their specific molecular arrangements, and proteins and their amino acids arrangements.
Macro-evolutionary doctrine teaches life’s spontaneous generation, which was proven false by biochemists Louis Pasteur. Today, spontaneous generation has been renamed chemical evolution by Darwinists. Therefore, all attempts to create life in a laboratory, the building blocks requirement for life, probability calculations for life’s origin, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and information science and biological complexity demonstrate that life cannot and did not originate from purely naturalistic processes.
LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS PROVE THE CREATION AND DESIGN OF LIFE
Today, all attempts to create life in a laboratory have failed. The famous Stanley Miller experiment, conducted during the 1950s, was only successful in generating life’s building blocks (amino acids), but not real life, according to many biochemists. While Darwinists continue bragging about how the Miller experiment created the amino acids necessary for life and thus illustrating life’s possible origin, intelligent design theorists present three questions. First, how did Miller know what gases were in the early Earth’s atmosphere? Second, did Miller use intelligent design or random chance occurrences? And third, were all the amino acids Miller got the right kinds used in life?
Darwinists argue that the Earth’s primeval atmosphere must contain no oxygen for chemical evolution to occur. This claim by evolutionists has proliferated throughout the scientific community for many years. However, there is no scientific evidence to support the claim of no oxygen on the primeval Earth. Geologists know from their analysis of the oldest known rocks that the oxygen level of the Earth’s early atmosphere had to be much higher than previously calculated. There is no scientific proof that Earth ever had a non-oxygen atmosphere such as Darwinists imagine. The primeval Earth’s oldest rocks contain evidence of being formed in an oxygen rich atmosphere, according to Dr. Jonathan Wells and Dr. John Morris. Therefore, the Miller experiment confirmed that life could never have evolved naturally without any intelligent creator or designer.
THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF LIFE CONFIRM SPECIAL CREATION
Analysis of amino acids and living systems show that only 20 of the over 2,000 types of amino acids are used in life. Amino acids come in two shapes: left-handed and right-handed. All amino acids in proteins are left-handed. Origin of life researchers always end up with a mixture of left-handed and right-handed amino acids. Researchers always observe the natural tendency for a mixture of left-handed and right-handed amino acids to form. When an organism dies, its 100 percent left-handed amino acids begin to revert back to a mixture of left-handed and right-handedness. Therefore, the famous Miller experiment is known not to have produced all the necessary building blocks for life’s origin because the living cell and has great complexity and it is more complex than any advanced computer system, according to Dr. William Bonner. Only intelligence can build computers; therefore, intelligence must have created the first cell.
PROBABILITY CALCULATION PROVES LIFE’S CREATION
The probability calculations for life’s origination show that living systems could never have evolved under purely natural conditions. In other words, it would be easier to get heads every time we flip a coin than for life to evolve naturally.
If a particular amino acid sequence was selected by chance, how rare an event would this be? The great majority of sequences can never have been synthesized at all, at any time, according to Dr. Franis Crick. The likelihood of life having occurred through a chemical accident is, for all intents and purposes, zero, according to Dr. Robert Gange. The probability that a simple living organism could be produced by mutations is so small as to constitute a scientific impossibility and the chance that it could have happened anywhere in the universe is highly unlikely, according to Dr. David J. Rodabaugh.
Even giving macro-evolution every conceivable chance and even assuming that macro-evolution is 99.999 percent certain, then macro-evolution still have only 1 chance in 10 to 132 power of a chance of being likely under natural conditions. Therefore, even with the beginning assumption that macro-evolution is a virtual certainty, any conditional probability analysis of the fossil record alone results in the conclusion that evolution is a demonstrable absurdity, according to Dr. David J. Rodabaugh.
The science data show that all amino acids and proteins must get the right atoms, they must be arranged in the right order, and living systems must be left-handed. Computers and proteins show that Superfast computers would not have enough time to assemble a single protein naturally. The probability calculation for any primordial soup facilitating chemical evolution equals zero chance because of hydrolysis, left-handed amino acids, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
The Second Law of Thermodynamics demonstrates that life could never have evolved under purely natural conditions. While Darwinists argue that open and isolated systems can allow life’s origination and biological development, such as an animal’s embryo or a plant’s seed, intelligent design theorists argue for four necessary conditions. First, an open system is needed to sustain life. Second, an energy source is required to sustain life. Third, a mechanism for capturing and storing raw energy is necessary for the growth and development of life. And fourth, a mechanism designed for raw energy conversion into usable energy, according to Dr. Duane T. Gish.
In other words, there are no known Second Law of Thermodynamics violations. Ordinarily the Second Law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems, according to Dr. John Ross. Therefore, the Second Law influences things that are unfavorable to the life’s macro-evolutionary origins by natural processes alone such as oxygen in the atmosphere, randomly distributed left and right handed amino acids, and water or hydrolysis.
INFORMATION SCIENCE AND BIOLOGICAL COMPLEXITY
Information science and biological complexity indicates that intelligent design is the best explanation for life’s origins. The neo-Darwinian macro-evolutionary formula makes the hypothesis that matter plus energy plus time equals complex biochemical systems resulting from DNA, RNA, and proteins. The problem with this belief is that it has never been confirmed scientifically. However, the creation and intelligent design formula theorize that matter plus energy plus time plus outside Intelligence equals life. Scientific data supports the creation and intelligent design formula because naturalistic processes alone have never been demonstrated to create and design life from non-living matter, according to Dr. Jonathan Wells.
Since the findings of James D. Watson and Francis H. C. Crick, it was increasingly realized by contemporary researchers that the information residing in the cells is of crucial importance for the existence of life. Anybody who wants to make meaningful statements about the origin of life, would be forced to explain how the information originated. All evolutionary views are fundamentally unable to answer this crucial question, according to Dr. Werner Gitt.
The truth is macro-evolution from non-life is a form of scientific absurdity because years of biochemical experimentation on life’s origin in the chemical and molecular evolutionary fields have led to a better conceptualization of the problem’s enormity for life’s origination on planet Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance, according to Dr. Klaus Dose.
The origin of life is impossible by natural means because the chances that life just occurred are about as unlikely as a typhoon blowing through a junkyard and constructing a Boeing 747, according to Dr. Chandra Wickramasinghe. Today, many investigators feel uneasy about stating in public that the origin of life is a mystery, even though behind closed doors they freely admit they are baffled. They worry that a frank admission of ignorance will undermine funding, according to Dr. Paul Davies.
When Darwinists teach their students only part of the scientific evidence, many people who are illiterate in the scientific disciplines believe macro-evolutionists because they have not been taught the complete truth, but they have been indoctrinated with selective facts. However, when creation scientists and intelligent design theorists teach the complete truth about Darwinism and creationism, many people become informed enough to make an educated decision based upon the weight of scientific evidence. All science students should be taught objectively and truthfully to determine real science from religion.
SUMMARY OF LIFE’S ORIGINATION
The science data demonstrates that life’s origination from purely naturalistic processes is simply impossible. Darwinists, creationists, and intelligent design theorists are all looking at the same scientific evidence, but they are all reaching different conclusions. An increasing number of researchers within the scientific community believe in creation and intelligent design as their best explanation for life’s origin. While neither creation, intelligent design, nor macro-evolution can be proven absolutely, the weight of scientific data shows that the best explanation for life’s origination is the scientific theories for creation and intelligent design.
RELATED SCIENCE SOURCES:
Charles Darwin; Michael Ruse; 2008.
Christian Apologetics; Doug Powell; 20
Decoding Your Genesis; Linda Tagliaferro and Dr. Mark Bloom; 1999.
Evolution; Dr. Greg Krukonis; 2008.
Evolution; Leslie Alan Horvitz; 2002.
In the Beginning Was Information; Dr. Werner Gitts; 1997.
Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature; Dr. Francis Crick; 1981.
Life Science; Lesley A. Du-Temple; 2000.
The Origin of Life: More Questions than Answers; Dr. Klause Dose; 1988.
Threats on Life of Controversial Astronomer: New Scientists; 1982.
The 5th Miracle: The Search for the Origin and Meaning of Life; Dr. Paul Davis; 1999.