What Evolutionists Say-About The Origin of Life
Our public school children today are taught that most scientists think that life arose on earth from inanimate matter. Our children’s textbooks will allow that there are “fundamentalist” creation scientists that believe otherwise, but they are told they are a tiny minority and don’t do real science. The textbook story goes like this: First, random events produced stable molecules that could reproduce themselves. Then, natural selection favored changes in these molecules that increased their rate of reproduction, leading eventually to the first cell. This fantastic story is backed up with the statement that this has been scientifically proven by experiments. Generally, the Miller-Urey experiment of 1953 is used by the textbooks as the definitive proof that life could have originated from matter alone (usually from pond scum or a rock).
Do secular scientists really believe this story, and have scientific experiments truly proven this story? Let us find out what the secular scientists say.
In 1955, not long after the Miller-Urey experiment, George Wald wrote this: “One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.” [George Wald, “The Origin of Life,” The Physics and Chemistry of Life, Simon & Schuster, 1955, p. 270.]
Eight years later Wald wrote: “If life comes only from life, does this mean that there was always life on the earth? It must, yet we know that this cannot be so. We know that the world was once without life—that life appeared later. How? We think it was by spontaneous generation.” [George Wald, Biological Science: An Inquiry into Life, Harcourt, Brace & World Inc., 1963, p. 748.]
So, Wald was making clear the materialistic commitment needed to accept the idea of spontaneous generation, even though the Law of Biogenesis (Life only comes from life) had never been observed to fail. This was not science it was science, falsely so-called.
Fourteen years later this idea of spontaneous generation is still just a made-up figment of the minds of men, as admitted in this quote: “The ‘warm little pond’ scenario was invented ad hoc to serve as a materialistic reductionist explanation of the origin of life. It is unsupported by any other evidence and it will remain ad hoc until such evidence is found…One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written.” [Hubert P. Yockey, “A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol. 67, 1977, p. 396.]
By the 1980s it was plain to many that the scientific method had not been able to prove life from non-life was possible. Professor Henry Lipson wrote this: “If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being? There is another theory, now quite out of favor, which is based upon the ideas of Lamarck: that if an organism needs an improvement it will develop it, and transmit it to it progeny. I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” [Henry Solomon Lipson, “A Physicist Looks at Evolution,” Physics Bulletin, 31:138, 1980.]
So, true science was not able to confirm spontaneous generation here on earth. Well, then, maybe it occurred somewhere else and was sent to earth later. Yockey wrote this in 1981: “In the absence of better knowledge of the origin of life the search now being made for little green men and their signals from planets near other stars if based on the evidence of faith and must therefore be regarded as an exercise of religious belief.” [Hubert P. Yockey, “Self-Organization Origin of Life Scenarios and Information Theory,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol. 91, 1981, p. 29.]
Look for more discussion of the idea of directed panspermia in later articles. For now consider this quote: “Take some matter, heat while stirring and wait. That is the modern version of Genesis. The ‘fundamental’ forces of gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces are presumed to do the rest…But how much of this neat tale is firmly established, and how much remains hopeful speculation? In truth, the mechanism of almost every major step, from chemical precursor up to the first recognizable cells, is the subject of either controversy or complete bewilderment.” [Andrew Scott, “Update on Genesis,” New Scientist, vol. 106, May 2, 1985, p. 30.]
Here is an interesting quote from 1988: “Abstract. More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on 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.” [Dr. Klaus Dose, “The Origin of Life; More Questions than Answers,” Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, vol. 13, no. 4, (1988), p. 348.]
As secular scientists continued to search for a materialistic origin of life explanation up to the end of the 20th century, there still was no satisfaction to be found: “It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.” [Leslie E. Orgel, “The Origin of Life on the Earth,” Scientific American, vol. 271, October, 1994, p. 78.]
A common apology for this failure of true science to support the idea of evolution is, “Evolution theory does not depend on explaining how life began in the first place.” As long as we have Darwin, natural selection and mutation, and the big bang, we can just know that evolution is a fact. Of course, those things as a support for evolutionary theory are really just a house of cards as well. Creationists and some clearer thinking secularists know this to be true, such as explained in this quote: “I think it is disingenuous to argue that the origin of life is irrelevant to evolution. It is no less relevant that the Big Bang is to physics or cosmology. Evolution should be able to explain, in theory at least, all the way back to the very first organism that could replicate itself through biological or chemical processes. And to understand that organism fully, we would simply have to know what came before it. And right now we are nowhere close.” [Gordy Slack (science writer and author), “What Neo-creationists Get Right: An Evolutionist Shares Lessons He’s Learned from the Intelligent Design Camp,” The Scientist, June. 2009.]
Oh, how men will go so far astray just to keep that divine foot away from the door! A commitment to rejecting the Creator God leads to an absolute inability to find truth. We can conclude that no evolutionist has shown that life can come from inanimate matter, and the Law of Biogenesis is in no danger today or likely ever.
The real tragedy is how the world has accepted such huge lies in the name of rejecting the one true religion. Our children and students of all ages are being brazenly indoctrinated into a belief in an ultimate untruth—that there is no Creator God. What a waste of time, money and human souls!
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1).
J.D. Mitchell
