The first question in Creation Ministries‘ Question Evolution campaign is: how did life come to exist, without either intelligence or design? That question is far more material, and far more relevant, than popular evolutionists want to admit.
Why question origins to question evolution?
Evolution advocates often hold that the origin of life need have no bearing on the change of that life over time. That is how they define evolution. They go on to say that the processes on which evolution depends, do not themselves depend on any one process for the origin of life.
But if that’s true, then why did G. A. Kerkut, in 1960 (Implications of Evolution), say that any “general theory of evolution” must include a theory of life’s origin? Jonathan Sarfati quotes him as saying precisely that:
[The General Theory of Evolution is] the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. [But] the evidence which supports this is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis.
That second part might explain why evolution advocates today disavow any such definition as Kerkut gave fifty-one years ago. (W. T. Brown notes this here.) But Sarfati calls the lack of an agreed-upon, purely “natural” origin of life “a huge barrier for those desiring to be ‘intellectually fulfilled atheists.'” Sarfati is correct, and CNAV has long noted the fervid pursuit of such a naturalistic theory on various Internet forums.
Evidence that any origin of life theory must explain
To question evolution means to ask whether evolution, or any part of it, really can explain all the things we observe today. The origin of life is a good place to start. Any theory of the origin of life must explain all the things we observe about it:
- Any cell has literally hundreds of proteins. Proteins are highly complex and, except in an already-living environment, are not stable. (Ask any householder who is at the grocery store, replacing foodstuffs after the power has failed after a major storm.)
- Those proteins hold information. That information comes from DNA, the main ingredient of the cell’s nucleus. One nucleus holds enough information to fill all the books in ten Libraries of Congress.
- Protein synthesis is a very complex process that involves other proteins that already exist. The best reason for such a complex system seems to be to keep from making mistakes.
- The first atmosphere on earth cannot have held only methane, hydrogen and ammonia. Even most evolutionists now suggest that it held carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and free oxygen. The problem: carbon dioxide and nitrogen will stop organic compounds from forming out of nothing, and oxygen would destroy them outright.
- No one has ever seen life spontaneously arise from non-life in the wild, nor found any “primordial soup” or any sign that any place once held it.
Problems for a naturalistic hypothesis
The largest problems for a naturalistic process for the origin of life are:
- No system can self-inform. Therefore, the ten Libraries of Congress’ worth of information that every human cell holds, did not write itself. Even the relatively little information in an amoeba did not write itself.
- No one has found evidence that the conditions that would have allowed the ingredients of the first cell to form, ever existed in the wild.
- The parts of the complex machine that builds proteins had no function apart from one another. They work together or not at all.
Separately any one of these problems would seriously question evolution. Together they stop it cold. The reason: without an origin of life, nothing is available to evolve. And if the origin of life is divine, or at least supernatural, that alone destroys the purpose of the theory of evolution.
The origin of life depends on too many events, and too many conditions, that were not likely enough to have happened by themselves. Any honest statistician would have to advise: Reject the null hypothesis. Evolution is a null hypothesis, as any non-intervention hypothesis must be. Creation is an alternative hypothesis, one that assumes intervention.
To question evolution is to show that the null hypothesis cannot hold. To do that, one need only answer one question: how likely is the null hypothesis? The answer: literally not likely to happen in a billion years, or the four point five billion that uniformitarians insist is the age of the earth.ARVE Error: need id and provider
[amazon_carousel widget_type=”ASINList” width=”500″ height=”250″ title=”” market_place=”US” shuffle_products=”True” show_border=”False” asin=”B00375LOEG, 0451947673, 0800733940, 0062073303, 1595230734, 1936218003, 0981559662, 1935071874, 1932172378″ /]
Terry A. Hurlbut has been a student of politics, philosophy, and science for more than 35 years. He is a graduate of Yale College and has served as a physician-level laboratory administrator in a 250-bed community hospital. He also is a serious student of the Bible, is conversant in its two primary original languages, and has followed the creation-science movement closely since 1993.
- Christianity Today
- Constitution 101
- Creation Corner
- Entertainment Today
- First Amendment
- Foundation of our Nation
- Guest Columns
- Human Interest
- Ignite the Pulpit
- Let's Talk
- Money matters
- Racial Issues
- Tea Party
- Trump elevator pitch
- World news
News3 days ago
WaPo: Trump is now in a ‘simmering rivalry’ with DeSantis
Executive2 days ago
Nord Stream – sabotage
Executive1 day ago
Jackie Walorski at top of mind
Executive23 hours ago
The ONLY Issue in the 2022 Election is Voter Fraud
News4 days ago
Florida governor signs executive order aimed at protecting national security by securing user data
News5 days ago
Tudor Dixon doubles down on jokes comparing Whitmer kidnapping plot to lockdown policies
Let's Talk3 days ago
Edward Snowden, Russian citizen
Executive4 days ago
Immigration or invasion?