Creation & Evolution

Abiogenesis: The Origin of Life

    • How Did Life Begin?
    • Abelson’s Hypothesis By Mark Stewart
  • PowerPoint Files
    • The Origin of Life: Evidence of Creation by Mike Riddle
    • The Miracle of Life by Chris Ashcraft
  • Videos
    • The Miracle of Life by Chris Ashcraft
  • Creationist Links

Charles Darwin “It is mere rubbish to talk about the origin of life; one might as well talk about the origin of matter.”

 

Abiogenesis.pngThe origin of life is a key point of distinction between and between theCreationist and Darwinist schools of thought. Creationists believe that God created all forms of life on earth (including humans), endowing non-living matter with life through a deliberate,supernatural act. In constast, naturalists typically believe that lifedescended from a single self-replicating protocell which in turn came into existence through spontaneous chemical reactions. This atheistic theory for the origin of life is commonly known as abiogenesis (Greek a “without”, bios “life”, and genesis “beginning, origin”).Both views require an extraordinary or miraculous event. To date, scientists have not observed abiogenesis happening in nature, nor have they been able to create a lifeform through controlled experiments. In fact, reaction conditions resembling the Earth’s early conditions have even failed to produce the most basic polymers that all lifeforms possess (protein, DNA, RNA, etc.). It is now understood that the probability of even a single protein forming through purely natural processes exceeds what is acceptable based on the law of probability. It is also important to understand that and the origin of life in reliant upon chance alone, since natural selection could play no part until a self-replicating cell had been formed. Jonathan Sarfati states:

Also, when it comes to the origin of first life, natural selection cannot be invoked, because natural selection is differential reproduction. That is, if it worked at all, it could only work on a living organism that could produce offspring. By its very definition, it could not work on non-living chemicals. Therefore, chance alone must produce the precise sequences needed, so these simulations do not apply. .[1]


The probabilities of life forming through purely random processes is so remote that
Darwinists are at a complete loss for an explanation. To avoid the issue they often insist that the origin of life andbiological evolution are separate issues. However, theory of evolution must (and does) include a theory of the origin of life, much as stellar evolution also postulates a mechanism for the birth of stars. It therefore appears that intelligent design is more reasonable explanation for the existence of life than the evolutionary model. At present, each model still requires faith and currently falls outside of the realms of science since neither has been observed nor have they been proven by experimentation.

Contents
    • 1 Critiques
  • 2 Chemical evolution
  • 3 History
      • 3.1 Spontaneous generation
  • 3.2 Law of Biogenesis
  • 4 Problems
      • 4.1 Ozone
  • 4.2 Summary
  • 5 Panspermia
  • 6 References

Critiques


Critiques of naturalistic abiogenesis fall into several categories:

  • Arguments from impossibility: purporting to show that the nature of life itself precludes naturalistic abiogenesis
  • Arguments from improbability: purporting to show that the coincidences necessary to provide for spontaneous abiogenesis are so improbable as to be unreasonable and unscientific;
  • Arguments from inexplicability: purporting to show that there is currently no explanation or demonstration of naturalistic abiogenesis, and that belief in it is a matter of faith and speculation, rather than science.

Despite repeated attempts under every reproducible circumstance, atheistic scientists have been unable to reproduce a reasonable method for the origin of life without a creator, nor do they have a clear understanding of the chemistry involved. Many evolutionists have now chosen to remain agnostic on the actual origin of life, and will frequently try to dodge the issue by claiming that abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.Lee Strobel in his book, A Case for Faith quotesWilliam Bradley:

The optimism of the 1950’s is gone. The mood at the 1999 International Conference on Origin of Life was described as grim-full of frustration, pessimism and desperation.


In contrast, creationists have issued several probabilistic studies indicating the difficulty of any such phenomenon. Although some contend that these studies do not accurately portray the modelling involved, it is clear that no credible explanation for abiogenesis has been demonstrated by evolutionary biologists.
The Nobel laureate Dr. Francis H. Crick, in his 1981 book, Life Itself insists that the probability of life’s chance at origin simply defies calculation. Crick, an atheist, had this to say:

What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability of what seems a rather unlikely sequence of events… An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle.


On this point creationists would find themselves in complete agreement.

LEAVE A RESPONSE

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *