Life from Dead Matter — Part 3
Miracle #2 – Living Organisms from Dead Matter
Part 3 – Proof from Science
This is the part three of the second “miracle” of atheism. These miracles are impossible, illogical assumptions. Atheism is founded on these four illogical assumptions. They are required or atheism does not work as a belief system. They are the four “miracles” of atheism.
- Existence from Non-existence
- Living Organisms from Dead Matter
- Order from Chaos
- The Immaterial (Transcendent Categories) from Materialism
Can biological life arise from the random collision of atoms and prebiotic molecules? This is an essential step in evolution. According to the atheist origin myth, random collisions of atoms must take place to form living organisms. This step predates Darwinian evolution must occur before Darwinian evolution can come into play.
At one time scientific atheism was rescued by Darwinism. But now what can rescue it from Darwinism?
Darwin Rescues Atheism
In 1859, Louis Pasteur’s experiment scientifically and conclusively defeated spontaneous generation. Life does not arise from dead matter by spontaneous generation. A huge gap opened in atheistic belief. How could atheists explain the existence of life? But fear not, Mr. Atheist. During that same year (1859) Charles Darwin rescued atheistic belief when he published his theory of evolution.
When Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species he described a mechanism for the advancement of established animal species. He started the book by explaining the breeding of domesticated animals.
According to Darwin, the breeder selects for his breeding stock the strongest males and females or the animals that have some desired trait. For example, if a breeder wants to produce fast horses, he selects the fastest horses to breed. He hopes to produce even faster horses. Darwin called this “the power of accumulative selection.”
Next, Darwin applies these rules to wild animals in nature. Animals in nature compete for limited resources. They struggle with other animals in their species for the right to survive. Some animals in a species have traits that make them superior to others in this struggle to survive.
For example, some lions have bigger teeth and claws than other lions; some gazelles are faster than other gazelles. The faster gazelles and lions with bigger teeth and claws are better equipped to survive.
Darwin theorized that the better-equipped animals are selected by nature to survive. These better-equipped animals dominate the mating pools of their species. Their superior traits gradually spread throughout the entire species. Inferior, weaker traits and animals die out.
Darwin’s theory rapidly spread throughout the world. Atheists, non-believing scientists, and some intellectuals grabbed onto this theory like a drowning man reaching for a life-preserver. This theory explained the development of species—the evolution of animals—in a way that wrote God out of the equation.
This godless theory validated the godless world-view of atheism. Darwin’s theory quickly became the cornerstone of the atheistic interpretation of science. Atheists seized this theory, ignoring its obvious faults. Perhaps its greatest fault is this: The theory only applies to the development of animals within established species. It does not explain the origin of life. It does not fully validate the atheist origin myth.
Darwin’s Fatal Flaws
Hundreds of books have been written regarding Darwin’s fatal flaws. Some of them deal with evidence that is missing, such as, the absence of transitional species. For example, if a reptile evolved into a bird or mammal by small hereditary modifications over millions of years, there should be some evidence of transitional forms in the fossil record. Such evidence has never been found.
Some of the hundreds of books deal with evidence that should not exist, such as the Burgess Shale. The Burgess Shale shows several distinct families of prehistoric animals. The Shale suggests these primitive creatures appeared suddenly at around the same time. This unexpected, abrupt appearance of new and disparate animals is called the Cambrian Explosion. Darwinism cannot account for this. According to Darwinian models, this Shale should not exist.
But I don’t consider these flaws to be the most extreme, most conclusive flaw. Darwin’s most fatal flaw concerns chemical evolution before the existence of the single cell. Evolution by natural selection does not begin with the appearance of primitive animals and plants. Evolution must go back beyond this, even to time before the appearance of the first single cell.
For evolution to be a complete, comprehensive system that explains the origin of life on earth, evolution must go back to the very beginning. Evolution must explain the combining of atoms into prebiotic molecules and the combining of simple, prebiotic molecules into proteins and the extraordinarily complex super-molecules required for life as we know it.
Where should we begin? First we need to understand there are two phases of evolution. Biological evolution deals with the process by which living organisms change over successive generations. Darwin’s theory fits into this phase of evolution. Change begins with genetic variation—a mutation in a gene. If the variation improves some members of the species, those animals with the variation will be the ones that survive. In time the variation becomes the norm for that species.
The other phase of evolution is chemical evolution. This is the pre-biological stage of evolution. Chemical evolution hopes to identify and explain the way molecules came together to form the organic macromolecules required for life.
Darwin’s theory does not work for chemical evolution. There is no genetic variation because genes do not exist at the chemical stage of evolution. There is no preservation of variations from one generation to the next because molecules have no means for reproduction. As molecules “bump” together perhaps they will combine and form the huge molecules required for life. But scientists do not know even if it is possible for macromolecules to come into being in this manner.
During the middle decades of the twentieth century, scientists proposed many theories to explain the riddle of chemical evolution. Why is this problem so difficult to solve?
Well, organic life is made up of dozens of extremely complex macromolecules. From where did they come? How did they originate? If evolution is true, these complex molecules must have evolved from smaller, simpler molecules. How did these simple molecules come into existence? That’s where the problems begin.
Origin of Life Experiments
How did biotics form on earth? The word “biotic” is defined as “from or relating to living organisms” or “a factor in an ecosystem produced by the action of living organisms.” (see www.dictionary.com) In other words, “biotic” refers to organic materials. The word “pre-biotic” refers to conditions “existing or occurring before the emergence of life.” (Google definition).
Let’s imagine we can take several giant steps backward in time. Evolutionary scientists took this trip when they made theories about conditions on primitive earth. They imagined a time when the earth was a hot, molten ball. This ball begins to cool. Water happens. How is water produced on this hot ball of magma? Who knows?
An atmosphere begins to form. The scientists imagine this early atmosphere contains methane, ammonia, water, and hydrogen. They believe these simple molecules could form naturally under the primitive conditions of ancient earth.
An energy source causes these molecules to combine into amino acids. The energy source could be lightning, heat, ultraviolet rays from the sun, or other sources. Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins. According to evolutionary scientists, amino acids are the first step in the evolutionary chain—the first step toward the origin of life.
Can science demonstrate that this really happened? Is it geochemically plausible? What does “geochemically plausible” mean? According to Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley and Roger Olsen in their book The Mystery of Life’s Origin,
An experiment is said to be geochemically plausible when the conditions used [in the experiment] reproduce to a substantial degree the conditions alleged for the primitive earth. These experiments are deemed successful if biologically significant molecules or their precursors are found among the products.
In December 1952 at the University of Chicago, scientist Stanley Miller tried exactly this kind of geochemically plausible experiment. He filled a container with methane, ammonia, water, and hydrogen. Then he discharged a spark into the mixture. He continued this experiment over time.
Amino acids formed in the flask! This was an exciting breakthrough. Amino acids are the basic building blocks of proteins. The Theory of Evolution took a huge step forward. Here was proof that amino acids could be formed through natural processes. According to chemist Richard Lemmon,
This research has made it clear that these compounds would have accumulated on the primitive (prebiotic) Earth—that their formation is the inevitable result of the action of available high energies on the Earth’s early atmosphere.
This was a time for atheists to rejoice. Science was making headway toward proving Darwinian evolution. Atheists saw an ocean of religious superstition was drying up. Or so it seemed. But this begs the question: Why have so few of us heard of these fantastic discoveries? What happened?
The Myth of the Prebiotic “Soup”
What’s the next step in this atheist fantasy? Atheists began to dream of millions or billions or trillions of amino acids being produced on the primitive earth. These amino acids would accumulate in concentrated pools. The pools were aptly named “prebiotic soup.”
These pools of prebiotic soup would have been prebiotic nurseries. When acted upon by an ancient force such as lightning or heat or ultraviolet radiation, the amino acids would have combined to produce the first simple proteins. At least that was the theory. Could it be reproduced in a laboratory?
Do you remember the four supposed components of the primitive atmosphere? They were ammonia, methane, water, and hydrogen. Another necessary component was an energy source such as electricity (lightning), ultraviolet radiation (UV rays), and heat.
According to scientists, the amount of ultraviolet radiation reaching the earth back then was much higher than today. There was very little atmosphere to filter the UV rays or to reflect them back into space. Scientists already demonstrated the helpful effects of UV rays in producing amino acids. But further study showed these rays have an undesired side-effect.
The same UV energy that helped produce amino acids would break down the methane and ammonia in the atmosphere. In addition, the heat in the oceans and other forms of energy such as lightning and shock waves would both create and destroy amino acids. According to Charles Thaxton et. al.,
“Any realistic assessment of the fate of chemicals such as amino acids on the early earth cannot ignore their very considerable destruction either by energy sources or by chemical interaction in the soup.”
These chemical processes suggest a low concentration of amino acids in the primitive oceans. The myth of a prebiotic soup is just that—a myth. According to Thaxton,
“We conclude that if ever there was a prebiotic ocean soup of chemicals, it would have been too dilute for chemical evolution rates to have been significant.”
Why have we not heard of these “origin of life” experiments? Because they failed. According to Thaxton, the chemical evolution theory did not fail due to some components that need further explanation. This theory’s failure was due to “crucial weaknesses intrinsic to the theory itself.” Thaxton continues,
“A major conclusion to be drawn from this work is that the undirected flow of energy through a primordial atmosphere and ocean is at present a woefully inadequate explanation for the incredible complexity associated with even simple living systems, and is probably wrong.”
How did life begin on this earth? Science cannot answer that question at this time. The superstitious hopes of atheists are not enough. If random association of molecules and atoms cannot account for the formation of simple molecules, how can random simple molecules hope to account for extraordinarily complex molecules? One fact is certain: organic life requires extraordinarily complex macromolecules.
And for Now . . .
For now origin of life experiments are at a standstill. There may be some origin of life experiments conducted somewhere but they aren’t grabbing any headlines.
The random combining of atoms was one of the original doctrines of Leucippus and Democritus. Their origin myth features the combining of atoms to produce the world and all living creatures. This was performed by the random collision of atoms and molecules. Why were these two men so anxious to establish their atomic theory? Atoms were the basis for their atheistic origin myth.
Their myth had no need for a god. The physical nature of the universe explains everything. But modern science proved the fallacy of their origin myth.
Modern science also trumps the nineteenth century science of Charles Darwin. Darwinism only explains the possible evolution of established species into new species. Darwinism fails to explain the possibility of evolution when there is no genetic code, no reproduction, and no prebiotic molecules. How did amino acids come together to produce proteins, proteins to simple cellular organisms, and cells to complex entities with multiple organ systems? Darwinism provides no answers to such questions.
Atheism cannot account for the origin of life at its foundation—the origin of the complex proteins and other complex molecules required for life.
Science cries out to God for answers. Science has no answers of her own.