Does Life's origin have NOTHING to do with
A popular science - oriented magazine
claims that "microscopic life" (i.e. bacteria,
algae, etc.) ... (not only) "paved the way for all later organisms" ...
but (in their opinion) also ... "developed" (or made their own) "DNA and proteins"
and then, after programming their own genetic codes, "They
devised" (or Created) "ways of harnessing sunlight to produce"
their own "food" ... and apparently
also thought up and even made up or "invented
sex" ... or so the story goes ...1
In other words,
many atheists, and/or neo-atheists think and believe that little tiny bacteria -- that
came about by a
-- are both our ancestors and our Makers: along with
Time and chance.2
These people would have us all believe
that how Life came about has "nothing" to do with how
they suppose or believe that it also -- over millions of years -- changed
form and "mutated" into all the life-forms that we see today:
Such a belief not only assumes that one life-form came from
another, but that the Creator / Originator simply stepped aside and let
nature, amoebas, and random mistakes play the starring role in Creation: and that
it all happened by mistakes
supposedly accumulated ... over millions of years to
become eyes, arms, legs, hearts, lungs,
sex organs and thus how all (other) life forms came about.
The "science priests"
would have us all believe that we are simply the result of a series of
accidents that made all sorts of complex internal organs and microscopic
machines. And in so doing, they have made time and nature into a religion and
the first self-replicating bacteria into little tiny gods, and, in essence, believe
that the One who got the process going simply stepped aside and let the amoebas take over.
is because they don't know, nor can they explain how Life could have started itself, nor
information in our DNA -- that's used to make RNA, more DNA, and
proteins -- came from.
In other words, they don't want
the Creator to get any more credit for Creation than they think is
absolutely necessary. So they assert that once the first
self-replicating organisms got going, the Creation of all other life-forms
was the result of time, chance, and the accumulation of accidents -- by
the miracle power of time, chance, and natural selection.
Creationists reject such claims and point out
that there is no logical reason to suppose that the Creator stepped
aside. For example, in a book called
in the Cell,
Dr. Stephen Meyer points
out that "natural selection" can only "select" what nature's mistakes
can produce: and that this process is, or would be, blind to any partially developed structures that convey no immediate
advantage -- meaning that it would NOT be able to "select," nor preserve partially developed things
(in little tiny stages) until they became operational or useful. One
article on this subject states in this regard that:
"In the primitive environment in which amino acids
were supposed to have formed protein chains, there would have been nothing
to prevent the protein chains from dissociating back into their component
amino acids. The protein chains would simply break up under the influence of
chemical equilibrium and the law of mass action. This is why the formation
of functional proteins from amino acids (the characters of the biological
alphabet) is unlike the random typing of letters onto a page. The letters
stay where they are put, the amino acids do not, and this fact refutes the
idea that the chance formation of a functional protein is inevitable given
enough time. It has (also) not
been observed to happen
So to assert, believe or put faith in
nature's ability to blindly "select" partial adaptations BEFORE
they become functional (in
a step-by-step manner) is just that: a belief that is not based on science
or observation.4 And in this regard, not one new and useful structure has ever been witnessed
to form by accident. In fact, not even ONE protein has ever been
observed to form all by itself: apart from being constructed by a
pre-existing organism, or by using pre-existing bacterial machinery to to
And since those who make such grandiose assertions were
NOT there to witness it, nor how life came about, what they assert is simply
their opinion, or religious belief in nature's ability
to create with no need for a Creator: except perhaps to start the initial process, and create a suitable
environment for the amoebas to take over. Such a belief may also be called
neo-atheism, evolutionism, or the belief in a god who didn't really make us.
1. The Rise of Life on Earth, National
Geographic, March 1998, p.60
2. Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA's structure: from:
Refutes Chance Origin of Life:
Part III, by J. Covey, B.A.,
MT and A.
Millen, M.D., M.P.H
4. Evolution: What they are not telling you, Phil
Facts of Life
DNA, and Proteins
is more Scientific?
Life arise by Accident?
do the Scriptures say?
to comments above
Evolution based on Science?
Odds of Evolution by Chance
Closer Look at the Evidence
by Richard and Tina Kleiss
Tax Dollars at Work:
The Origin of Information
by Mark Eastman and Chuck Missler
How the Laws of Mathematics Disprove the Theory of
Abiogenesis is Impossible
by Dr. Jerry Bergman
DNA Demands Creation By Design,
by Carl Cantrell
Dinosaur Bones Millions of years Old?
Life "Just Happen"?
by Ron Lyttle
Origin of Life by Eric Blievernicht
See also: EvolutionisImpossible.com
Where we discover that Evolution is: