Every one of us should ask the question, “How did life began in the first place?” (Which is called “biogenesis.” simply means studies about beginning or origin of life).
This is an important question to ask ourselves as thinking individuals. We cannot just take everything in life for granted especially the question concerning the origin of life.
Because, if you take this question for granted you’ll likely fall into various, unbiblical and strange ideas and be easily fooled. Sciences of life has always fascinated my curious mind. Though, not a biologist myself, I base my conclusions in this subject from prominent experts who has devoted their lives studying this field. Let’s start our study shall we?
Two Opposing Theses
Scientists or biologists in this area of inquiry has a different theories about how life begun. There are two major camps who argues and advances the theory of abiogenesis (how the chemical life begun from nonlife).
The first camp who call themselves as evolutionists proposes that the chemical life originated in a ‘primordial soup’ without any kind of assistants from an intelligent creator. They tell us that life itself simply spontaneously generated.
The second is the creation hypothesis. Creation scientists argues that life must have been originated from life hence there are no other viable explanation. Simply because dead matter cannot produce any type of organism. Special creation, therefore, argues creationists, is the only feasible solution.
Creationists disagrees with the idea of abiogenesis and believe that life could not have originated from non-life. They argues that life must originate from the life source Himself which is, of course, God.
Life’s Origin And Miller-Urey Experiment
It has been proposed by evolutionists that all organic life generated from one single cell in a pond for over a million years ago. This single cell is, supposedly, the originator of all living organisms. How this cell came into existence and how it jump-started, however, nobody is certain. It is still an enigma among Darwinist. In a website explains that evolution does not explain de facto how life started,
Evolutionary theory deals mainly with how life changed after its origin. Science does try to investigate how life started (e.g., whether or not it happened near a deep-sea vent, which organic molecules came first, etc.), but these considerations are not the central focus of evolutionary theory. Regardless of how life started, afterwards it branched and diversified, and most studies of evolution are focused on those processes. [link]
But evolutionists do have theories how life could have started, among these was that that life originally arose from non-living chemicals through the interaction of matter and energy. According to their earliest evolutionary research, they postulates that the earth’s atmosphere had never been radically different than the present, i.e. contained free oxygen (O2), nitrogen (N2) and minor carbon dioxide (CO2).
Stanley Miller and Harold Urey became a household name after conducting an experiment in a laboratory which is otherwise known as the ‘Miller-Urey experiment.’ Evolutionists often tout this experiment as a ‘proof’ for the abiogenesis of life without any references to a special creation. The purpose of Miller and Urey examination inside their laboratory was to study, and to simulate how life’s basic building structures might have formed in the early earth.
As they concocted their laboratory study, Miller and Urey, simulated the supposedly early earth atmosphere in synthesizing specific gases that might prove the formation of life arising from organic molecules.
We have to give Miller and Urey credit for their creative and initiative experiment. There’s no doubt that these men were sincere with their objectives trying to resolve or hoping to find the initial answer concerning the enigma of the origin, and the evolution of life.
Intelligent Design
However, questions remains. How did Miller/Urey knew the early Earth atmosphere? Creationists objects that the experiment used the wrong type of atmosphere, consisting of hydrogen, ammonia, methane and water vapour.
Today’s chemical evolutionists, believes that our earliest atmosphere probably consisted of carbon dioxide, nitrogen and water vapour. On the top of this, many scientists now believe that the early atmosphere probably did not play a major role in the chemical reactions leading to life.¹
Let us suppose, for the sake of the argument, that experimenters, Miller and Urey, did solved the problem of the mystery of life’s origin, and did manage to ‘create’ a life organism, utilized with their advanced apparatus, inside a lab house. What then?
With all its fervor, the Miller/Urey experiment cancels their own beloved theory of life arising from non-life, totally independent from any type of creative intelligence. Biochemist, Michael Behe, opines
Most readers will quickly see the problem. there were no chemists four billion years ago. Neither were there any chemical supply houses, distillation flasks, nor any of the many other devices that the modern chemist uses daily in his or her laboratory, and which are necessary to get good results. A convincing origin-of-life scenario requires that intelligent direction of chemical reactions be minimized as far as possible. Nonetheless, the involvement of some intelligence is unavoidable.²
Behe, shouldn’t be faulted with his remarkable remarks. Creating life with advanced equipments and with intelligence only shows the inevitable contradictions of the idea behind abiogenesis! Also, what these brilliant men showed the scientific communities and and the rest of us, is that life must have been intelligently, and creatively designed! Not the opposite.
Source________________________
1. http://creation.com/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis
2. Darwin’s Blackbox, Simon & Schuster, p.169
Recent Comments