Contend Earnestly for The Faith,

Origin of First Life

  Evolution teaches spontaneous generation—that life came from non-life without intelligent intervention.  However, spontaneous generation violates the law of biogenesis and the cell theory.  The law of biogenesis states that “all living things arise only from other living things.”  The cell theory defines the cell as the most basic unit of life, and declares that “new cells arise only from pre-existing cells.” Both the law of biogenesis and the cell theory are accepted by evolutionists; the evolutionists merely assume that first life is the exception to these principles.  But, a model that violates scientific theories and laws should be abandoned.  This is especially true when there is a rival model that does not violate scientific theories and laws. 

   The creation model posits the existence of an intelligent Being in order to bridge the gap from non-life to life.  The creation model recognizes that the specified complexity (highly complex information) found in a single-celled animal could not be produced by chance.  Even Richard Dawkins himself believes that a single-celled animal contains enough genetic information to fill one-thousand complete sets of the Encyclopedia Britannica. Just as an explosion in a print shop cannot randomly produce even one volume of an encyclopedia (not to mention one-thousand complete sets), there is no way that a single-celled animal could have been produced by mere chance.  Intelligent intervention was needed.

   Natural laws by themselves do not produce specified complexity.  Geisler illustrates this point by stating that though natural laws can explain the Grand Canyon, they cannot explain the faces on Mount Rushmore.  The faces on Mount Rushmore reveal evidence of intelligent design.

   Evolutionists often offer the Miller and Urey experiments as evidence that life has been produced from non-life in the laboratory.  In response, several things should be noted.  First, Chandra Wickramasinghe, one of Britain’s most eminent scientists, calls these experiments “cheating.”  Miller and Urey start with amino acids, break them down, and then recover them.  They do not produce something that wasn’t there to begin with. Second, Geisler states that the Miller and Urey experiments do not produce life.  They only produce amino acids, which are the building blocks of life.  Amino acids are to life what a single sentence is to one-thousand complete sets of encyclopedia.  Third, Geisler points out that even if these experiments did produce life from non-life in the laboratory (which they don’t), it would support the creation model, not the evolution model.  The reason for this is clear.  The experiments would merely prove that to get life from non-life intelligent intervention (i.e., the scientists) is needed.  The experiments would not prove that life spontaneously arose from non-life.

    Therefore, the creation model is more plausible than the evolution model when explaining the origin of first life.  Intelligent intervention is necessary to produce life from non-life.  It could not have happened by accident.

Copyright Dr. Phil Fernandes 2011