As a science buff, I love meeting new scientists from around the world and hearing them speak about their work and the latest research refuting evolution- whether it’s biology, genetics, astronomy, paleontology, anthropology, chemistry, or any other field. This year’s Creation Superconference (hosted by Creation Ministries International) was fantastic, and here are highlights from one session.
Starting Day One was Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, who, aside from having a Ph.D. in physical chemistry, is a chess master and New Zealand chess champion. And, not surprisingly, he beat me, as well as 20 other players… all at the same time (he probably could have done it blind folded). The chess challenge was a real treat.
Dr. Sarfati’s first presentation was titled Impossible Possibilities; here he contrasts chemical evolution with real chemistry. When it comes to the origin of life- or abiogenesis- life has to appear spontaneously, or it doesn’t happen. Neither natural selection nor evolution can explain the first living organism, but without life, we can’t have evolution.
So there’s a fundamental question we need to ask… can life arise by pure chance, or was life created by God? If one is genuinely interested in answering this question, it’s fair to ask then, how can one be sure life didn’t arise by chance? Well, one answer is organization. We know airplanes can’t organize themselves. A tornado crashing through a junkyard, for instance, has no better chance of building an airplane with all the available spare parts than a single cell has of coming to life by natural process. In reality, a tornado has a better chance of tearing a plane apart than it does assembling one. Likewise, a blender has a better chance of ripping a frog apart than it does of putting one together. This may sound absurd, but secular scientists get excited about the ‘building blocks’ of life on lifeless planets because they believe it will inevitably lead to life, yet we have a planet (Earth) filled with the building blocks of life without a single instance of spontaneous generation. This alone should lead us to reject evolution.
Even with all the available ingredients to build a cell, there isn’t any known mechanism or process by which those ingredients could assemble themselves in an organized manner so that it would suddenly come to life. Having the right ingredients (matter, time, energy, chemicals) does not give us life.
In order to get around these obvious problems, evolutionists must consider that the first living organism wasn’t all that complex. However, life is enormously complicated. Living things require information stored in DNA to function; cells must regulate activity, control acidity, send messages that must be encrypted and translated into multiple languages, harness energy and electrical charges, manufacture enzymes, fold, shape and assemble proteins at the correct time, organize molecules into strands that can be coiled, then uncoiled by different methods, spliced, code for making its own copying machines, apply multiple levels of proofreading, repair mistakes, clean up, release the proteins into the cytoplasm, and finally transmit that information to the next generation. None of this can happen gradually by a step-by-step process, but must be perfectly in place from the very beginning.
Believing that life can arise from non-living chemicals requires blind faith because it has never been observed, and there is no plausible, naturalistic explanation. Of course, evolutionists try to come up with explanations anyway, no matter how inadequate or improbable. They think maybe RNA appeared before DNA. But RNA is far more complex and unstable. They consider that the first living organism might have been a parasite. But parasites need a host to survive.
If this isn’t bad enough, consider that DNA is the most compact information storage device in the world, yet, according to evolutionist Paul Davies, “There is no known law of physics able to create information from nothing.” Worse yet, cells contain the tiniest known motor in the universe- called ATP synthase- to create energy.
The point is that there’s clear evidence of organization, purpose and design, and design demands an intelligent source. It’s logical, therefore, that there would be a creator, and it’s reasonable to conclude that God is that creator, just as the Bible indicates.