I have long asserted that the origin of life issue is one of the greatest obstacles to the theory of evolution, and I have argued against origin of life theories based on naturalistic processes, so it’s encouraging to find out that many scientists realize this theory is untenable.
Evolutionary theories have their own problems to deal with, but if life is unable to spontaneously arise via naturalistic processes, then, obviously, organisms cannot evolve. One cannot simply wave a magic wand and claim that our existence ‘proves’ that the spontaneous generation of life is possible, and, therefore, evolution is a fact. But many have done exactly that, despite the absurdity.
In this article, one widely noted chemist, James Tour of Rice University, writes: “Scientists have no data to support molecular ‘evolution’ leading to life. The research community remains clueless.”
Ever since the famous Urey-Miller origin of life experiment of 1952, scientists have been trying- unsuccessfully- to prove life could form from chemical processes given the right conditions, but they’re no closer to understanding this theory today than they were back then; now they know how complex the simplest lifeforms are. Cellular life is more than a concoction of amino acids, proteins, lipids, nucleic acids and carbohydrates combining into the right sequence following a lightning strike. Rather, life appears to be purposely and intentionally designed. To date, scientists can only tinker with preexisting life, which doesn’t qualify as creating life in a lab.
According to the College Fix, Tour says “there is not one precise scientific explanation or illustration of how RNA or a single protein was formed by chance, let alone a whole cell, within the Earth’s primordial soup”. Sadly, many evolutionists are not swayed by the lack of evidence. Why? Because they’re convinced that someday scientists will solve the mystery. Don’t hold your breath.
Tour goes on to make another good point when he says, “chemicals have never been seen to assemble themselves into an organism.” This is important because, even if scientists were to successfully create life in a lab, it will only demonstrate intelligence is necessary for this to occur- not time and chance. Tour also does well by referring to observational science, the backbone of the scientific method.
One of the most consistent laws of science states that life only comes from life. This law has never been violated, but evolutionists must believe that it was violated at least once in the past in order for their beliefs to be validated. In other words, they’re relying on blind faith over scientific evidence and facts.
After describing life’s hurdles, Tour asks, “How is that done in a prebiotic system? Nobody knows.” And many of his colleagues privately agree. The College Fix refers to an essay by atheist Thomas Nagel about an anti-religious spirit in academia resulting “in a counterorthodxy, supported by bad arguments, and a tendency to overstate the legitimate scientific claims of evolutionary theory.” Indeed it has.
Nonetheless, I’d argue that the evidence and case for design is so overwhelming that the Biblical origin of life makes more sense than naturalism. God created life on purpose, and we can see this simply by observing the many necessary, improbable steps for life to exist.