Here’s a brilliant article from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) on abiogenesis- about the possibility of life arising from non-life. It touched on a few points I’ve advocated, and then did a nice job putting it all in proper perspective.
One of the best, most proven laws of science is the fact that life only comes from life. There are no known exceptions. Yet evolutionists must deny this in order for their belief system to work. After all, they say, “We’re here, so it must have happened”. So they deny science and ignore a more plausible explanation.
This article touches on Fred Hoyle’s famous quote where he likened the probability of life arising by chance to a Boeing 747 being fully assembled by a tornado in a junk yard. His point was that the possibility of life coming about by purely naturalistic processes is absurd.
But even if a tornado were to successfully assemble a fully functional Boeing 747, that’s not enough to get it up in the air, or for it to travel to another location and land safely so that it can repeat the process over and over again. No, the plane is essentially dead, even if there’s fuel in the tank. Unless there’s something to get the engine started, it’s no better off than a non-assembled plane. A fully functional plane needs a pilot to bring it to life by firing up the engines.
I’ve always found the naturalistic origin of life theory absurd, but another analogy that helps drive home the point is when we consider what happens when we come along a dead animal… its cells are already in the proper order, the animal is fully formed, and it used to be alive and fully functional. But now that it’s dead, it can’t come back to life on its own. Even a bolt of lightning probably won’t be enough to jump-start its heart and bring it back to life. As is stated in the article, “If life occurred spontaneously, shouldn’t dead creatures just spontaneously spring back to life?”
Spot on. If life can form spontaneously, then it shouldn’t be that hard to keep any organism from dying.
I believe it’s just as absurd to think that non-living chemicals could become arranged in the perfect order, giving them the potential to become a living organism. But that’s not enough!
The main point of the article is that life needs a spark to get started, and only the Biblical explanation for life has any scientific merit. Life is too complex to come about by chance. It must be assembled by an intelligent creator, and it is God who assembled and created life. But a fully assembled lifeform cannot spring to life on its own, but must be “jump-started”. And it was God who provided that spark. We can see this more clearly when we read that God formed man from the dust of the ground. But even after man was formed, he didn’t spring to life on his own. No, it was God who breathed life into the man, and that’s when he became a living being.
Natural processes cannot account for any of this, so I would argue that a naturalistic theory for the origin of life is not a tenable scientific theory. In fact, it has been thoroughly refuted every time we see a living organism or being.