Biogenesis is one of the most compelling evidences against evolution. Biogenesis is the law of science stating that all living organisms come from other living organisms. This is a fundamentally true statement, and no one has ever observed a violation. On the other hand, abiogenesis is the belief that life originated from non-living material, and this has never been observed to occur naturally in nature. Yet this is what evolutionists must believe happened in the distant past in order for life to have evolved from a single common ancestor.
To that end, some researchers have been studying what’s called the RNA world hypothesis, which assumes life began when simple molecules self-assembled into a strand of RNA. One of the latest attempts is by LMU chemists trying to explain how RNA (a complex macromolecule) could link with proteins. These scientists, led by Thomas Carell, claim they were able to create “RNA-peptide particles in the lab that could encode genetic information and even formed lengthening peptides”.
The main problem with their experiment is that the results were manufactured… they admitted they “created” the RNA-peptide particles in the lab. Note that nothing occurred naturally or spontaneously. It took an intelligent, living, breathing agent (ie. scientists) to make this happen. Such an experiment does not suggest that life could arise naturally from a primordial soup on a primitive earth, and then evolve.
I’ve had evolutionists try to convince me that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, but in this article, evolutionists spell it out themselves, claiming “it was a novel molecular species composed out of RNA and peptides that set in motion the evolution of life into more complex forms”. This is what they want the public to believe, but, sadly, few will challenge these claims or think critically.
An article from the Discovery Institute’s Evolution Today, however, does a fine job critiquing these claims and points out how implausible their case is. According to Dr. Brian Miller, their claim “appears entirely inaccurate”. Miller examined the actual experiment and concluded that, not only did they precisely manufacture and control the ingredients and environment, but they assumed unrealistic conditions on an early earth, disregarded the rate of RNA degradation and ignored the “infinitesimal” probabilities necessary for a random peptide to function as a key enzyme.
I think experiments like this do more to substantiate intelligent design and refute naturalism. These scientists have unwittingly demonstrated that life must be designed by intelligent, living beings. There is no other rational explanation for the origin of life. Only biogenesis makes sense of what we observe in nature. To that end, if life can only be designed, then the Bible’s claim that God created the heavens and earth makes the most sense for the origin of life, and it would be good for modern science to recognize this.