The Problem: 

“Evolutionists gloss over this evo-foundation issue.”

Evo-Sith Lady of evolution Eugenie Scott is executive director of the National Center for Science Education, Inc – basically an anti-creationist hate-group (see their website if you don’t believe me, at www.ncseweb.org ). When John Gibson of FOX News (5/6/2005) asked her if evolution can answer how life got started, she replied, “No. But that’s not what evolution is all about. Evolution is the inference that living things had common ancestors. The origin of life is a completely separate problem … creationists like to confuse the two, because they look at the origin of life as the soft underbelly of evolution.” Eugenie’s got it wrong here, at least about me anyway. I do not see the origin of life as the “soft underbelly of evolution.” I see the whole evo-theory as just one big gigantic soft spot! But let’s look close at this in particular which she called a “soft underbelly” of evolution, shall we? This looking-close exercise, by the way, is the one thing that every evolutionist alive is terrified that anyone will do. But we’re going to peek deeply into the “science” of this anyway – whether they like it or not.

Most evolutionists complain the same as Dr. Scott, saying we’re “not being fair.” They object, “well, evolution doesn’t talk about how life got here – just how that first life evolved into everything after that!” Really. Then why does every textbook on evolution start the evo-story off with – you guessed it – the origin of life? I’ll tell you why. It’s because not only is the origin of life definitely part of the evo-story – it’s actually the foundation of the evo-story! It’s clearly the foundation because, it is clearly step one in the story! There is no other way to talk about it. It’s the necessary beginning of “Genesis according to Darwin.”

There is – always – a contradiction in evolutionary thinking, because there will always be a contradiction in any incorrect thinking if you take it far enough along the way down the road on which it first starts out. If their step one being missing is truly not a problem, then why is it such a top priority in so many of their heavily funded research programs, trying to find the answer to this problem? It is a problem for them, and every one of them knows it! It’s a problem because; there can never be any answer for it that doesn’t go directly against all of the known laws of science.

The Truth:

“The known laws of science forbid the evolution of life.”

In the first place, everybody knows that – apart from miracles – you just can’t get something out of nothing. Of course, the evo-story begins with no universe at all, and then – Big Bang – you get the whole cosmos from nothing. Nice story, but without a miracle-making God in the works someplace – you’ve got a problem. They have the same problem with the origin of life. They still expect us to keep looking at them like they are reasonable thinkers, while they are telling us that you can indeed get something out of nothing. By “nothing” here, I am talking about getting “life” from “non-life” – a scientific impossibility that was proved as such in an earlier century.

In a friendly disagreement with the vice-president of the Darwin Coalition, I pointed out to him that all evolutionists believe in “spontaneous generation.” He was immediately affronted, “We do not!” – “Oh yes, you do. You believe it happened at least once – don’t you?” He didn’t know what to say to that. I had him, because what I said was exactly true, according to their theory. Spontaneous generation was the idea that living things could come from non-living things. Francesco Redi and Louis Pasteur both helped to bury that idea into the graveyard of failed scientific theories, in 1668 and in 1864 respectively. Addressing the French Academy of Sciences, the world-renowned chemist Pasteur presented the findings of his experiments and rightly proclaimed, “Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow of this simple experiment. No, there is now no circumstance known in which it can be affirmed that microscopic beings came into the world without germs, without parents similar to themselves.” But this very thing is affirmed every day in thousands of science classrooms and in most every science textbook in print today. They do believe and affirm that “microscopic beings” – the first life on Earth, at least – did indeed “come into the world” without any parents. According to the evo-story, non-living molecules in the ocean just put themselves together into making the first “living” bacteria. This is what evolution says. This is an evo-story “fact.” In reality, this is a matter of not only faith and imagination, but faith and imagination against the proven principles of biology.

One popular high school biology book says this about Pasteur’s discovery: “From that time on, biogenesis, the idea that living organisms come only from other living organisms, became a cornerstone of biology.” (“Biology: the Dynamics of Life,” 2004 edition, McGraw-Hill, page 381) And yet somehow, the very same book (see page 467) justifies the teaching of evolution by saying, “clusters of organic molecules might have formed protocells that may have evolved into the first true cells.” Doesn’t this contradict “a cornerstone of biology”?! Or I am just imagining things? Check it out. In every evo-based biology textbook – somewhere – it will affirm Pasteur’s triumph of science over superstition, and then elsewhere on another page in the same book, it will teach you that something totally the opposite is true – that this superstition is really a scientific fact – a tactic the book evidently thinks is okay, just as long as it is “evolution” that we are talking about.

It appears that evolution has “diplomatic immunity” to the laws of science! And so, it is granted immunity to any critical scrutiny. How is that? John Beatty, evo-prof at University of British Columbia and activist in developing the “new and improved” theory of evolution (“Extended Evolutionary Synthesis” or EES – but that is another story) in a speech given at University of Oklahoma recently (3/10/2009) said this about the laws of nature: “If outcomes are chance, then maybe the laws are too. Once they say the laws evolved, we’ll realize those aren’t the laws. We might have moved beyond the laws of nature!” Does that make sense?! If a creationary scientist had made that statement – just think of how the evo’s would scream and laugh at him or her! “We might have moved beyond the laws of nature!” Indeed!

But this violation of a proven “cornerstone of biology” is “only the beginning of sorrows” for the evo-story of the origin of the first species. Every experiment they’ve tried, in their efforts to prove that life once came from non-life, requires that the Earth once had an atmosphere with no oxygen. That’s because any oxygen present would immediately destroy the “clusters of organic molecules” that would have been needed to make the first original living cells. Everybody knows that we all need to eat vegetables and fruits because they contain chemicals called “anti-oxidants,” which remove oxidizing agents from our body systems. The process of oxidation destroys biological molecules in living things, so this is an important point to remember. Free oxygen would destroy any proteins or nucleic acids floating loose in the ocean immediately after they’d formed. Okay, well maybe there was no oxygen? But wait … what else can destroy biological molecules? That’s right – ultraviolet rays. And what protects us from UV rays today? – The Ozone Layer. And what is that made of? – Oxygen! It doesn’t take a PhD to see now, that the evo-story falls on its face right at the beginning. If there was any oxygen in Earth’s ancient atmosphere and also if there was not – then evolution could not possibly have even gotten started! I’d call that a problem for evo-theory!

As I said, this is still only the beginning of evo-sorrows. Okay – let’s just pretend that non-living molecules could come together magically. Let’s just pretend they could also magically be protected from both the oxygen and from the UV rays, both at once. So then, evo’s can pretend there was an ocean just full of all the biological molecules necessary for life, like amino acids, fatty acids, nucleotides, and lots of other things. But, does that give you “instant life?” No. All of those things are in a bowl of breakfast cereal – and it doesn’t come to life instantly either! The problem at this point now is, how can the amino acids come together in just the right way to make the proteins? How do the fatty acid chains come together to make phospholipids for cell membranes? How can the nucleotides come together in just the right order to make the DNA molecules? Here’s a hint at how complicated the big molecules are that we’re talking about now. Just one of your cells has six billion nucleotides in the DNA – and all in just the right order. And your body has over 100 trillion cells in it! That’s a lot of stuff that has to be put together just right to make a body function! Plus, the DNA tells your cells how to make the proteins in your body – but the proteins all get together to assemble and do maintenance work – on the DNA! They need each other, to be manufactured and to be maintained. So, which came first?! This is another problem for the evo-story!

Can you see that this nightmare of the origin of life … just gets worse and worse for evo’s, the more you know about it? I sure can! And so can they. And this is just the start! Even if the first cells did “evolve” from non-life, then how did the bigger cells come about and also get organelles (things like a nucleus and chloroplasts) inside them? And how did big cells get together – all by themselves – to make big trees and people? So what do they do about all of these problems? They just say, “Given enough time, the impossible becomes possible, the possible becomes probable, and the probable becomes virtually certain. Time itself performs the miracles.” (George Wald, Nobel Prize-winning biology professor at Harvard, in “The Origin of Life,” an article in Scientific American, 8/1954, page 46) Oh please.

The Lie:

“It could eventually happen if you wait a long enough time?”

This is like saying that if you just wait long enough gravity will go backwards, Congress will give back your income tax, and pigs will fly. The obvious problem with this kind of thinking is that there are plenty of things that will not happen, just because you are willing to wait a long time – or even to imagine a long time provided for them to happen. I like the way creationary biochemist Dr. Duane T. Gish puts it: “Time cannot be not the hero. For the longer you wait, the more likely it becomes that you will eventually arrive at the most probable state. And the most probable state is always the random state!” The most probable state is not the complex and non-random DNA molecule. It is not even the simple nucleotides that are the building blocks of DNA. It is not even the organic molecules that the nucleotides are made of – the most random state is always the lowest-energy and less-complex state. That would be the inorganic (non-biological) molecules floating around in the ocean to begin with. So time would only un-do what the evolutionists are really wanting it to do.

As a matter of fact, the DNA today of all species of living things, is gradually wearing out right before our very eyes. Mutations are collecting in our once-perfect DNA like the way that years of dings, dents, and smudges can affect the look of your car until that “new car look” finally disappears from the way it looked from when you bought off the showroom floor. That’s what’s becoming of our DNA. Unlike the wonderfully creative process that evolutionists love to describe mutation as being – it really is more like the effect of a machine gun pelting a beautiful work of art! It’s not an improvement. Mutation is a destructive force. And the result is a destruction of the beauty, order, and symmetry that once characterized the genomes of all living things – leaving them in the genetic shambles in which we now find them. The Y-chromosome particularly (likely because of its smaller size) is the first full chromosome of genes that is predicted to fail completely “in the next 10,000 years” say the genetic scientists. That’s only the “blink of an eye” to an evo-believer. So why is it … that of all the billions of years the Y has been around – that it suddenly picks now (a small spot on the evolutionary time scale) to suddenly corrupt into uselessness? Don’t forget, the Y is really only 6000 years old on the creationary time scale – so it’s really not that far along yet and, when you compare 10,000 years to 6000, it’s not that relatively close to having its big breakdown yet. In fact, it should still last us the remaining generations until Jesus comes again, however many (or not any) generations tt may be that are left.

And if evolution is so wonderful, too – then why instead isn’t the Y chromosome and every other chromosome – just getting better and better every generation – huh? Why do we only actually see the destruction – the falling apart – of the genomes of all species. Where is all this gradual “evo-glorification” of all of the genomes as predicted by evo-theory, evo-thinking, and the evo faith? I mean seriously isn’t that what evolution is supposed to be doing? – making everything better and better, until all species and the human race will reach some kind of a Nirvana-like genetic perfection where all disease and deformity will be a matter for only the history books and no longer in the medical books? Is it true? Of course it’s not. Just take a look around. And why? Because evolution is just not demonstrably true at all – not even in the slightest sense – and certainly never in the grandest sense (or in the big-picture sense). And everybody can see this for themselves – as long as they are keeping their eyes open and have “an ear to hear.”

It’s not just “sort of” bad that evolution can’t explain how things got the way they are today – that the current state of life is genetically the opposite of what evolution would predict. It’s really so bad, that the even greater evo-problem of how things even got here in the first place is completely unsolvable by any means at their disposal, by any kind of logic or evidence or any use of the scientific method. That’s the evo-conundrum – that’s the evo-condemnation. Darwin is dead – so is his theory. They just don’t know it yet – or at least aren’t ready to admit it yet to the general public. If the evolution of life on this planet ever did start by itself, with the fixing up of simple compounds into more complex ones, and then on into the forms of living cells and then on to the larger animals and plants – then why is it these larger systems after all this time are only showing signs of decay and corruption, rather than the ongoing continuation of the grand “evolutionary process?” It becomes easy to see now, that not only can evolution not explain the present state of things – but it is even more woefully unable to explain the original state of living things … without there being a God, or “Prime Mover” as Aristotle referred to Him.

The Solution:

“Expose evolution of life as anti-science.”

So how do you deal with someone who cannot even acknowledge the known facts of science? How can you reason with someone who has become most certain – that things which cannot be proven to happen – in fact have been proven impossible to happen – really do happen … in spite of all evidence to the contrary? How did the Creator Himself deal with such questions and problems, when He walked and talked and debated the truth among human beings, as one of us on this Earth? In other words, “what did Jesus do?” He is ever our example. We should follow that example in our own dealings with the blasphemers, compromises, and the unbelievers.

How did Jesus deal with the all ill doctrines and unbelief He encountered during His years on Earth? First off, He never tried to bring the Pharisees over to His side. Nicodemus made the trip to come and see Jesus, not the other way around. “The common people heard Him gladly,” even if the religious big leaders didn’t. Jesus never argued with any of the Pharisees or the scribes or Sadducees in private. It was always in public – and there was always an audience of “the people” standing by as witnesses, as Jesus showed openly and plainly what were the flaws in the arguments of those who opposed His own words of truth and life. As a creationist friend of mine once wisely said to me, “We’re not here to convince the prosecuting attorney. We’re here to convince the jury!” And that’s so true. It’s the people who are standing by – the innocent ones – the ones who still might have a chance of being converted over to believing in the Truth Himself. Those are the ones that need to hear what you have to say about the origin of life on this planet. Those are the only ones who will really be listening to you when you talk to them anyway!

You may be tempted to think that Jesus won his public encounters with His opponents, just because He was smarter than them, or by virtue of being God. If that were the case, then He couldn’t have been setting an example for us to follow, since none of us could be God incarnate (though He does live in us by His Spirit) and neither are any of us as smart as Jesus was. “Greater works than these, shall ye do,” said Jesus to His disciples. If you think that you will win, by your superior knowledge of science – you could be unpleasantly surprised. Jesus didn’t use knowledge as much as He used wisdom. Many creationist supporters make that mistake. If this were an academic battle, then that knowledge would be enough and it would work. But this is a spiritual warfare – not really an intellectual battle. It is akin to the physical battles that the Children of Israel won in the old days, but by the sheer power and wisdom of their God. That is the secret to piercing the veil of unbelief and confusion of mankind’s so-called “wisdom” – the Spirit of the Living God. You can trust Him on that.

In every response, Jesus’ intention was clear. He went straight to the flaw in His opponent’s thinking – not just the flaws in their words, but the actual flaws behind the words. In the “tribute to Caesar” encounter, He was drawing attention to His opponents’ lack in understanding about the place of the authority of man versus the authority of God (which He also did in His question to them about the Baptism of John). With the woman caught in adultery, He showed up their lack of understanding in matters on the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law (as He also did when His disciples were criticized for gleaning wheat on the Sabbath and when He was criticized for healing on the Sabbath). So what is the flaw of understanding with our evolution-believing friends, when it comes to this question of “the origin of life?” And what is the flaw in many professing Bible-believers’ minds on the same subject?

In both cases, there is a “willingly ignorant” thing going on, very similar to what the Apostle was writing about when he described the Truth-doubters of his day in 2 Peter 3:5. Evo-believers and Bible-compromisers have never really looked very far into the specifics of the origin of life. They’ve just believed what others have told them – teachers, magazines, TV, and other media. They’ve never really thought about it deeply very much. They have just “trusted” that somebody certainly must have checked all this stuff out to be sure – certainly before they’d let it go on a TV special or in a science series. Yeah right. The popular media is for entertainment. If something gets viewers, they’ll run it. As the old saying goes, “that’s what sells newspapers!” There’s not much more of a quality check on television than there is on the internet (don’t tell me you believe all of the internet myths!). People who believe that evolutionary scientists have somehow solved all those problems that might be associated with the “origin of life” part of the theory are just putting their trust and their faith – you got it – in people. And you know how flawed and faulty people can be. And despite what you may have been led to believe – scientists are people, too. They can have ulterior motives, pride, arrogance, and they can be wrong, too. Scratch the surface just a little bit, on the knowledge of someone that you are trying to talk to about the origin of life on Earth by evolution, and you will find what they are packing – nothing. Their knowledge will be very shallow. And if it isn’t, then they’ll end up listening to you very carefully – either finally agreeing with you or finally storming away in a frustrated anger!

You may not know that much about science. Or, you may know a lot. This doesn’t matter as much as you might think. Remember that their theory is not true. So when you merely ask them “how” it works – they merely will not be able to answer you. And do not let them give you a “what happens” answer to your “how it happens” question! That’s what they’ll often try to do to save face and to camouflage their desperate situation. If they answer you with just more “information” on the details that they may have memorized about their theory, then wait them out and listen. Then you just go back to your original question about the original part of the theory that you had asked them about, and simply ask it again “yeah, but how?”

You may get a violent response on cornering them with the “how” question, since they only like to talk about the “what” question. But you keep at it. Do not back down or shrink away from your original problem with the evolutionary origin of life. Keep asking “how” it supposedly works. When you’ve asked “how” enough times in a row, they will be forced to admit that – yes, it’s a faith-based position that they hold. At that point, you can tell them that’s fine with you, and that you too understand about faith. But now there’s no justification for them to look down on you, simply because you do not choose to have the same faith-position that they do. Truth, reason, and logic are the great equalizers here. Science and the evidence are on our side. These things are not our enemies, but friends. Do not listen to the propaganda about Bible-belief being “anti-science.” That’s just not the way it is.

So, when it comes to this question of the origin of the first life forms on Earth, just remind them that science proved that life coming from non-life is not possible – and that it’s been proven by experiments and data, a very long time ago and that this truth has become a principle now known to be “a cornerstone of biology” according to the textbooks.

So how do you tell them what really happened? You just say what it says in the historical record found in the Bible. God worked a miracle. Hey, that’s not so hard to believe, when you hear the ways in which evo’s talk about how their theory must have worked. They use the very same word “miracle” a surprising number of times when explaining the “process” of the evolutionary origin of life! They’ll have to catch themselves, when they tell you we just need to have the faith that there was a “long enough time” until the “miracle” happened and life got started on Earth all by itself. Life could never start “all by itself.” It definitely does take a miracle. That, at least is one thing on which we are all in agreement! At least we creationists believe in miracles with a Miracle-maker. They believe in miracles, and yet deny the existence of any miracle-maker of any kind. Think about which belief system makes more logical sense to you – or to anybody.