First Things
A Common Sense Approach to Origins

The Origin of Life

In 1859, Charles Darwin published his famous book which he titled On the Origin of Species. In his book, Darwin introduced his theory of natural selection. Scientists saw this as a revolutionary and potentially workable explanation of how a more primitive species could develop naturally into a more complex species. Over the next hundred years, scientists searched for evidence that would confirm Darwin’s theory in life forms and in fossil remains. Recently scientists have revealed that non-scientists should understand the word “theory” can refer to concepts that are considered to be established fact. Specifically, they were referring to the “Theory” of Evolution which, they insist, should now be considered to be established fact.

As with the big bang theory, Darwin’s theory of evolution requires raw materials to be credible. In this case, the raw materials needed are initial primitive life forms capable of developing into more complex life forms. Focused on searching for evidence of evolution in existing life forms and in fossil remains, there has been a high level of confidence among scientists that discovering how the initial primitive life forms required for evolution came into existence is just a matter of time.

Richard Dawkins, a scientist who aggressively preaches there is no God, reflects what seems to be the attitude of the majority of biologists when he says, “It must have happened, because we are here.” By that statement, Richard meant that an initial primitive life form must have appeared spontaneously purely by chance. Richard, a biologist, says he assumes that initial life form developed through some chemical reaction which, he notes, is not his field. Acknowledging that the spontaneous chemical reaction resulting in the initial life form required by Darwin’s theory may have been a very unlikely event, Richard suggests the odds of it happening could be as great as a billion to one. What initially seems like a very reasonable concession is actually a clever strategy. Noting that there may be as many as a billion, billion planets in the universe, Richard says that means a spontaneous primitive life form must have happened in the universe at least a billion times.

Richard is wrong because: 1) That is not how odds work. If the odds are a billion to one, they are always a billion to one no matter what happened on any other planet. 2) Richard pulled those odds out of the air with no foundation in fact. He could have easily have suggested odds of a billion, billion to one or a zillion, zillion to one. 3) In reality, there are no odds that the impossible happened. Impossible does not mean at least one in a billion. Impossible means it would never, ever happen. Is an initial primitive life form capable of developing through evolution possible? Let’s see.

The natural causes community envisions the earth developing over billions of years with, at one time, a surface that would fry any existing life form. From that description, we might expect the earth’s surface would have looked like the surface of the moon or the surface of Mars at some point. From a barren, lifeless surface, natural causes proponents propose all the water on the earth developed by chance and a primordial “soup” made up of “organic molecules” (molecules that are found in life forms) which, under the right conditions, were capable of crossing the line from nonliving to viable life forms. They believe this because, on a planet covered with an endless variety of life forms, they have found organic molecules not in life forms at the time.

The fact that there are molecules that have attributes similar to molecules in living cells is taken for granted. In reality, the fact that these molecules exist is another “It needs to be explained” issue. Evolution is definitely not applicable. Simple molecules did not evolve into complex molecules through helpful mutations and natural selection. This is not a case of, “Wow! Isn’t that lucky.” This is a case of, “Complex molecules need to be explained. How do we get this complexity and this consistency purely by chance?”

The Three Requirements: Richard Dawkins speaks of an initial, spontaneous primitive life form with the comment, “It only had to happen once.” In making that statement, he implies that a spontaneous event producing an initial primitive life form should not be considered that unlikely. He also implies that all that is needed is one primitive life form and that life form will reproduce like popcorn popping. He ignores the fact that there are at least three essential elements to an initial primitive life form that would, in any sense, provide a basis for Darwin’s theory of evolution. These are:

  1. A Mystical Event: A chemical reaction with just the right chemicals at just the right moment with just the right force that would have the ability to transform nonliving chemicals to a viable life form absent a chemist (or even with one) is a fairy tale. Recognizing how unlikely (impossible) such an event is on the planet that has been identified as the most friendly to life that has been found in the universe, some scientists are now suggesting that life may have begun on Mars or some other planet and then come to earth as a stowaway on a meteor. Any rational person would recognize that is not more likely than a spontaneous life event on earth, so why suggest it? The only answer that makes sense is that moving the initial life event to another planet makes it easier to say, “We just don’t know how it happened, but it must have happened because we are here.”
  2. A Source of Nutrition: Every life form requires a source of nutrition to survive – whether that life form is primitive of complex. The envisioned primitive life form would have to be able to break down inorganic substances (rocks, sand, etc.) in order to gain nutrition from them. There is no reason to believe an initial primitive life form that appeared through a spontaneous event would come complete with the ability to gain nutrition from anything in the vicinity – to say nothing of the fact that it would undoubtedly come with no ability to move from here to there in order to get to a source of nutrition.
  3. The Ability to Reproduce: Scientists acknowledge that every life form on earth has DNA in its cells which is necessary for reproduction. The complexity and functionality of this molecule is amazing. On what basis would we believe that an initial primitive life form appearing by a spontaneous event would come with the DNA molecule and the ability reproduce? At one time, students were taught that a simple single cell is made up of a blob of protoplasm surrounded by a membrane. Today we know that every single cell is a marvelous efficient factory. Best estimates are that we have at least ten trillion cells in our bodies – all working together to enable us to do what we do and each one containing our specific DNA molecule.

Darwin’s theory of evolution has no foundation in fact. There is no chance that the initial primitive life form his theory requires came about by natural causes. The odds are not one in a billion or one in a billion, billion or one in a trillion or one in a trillion, trillion or one in any fantastic number we can imagine. The concept is totally ridiculous. It would never, ever happen. Life on earth cannot be explained by natural causes. The concept is total nonsense unworthy of the scientific community.