Chapter 5 - Evolution does not explain the Origin of Life.

A little girl asked her mother, 'How did the human race appear?'              The mother answered, 'God made Adam and Eve. They had children and so was all mankind made'Two days later the girl asked her father the same question. The father answered, 'Many years ago there were monkeys from which the human race evolved.'The confused girl returned to her mother and said, 
'Mom, how is it possible that you told me the human race was created by God, and Dad said they developed from monkeys?'
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          The mother answered, 'Well, dear, it is very simple. I told you about my side of the family and your father told you about his.' 

Last time we challenged the common assumption that Evolution is Scientific Fact. We saw how misleading this is, for it is really just a Hypothesis which is not supported by the evidence. We saw that it has never been observed in the Present or in the Past through the Fossil Record, which has a complete absence of proven transitional forms. Thus it should not even be given the status of a Theory. In fact any other hypothesis faced with such contradictory evidence would have been rejected by now. For the lack of transitional forms (cited by Darwin himself as the main test) means the game is now really up for Evolution for our knowledge of the Fossil Record is now fairly complete, and had Evolution happened it would be filled with these transitional forms. The obvious explanation for all the the millions of missing links is that they were never there in the first place! The only reason Evolution has not been thrown out already is that it would have great implications for people’s belief-systems, for the only alternative to Evolution is Creation by an Intelligent Designer which is unacceptable to many people! 

In response to the millions of missing links all that Evolutionists can do is produce the odd extinct fossil and argue that it could be transitional, because it possesses some variations from creatures living now. However these are more easily understood as simply a variation within a kind, a horizontal variation, rather than an upward evolutionary step of one kind changing into a higher kind. So far there is no proven Intermediate Form. Therefore NOT ONE Transition between two types of animal on the Evolutionary Tree has a clearly established Intermediate Form in the Fossil Record! 

It is not just that some of the millions of links are missing, but that they are all missing! Every place where we should see Evolution happening, with transitional forms filling the evolutionary gaps between lower and higher forms, we see nothing. The gaps between different kinds of life are everywhere, and all we see are well-defined distinct life-forms that suddenly appear in their full complexity and continue unchanged (apart from minor variations) until the the present time or until their extinction. There is no hint of their gradual descent from lower forms or ascent to higher ones. It is as if the Fossil-Record was designed to disprove Evolution!

Whatever occasional borderline fossil Evolutionists might produce now can’t possibly save the hypothesis, because the primary prediction of Evolution has already failed, for the Fossil Record should have been filled with missing-links. For example turtles leave particularly good fossils, so we should see some signs of transition. But Turtles suddenly appear in the record as Turtles, without ancestry from previous forms and neither do they change to something else. Thus we have to conclude that Evolution is simply a hypothetical story without an evidential foundation.

*We now need to expose another misunderstanding about Evolution. The impression is given that Darwinian Evolution by Natural Selection explains how life began, and so in many minds this away with the need for God. However Evolutionis only a Hypothesis that tries to explain naturalistically how the variety of life-forms came from a common origin, the original life form. However by its very nature, it does NOT explain how the first life-form originated. Evolution is not a theory for the Origin of Life, but only for the Development of life, because by its very definition Natural Selection can only work on self-reproducing, living things. 

Thus there are 2 distinct issues:

(1) How did life begin? By an act of Creation or by random processes whereby chemicals arranged themselves to form the first living and multiplying cell with DNA.
(2) How do we explain the range of life-forms that we see today? Did God originally create each life-form to multiply according to its kind or did they all evolve from the first self-replicating cell by natural selection. Although Evolution has no clear answer to the Paradox: “which came first: the chicken or the egg?”, Creationism is clear that: “it was the chicken of course.” 

We must be clear that Darwinian Evolution by Natural Selection can only try to explain the 2nd issue, but it cannot even begin to explain the origin of life itself. Those who don’t believe in a Creator have to believe that life somehow arose spontaneously from a chemical soup. They call this Chemical Evolution, but this is a different process to Darwinian Evolution by Natural Selection. Unfortunately for Evolutionists, Chemical Evolution is an obvious absurdity and a proven mathematical impossibility, because we now know the incredible complexity of even the simplest cell. 

Chemical Evolution proposes that the highly complex proteins necessary for life, including DNA, were formed through random chemical reactions of simpler naturally occuring elements. Now it is possible to calculate the probability of the accidental formation of these proteins and it is effectively ZERO! These things are so complex that scientists can’t come even close to creating them on purpose in the lab, let alone seeing them form spontaneously! 

Through these advances in our scientific knowledge the evidence for design in the universe and in life on earth is greater than ever. We have discovered that even the simplest cell is far more complex than we could have even imagined, making it inexplicable by random natural processes. We now know: “the first living cells are far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world.” 

The probability of the accidental formation of a single living cell, which we now know is more complicated than a large city, is even smaller! We no know there is no such thing as a primitive or simple cell. As we discover more about the complexity of even the simplest life-forms the idea of spontaneous generation becomes increasingly absurd. As Sir Fred Hoyle said: “it is about as likely as an explosion happening in a factory of spare parts and a jumbo jet being formed and flying out of the debris.” He calculated the mathematical probability of the basic proteins necessary for life being formed by chance somewhere in the universe over billions of years, and he found it was effectively ZERO. It can’t happen. This is the Mathematics of Evolution. While it might have been possible to believe it 50 years ago, what we know now about DNA and the complexity of even the simplest life-forms, makes it an absurdity. This uncomfortable fact is avoided by Evolutionists. 

Sir Fred Hoyle (who was not even a believer) called the odds against this vast enough: “to bury Darwin and the whole Theory of Evolution” and: “the notion that... the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.”

Stephen Grocott, fellow of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute:
“I am afraid that as a scientist I simply cannot say strongly enough that spontaneous origin of life is a chemical nonsense and therefore I am left with no alternative, but to believe that life was created.”

Assuming the existence of all components (a huge assumption), Dr James Coppedge (an expert in probability) calculated that the probability of a single protein molecule coming together by chance as 1 in 10 to the power of 161 (there are only 10 to the power of 80 atoms in the universe). Thus it would need 10 to the power of 81 universes for it to happen! 

Despite the overwhelming chemical evidence against it, many scientists still believe in Chemical Evolution, however unlikely, because the only alternative is Creation. Therefore they believe it, as an article of faith, not because it is scientific. As Nobel prize winner Harold Urey said: “All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet.”

Likewise, according to Harvard’s George Wald: 
“When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only 2 possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds, therefore we choose to believe the impossible, that life arose spontaneously by chance.” 

This is very different from the popular idea that molecules to man Evolution is solidly based on science! 

Naturalistic Evolution’s failure to explain the most fundamental issue of the Origin of Life is its weakest point and its greatest embarrassment, and therefore it is an area generally avoided by those who promote it. In fact, there is no viable naturalistic theory for the Origin of Life, because the formation by random processes of the complex molecules (proteins, DNA etc.) needed for even the simplest self-replicating cell, is mathematically impossible. Therefore there is only one possible viable and coherent explanation for the Origin of Life: Creation.

Therefore Evolution is a Theory in crisis with its inherent improbability and lack of evidence in contrast with overwhelming evidence for Intelligent Design. Despite this the Establishment (dominated by secular-humanism) acts as if it was a fact!  This is not because of positive evidence, but because the alternative (Creation) is unacceptable to them, as it requires the existence of a Creator God (which contradicts their fundamental philosophy). Thus the main reason that Evolution is believed so strongly and reinforced with so much propaganda in our godless society (with any questioning of it ridiculed), is because is a necessary part of any belief-system that arises from a rejection of a Creator God. Again we need to distinguish Natural Selection (which is a fact) from molecules to man evolution (which is certainly not a scientific fact however many times they say it is).

Evolutionists want us to believe many impossible things at once! First, DNA and the first single-cell life-forms formed by accident, which is mathematically impossible because of their immense chemical complexity. Then the random natural processes of Evolution by Natural Selection over millions of years caused the first lowly amoeba to transform itself upward into a human being! The absurdity of all this should lead us to take seriously the claims of the alternative theory ofCreationism, especially as described by the Bible, which claims to be God’s Word from Genesis to Revelation. So we will now consider the Bible’s account of the Origins of the Universe and Life and see if it makes scientific sense.

Creationism is the belief that God created all life in its main forms or kinds and that He did this without using the process of Evolution. 
Creationism has a variety of forms, but what Creationists have in common is that they take the early chapters of Genesis literally.