in , , , , ,

Abiogenesis, the Linchpin of Evolution

muddy ooze representing primordial "soup"

Louis Pasteur and his predecessors dealt with the idea of the spontaneous generation of whole, live organisms in an oxidizing atmosphere. When Pasteur established the Law of Biogenesis under those conditions, the evolutionists switched to the spontaneous generation of the molecules necessary for life.

However, the chemistry required a reducing atmosphere, and the rhetoric required new language. Thus, the terms “chemical evolution” and “abiogenesis” were created.

But, why is there need to preserve some sort of spontaneous generation?

Simply put, “…we can’t allow a Divine foot in the door.” The reason is that the whole logical structure of the worldview of materialism comes crashing down if spontaneous generation is false and a Creator is necessary for life to exist.

Advertisement Below:

Therefore, for at least the past seven decades scientists have been using their intelligence and expertise to design experiments, at great cost of time and money, for the purpose of showing that neither intelligence nor design are necessary to create life. (And they say we have a problem?)

So far the results indicate that human bio-engineering and intelligence are not capable of doing what natural processes supposedly did by chance. The on-going failures do not bode well for confirming spontaneous generation, since they strongly suggest that an intelligence and a bio-engineering superior to that of humans are really required to create life.

Furthermore, if an origin-of-life experiment should one day be successful, it would falsify the notion that the results do not require intelligence and design. After all is said and done, both intelligence and design are being employed every time the notion is tested, and they would account for the success.

Thus, this is a self-refuting quest

because both outcomes (success & failure) argue against the existence of spontaneous generation. This is not robust, logical, good science as claimed by evolutionists. It’s just an illogical exercise in futility. [Heads I win. Tails you lose.]

Conclusion: The notion of spontaneous generation (aka abiogenesis, or chemical evolution) is false, and the worldview of naturalism, that requires this foundational idea to be true, is also false.

Advertisement Below:

Written by Walter Sivertsen

Walt is the President of Midwest Creation Fellowship, and has avidly studied the creation/evolution controversy for several decades. His career in chemistry and his certification in quality engineering make him particularly knowledgeable about how science operates, and when it is not literally the scientific method that is operating. Since junior high school, he has been an amateur astronomer. For entertainment, he studies astronomy, calculus, thermodynamics, and all things related to the creation/evolution issue.

Advertisement Below:

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading…

0
Advertisement Below:
Advertisement Below:

Brain Size and Human Evolution: An Example of the Puzzle

Changes to Birds in Habitats

Exploring Speciation Due to Environment