Creation: Abiogenesis Part I
A Sunday guest post by my brilliant husband, Gregg.
Every Sunday, my clever husband offers me a “day of rest” by writing posts on the subject of his primary ministry. This is a topic that is gaining more and more attention in our modern culture. The topic, Creationism vs. Darwinism, is a subject that has broad reaching scientific, social, and metaphysical implications. He chooses to conclude each post with a message intended to hearten and bolster believers. However, for believers and non-believers alike, the primary purpose is to present scientific, historical, logical, and/or sociological data in an empirical fashion, as much as possible written in layman’s terms, and in a format suitable for supplementing any homeschool curriculum whether you choose to believe the Biblical account or secular guesses about the origins of human life on earth.
A Darwinian Primer
The 6 types of evolution taught in the average public school, the first 5 being types of Darwinian evolution, and the last being simple modifications or changes within kind and not even really “evolution” are:
- Cosmic evolution
- Stellar evolution
- Chemical evolution
- Abiogenesis—Life from non-life
- Macro-evolution
- Micro-evolution (Changes within kind – not evolution)
Abiogenesis—Life from Non-Life (something from nothing)
The next series of Sunday posts will focus on the Darwinian concept of “Abiogenesis” which is the authoritative and scientific sounding word that Darwinists invented to describe how life magically sprung into existence from non-living matter.
In previous Sunday posts, I described how I was once a believer in Darwinian evolutionary theory. I related how I began to educate myself on scientific fact and how, in doing so, I had to confront the truth that I had been conned into “drinking the Darwinist kool-aid,” and simply not critically thinking for myself, for most of my life.
I described how Darwinists have concocted a creation myth that is gigantic in it’s scope and scale, that has broad reaching social and political influence, and how Darwinian theory and the secular humanist philosophy has adversely affected the lives of men. Since its conception, the Darwinist worldview has influenced the motives of evil in the world and assisted in rationalizing things as hideous as kidnapping, slavery, murder, and even genocide.
In previous Sunday posts, I covered the flat impossibility of Darwinian theory based on logic, insufficient time, scientific evidence, and irrefutable facts. I discussed the multiple and very serious problems encountered when considering various theories of Cosmic Evolution, Stellar Evolution, and Chemical Evolution. I then presented an 8 part series documenting some of the evidence that the universe, the galaxy, our solar system, our planet, and life on this planet simply cannot have been around for the billions or even millions of years Darwinists claim.
If you do not have that context, I encourage you to select the CREATION category and read through all of the previous posts. I pray that doing so will be a blessing to you.
What is Abiogenesis?
Abiogenesis is the theory of the origin of life from non-life, formerly called spontaneous generation. It is the opposite of biogenesis, life coming from something living, or the observed scientific fact that all living things were brought forth from a living parent or parents of the same kind. In short, it is the notion that rocks and chemicals can become living organisms, just add time, chance, and possibly water, as if raw chemicals were merely plant seeds or seamonkey eggs at heart.
The word Genesis means “the beginning” and, of course, it was taken from a the Bible, which account of the origins of life contains considerably more substantive science than any Darwinian effort at explanation. The word bio means living or organic, thus biology is the study of living things. The prefix A means not or anti. Thus to muse is to think while amuse is not to think. One who is moral has scruples while one who is amoral has none. So, the word literally means life beginning from nothing living.
In some modern texts, the word abiogenesis has is often replaced with the new word biopoiesis. Now, even I have to admit that the word biopoiesis is a VERY authoritative and scientific sounding word. It also eliminates the religiosity inferred by the use of “Genesis” which is delightful if one’s religion is secular humanism. Meanwhile, it is sufficiently arcane that someone may not dare to question its meaning which is — spontaneous generation of life from non-life.
In order for the principles of methodological naturalism to hold true, life must have occurred as a result of a completely “natural” and random process. This defies logic at it’s outset.
When we ascribe concrete characteristics to concepts which do not possess those characteristics, it always leads to fallacious conclusions. For example, “nature” is simply what we call the arrangement of things in the universe and the order in which we experience events. Nature does not have a personality. Nature does not have a mind. Nature cannot look into the future, anticipate future shortfalls, and stockpile in advance of the event. Nature cannot construct useless things in one generation because it “knows” it will need those useless things and find a use for them in future generations. Nature cannot plan. Nature is mindless and, by and large, a terrible logistician.
Bottom line, whether you call it abiogenesis or biopoiesis or hooberschnitzel is irrelevant. It is all just a retread of the centuries old spontaneous generation ignorance that believed “If I leave my flour out, it spontaneously generates mice and if I leave my stew out, it spontaneously generates maggots!” Louis Pasteur conclusively proved this idiotic notion to be dead wrong about a century before anyone reading this was even born.
Earth Birth and the Primordial Environment
For the next few paragraphs, just imagine that each sentence starts with something like allegedly, supposedly, or according to Darwinian theorists. This is THEIR belief and THEIR fairy tale. I am simply retelling it.
Like every good fairy tale, it begins with “a long time ago,” in this case billions of years ago, the earth spun off from some unknown stellar event such as a condensation or collision of some kind. At first it was a molten mass of very hot rock. Gradually, it cooled over a period of millions upon millions of years. Polonium halos in the bedrock of our planet prove this dead wrong, but remember that Darwinists completely ignore any evidence that refutes their silly theories and don’t include refutations in their fairy tales.
The earth cooled. Finally it was time for life to originate by spontaneous generation from … according to which Darwinist is telling this fairy tale: warm wet dirt, seashore, hot and dry dirt, ocean water, desert sand, lake, poisonous chemicals or fumes, electrified mud puddle, a volcanic rim, riding on crystals (no kidding), or some other purely “natural and material process” that we do not or cannot know about.
What were conditions like at that first moment when life spontaneously generated itself by random chance out of an electrified mud hole or poisonous sloshing seawater? Darwinists have diligently tried to analyze what conditions must have been like long ago in order for spontaneous generation of life from non-life to occur. They believe an atmosphere of some type had formed, and occasionally lightning would strike the earth. They call this the “Primordial Environment” or even sometimes just the “primitive environment” although you must agree that the word “primordial” sounds much more authoritative and scientific than the word “primitive” and so the latter isn’t used nearly as much.
Darwinists believe that the first life form developed from nothing between 4 and 4.6 billion years ago. The late Steven Jay Gould of Harvard, one of the leading Darwinist evolutionary thinkers of the latter part of the twentieth century, maintained that there would have been very little time for this highly improbable (e.g.: mathematically impossible) event to have taken place.
“We are left with very little time between the development of suitable conditions for life on the Earth’s surface and the origin of life . . Life apparently arose about as soon as the Earth became cool enough to support it.”
—Steven Jay Gould, “An Early Start,” in Natural History, February 1978. (Irrational silliness his; emphasis mine)
The Abiogenesis “Theory” Outline
According to the Darwinian religious beliefs, life began in this way:
(1) There was exactly the right atmosphere—and it was completely different from the one present today.
(2) The ground, water, or ocean where life began had exactly the right combination of chemicals—which are not present today.
(3) Using an unknown source of exactly the right amount of an unknown energy, rightward amino acids formed in sufficient quantities so that …
(4) … they could intelligently combine into enormous amounts of proteins and nucleotides (complex chemical compounds in exactly specific and highly intricate interdependent sequences).
(5) Then they intelligently reformed themselves into various tissues and organs inside a “simple” main organism.
(6) The organism found something to eat that didn’t kill it (this sounds silly, but this is important) and a way to intelligently transform those nutrients into sustainable and useful energy.
(7) The simple organism did some careful thinking and highly precise planning (as with all the other points, well beyond the collective intellectual abilities of even the finest human minds living or dead), and developed a nearly infinitely complex genetic code to cover hundreds of thousands of different factors.
(8) At this point, it found someone to marry, developed a perfectly functional reproductive system, and was ready to start reproducing offspring.
The last point reveals that all the previous points had to occur within the single lifetime of justone single celled organism. Since microbes and bacteria don’t live very long, this first living pioneer had to think and act lightning fast. So fast that, I’m afraid, the entire “theory” is just an impossible dream.
The Truth
What amazes me, even now, is just how much scientific endeavor in the last century and a half has been sidetracked to an intense, almost desperate –and ultimately utterly fruitless– effort to prove true the ramblings of a 19th century British eccentric who spent his life either nursing his digestive problems, dealing with his many phobias, pondering why his children suffered from various mental deficiencies after he married his own first cousin, or simply wondering how life might possibly have sprung into existence without having been created by God.
Modern culture portrays Charles Darwin as a misunderstood genius, when the reality is that he was simply a phobic, cynical, slightly depraved and dyspeptic old kook. It is as if Charles Darwin is the canonized leader of a rather fanatical cult of death worshipers.
Think of the books, the textbooks, the films, the documentaries, the political movements — the sheer human effort that has been spent on what is ultimately a delusion. Darwinian notions, since they do not merit being called something as grand as theories, are simple rationalizations for an impossible dream. It is a dream in which nothing exists but the material; no spiritual realm, no meaningful emotions, no meaning for existence, no life after this one ends.
By contrast, believers have witnessed the power of the spiritual realm in miraculous events both great and small. Believers have felt a love that is deeper than the oceans and higher than the highest mountain peak. Believers have felt the comfort and the hope poured out by the Holy Spirit moving in and around them. Believers live that hope, and that amazing love, and that very real dream, every single day — the whole time filled with a peace that passes understanding. We are secure in the knowledge that we know the Creator, and we are privy to His plan. We are assured that the Creator will one day make all things new again, and that we will live in that new creation eternally in the light of His glory and grace.
This week, I exhort Darwinists to abandon nonsensical notions, half-baked utterances, and vague pipe-dreams — and instead seek TRUTH. Reject anything that is not verifiable truth and question absolutely everything. Review all of your preconceived notions and abandon any that are without foundation. Start fresh with an open mind and seek only, exclusively, the truth. Embrace logic, the scientific method, facts, and intentionally abandon silly rationalization. I assure you, it will be an invigorating and highly liberating experience.
This week, I encourage believers to take stock of their personal faith. Ask yourself, are you as knowledgeable about the truth as secularists are about their silly rationalizations? Could you make an answer for the hope that lives in you with both humility and love? Could you be a part of saving someone who is sinking in sin, as you once were, by holding out the lifeline of the truth of the Gospel?
God Bless you and yours.
Gregg
Resources:
Additional Posts dealing with Creation and Darwinism
Pin It
Regarding “Abiogenesis Theory Outline” above, the terminology “exactly right” is not appropriate. This implies picking an improbable case from a sea of more probable cases, which does indeed seem difficult. Evolution and especially chemical evolution is better thought of as a spontaneous process arising from the natural creation of order that arises in response to energy gradients. I am using the phrase “spontaneous process” in the non-equilibrium thermodynamic sense, i.e. reaction coordinate flows “downhill”.
Try reading “Into the Cool”
http://www.intothecool.com/
So, in your imaginary world, the second law of thermodynamics doesn’t apply and order is the same as information.
I’m not up alot on Abiogenisis but, being in the medical field, there are some things I would like to point out. In short, boys were to be circumsised on the 8th day. (Genesis) In babies, the prothrombin level (clotting factor) becomes adequate between 5 to 7 days. However, on the 8th day, this level is peaked and, is in a more than adequate level. Now, how would these primitive people have known that if a Divine info source didn’t supply it.
Also, whe they came in contact with a “discharge”, whether blood, puss etc, they would cleanse in running water. (emphasise running) and, incases of leprosy, or other disease, they would make the victims go outside of camp. (today, we call it quarantine), they burned the clothes and, would “purify” implements by fire, and/ or running water. Today we know that leprosy is a bacterial disease that can be passed from person to person. BUT, back then, they thought it to be hereditary. So, if it was hereditary to the rest of the world, where would these “chosen ones” get the instructions to treat it as a bacterial infection and, not a hereditary illness. There are many more examples but, think about it? Abiogenesis is bull because, even if it had validity, you would still need to have a basic info source to teach the “spontaneous lefe forms” how to live. To me, AG makes no sense.
It seems obvious to me that the time of circumcision relating to blood clotting could have been determined from experience. If the babies bled a lot (or bled to death) when it was done earlier, they would have learned that it was safer to do it later.
Hi M.Francis,
.
To me, circumcision without antiseptic or anesthetic doesn’t sound like a great idea, even after 8 days. I’m sure they could have found a better symbol to indicate that they were a special people.
.
May peace be with you,
Neil.
Years ago when I first encountered the circumcision data in a Rex Maxwell M.D. book, it sparked my curiosity. Another interesting little factoid I discovered during the course of my research was that women who marry men who are circumcised had much lower or even non-existent incidence of cervical cancer or pre-cancerous cell growth on the cervix compared to women who married (or had promiscuous sex with) uncircumcised men. Interesting, no?
.
As far as Abiogenesis, it is simply an article of faith in the Darwinian religion. It is absolutely not supported by science in any way.
.
God Bless,
Gregg
It seems obvious? Really?
.
I think if I were floating the, “Let’s mutilate every male infant’s penis” trail balloon, the first few deaths would have deterred the entire notion as a good idea, much less as a commandment from the creator of the universe. It seems obvious to me that the first few deaths would have sewn a great deal of doubt upon the veracity of any such claim of deity. It doesn’t leave any room for error, really, much less trial and error.
.
It is difficult for me to relate to your world view sometimes. The things that are so “obvious” to you are accompanied with a baggage cart load of what are, to me at least, really unreasonable assumptions.
.
Nevertheless it is always instructional.
.
God Bless you.
Gregg
I did not expect that response.
” It seems obvious to me that the first few deaths would have sewn a great deal of doubt upon the veracity of any such claim of deity. It doesn’t leave any room for error, really, much less trial and error.”
Apparently there’s a ruling in the Talmud that if two brothers bleed to death from circumcision, subsequent male children in that family don’t have to be circumcized.
So there were occasional deaths, at least at some point in history, and they did not stop doing it, except in those immediate families.
Also the Bible talked about adults being circumsized, didn’t it? So the practice could have started with adults and then gone to younger ages.
And I don’t think we know why the practice started anyway. There’s no reason a deity, or belief in a deity, had to be involved.
Well, actually it started because God told Abram (who became Abraham) in Genesis 17 that every male from then on, from slave to 8-day-old baby, be circumcised as a sign of God’s covenant with him (and his descendants.) It’s an outward sign of an inward commitment to God.
I didn’t read carefully what M. Francis said. So reading again I see that if what M. Francis posted is correct, then there is adequate prothrombin by 5 days. (I don’t know anything about how serious the bleeding problem is without that.)
So if I understand correctly, M. Francis is making the point that this is evidence that the Bible is divinely inspired because those people could not have known that prothrombin peaked by 8 days and yet they chose to schedule their circumcisions on or after the 8th day.
It seems to me that we don’t know why they chose that day. It doesn’t have to have anything to do with the prothrombin level. It could have nothing to do with the baby’s health at all but have some other significance. It could have to do with the baby’s or mother’s health but something other than prothrombin – maybe it’s healthier for the baby if it is able to eat for a few days before this surgery is performed. Or maybe the difference in prothrombin before and after eight days has enough effect on the health of some babies after the surgery that they WERE able to make that observation. This is not evidence that the Bible is divinely inspired. Either it’s important for health in which case they were able to observe it, or it’s sufficiently unimportant for health that they wouldn’t have been able to observe it – but then why was it important enough for a deity to have built it into the tradition?
I am not sure what Gregg meant in reaction to my comment. But maybe he meant that people wouldn’t do circumcisions at all (especially if occasionally they had negative health effects) unless they were told to do so by a deity. If you look at the various things that people in other cultures and religions have done as traditions, I don’t think you can say that humans wouldn’t have thought this up and incorporated it into their culture without a divine command.
Hi Gregg,
.
Maybe you’re right and circumcision is beneficial. In that case it’s hard to see why Paul was so against it. I appreciate it was a symbol of the law, but in light of its medical benefits it would seem sensible to say that Christians should continue to practice it, in the same way that they continued to abstain from blood (Acts 15:20).
.
May peace be with you,
Neil.
Hi Gregg,
.
Just on point 8… you are aware that bacteria are asexual, aren’t you? They don’t marry. They just divide into duplicate copies of themselves.
.
May peace be with you,
Neil.
Congratulations on a comment that doesn’t involve Vitamin C.
You are aware that a tongue can be put inside a cheek, are you not?
Humorous? Vaguely. Clear? No. I’m really not sure which bits of your posts are tongue in cheek.
.
Anyway, you forgot to mention that the bacterium would need a pastor to marry it…
.
May peace be with you,
Neil.
Wouldn’t the pastor bacteria have to evolve first?