Creation: Abiogenesis Part II

Posted by Gregg on Mar 7, 2010 in apologetics, Christian Faith, Creation, homeschooling |


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:

  1. Cosmic evolution
  2. Stellar evolution
  3. Chemical evolution
  4. Abiogenesis—Life from non-life
  5. Macro-evolution
  • Micro-evolution (Changes within kind – not evolution)

Abiogenesis Reloaded

In previous Sunday posts, I documented the impossibilities of Cosmic evolution, Stellar evolution, and Chemical evolution.  I then presented a comprehensive series of posts documenting that life on earth simply cannot have been around for billions or millions of years based on numerous scientific facts.

Last Sunday, I explained the basics of the Darwinist belief in abiogenesis, recently re-packaged and re-branded and re-labeled to be called biopoiesis, or whatever other new and improved authoritatively scientific sounding jargon they want to call their religious belief in spontaneous generation.

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 notion that if you assemble all of the base components you need in order for life to exist under the ideal conditions, that life will simply happen.  The context of this so called theory is that all of the base components needed in order for life to exist, along with all of the ideal conditions, along with energy, came together randomly and exclusively by way of undirected processes long ago and far away.

In short, Abiogenesis, while a really authoritative and scientific sounding word, is really just a fairy tale.

Before I get pretty specific about the science, let me just speak from the heart using what we used to call common sense.  Every jar of peanut butter is packed — PACKED —  with proteins and amino acids, oils, tissues, organic compounds — it is a virtual jar of primordial ooze!  Yet, oddly, brand new life forms never spontaneously spring into existence out of the peanut butter — otherwise, I dare say you would use a lot more caution every time you opened the lid!  But perhaps that isn’t a fair comparison.

Creation: Frog in a BlenderLet’s take a frog — a living frog.  Obviously, a living frog has every possible component needed to sustain life since, you know, it IS alive.  In addition, a frog is a fairly simple organism as organisms go.  (All forms of life are ridiculously complex, so I confess to some tongue-in-cheekiness just now.)  Anyway, starting with a frog, let’s toss him in a blender and hit puree.

Now, please, if it isn’t too much trouble, go ahead and recreate the necessary ideal conditions and apply the proper energy until the frog is once more living.  The only restrictions I will apply to this quest are,  if you wouldn’t mind terribly, that the conditions you create must be realistic.  In other words, it must have been possible for those exact same conditions to at least theoretically exist through purely random chance and undirected processes at some time in the past.

Too difficult?  I see.

How about if I remove the restriction?  How about if you can DESIGN a perfect environment and ENGINEER apparatus to reanimate the frog even if those things clearly could never have existed in nature and it is absolutely impossible that they would ever come about by undirected random processes?  How about it?

Still too difficult?  Oh.

Well, how about if you just use the pureed frog goo as the starting point, the base foundation, to create ANY LIVING THING, not necessarily a frog.  No?  Well, maybe not even REALLY, then.  Maybe just credibly in theory create something living.  How long do you suppose that would take?

Never, you say?  Is never the answer?  Oh.  Okay, then.

How about if you don’t start with organic compounds.  Maybe just start with a rock, or sand, or seawater, or poisonous gases.  Does that make the task somewhat less daunting?

Well, of course it doesn’t.  The belief in abiogenesis is a religious belief that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with anything scientific or real.  It is an article of faith in an impossibility because, if you are a Darwinist, the alternative is a Creator which is nightmarish to them.

I submit to you that nothing about the creation of life — any life — is spontaneous, accidental, or random.  The universe and all of the laws of the universe conspire to actually make life an ANOMALY.  On the universal scale, life is astonishingly and astoundingly rare.  The notion that one can start with sand and seawater or poisonous gas and just add energy to form simple and correctly organized organic compounds, that one can further agitate those newly created compounds so that they, in turn, “naturally” and “spontaneously” generate full blown living things entirely as a result of random and undirected processes is — in a word — ridiculous.

The entire notion taught and touted in science classes and science textbooks every school day ISN’T EVEN SCIENTIFIC!

Welcome (Back) to the Dark Ages of Science

People once thought that fruit flies spontaneously came forth from fruit, geese from barnacles, mice from dirty clothes, bees from dead calves, and so on. Notable scientists throughout history even believed in spontaneous generation. Copernicus, Galileo, Bacon, Hegel, and Shilling believed it, for example. Careful experiments by Spallanzani in 1780 — and ultimately by Louis Pasteur in 1860 right around the time of Darwin’s father shipped his shiftless son off on that famous voyage — totally disproved the foolish notion, and the average human being today reaps the benefit of simply knowing better.

However, Darwinian scientists and humanist acolytes still faithfully believe in spontaneous generation. Ironically, the late Isaac Asimov, a staunch atheist, summed it up very well.

“[Louis] Pasteur’s demonstration apparently laid the theory of spontaneous generation to rest permanently. All this left a germ of embarrassment for [Darwinian] scientists. How had life originated after all, if not through divine creation or through spontaneous generation? …
“They [Darwinian scientists] are back to spontaneous generation, but with a difference. The pre-Pasteur view of spontaneous generation was of something taking place now and quickly. The modern [Darwinist] view is that it took place long ago and very slowly.”
—Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science (1984), pp. 638-639. Brackets mine, emphasis his.

Darwinists faithfully believe in and dogmatically teach spontaneous generation. Think about the implications of that for a minute. Scientifically speaking, we are no longer on a journey of discovery. We are backtracking in an attempt to rationalize and justify a quaint notion that was utterly disproved over a century and a half in the past. Intellectually, scientifically, methodologically, and inevitably we are returning to the Dark Ages!

In contrast, Rudolf Virchow’s aphorism ‘omnis cellula e cellula‘ [every cell arises from a preexisting cell] ranks with Louis Pasteur’s ‘omne vivum e vivo‘ [every living thing arises from a preexisting living thing] as among the most revolutionary generalizations of biology. True science, actual biology, teaches biogenesis, which means, in general, that life can only come from life and, specifically, that one kind of species can only come from living parents of the same kind of species. For instance, some kind of male dog and some kind of female dog will only ever bring forth some kind of dog. This is modification within kind. That is real science.


In order for life to occur via the Darwinian myth, DNA and proteins would have to link up with ease into very long, extremely complicated, and highly specific coded strings containing extremely specific information. In addition, thousands of other complicated chemical combinations would have to be accomplished within the space of a few eye-blinks. How long could you live without an ability to consume nutrients? How long could you live without the ability to process those nutrients into useful fuel for your tissues? How long could you live without the ability to eliminate waste? The list goes on and on. The situation is no different for even the simplest forms of life. Everything would have to suddenly be in place — instantly in fact. In structure, arrangement, coordination, coding, chemical makeup, feeding, elimination, respiration, circulation, all of it. And everything would have to work perfectly right at the start. There is absolutely no room for error.

In order for life to arise from non-life by randomness and pure chance, that first life form would be the luckiest living thing in the history of life in the universe. All the parts would suddenly have to exist, in all of their nearly infinite complexity, with all of their interdependent systems tightly and perfectly integrated, without even a single element of waste or error in the (randomly arrived upon) design, and all would have to essentially and immediately function with absolute perfection.

Additionally, the formation of amino acids, protein, DNA, enzymes, and all the rest needed to form the first living creature, had to occur within an extremely short amount of time. It would all have had to occur within far less than a single generation, possibly less than a few minutes. Basically, it would have had to occur within a single moment. Otherwise, in the very next moment the organism would die. Literally millions of perfectly functioning systems had to come together all at once.

Mathematicians have calculated the odds of this taking place and those odds are 1 chance in the number 40,187 followed by six hundred trillion trillion trillion zeros. That second number is more atoms, by the way, than there are in the entire known universe. That first life form would have been the lucky winner of the galactic lottery.

Once that life form won against those clearly impossible odds, it then would have to be able to reproduce right away. In order to propagate life, it would have needed all of the DNA coding and fission ability to divide and copy itself asexually.

Just as an aside, there is really no Darwinian explanation for the predominance of the separate and distinct sexes in living organisms today. Having two sexes provides absolutely no survival or fitness advantage when measured using the Darwinian evolutionary yardstick. It would be much more evolutionarily advantageous for all forms of life to reproduce asexually. If we were all one sex, it would also “fit” the Darwinian abiogenetic fairy tale model of how life originated much more nicely since there is no practical explanation for how or why independent sexes evolved.

But they DO exist — sooooo.

Maybe that first life form had to have the ability to reproduce sexually — which would require a mate with which to produce offspring. That means that there would have had to have been at least two galactic lottery winners in that moment, co-located near enough to each other for reproduction to occur, and each “randomly” appearing with interdependent yet perfectly compatible sexual apparatus — and they had to like each other, you know, or each would have had to have been “randomly” encoded and arranged such as to have a biological and instinctive imperative to mate with each other. This also bumps the odds against all this occurring up by adding another million trillion trillion trillion trillion zeros to that second number.

The Truth

It is absolutely amazing just how much  effort, thought, and scientific endeavor in the last 150 years has been diverted to an almost desperate and 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.

In order to believe in Darwinism, one must first have a desire to abandon the quest for truth.  In pure terms, the quest for truth will inevitably lead to abandoning Darwinism and all of its fallacious trappings.  Even an intellectually honest atheist would have to admit that Darwinism is just plain silly even if that atheist refused to acknowledge the logical alternative.

I pray that this Sunday post has blessed you.

God Bless you and yours.


Additional Posts dealing with Creation and Darwinism

Related Posts with ThumbnailsPin It

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Copyright © 2009-2017 Hallee the Homemaker All rights reserved.
Desk Mess Tripled v1.0 theme from

Copyright © 2009 - 2017 Hallee the Homemaker All Rights Reserved.