Where did life come from? Is Evolution the best scientific answer?
Is evolutionism correct? Could time, chance and natural chemical processes have created life in the beginning?
Many modern scientists are materialists. That is, they believe physical matter is the only ultimate reality. They suppose that everything in the cosmos, including life, can be explained in terms of interacting matter. Materialists do not accept the existence of spiritual or supernatural forces.
Biologists who believe in materialism are particularly concerned with: (a) proving a purely materialistic origin of life, and (b) proving that life can be created in the laboratory.
Most scientists are not strict materialists. Biochemist Dr. Arthur Wilder-Smith:
“Life rides upon matter, and matter has to be highly organized to carry life. The materialists say that life, since it's made up of atoms, molecules, and chemical reactions, is just simply chemistry and nothing else and that life originated by chance chemical reactions.
Now, if life consists merely of chemistry, and nothing but chemistry, the best way to understand its real potentialities is to look at some of the chemical substances of life. And we shall see that it is NOT merely a matter of chemistry.” 
It was the famous French scientist and Creationist, Pasteur, who provided the first scientific evidence that living things are not produced from non-living matter.  During the Middle Ages, some people thought non-living matter often gave birth to living things (spontaneous generation). Worms, insects, mice, and other creatures were thought to be created by materials in their environment.
No one has ever found an organism that never had a parent of some sort. Today, this is one of the most accepted facts in biology. All living things are produced from one or more parents. Surprisingly, however, many modern people still faithfully believe in a form of “spontaneous generation.”
Materialists assume life arose spontaneously somewhere in ancient Earth's water supply water which contained absolutely no life, just minerals and chemical substances used by living things. 
Because oxygen in the atmosphere would destroy all possibility of life arising by natural processes, materialists wrongly assumed the atmosphere had no oxygen.  They also assumed it contained certain necessary ingredients, including ammonia, nitrogen, hydrogen, water vapor and methane.  However, it is well known that mixing these ingredients does not create life. Therefore, materialists theorized something else must be needed perhaps a bolt of energy. 
Scientists Try to Create Life
Dr. Stanley Miller and Dr. Sidney Fox were two of the first scientists to attempt laboratory experiments aimed at trying to prove that life could arise spontaneously. They designed a Pyrex apparatus containing methane, ammonia, and water vapor, but no oxygen. Through this mixture they passed electric sparks to simulate lightning strikes. 
What was the result? No life was produced, of course, but the electricity did combine some atoms to form amino acids.
amino acids: compounds that are the simplest units out of which proteins can be assembled. 
Did the Miller/Fox experiment prove that life could eventually have arisen in some ancient sea struck by lightning? No, their results actually weakened the case. The mixture of amino acids and other simple chemicals produced is not correct for producing life. All known life uses amino acids which are exclusively of the “left-handed” form. 
left-handed molecules: a term used to refer to the “stereochemistry” of a molecule's construction; An amino acid can be chemically “left-handed” or “right-handed” in its orientation. These two forms are identical in their atoms, but opposite in their 3-dimensional arrangement. They are mirror images of each other. 
No known life can use any combination of both “right-handed” and “left-handed” amino acids. Adding even one “right-handed” amino acid to a chain of “left-handed” amino acids can destroy the entire chain!  When amino acids are synthesized in the laboratory, there is always a 50% mixture of the two forms. Only through highly advanced, intelligently controlled processes can these two forms be separated.
Even if this overwhelming obstacle did not exist, far greater problems remain for the production of life. There are numerous reasons why the amino acids would disintegrate or never form in the first place.  Furthermore, life requires much more than amino acids. One necessity is proteins; another is a DNA code.
proteins: extremely complex chemicals (molecules) constructed of amino acids; found in all animals and plants.
Chemicals + Energy: Could They Have Given Birth to the First Life?
One chemist has calculated the immense odds against amino acids ever combining to form the necessary proteins by undirected means. He estimated the probability to be more than 10 to the 67th to 1 (1067:1) against even a small protein forming by time and chance, in an ideal mixture of chemicals, in an ideal atmosphere, and given up to 100 billion years (an age 10 to 20 times greater than the supposed age of the Earth).  Mathematicians generally agree that, statistically, any odds beyond 1 in 10 to the 50th (1:1050) have a zero probability of ever happening (“and even that gives it the benefit of the doubt!”). 
Various highly qualified researchers feel they have scientifically proved, beyond question, that the proteins needed for life could never have come into existence by chance or any natural processes. 
molecule: a chemical combination of atoms.
What did chemist Dr. Wilder-Smith conclude is the bottom line on this issue?
“It is emphatically the case that life could NOT arise spontaneously in a primeval soup of this kind.” 
DNA Molecules and the Overwhelming Odds Against Spontaneous Generation
Within each cell there is an area called the nucleus which contains the all-important chromosomes.  Chromosomes are microscopically small, rod-shaped structures which carry the genes. Within the chromosomes is an even smaller structure called DNA.  This is one of the most important chemical substances in the human body or in any other living thing. Increasing scientific understanding of DNA molecules has revealed enormous problems for materialism.
DNA is a super-molecule which stores coded hereditary information. It consists of two long “chains” of chemical “building blocks” paired together. In humans, the strands of DNA are almost 2 yards long [approx. 1.82 meters], yet less than a trillionth of an inch thick [approx. 0.0000254 microns]. 
In function, DNA is somewhat like a computer program on a floppy disk. It stores and transfers encoded information and instructions. It is said that the DNA of a human stores enough information code to fill 1,000 books each with 500 pages of very small, closely-printed type.  The DNA code produces a product far more sophisticated than that of any computer.
Amazingly, this enormous set of instructions fits with ease within a single cell and routinely directs the formation of entire adult humans, starting with just a single fertilized egg. Even the DNA of a bacterium is highly complex, containing at least 3 million units , all aligned in a very precise, meaningful sequence.
DNA and the molecules that surround it form a truly superb mechanism a miniaturized marvel. The information is so compactly stored that the amount of DNA necessary to code all the people living on our planet might fit into a space no larger than an aspirin tablet! 
Many scientists are convinced that cells containing such a complex code and such intricate chemistry could never have come into being by pure, undirected chemistry.  No matter how chemicals are mixed, they do not create DNA spirals or any intelligent code whatsoever. Only DNA reproduces DNA.
Two well known scientists calculated the odds of life forming by natural processes. They estimated that there is less than 1 chance in 1040,000 that life could have originated by random trials. 10 to the 40,000th is a 1 with 40,000 zeros after it! 
How can one gain some conception of the size of such a huge number? According to most Evolutionists, the universe is less than 30 billion years old , and there are fewer than 10 to the 18th (1018) seconds in 30 billion years. So, even if nature could somehow have produced trillions of genetic code combinations every second for 30 billion years, the probabilities against producing the simplest one-celled animal by trial and error would still be inconceivably immense! 
In other words, probabilities enormously favor the idea that an intelligent designer was responsible for even the simplest DNA molecules.
Chemist Dr. Grebe:
Researcher and mathematician I.L. Cohen:
“That organic evolution could account for the complex forms of life in the past and the present has long since been abandoned by men who grasp the importance of the DNA genetic code.” 
“At that moment, when the DNA/RNA system became understood, the debate between Evolutionists and Creationists should have come to a screeching halt. …the implications of the DNA/RNA were obvious and clear. Mathematically speaking, based on probability concepts, there is no possibility that Evolution was the mechanism that created the approximately 6,000,000 species of plants and animals we recognize today.” 
Evolutionist Michael Denton:
“The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.” 
Famed researcher Sir Fred Hoyle is in agreement with Creationists on this point.  He has reportedly said that supposing the first cell originated by chance is like believing “a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.” 
—Evolutionist Sir Fred Hoyle
Many, if not most, origin-of-life researchers now agree with Hoyle: Life could not have originated by chance or by any known natural processes.  Many Evolutionists are now searching for some theoretical force within matter which might push matter toward the assembly of greater complexity. Most Creationists believe this is doomed to failure, since it contradicts the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
It is important to note that the information written on DNA molecules is not produced by any known natural interaction of matter. Matter and molecules have no innate intelligence, allowing self organization into codes. There are no known physical laws which give molecules a natural tendency to arrange themselves into such coded structures. 
Like a computer disk, DNA has no intelligence. The complex, purposeful codes of this “master program” could only have originated outside itself. In the case of a computer program, the original codes were put there by an intelligent being, a programmer. Likewise, for DNA, it seems clear that intelligence must have come first, before the existence of DNA. Statistically, the odds are enormously in favor of that theory. DNA bears the marks of intelligent manufacture.
Dr. Wilder-Smith was an honored scientist with three earned doctorate degrees. He was well-informed on modern biology and biochemistry. What, in his considered opinion, was the source of the DNA codes found in each wondrous plant and animal?
“… an attempt to explain the formation of the genetic code from the chemical components of DNA… is comparable to the assumption that the text of a book originates from the paper molecules on which the sentences appear, and not from any external source of information.” 
"As a scientist, I am convinced that the pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the workings of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of the cell are controlled by information which does not reside in the atoms and molecules of that cell.
There is an author which transcends the material and the matter of which these strands are made. The author first of all conceived the information necessary to make a cell, then wrote it down, and then fixed in it a mechanism of reading it and realizing it in practice so that the cell builds itself from the information…" 
THE BOTTOM LINE on the origin of life
During all recorded human history, there has never been a substantiated case of a living thing being produced from anything other than another living thing.
As yet, Evolutionism has not produced a scientifically credible explanation for the origin of such immense complexities as DNA, the human brain, and many other complex elements of the cosmos.
It is highly premature for materialists to claim that all living things evolved into existence, when science has yet to discover how even one protein molecule could actually have come into existence by natural processes.
There is no scientific proof that life did (or ever could) evolve into existence from non-living matter. Further, there is substantial evidence that spontaneous generation is impossible. Only DNA is known to produce DNA. No chemical interaction of molecules has even come close to producing this ultra-complex code which is so essential to all known life.
Author: Paul S. Taylor, Christian Answers. Adapted from The Illustrated ORIGINS Answer Book.
Arthur E. Wilder-Smith in Willem J.J. Glashouwer and Paul S. Taylor, The Origin of Life (PO Box 1167, Marysville WA 98270-1167, USA: Eden Films and Standard Media, 1983) (a Creationist motion picture).
Pasteur's experiments disproved the form of spontaneous generation called heterogenesis, but did not yet conclusively disprove the concept of abiogenesis.
Peter Mora in the scientific journal Nature:
"How life originated, I am afraid that, since Pasteur, this question is not within the scientific domain."
[Peter T. Mora, “Urge and Molecular Biology,” Nature, Vol. 199, No. 4890 (July 20, 1963), p. 212 (emphasis added).]
There are two forms of spontaneous generation theories:
(a) Heterogenesis life coming from dead organic matter.
(b) Abiogenesis life coming from inorganic matter.
Of the two, abiogenesis would actually be the more difficult, in the final analysis.
Technically, it is not humanly possible to totally disprove atheistic abiogenesis, since it is not falsifiable. Biochemists Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen:
"Why will many predictably persist in their acceptance of some version of chemical evolution? Quite simply, because chemical evolution has not been falsified. One would be irrational to adhere to a falsified hypothesis. We have only presented a case that chemical evolution is highly implausible. By the nature of the case that is all one can do. In a strict, technical sense, chemical evolution cannot be falsified because it is not falsifiable. Chemical evolution is a speculative reconstruction of a unique past event, and cannot therefore be tested against recurring nature."
[Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, and Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (New York: Philosophical Library, 1984), p. 186 (emphasis added).]
The existence of an intelligent creator is the only alternative to belief in life being created by matter and physical laws alone.
Michael Denton, Ph.D., M.D.:
"Considering the way the prebiotic soup is referred to in so many discussions of the origin of life as an already established reality, it comes as something of a shock to realize that there is absolutely no positive evidence for its existence."
[Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, Maryland: Adler and Adler Publishers, 1986) p. 261 (emphasis added).]
There is no scientific proof that Earth ever had a non-oxygen atmosphere such as Evolutionists require. Earth's oldest rocks contain evidence of being formed in an oxygen atmosphere. Evidence of free oxygen has been found in rocks supposedly 300 million years older than the first living cells.
[Harry Clemmey and Nick Badham, "Oxygen in the Precambrian Atmosphere: An Evaluation of the Geological Evidence," Geology, Vol. 10 (March 1982), p. 141] ["Smaller Planets Began with Oxidized Atmospheres," New Scientist, Vol. 87, No. 1209 (July 10, 1980), p. 112.]
[John Gribbin, "Carbon Dioxide, Ammonia and Life," New Scientist, Vol. 94, No. 1305 (May 13, 1982), pp. 413-416.]
A.I. Oparin, The Origin of Life (New York: Academic Press, 1957).
Various energy sources have been tried in the attempt to create life from many different chemical mixtures. These include electric currents, electric sparks, ultraviolet radiation, shock waves and chemical compounds which give off high energy. None has produced results necessary to create life.
SCIENTISTS TRY TO CREATE LIFE — Miller/Urey/Fox and other abiogenesis experiments
Sidney W. Fox, editor, The Origin of Prebiological Systems and of Their Molecular Matrices (New York: Academic Press, 1965).
Stanley L. Miller and H.C. Urey, “Organic Compound Synthesis On the Primitive Earth,” Science, Vol. 130 (1959).
Stanley L. Miller, "A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions," Science, Vol. 117, No. 3046 (1953), pp. 528-529.
Sidney W. Fox and K. Baal, Molecular Evolution and the Origin of Life (New York: Dover Publishing, 1953).
A protein is a molecule constructed of linked amino acids.
Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, and Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery Of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (New York: Philosophical Library, 1984), 229 pp.
Arthur E. Wilder-Smith, The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution (Santee, California: Master Books, 1981), 166 pp.
Rene Evard and David Schrodetzki, “Chemical Evolution,” Origins, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Loma Linda, California: Geoscience Research Institute, Loma Linda University, 1976), pp. 9-37.
Duane T. Gish, "A Consistent Christian-Scientific View of the Origin of Life," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 4 (March 1979), pp. 185-203, and Speculations and Experiments Related to the Origin of Life, Technical Monograph No. 1 (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1972).
A.J. White, "Uniformitarianism, Probability and Evolution," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 9, No. 1 (June 1972), pp. 32-37.
stereochemistry: study which deals with the spatial arrangements of atoms and molecules. The amino acids which the Miller/Fox experiments produced are racemates an even mixture of both left- and right-handed amino acid molecules.
Arthur E. Wilder-Smith, The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution (Santee, California: Master Books, 1981), p. 18.
Duane T. Gish, "A Consistent Christian-Scientific View of the Origin of Life," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 4 (March 1979), p. 193.
Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen:
"in the atmosphere and in the various water basins of the primitive Earth, many destructive interactions would have so vastly diminished, if not altogether consumed, essential precursor chemicals, that chemical evolution rates would have been negligible. The soup would have been too dilute for direct polymerization to occur. Even local ponds for concentrating soup ingredients would have met with the same problem. Furthermore, no geological evidence indicates an organic soup, even a small organic pond, ever existed on this planet. It is becoming clear that however life began on Earth, the usually conceived notion that life emerged from an oceanic soup of organic chemicals is a most implausible hypothesis. We may therefore with fairness call this scenario `the myth of the prebiotic soup.'"
[Charles B. Thaxton, et al, The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (New York: Philosophical Library, 1984), p.66 (emphasis added).]
Charles B. Thaxton: Creationist / Chemist / Ph.D. in Chemistry from Iowa State University / Postdoctoral Fellow at Harvard University (2 years), history and philosophy of science / Postdoctoral appointment in molecular biology laboratory at Brandeis University (3 years) / Director of Curriculum Research of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics in Dallas / Staff member of the Julian Center in Julian, California.
Walter L. Bradley: Ph.D. in materials science from University of Texas / Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Texas A&M University / Principal or co-principal investigator on over a million dollars' worth of contract research / Consultant to many major corporations / Texas Engineering Experimental Station Research Fellowship / Published over 30 research papers in refereed journals.
Roger L. Olsen: Geochemist / Ph.D. in geochemistry from Colorado School of Mines / Former Senior Research Chemist with Rockwell International / Project Geochemist for D'Appolonia Waste Management Services of Englewood, Colorado / Published several technical papers and has written over 40 confidential engineering-scientific reports / Member Sigma Xi.
10 to the 67th = 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
A.J. White, "Uniformitarianism, Probability and Evolution," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 9, No. 1 (June 1972), pp. 32-37.
A.J. (“Monty”) White: Creationist / Chemist / Ph.D. in chemistry from University of Wales / Research fellow at the Edward Davies Chemical Laboratories, Aberystwyth, United Kingdom.
I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong A Study in Probabilities (P.O. Box 231, Greenvale, New York 11548: New Research Publications, Inc., 1984), p. 205.
Mathematician Emil Borel agrees that the laws of probability demonstrate that:
"Events whose probabilities are extremely small never occur."
[Emil Borel, Elements of the Theory of Probability (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1965), p. 57 (emphasis added).]
Evolutionist Paul Erbrich:
"The probability, however, of the convergent evolution of two proteins with approximately the same structure and function is too low to be plausible, even when all possible circumstances are present which seem to heighten the likelihood of such convergence. If this is so, then the plausibility of a random evolution of two or more different but functionally related proteins seems hardly greater."
[Paul Erbrich, "On the Probability of the Emergence of a Protein with a Particular Function," Acta Biotheoretica, Vol. 34 (1985), pp. 53-80 (quote is from the abstract emphasis added).]
Arthur E. Wilder-Smith in Willem J.J. Glashouwer and Paul S. Taylor, The Origin of Life (PO Box 1167, Marysville WA 98270-1167, USA: Eden Films and Standard Media, 1983) (Creationist motion picture).
Also, see: Arthur E. Wilder-Smith, The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution (Santee, California: Master Books, 1981), pp. 9-89.
Evolution from Minerals and Water?
Evolutionist and biochemist Klause Dose, Ph.D., a leading origin-of-life researcher:
A "mineral origin of life? This thesis is beyond the comprehension of all biochemists or molecular biologists who are daily confronted with the experimental facts of life. The poor response of life scientists to [A.G.] Cairns-Smith's thesis is therefore no surprise."
[Klause Dose, "Book Review of Clay Minerals and the Origin of Life by A.G. Cairns-Smith and H. Hartman," Biosystems, Vol. 22, No. 1 (1988), p. 89 (emphasis added).]
DNA MOLECULE: The Odds Against Evolution
Chromosomes are thread-like structures made of DNA and protein. There are 46 chromosomes in man.
DNA is Deoxyribonucleic Acid.
Robert F. Weaver, "ATGC: A Simple Code of Four Parts Spells Out Life," National Geographic, Vol. 166, No. 6 (December 1984), p. 822.
This analogy, which points out the great complexity of DNA, was suggested by Francis C. Crick, the co-discoverer of the helical structure of DNA and a 1962 Nobel Prizewinner.
"The set of genetic instructions for humans is roughly three billion letters long." (geneticists Radman and Wagner, p. 40)
[Miroslav Radman and Robert Wagner, “The High Fidelity of DNA Duplication,” Scientific American, Vol. 259, No. 2 (August 1988), pp. 40-46 (emphasis added).]
“Units” = nucleotides.
This assumes a 5.5 billion population and is extrapolated from Ashley Montagu's earlier estimate:
"In fact, the chromosomes, the actual bearers of the hereditary particles, the genes, within the cells of this huge number would occupy less space than half an aspirin tablet! Reflect upon that! All the hereditary materials the heredity of the whole human race [in 1963, 3 billion] of all those now living could be contained within the space of half an aspirin."
[Ashley Montagu, Human Heredity (NYC: The New American Library, 1963), p. 25.]
Researcher and author Luther Sunderland:
"When Watson and Crick discovered the helical structure of the DNA molecule and the general way that it coded the formation and replication of proteins in cells, there were great expectations that a plausible scientific explanation for the origin of life was just over the horizon. The laboratory synthesis of amino acids from basic chemicals further heightened the expectations that man, with all his intelligence and resources, could synthesize a living cell. These hopes have also been dashed with the failure to generate life in the laboratory, and researchers are stating that new natural laws will need to be discovered to explain how the high degree of order and specificity of even a single cell could be generated by random, natural processes."
[Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition (Santee, California: Master Book Publishers, 1988), p. 8 (emphasis added).]
"The chance that useful DNA molecules would develop without a Designer are approximately zero. Then let me conclude by asking which came first the DNA (which is essential for the synthesis of proteins) or the protein enzyme (DNA-polymerase) without which DNA synthesis is nil? there is virtually no chance that chemical ‘letters’ would spontaneously produce coherent DNA and protein 'words'." (George Howe, expert in biological sciences and Creation/Evolution issues)
[George Howe, “Addendum to As a Watch Needs a Watchmaker,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 2 (September 1986), p. 65.]
George F. Howe: Botanist and biologist / Creationist / Ph.D. and M.Sc. in Botany from Ohio State University (1959, 1956) / Post-doctoral studies in radiation biology, Cornell University (1965-66) / Post-doctoral studies in botany, Washington State University (1961) / Post-doctoral studies in desert biology, Arizona State University (1963) / Former Assistant Professor of biology and botany at Westmont College, Santa Barbara, California / Charter member and former President of the Creation Research Society / Director of CRS Grand Canyon Experimental Station / Professor and Chairman of the Division of Natural Sciences, The Master's College, Newhall, California / Published papers in scientific journals including: Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences, Ohio Journal of Science, and Creation Research Society Quarterly / Twice voted Teacher of the Year by students at The Master's College.
"Evolution lacks a scientifically acceptable explanation of the source of the precisely planned codes within cells without which there can be no specific proteins and hence, no life." (Creationist David A. Kaufmann, Ph.D., University of Florida, Gainesville)
[David A. Kaufmann, "Human Growth and Development, and Thermo II," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 20, No. 1 (June 1983), p. 28.]
"The immensity of the problem is rarely appreciated by laymen, and is generally ignored by Evolutionary scientists, themselves The process by which life originated was thus a supernatural process and cannot be accounted for by natural processes and natural laws now operating on planet Earth." (Creationist Duane T. Gish, Ph.D. in Biochemistry from University of California at Berkeley, former research biochemist at Cornell University and Upjohn Company)
[Duane Gish, "A Consistent Christian-Scientific View of the Origin of Life," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 4 (March 1979), p. 185.]
Hoyle and Wickramasinghe:
"Life cannot have had a random beginning The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10 to the 20th) to the 2,000th = 10 to the 40,000th, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.
If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court. The enormous information content of even the simplest living systems cannot in our view be generated by what are often called “natural” processes For life to have originated on the Earth it would be necessary that quite explicit instruction should have been provided for its assembly. There is no way in which we can expect to avoid the need for information, no way in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup, as we ourselves hoped might be possible a year or two ago."
[Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (Aldine House, 33 Welbeck Street, London W1M 8LX: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1981), p. 148, 24, 150, 30, 31 (emphasis added).]
"The notion that not only the biopolymers, but the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order Quite a few of my astronomical friends are considerable mathematicians, and once they become interested enough to calculate for themselves, instead of relying on hearsay argument, they can quickly see this point."
[Fred Hoyle, "The Big Bang in Astronomy," New Scientist, Vol. 92, No. 1280 (November 19, 1981), p. 527.]
"True, the problem is not discussed openly in the main stream of biological literature, but one comes on small fragments published in obscure corners by writers who have evidently perceived the problem and been acutely worried by it. Having made their protest against current dogma, such writers seem always to have been prepared to let the matter drop, as no doubt they encountered the same kind of opposition that Chandra Wickramasinghe and I have run into My impression is that most biologists really know in their hearts the issue is there, but are so appalled by its implications that they are prepared to swallow any line of thought to avoid it. if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterialists with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of intelligent design. problems of order, such as the sequences of amino acids in the chains are precisely the problems that become easy once a directed intelligence enters the picture."
[Fred Hoyle, Evolution from Space (The Omni Lecture): And Other Papers on the Origin of Life (Hillside, New Jersey: Enslow Publishers, 1982), pp. 27-28 (emphasis added).]
Sir Fred Hoyle believes that life could not have originated on Earth and could not have originated elsewhere without some intelligence having directed it.
[Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), and “Where Microbes Boldly Went,” New Scientist, Vol. 91, No. 1266 (August 13, 1981), pp. 412-415.]
Many Evolutionists believe the universe is about 20 billion years old.
Universe sheds 10-billion years?
"Brent Jully of the University of Hawaii now claims that astronomers who believe in a larger and older universe, have been misledHis analysis gives the universe an age of 10-billion years instead of 20-billion years."
[Nigel Henbest, "Universe Sheds 10-Billion Years," New Scientist, Vol. 119, No. 1624 (August 4, 1988), p. 34.]
10 to the18th seconds = 31.7 billion years, assuming 31,536,000 seconds per year. Even if an awesome 1,000 trillion random combinations could be tried every second each year for 30 billion years (i.e., 10 to the 33rd trials), the remaining odds would still be an enormous 10 to the 39,967th to 1 against the formation of the necessary genes, based on Hoyle's 10 to the 40,000th figure.
John J. Grebe, “DNA Complexity Points to Divine Design,” Science & Scripture, Vol. 3, No. 3 (San Diego: Creation-Science Research Center, 1973), p. 20 (p. 20 "No scientific evidence has shown the slightest chance of one code mutating to another.").
Dr. John Grebe: Chemist / Creationist / D.Sc. from Case Institute of Technology (1935) (Case is now part of Western Reserve University) / Honorary Doctor of Laws degree from Hillsdale College (1967) / M.S. also from Case / Former researcher at Oak Ridge National Laboratory Reactor School and Engineering Team (1946-1947) / Former Director of the Dow Chemical Company Physical Chemistry Research Laboratories in Midland, Michigan / Served as Chief Scientist to the Army Chemical Corps at Edgewood Arsenal New Baltimore (1948-1949) / In 1943 became the youngest recipient ever to receive the Chemical Industry Medal / Certificate of Merit from The Franklin Institute (1942) / A founder of the Creation Research Society / Deceased.
I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong A Study in Probabilities (P.O. Box 231, Greenvale, New York 11548: New Research Publications, Inc., 1984), pp. 4,5,8.
I.L. Cohen: Engineer / Mathematician / Researcher / Author / Member of the New York Academy of Sciences / Officer of the Archaeological Institute of America (N. Shore Society).
Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, Maryland: Adler and Adler Publishers, 1986), p. 264.
Sir Fred Hoyle is a well-known British mathematician, astronomer, and cosmologist. Hoyle is, also, the co-author of the book, Evolution from Space, which states:
"Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate.It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect higher intelligences even to the limit of God. such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific."
[Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1981), pp. 141, 144, 130 (emphasis added).]
“Hoyle on Evolution,” Nature, Vol. 294, No. 5837 (November 12, 1981), p. 105.
DNA expert Francis Crick (the co-discoverer of the DNA double-helix and a Nobel-Prize winner) agrees there is virtually no chance that the first life could have spontaneously generated from Earth's chemistry. For this reason, he wrote a book which suggests the first living cell must have been brought to Earth by a spaceship from outside this solar system.
[Francis Crick, Life Itself (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), pp. 117-141; Francis Crick, "Francis Crick: The Seeds of Life," Discover (October 1981), pp. 256, especially pp. 62-67.]
Biochemists and Evolutionists David Green, University of Wisconsin, and Robert Goldberger, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland:
"However, the macromolecule-to-cell transition is a jump of fantastic dimensions, which lies beyond the range of testable hypothesis. In this area, all is conjecture. The available facts do not provide a basis for postulating that cells arose on this planet We simply wish to point out the fact that there is no scientific evidence."
[David E. Green and Robert F. Goldberger, Molecular Insights Into the Living Process (New York: Academic Press, 1967), pp. 406-407 (emphasis added).]
"By adding up the energy content of all the chemical bonds in a ‘simple’ bacterium and comparing this to the energy content at equilibrium of the constituent atoms from which it was formed, Morowitz calculated the probability of this cell to be 10 to the -10 to the 11th, that is, one chance out of a number formed by writing the number one followed by 100 billion zeroes! That number is so large that it would require 100 thousand volumes of 500 pages each just to print! Yet, the improbability of the existence of a single-celled organism, in comparison to inanimate matter, is of that order of magnitude. Are there natural processes at work that could enable this monstrous improbability to be overcome? Of course not. In fact, increase the probability a quadrillion times (one followed by 15 zeroes) and the probability would still be only one out of one followed by 99 billion, 999 million, 999 thousand, 985 zeroes!" (Biochemist and Creationist Dr. Gish)
[Duane T. Gish, "A Consistent Christian-Scientific View of the Origin of Life," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 4 (March 1979), pp. 201-202 (emphasis added).]
Some Evolutionists have suggested that chance would not be involved in the original evolution of DNA; it would be the inevitable outcome of nature's laws. But this is wishful thinking. Biochemistry/Geochemistry experts Thaxton, Bradley and Olsen state:
"No one to date has published data indicating that bonding preferences could have had any role in coding the DNA molecules."
[Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, and Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (New York: Philosophical Library, 1984), p. 148.]
Arthur E. Wilder-Smith, The Creation of Life: A Cybernetic Approach to Evolution (Wheaton, Illinois: Harold Shaw Publishers, 1970), pp. 66-69 (discusses the Fox experiment with hot lava which produced proteinoids with amino acid sequences that were not totally random [p. 66+], but why this still does no good / etc.).
Expert Michael Polanyi further points out that if a DNA molecule could be put together by such means:
"such a DNA molecule would have no information content. Its codelike character would be effaced by an overwhelming redundancy."
[Michael Polanyi, "Life's Irreducible Structure," Science, Vol. 160, No. 3834 (June 21, 1968), p. 1309 (emphasis added).]
Gregg Easterbrook observes that NO materialistic scientist has:
"any idea what makes chemicals start living. The origin of life is perhaps the leading unknown of contemporary science."
[Gregg Easterbrook, "Are We Alone?", Atlantic (August 1988), pp. 25-38 (quote is from p. 32).]
Evolutionist N. Chandra Wickramasinghe:
"there are very few empirical facts of direct relevance and perhaps no facts relating to the actual transition from organic material to material that can even remotely be described as living. The timescale [the supposed 5 billion year old age of Earth] is grossly inadequate and the information content that is needed to produce life is so vast that it is impossible to actually arrive at that final step on Earth"
[N. Chandra Wickramasinghe in Vol. 325 of Philosophical Transcripts of the Royal Society of London (1988), pp. 611-618 (quote is from p. 611) (emphasis added).]
The Nobel Prize winning biochemist who helped develop penicillin, Dr. Ernst Chain, called the theory of Evolution "a very feeble attemptto understand the development of life:" (1972):
"I would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation. I have said for years that speculations about the origin of life lead to no useful purpose as even the simplest living system is far too complex to be understood in terms of the extremely primitive chemistry scientists have used in their attempts to explain the unexplainable God cannot be explained away by such naïve thoughts."
[Ernst B. Chain, as quoted by Ronald W. Clark, The Life of Ernst Chain: Penicillin and Beyond (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1985), pp. 147-148 (emphasis added).]
"One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on Earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written."
[Hubert P. Yockey, "A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory," Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 67 (1977), p. 398 (emphasis added).]
Evolutionists Document the Mathematical
Impossibility of Evolution of Life
Harold F. Blum, Time's Arrow and Evolution (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1968).
P.S. Moorhead and M.M. Kaplan, editors, Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution (Philadelphia: Wistar Institute, 1967).
D.E. Hull, “Thermodynamics and Genetics of Spontaneous Generation,” Nature, Vol. 186 (1955), pp. 693-694.
Layman-Level Explanations of Origin of Life Probabilities — including more evidence of the extreme odds against the Evolution of proteins, DNA molecules, cells, etc.
I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong A Study in Probabilities (P.O. Box 231, Greenvale, New York 11548: New Research Publications, Inc., 1984).
Henry M. Morris, “Probability and Order Versus Evolution,” Impact series no. 73, Acts & Facts (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, July 1979).
Randy L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (Midland, Michigan: Inquiry Press, 1976), pp. 69-144.
Hubert P. Yockey, "Self Organization Origin of Life Scenarios and Information Theory," Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 91, No. 1 (July 7, 1981), p. 13.
Experts Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen therefore rightly wonder:
"An intelligible communication via radio signal from some distant galaxy would be widely hailed as evidence of an intelligent source. Why then doesn't the message sequence on the DNA molecule also constitute prima facie evidence for an intelligent source? After all, DNA information is not just analogous to a message sequence such as Morse code, it is such a message sequence."
[Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, and Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (New York: Philosophical Library, 1984), pp. 211-212 (emphasis added).]
Also see Ernst Mayr quote in endnotes (see index).
More Documenation on Problems for the Evolution of DNA and Life
Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, and Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (New York: Philosophical Library, 1984) (Very complete and detailed / quantifies the information content in DNA and protein / includes the important work of Ilya Prigogine).
Magnus Verbrugge, Alive: An Inquiry Into the Origin and Meaning of Life (Vallecito, California: Ross House Books, 1984).
Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems (Santee, California: Master Books, 1984), pp. 127-140.
S.E. Aw, Chemical Evolution: An Examination of Current Ideas (Santee, California: Master Books, 1982), 206 pp.
Henry M. Morris and Gary E. Parker, What Is Creation Science?, revised and expanded edition (Santee, California: Master Books, 1982), pp. 31-52, 269-273.
Arthur E. Wilder-Smith, The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution (Santee, California: Master Books, 1981), and The Creation of Life (Wheaton, Illinois: Harold Shaw Publishers, 1970).
Duane T. Gish, “The Origin of Biological Order and the Second Law” in Emmett L. Williams, editor, Thermodynamics and the Development of Order (Norcross, Georgia: Creation Research Society Books, 1981), pp. 77-86, and "A Consistent Christian-Scientific View of the Origin of Life," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 4 (March 1979), pp. 185-203, and Speculations and Experiments Related to Theories on the Origin of Life (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1972), and “Critique of Biochemical Evolution,” in Walter E. Lammerts, Why Not Creation? (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1970), pp. 283-289.
M. Trop, “Polyamino Acid The Missing Link,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 4 (March 1979), pp. 205-209.
Murray Eden, "Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory," in P. S. Moorehead and M. M. Kaplan, Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, The Wistar Symposium Monograph No. 5 (Philadelphia: Wistar Institute Press, 1967) (Shows the impossibility of producing even a very simple single pair of ordered genes in 5 billion years).
Arthur E. Wilder-Smith, The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution (Santee, California: Master Books, 1981), p. 4.
Also see: Arthur E. Wilder-Smith, The Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory: Information Sources & Structures (P.O. Box 8000, Costa Mesa, California 92683: TWFT Publishers, 1987).
Arthur E. Wilder-Smith in Willem J.J. Glashouwer and Paul S. Taylor, The Origin of Life (PO Box 1167, Marysville WA 98270-1167, USA: Eden Films and Standard Media, 1983) (Creationist motion picture).
Learn how the evolutionary theory for the origin of life contradicts a basic law of nature [info]
Use the Creation SuperLibrary.
Copyright © 1999, Films for Christ, All Rights Reserved—except as noted on attached “Usage and Copyright” page that grants ChristianAnswers.Net users generous rights for putting this page to work in their homes, personal witnessing, churches and schools.