The following passage is taken from Evolution Exposed: Biology (Chapter 5: The Origin of Life) by Roger Patterson
What would happen if a scientist could develop a living organism by combining chemicals in a lab? It would only prove that intelligent actions could produce life - not that life arose spontaneously billions of years ago. There has never been an instance where information has been shown to arise from matter. Matter can form complex patterns, such as crystals, but there is no information contained in such patterns. In order for life to continue and organisms to replicate, information must be present to pass on to offspring. The ultimate question that evolution must be able to answer is, “How did the information seen in living things arise from matter alone?” When we think of information in biology, we are mainly talking about DNA and RNA. DNA and RNA use information that is present in a code to send and receive messages that are intended to produce proteins and continue the existence of the species. We can define information as follows:
Information: an encoded, symbolically represented message conveying expected action and intended purpose.
One of the pioneering ideas in organic evolution was the “primordial soup.” According to this model, at some point in earth history, the molten earth cooled and oceans formed. As rain fell, chemicals in a hypothetical pool, warmed by the volcanic activity and energized by lightning, organized into amino acids, lipids and carbohydrates. These molecules then organized into cellular structures like proteins, DNA and cell membranes. The problem with this scenario is that chemistry prohibits it. Proteins do not form from piles of amino acids and DNA contains a specific code that must be copied from another strand of DNA. Proteins cannot form in water because the water breaks the bonds that hold the amino acids together - a process called hydrolysis.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patterson demonstrates an excellent point. The failure of science to demonstrate how, where, when, or why life was naturally formed makes the acceptance of chemical evolution a matter of faith. Other attempts to explain how life formed are riddled with “maybe” and “possibly.” It requires more faith to believe that the universe and all of the living things on earth came from a big bang than it does to accept that the design we see must have had an Intelligent Designer.
Creationists accept that life appeared on earth as a direct creative act of God. The design and information that we see in all living things is a result of intelligence - not random occurrences. Think about a book...it has information. It has encoded messages that convey an intended purpose. The book doesn't originate from an explosion in the typewriter; it doesn't come about by a random process or generate by itself. It was intentionally written by an intelligent source. When we look at the complexity of our world, I believe we can also reasonably infer that there was an Intelligent Designer responsible for what surrounds us.
Even the most committed evolutionist has to acknowledge and admire the wisdom and ingenuity displayed in such incredible design.
Click Here For Part Two
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
The Origin of Life
When we consider how life began on earth, there are only two options: Either life was created by an intelligent source (God) or it began by natural processes. "Many biologists try to separate the origin of life (sometimes called chemical evolution) and the universe from discussions of biology. These scientists recognize the challenge presented by chemical evolution, but their commitment to naturalism leaves them no other choice. Many different models are used to explain how life can come from non-living matter, but all of these models, including the famous Miller-Urey experiment, fail to account for the many chemical and biological barriers to spontaneously forming life." (Roger Patterson) No known laws of nature allow complex, living, information-containing systems to develop from the random interactions of matter. Yet, this is what is required in order for life to have evolved in the universe. Darwin's theory presupposes that non-living chemicals, if given the right amount of time and circumstances, could develop themselves into living matter. If scientists can really prove that life could emerge purely from chemical processes, then there's no need for God. However, if the evidence points towards an Intelligent Designer, then Darwin's entire theory would collapse.
Darwin himself admitted that "if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, then my theory would absolutely break down." Michael J. Behe's award-winning book, Darwin's Black Box, shows how recent biochemical discoveries have found numerous examples of this very kind of "irreducible complexity." We also have to understand that this practical application of "all or nothing" is relevant to other theories and systematic structures as well, including Christianity. The Bible is a great example: Throughout time, skeptics have regarded the Bible as mythological, but archeology has confirmed it as historical. It continues to be attacked by pseudo-science, psychology, and political movements, yet it remains just as true and relevant today as it was when it was first written. If even one part of the Bible were proven to be false, the entire structure of Christianity would collapse. But to this day, the Bible has affirmed itself to be what it states it is: the word of God
Something to consider: Back in the early 1900's, scientists didn't have a way of seeing the complexity that exists within the membrane of a cell. Darwin probably didn't think it would be very difficult to create life from non-life, because the gap between the two didn't appear to be very great. Little did Darwin know that each cell in the human body contains more information than all thirty volumes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica or that 1 square inch chip of DNA could encode the information in over 7 million Bibles. There are about 50-100 trillion cells in the average human body. If the DNA in a single human cell were stretched out and laid end-to-end, it would measure approximately 6.5 feet. The average human body contains 10 to 20 billion miles of DNA distributed among trillions of cells.
Until the later part of the 19th century, life was believed to arise from non-living matter by a process called spontaneous generation. For example, people thought maggots would spontaneously develop from decaying meat. In 1650, Francesco Redi demonstrated that flies didn’t ‘arise’ from decaying meat, but from the eggs that other flies laid on the meat. This was a serious blow to spontaneous generation, but when bacteria were later discovered, it was thought that at least microorganisms might arise from non-life. This notion too was finally laid to rest in 1864 by the great scientist Louis Pasteur, who demonstrated that bacteria can only come from living bacteria. Louis Pasteur successfully demonstrated air contains microorganisms that can multiply in water, giving the illusion of spontaneous generation. When reporting his results before the French Academy, he confidently stated that 'never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow of this simple experiment.'
In the present, scientists agree with Pasteur that spontaneous genesis doesn't happen in a short time frame. But they theorize that if you had billions and billions of years, then it might really happen after all. And this is the basis for the idea that non-living chemicals can combine into living cells if given enough time. Unfortunately, origin-of-life scientists have come up empty when they've tried to speculate how chemicals could evolve into living matter. Klaus Dose, a prominent evolutionist and biochemist, sums up the situation pretty well: "More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance."
References:
1. The Origin of Life: More Questions than Answers - Klaus Dose
2. The Case For Faith (87-112) - Lee Strobel
3. Evolution Exposed: Earth Science - Roger Patterson
Darwin himself admitted that "if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, then my theory would absolutely break down." Michael J. Behe's award-winning book, Darwin's Black Box, shows how recent biochemical discoveries have found numerous examples of this very kind of "irreducible complexity." We also have to understand that this practical application of "all or nothing" is relevant to other theories and systematic structures as well, including Christianity. The Bible is a great example: Throughout time, skeptics have regarded the Bible as mythological, but archeology has confirmed it as historical. It continues to be attacked by pseudo-science, psychology, and political movements, yet it remains just as true and relevant today as it was when it was first written. If even one part of the Bible were proven to be false, the entire structure of Christianity would collapse. But to this day, the Bible has affirmed itself to be what it states it is: the word of God
Something to consider: Back in the early 1900's, scientists didn't have a way of seeing the complexity that exists within the membrane of a cell. Darwin probably didn't think it would be very difficult to create life from non-life, because the gap between the two didn't appear to be very great. Little did Darwin know that each cell in the human body contains more information than all thirty volumes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica or that 1 square inch chip of DNA could encode the information in over 7 million Bibles. There are about 50-100 trillion cells in the average human body. If the DNA in a single human cell were stretched out and laid end-to-end, it would measure approximately 6.5 feet. The average human body contains 10 to 20 billion miles of DNA distributed among trillions of cells.
Until the later part of the 19th century, life was believed to arise from non-living matter by a process called spontaneous generation. For example, people thought maggots would spontaneously develop from decaying meat. In 1650, Francesco Redi demonstrated that flies didn’t ‘arise’ from decaying meat, but from the eggs that other flies laid on the meat. This was a serious blow to spontaneous generation, but when bacteria were later discovered, it was thought that at least microorganisms might arise from non-life. This notion too was finally laid to rest in 1864 by the great scientist Louis Pasteur, who demonstrated that bacteria can only come from living bacteria. Louis Pasteur successfully demonstrated air contains microorganisms that can multiply in water, giving the illusion of spontaneous generation. When reporting his results before the French Academy, he confidently stated that 'never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow of this simple experiment.'
In the present, scientists agree with Pasteur that spontaneous genesis doesn't happen in a short time frame. But they theorize that if you had billions and billions of years, then it might really happen after all. And this is the basis for the idea that non-living chemicals can combine into living cells if given enough time. Unfortunately, origin-of-life scientists have come up empty when they've tried to speculate how chemicals could evolve into living matter. Klaus Dose, a prominent evolutionist and biochemist, sums up the situation pretty well: "More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance."
References:
1. The Origin of Life: More Questions than Answers - Klaus Dose
2. The Case For Faith (87-112) - Lee Strobel
3. Evolution Exposed: Earth Science - Roger Patterson
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
An Introduction: Evolution vs. Creation
"Many Christians believe the creation/evolution issue to be a side issue, an unprofitable area on which to focus. To many it seems divisive, and has little relation to proclaiming the Gospel." - Calvin Smith
Charles Darwin was an English naturalist who established that all species of life descended over time from a common ancestry. He proposed the scientific theory that this branching pattern of evolution resulted from a process called natural selection. He later published his book, On the Origin of Species, which led the scientific community and much of the general public to accept evolution as a fact. Darwin's scientific discovery is the unifying theory of the life sciences, explaining the diversity of life.
How do atheists explain our origins without God? Their answer is evolution. This gives them an explanation for our existence without God. We have to understand that evolution is a world view not to be taken lightly; it is the fuel that provides atheism a logical answer to the development of life that is contradictory to the biblical account of creation. And if the biblical account of creation were false, then the validity of the entire Bible would be at stake.
If Darwinism is true, then there are five inescapable implications according to prominent evolutionist William Provine: there's no evidence for God; there's no life after death; there's no absolute foundation for right and wrong; there's no ultimate meaning for life; and people don't really have free will.
Atheism vs. theism is sometimes misrepresented as science vs. faith. This is untrue because evolution is a worldview that is also based on faith. Why by faith? Because we cannot travel back in time to see the first life form evolve or observe God create the universe. So our understanding of what happened in the past is ultimately accepted by faith. We can use scientific methods to observe evidence in the present, and then make an assessment of which worldview is best supported by that evidence.
Lee Strobel brings up this issue in The Case For Faith with the following statement: "I began to question whether the sweeping conclusions of Darwinists are really justified by the hard scientific facts. This is not, I soon discovered, a case of religion versus science; rather, this is an issue of science versus science. More and more biologists, biochemists and other researchers (not just Christians) have raised serious objections to the evolutionary theory in recent years, claiming that its broad inferences are sometimes based on flimsy, incomplete, or flawed data."
"The result of these cumulative efforts to investigate the cell - to investigate life at the molecular level - is a loud, clear, piercing cry of design!" biochemist Michael Behe said in his ground-breaking critique of Darwinism. He went on to say:
"The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself - not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs...The reluctance of science to embrace the conclusion of intelligent design...has no justifiable foundation...Many people, including many important and well-respect scientists, just don't want there to be anything beyond nature."
Michael Behe's last statement really hit me hard. Often times, people will back up their belief systems with intellectual arguments. But underneath the surface, there is a different story to tell. For me, it was selfishness. Deep down inside, I knew that if God really existed, then I would be held accountable for my actions. I wasn't ready to give up the "fun" I was having with my life. I wanted to go out and party with my friends all the time. I knew there were certain areas of my life where I lacked integrity, but I didn't care. I wanted to live my life to the fullest with no boundaries. But the truth is that I was always bored. There's a verse in the Bible that says the world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever. There was only so much "partying" I could do before I became bored with it. Then I would move on to the next thing. And the next thing. I found myself running around in circles throughout high school without a definitive purpose of where my life was really headed.
Back than, I was under the impression that following Jesus meant giving up "fun" things in my life in order to become a good person. I thought that Christians were some of the most boring people on this planet. I thought that Christians were close-minded hypocrites. This perspective of mine was challenged when I met a group of genuine Christians during my first year of college. Their faith in Jesus was authentic. Everything they committed to came from the heart, not from religious rules or obligations. And to me, that was highly attractive.
Only an amateur who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God. An incoherent understanding of evolutionary science once propelled me towards atheism; an increasing grasp of molecular science is now strengthening my conviction for the existence of an Intelligent Designer.
For further studies, check out the Creation / Evolution articles posted on my blog.
Charles Darwin was an English naturalist who established that all species of life descended over time from a common ancestry. He proposed the scientific theory that this branching pattern of evolution resulted from a process called natural selection. He later published his book, On the Origin of Species, which led the scientific community and much of the general public to accept evolution as a fact. Darwin's scientific discovery is the unifying theory of the life sciences, explaining the diversity of life.
How do atheists explain our origins without God? Their answer is evolution. This gives them an explanation for our existence without God. We have to understand that evolution is a world view not to be taken lightly; it is the fuel that provides atheism a logical answer to the development of life that is contradictory to the biblical account of creation. And if the biblical account of creation were false, then the validity of the entire Bible would be at stake.
If Darwinism is true, then there are five inescapable implications according to prominent evolutionist William Provine: there's no evidence for God; there's no life after death; there's no absolute foundation for right and wrong; there's no ultimate meaning for life; and people don't really have free will.
Atheism vs. theism is sometimes misrepresented as science vs. faith. This is untrue because evolution is a worldview that is also based on faith. Why by faith? Because we cannot travel back in time to see the first life form evolve or observe God create the universe. So our understanding of what happened in the past is ultimately accepted by faith. We can use scientific methods to observe evidence in the present, and then make an assessment of which worldview is best supported by that evidence.
Lee Strobel brings up this issue in The Case For Faith with the following statement: "I began to question whether the sweeping conclusions of Darwinists are really justified by the hard scientific facts. This is not, I soon discovered, a case of religion versus science; rather, this is an issue of science versus science. More and more biologists, biochemists and other researchers (not just Christians) have raised serious objections to the evolutionary theory in recent years, claiming that its broad inferences are sometimes based on flimsy, incomplete, or flawed data."
"The result of these cumulative efforts to investigate the cell - to investigate life at the molecular level - is a loud, clear, piercing cry of design!" biochemist Michael Behe said in his ground-breaking critique of Darwinism. He went on to say:
"The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself - not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs...The reluctance of science to embrace the conclusion of intelligent design...has no justifiable foundation...Many people, including many important and well-respect scientists, just don't want there to be anything beyond nature."
Michael Behe's last statement really hit me hard. Often times, people will back up their belief systems with intellectual arguments. But underneath the surface, there is a different story to tell. For me, it was selfishness. Deep down inside, I knew that if God really existed, then I would be held accountable for my actions. I wasn't ready to give up the "fun" I was having with my life. I wanted to go out and party with my friends all the time. I knew there were certain areas of my life where I lacked integrity, but I didn't care. I wanted to live my life to the fullest with no boundaries. But the truth is that I was always bored. There's a verse in the Bible that says the world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever. There was only so much "partying" I could do before I became bored with it. Then I would move on to the next thing. And the next thing. I found myself running around in circles throughout high school without a definitive purpose of where my life was really headed.
Back than, I was under the impression that following Jesus meant giving up "fun" things in my life in order to become a good person. I thought that Christians were some of the most boring people on this planet. I thought that Christians were close-minded hypocrites. This perspective of mine was challenged when I met a group of genuine Christians during my first year of college. Their faith in Jesus was authentic. Everything they committed to came from the heart, not from religious rules or obligations. And to me, that was highly attractive.
Only an amateur who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God. An incoherent understanding of evolutionary science once propelled me towards atheism; an increasing grasp of molecular science is now strengthening my conviction for the existence of an Intelligent Designer.
For further studies, check out the Creation / Evolution articles posted on my blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)