A Chemical Big Bang?

Professing to be wise, they became fools.    Romans1:22

There are a lot of reasons why evolution doesn’t make sense.  First, there has never been a transitional creature found connecting humans to apes, the proverbial “missing link.”  Second, the fossil record makes no sense without The Flood happening.  How do so many animals die and get covered so quickly that they never even start to decompose unless there’s a catastrophic event?  Moreover, how is it that all the geologic layers are identical around the world if, again, there’s no global event?

I saw an interview years ago with an evolutionist.  The question that exposed him was if there has even been a creature discovered that had new genetic material.  We’re not talking about variation within a species, but something completely new.  The question is predicated on the fact that DNA is a huge amount of information, which can only be distorted by mutations, which invariably degrade information.

The evolutionist blanched and asked the camera to be turned off.

Or there’s Dr. Lyall Watson, famed anthropologist and evolution proponent who said, “The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all of the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!”

Time magazine wrote in 1994 that “Yet despite more than a century of digging, the fossil record remains maddeningly sparse. With so few clues, even a single bone that doesn’t fit into the picture can upset everything. Virtually every major discovery has put deep cracks in the conventional wisdom and forced scientists to concoct new theories, amid furious debate.”  Concoct!!  HA!!

Forgetting complex plants and animals, where did that very first cellular life come from?  The answer has always been that it came from some primordial goo and perhaps triggered some lightning.

It seems that science has been grasping at straws for decades, clinging to the theories that got them their Ph.D.’s.  It’s been argued that evolution takes more faith than believing in God what with all the improbable theories.

Imagine now our surprise when those scientists now change their tune – slightly – and propose the following theory:

“…it used to be that life evolved so slowly you couldn’t see it happening, and now it happened so fast we missed it!”

Um…

Very Complex!!

 

Ken Ham, founder of the Creation Museum and the Ark Encounter, recently wrote about this in his blog.  The article he refers to says that there need to be three core systems for cellular life to exist, and they need to be present all together.  First, there must be a cell membrane to hold everything together.  Second, it must have the ability to metabolize.  Third, it must be able to reproduce.

You can’t have something that starts out with just one of those and hope the other pieces gradually evolve to go with it.  If any one of those three is missing, there’s no life.  Period.  Their new answer is…

A CHEMICAL BIG BANG!!

It’s like the story of Goldilocks.  She found the bear’s cottage and chose her porridge and bed based on the ones that were “just right.”  Some scientists are now saying that under the “just right” conditions, all three of these requirements for life must have just…happened.  Somehow.

From the article:

Of course, all this depends on the everything-first idea proving correct. Szostak’s protocells and the new biochemical insights have won over many researchers, but some pieces of the puzzle are still missing. Perhaps the most persuasive argument is that the simpler ideas don’t work. As is the case with many things in life, the beginning was probably more complicated than we had thought.

Here are two thoughts on that.  First, Occam’s Razor.  This is a generally held principles that, when given a choice of two explanations to explain all the facts, the simplest explanation tends to be the right one.  It’s applied in a wide range of disciplines, including medicine.  This long-held principle is turned on its head in this case.

Second, it seems that their basic argument in favor of this new theory is nothing more than “the old ones don’t work.”

If only they’d just accept God’s Word as the authority it is!  It would be so much simpler.  It would make so much sense!  If one of the conditions of life is the ability to reproduce, that requires DNA, which is an information package on how build a new, separate offspring.  Information can only come from some sort of intelligence.  God is the likely candidate.

Of course, if they accepted that, they’d have to get another job!

One thought on “A Chemical Big Bang?

  1. Pingback: Oxford Says Evolution Statistically Improbable | Jeffrey H. King's Blog

Your ideas are important too!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s