Lies evolutionists tell: Abiogenesis is different from spontaneous generation

People who militantly defend evolution (AKA evolutionists) like to look down their noses at the “lay” public and smugly drone on about how science is the key to knowledge, how evolution is the most rigorously tested theory in science, and how they only go where the evidence leads. If that were true, why do they feel the need to tell lies to support their theory? I'm not talking about a mere difference of opinion – like how I believe the earth is around 6,000 years old and they think it's 4 billion years old. I'm talking about continuously repeating things that are objectively false. The sad thing is, many members of the public have heard these lies repeated so often, they assume they are true.  One lie I’ve heard many, many times is that abiogenesis is not the same as spontaneous generation.  

Once upon a time, people believed in a thing called spontaneous generation.  It’s the idea that life could spring up from non-living matter.  They believed, for example, that maggots would spontaneously form in rotting meat.  Over time, however, with much experimentation and observation, it was discovered that every suspected example of spontaneous generation could be attributed to observable causes.  In the case of maggots, they determined the cause was flies laying eggs on the meat.  

Eventually, the spontaneous generation of “complex” animals was disproved.  However, the belief that it could still happen in “simple” creatures like single-celled organisms.  If you put a jar of clean water in the sun, for example, after a while, the water would begin to cloud.  If you examined the water under the primitive microscopes available at that time, they could see the water was teeming with bacteria.  They believed these cells were merely gelatinous blobs formed spontaneously by a fortunate arrangement of chemicals already present in the water. 

Louis Pasteur  was a chemist, biologist, and contemporary of Charles Darwin.  He didn’t believe life could arise purely by chance so he devised an experiment to test what was happening.  He discovered that in sterilized, sealed flasks, bacteria would not grow.  If the flasks were left open, bacteria would begin to grow.  So he proved the bacteria was entering the flask from outside and not forming spontaneously in the water.  This was the discovery that led to the process we now call pasteurization and was the final blow to spontaneous generation.  It was replaced by the law of biogenesis - life only comes from life.

This poses a problem for evolutionists.  If life only comes from life, where did the supposed first living cell come from?  They have to believe - somehow and somewhere - that it rose from non-living matter.  In other words, they still believe in spontaneous generation!  I’ve often teased them by saying they’re asking people to believe in a theory that was discarded about the same time as blood-letting!!  [joke copyrighted by RKBentley © if you want use it, send me a quarter]

Of course, they claim to not believe in spontaneous generation; instead, they call it abiogenesis.  So what is the difference?  That’s a good question.  I asked Chat GPT to define ‘spontaneous generation.’  Here’s what it said:

Spontaneous generation is an old scientific idea that living organisms could arise from nonliving matter without any parent organisms.  

It went on to talk about the meat/maggots example, the Pasteur experiments, and the Law of Biogenesis.  It concluded its response with these words:

In short

• Spontaneous generation  = life comes from nonliving matter

• Modern science = life comes from preexisting life

OK, that seems straight forward.  It’s pretty much the same thing I’d already understood.   Then I asked it to define ‘abiogenesis’ and here’s what it said:

Abiogenesis is the scientific concept that life arose naturally from non-living matter on early Earth - without any pre-existing life.

Do you see what I see?  These definitions are essentially the same thing - life arose from non-life, except spontaneous generation says it doesn’t happen and abiogenesis says it does!  

Because Chat GPT’s responses seemed contradictory, I asked a less direct question.  I asked, “What do you call the process by which life rises from non-living matter?”  Here’s the response:

The process you’re referring to is called Abiogenesis.

What it means

Abiogenesis is the scientific idea that life arose from nonliving chemical substances - likely on earth Earth billions of years ago.

Key distinction

It’s important not to confuse this with spontaneous generation:

• Abiogenesis -> A gradual, natural process over long periods involving chemistry (accepted area of scientific research)

• Spontaneous generation -> life appearing suddenly and regularly from nonliving matter (now disproven)

Ah, I get it.  Abiogenesis has the magic ingredient: time!!  I mean, life can’t just spring up like maggots from rotting meat, that’s crazy.  But if you wait billions of years, a rock can become alive.  Yeah, that makes perfect sense.  Plus, abiogenesis involves chemistry, you see, and that’s scientific - so there you go.  //RKBentley rolls his eyes//

To be fair, Chat GPT did conclude with this final distinction:

Simple way to think about it

• Abiogenesis = how the first life ever began

• Biogenesis = how life continues today (life comes from life)

Yet even this doesn’t hold any water.  First, if abiogenesis was a singular event, then it is disqualified from scientific investigation.  It would be like trying to scientifically observe the reign of Julias Caesar - it’s something that happened in the past and we weren’t there to see it.  If it never happens again, how could we ever observe how it happened?  And even if we somehow create life in a lab, there’s no way to say that is how it happened in the past!

But there’s an even deeper problem with this idea, namely, who’s to say that it doesn’t happen any more?  They’re saying only the first life formed by abiogenesis, because if it happened again, that would be spontaneous generation.  It’s kind of like the exotic theories atheists invoke to explain the origin of everything from nothing.  How can anyone say that some “miraculous” thing happened naturally in the past but it doesn’t happen any more?  If life arose from chemicals once, why necessarily doesn’t it keep happening?  If the universe poofed out of nothing, why can’t matter/energy poof into existence now?  It sounds like a clever way to say, “An incredible thing happened, it wasn’t a miracle, we don’t have to prove anything, and it’s still scientific.” 

In conclusion I’ll say, my opinion hasn’t changed.  Abiogenesis is Spontaneous Generation 2.0.  It’s a god-of-the-gaps argument being used by unbelievers to plug a big hole in their worldview.  We’ve known for more than a century that life doesn’t rise naturally from chemicals but they still cling with faith-like determination to the idea that it must have happened. 

So now they're experts in religion as well?

There's an editorial on Nature called, “Dealing with design” that deals with the “problem” of students who believe in intelligent design. I know it’s an older article but it contains some of the same things I continue to hear so I believe it’s still relevant.  I've excerpted a couple of points from the piece. Quotes are in blue and are italicized.

Scientists tend to tune out when they hear the words 'intelligent design.

That's rather telling, don't you think? The first instinct of scientists when they hear the words “intelligent design” is usually to just tune them out. Shouldn't they want to explore the idea? Shouldn't they want to test the theories? Where is their scientific curiosity? No, they just tune out.

... [M]any of the students taught in introductory biology classes hold religious beliefs that conflict, at least on the face of things, with Darwin's framework. Professors rarely address the conflicts between faith and science in lectures, and students are drawn to intelligent design as a way of reconciling their beliefs with their interest in science. In doing so, they are helping it to gain a small, but firm, foothold on campuses around the country.

If I'm reading this correctly, Nature is attributing the rise of intelligent design on college campuses to the lack of biology professors addressing the (alleged) conflicts between faith and science. Maybe they're right, but I still haven't seen a problem. I merely detect a sense of alarm among biology professors that intelligent design is gaining traction.

This is bad news for researchers. Unlike 'creation science', which uses the Bible as its guide, intelligent design tries to use scientific methods to find evidence of God in nature.

Still again, I don't see a problem. Yet Nature says this is “bad news” for researchers. As a matter of fact, their alarm only seems to be that proponents of intelligent design “[try] to use scientific methods to find evidence of God in nature.” What's so alarming about that? I distinctly remember being asked about umpteen million times for evidence for my theory or for God. When there are people actually using scientific methods to find evidence for design, the evolutionists go into a tizzy.

This approach makes it less theologically heavy-handed than its predecessor, [young earth creationism]  but it also poses a threat to the very core of scientific reason. Most contemporary researchers believe that it is better to keep science and theology firmly separated.

Oh, I see now. It's because they never really wanted to find evidence for God. They don't want to see evidence for design. They only want to “keep science and theology firmly separated.” We see again the fundamental tenet of science that everything must have a natural explanation.  Could someone please give me a “scientific reason” why it should be the goal of science to separate itself from religion? Anyone? I didn't think so. It's a philosophical premise – not a scientific one.

Well, I can see their concern but what are they going to do about it? One idea might be to challenge the scientific theories of intelligent design in rigorous scientific debate. No. They don't like that idea. Look what Nature says in the next paragraph:

Such events tend to be well attended, but don't change many minds. Furthermore, ill-prepared scientific lectures can sometimes lack the superficial impact of design advocates' carefully crafted talking points.

I've seen many evolution/creation debates and the scientists are usually thoroughly trashed by the creationists. Exit polls after these debates usually show that if anyone's mind was changed, it tends to be toward creation. Evolutionists have been embarrassed in these types of debates so many times they always discourage other scientists away from future debates.

So what advice does Nature give to frustrated professors?

Scientists would do better to offer some constructive thoughts of their own. For religious scientists, this may involve taking the time to talk to students about how they personally reconcile their beliefs with their research. Secular researchers should talk to others in order to understand how faiths have come to terms with science. All scientists whose classes are faced with such concerns should familiarize themselves with some basic arguments as to why evolution, cosmology and geology are not competing with religion. When they walk into the lecture hall, they should be prepared to talk about what science can and cannot do, and how it fits in with different religious beliefs.

There it is. Read it for yourself. They're not just "experts" in science; now they want to be experts in Christianity! The solution suggested by Nature is that professors prepare themselves to explain how science fits in with different religious beliefs. What do you think that means? Do you think that means professors should compromise on certain scientific theories to make them more palatable to a conservative Christian? You know it doesn't. It means they are practicing arguments that might convince students to compromise on their religious beliefs and make them conform better with the scientific theory.

Make no mistake, to evolutionists, “reconciling science and religion” always means compromising on the religion!

Design by “poofery”

Did the creation create itself?

I usually avoid commenting on social media but I still belong to several Fake Book groups where Christians/creationists debate atheists/evolutionists.  I do this primarily to hear what unbelievers are saying and to get inspiration for my blog. 

Recently, one unbeliever made this comment:

EVERYBODY Believes that Intelligent Order, Design and Fine Tuning Can Exist WITHOUT the Need of a Creator.

Please excuse the arbitrary capitalization and the lack of the serial comma, I posted exactly what was said so that I can’t be accused of misrepresenting the point.  This person is saying that order and design can exist without a creator.  

Since I seldom hear any original thoughts from atheists/evolutionists, I knew I’d already heard this before.  I made a brief comment and linked to a post I’d made some time ago, namely that Design is Obvious and how design typically suggests there is a designer.   Richard Dawkins, wrote about this very thing in his book, The Blind Watchmaker, where he said, “The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design. If anyone doesn’t agree that this amount of complex design cries out for an explanation, I give up.”

I used the old joke about the chicken crossing the road to make a point.  It's been my experience that the most obvious answer to nearly any question is usually the correct one.  The first time people hear the chicken riddle, they usually search for some deep meaning or clever answer yet completely overlook the obvious answer – to get to the other side.  So why does everything look designed?  Maybe it’s because it is designed!!  

Evolutionists go to great lengths to explain away design but the more they explain, the more they prove my point. They would not put in such effort if they didn't grasp the clear implication of design is that there is a Designer. It's almost funny to see how they reject the most reasonable answer for such an unlikely one. It's like they're saying, “No! The chicken did not want to get to the other side!'

Anyway, the Fake Book poster replied to my comments with the following argument:

If everything that looks designed is designed, that tells us that God is designed and created OR if God is not designed and created then no, not everything that looks designed is designed.

You may see right away that his argument suffered from a first cause dilemma.  If God were created, then who created God?  Then who created that creator?  And then who created that creator?  You can see where this is going. This is what is known as an infinite regress; it's a logical fallacy where a speaker projects a causal chain of events backward without any definite point that starts the chain.  

Aristotle said there must be a “first cause” or what he described as “The unmoved mover.”  In our case, we may call Him the Ultimate Designer.  Pretend, for a moment, that you're walking through a forest and you happen upon a log cabin. It's crude and has only a dirt floor. It has no electricity, plumbing, or glass windows. It's just basically logs, notched and stacked, with openings cut out for the door and windows. There's not a stick of furniture inside nor any other sign of anyone having lived in it recently. What questions might you ask yourself? I would think your first thoughts would be, I wonder who built this? Does someone live here? Where is he now?

I'm fairly certain no one would ask, “That's incredible! I wonder how these logs fell into the shape of a cabin?”

You see, logs organized into the shape of a cabin show design. Sections having been cut out to allow light and access show purpose. Design and purpose are the characteristics of created things and created things are the proof of a creator. The cabin obviously had a creator. Withholding judgment about the existence of a builder of the cabin is not the sign of a rational, thinking person. It's the stubborn refusal of a fool to acknowledge the obvious!

Dawkins said above that complexity and design “cries out for an explanation.”  But what is there to explain?  Even a crude cabin is proof of a creator.  What needs explaining is how complexity and design could come about without a creator!

After having said all this, I thought the case was closed.  A supernatural, first cause is the only thing that makes any sense when considering the origin of everything.  Like the foolish man in Matthew 7:24-27, any worldview that is not founded upon Christ, is built upon sand.  It cannot stand up to scrutiny.  But rather than try to rebut anything I’d said, this Fakebook poster decided to declare victory and make the following, outrageous claim:

The uncreated first cause proves that a creator is unneeded.  Once we have established that existence without creation, an intelligent mind without an intelligent creator and a consciousness without a creator can all exist, what reason is there to conclude that there is only one example of such things?

Unbelievers are in denial about the religious nature of their beliefs about origins. They are trying to posit a creator with similar attributes that we normally associate with God. In other words, they want us to believe there is a supernatural, eternal, uncaused cause for the universe – but it's still not God! It's just something like God. The skeptics are invoking a god-like non-god to explain the same things Christians credit to God.

I've said before that unbelievers in God are believers in poofism. There was nothing then, POOF, there was everything. Time, space, matter, and design just poofed into existence. They're essentially saying the creation created itself. They don't know what caused it to happen but they're sure it wasn't God. //RKBentley scratches his head//

I don't believe in God because it sort of makes sense. I believe in God because that's the only thing that makes sense. Everything we know about the universe confirms over and over there is a supernatural cause behind it. Deep down, skeptics tacitly admit this too. They just stubbornly deny Elohim is the Creator.  The god of atheism is a capricious, clumsy, invisible god that is indistinguishable from dumb luck. They seek to rob God of His glory by worshipping the undivine god of evolution. How sad.

St Patrick's Breastplate

I arise today 

Through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity,

Through belief in the Threeness,

Through confession of the Oneness

of the Creator of creation.

I arise today

Through the strength of Christ's birth with His baptism,
Through the strength of His crucifixion with His burial,
Through the strength of His resurrection with His ascension,
Through the strength of His descent for the judgment of doom.

I arise today

Through the strength of the love of cherubim,
In the obedience of angels,
In the service of archangels,
In the hope of resurrection to meet with reward,
In the prayers of patriarchs,
In the predictions of prophets,
In the preaching of apostles,
In the faith of confessors,
In the innocence of holy virgins,
In the deeds of righteous men.

I arise today, 

Through the strength of heaven,
The light of the sun,
The radiance of the moon,
The splendor of fire,
The speed of lightning,
The swiftness of wind,
The depth of the sea,
The stability of the earth,
The firmness of rock.

I arise today, through

God's strength to pilot me,
God's might to uphold me,
God's wisdom to guide me,
God's eye to look before me,
God's ear to hear me,
God's word to speak for me,
God's hand to guard me,
God's shield to protect me,
God's host to save me
From snares of devils,
From temptation of vices,
From everyone who shall wish me ill,
afar and near.

I summon today

All these powers between me and those evils,
Against every cruel and merciless power
that may oppose my body and soul,
Against incantations of false prophets,
Against black laws of pagandom,
Against false laws of heretics,
Against craft of idolatry,
Against spells of witches and smiths and wizards,
Against every knowledge that corrupts man's body and soul;
Christ to shield me today
Against poison, against burning,
Against drowning, against wounding,
So that there may come to me an abundance of reward.

Christ with me,
Christ before me,
Christ behind me,
Christ in me,
Christ beneath me,
Christ above me,
Christ on my right,
Christ on my left,
Christ when I lie down,
Christ when I sit down,
Christ when I arise,
Christ in the heart of every man who thinks of me,
Christ in the mouth of everyone who speaks of me,
Christ in every eye that sees me,
Christ in every ear that hears me.

7 “theories” on the origin of life

And that's how life began on earth!

Whenever creationists ask about the origin of life, evolutionists usually respond by saying, “that's not part of evolution.” I've always thought it was convenient of them to propose a theory where all life has descended from a common ancestor yet excuse themselves from explaining the origin of the common ancestor but never mind that now. Everyone knows what's really going on: evolutionists secretly know that the origin of life is a legitimate question for which they have no answer. So they dodge the question with, “that's not part of the theory,” in hopes of buying enough time to come up with a plausible natural explanation which they will make a part of their theory.

LiveScience is an online science magazine that regularly posts “countdown” lists. One list they have is the top 7 theories on the origin of life.  Each theory received a short description which you can read for yourself but here is an even briefer summary:

Electric Spark: Inspired by the Miller-Urey experiment of 1952, this theory suggests that lightning interacting with methane gas in the earth's atmosphere created amino acids.

Community Clay: This is the idea that mineral crystals in clay helped organize the first living cells.

Deep-Sea Vents: Some people believe life began in the hydrogen-rich environment of submarine, hydrothermal vents.

Chilly Start: Instead of super-hot, hydrothermal vents, some believe life began inside hundreds of feet of ice that supposedly covered the early oceans.

RNA World: Before DNA, some speculate that life began with RNA. Of course, they don't have a conclusive theory on the origin of RNA either.

Simple Beginnings: Instead of developing from complex molecules such as RNA, life might have begun with smaller molecules interacting with each other in cycles of reactions.

Panspermia: This is the idea that life did not begin on earth at all but was brought here from space via comets or meteors. Some extremists who hold this view believe life was intentionally planted here by intelligent aliens but LiveScience didn't mention them in their description of panspermia.

I know these are meant to be thumbnail sketches of the various theories but I believe they say a lot about scientists' ideas about the origin of life.  First off, I noticed the casual use of the word “theory.” Read this from the article:

Science remains undecided and conflicted as to the exact origin of life, also known as abiogenesis…. Although science still seems unsure, here are some of the many different scientific theories on the origin of life on Earth.

Do you see what I mean?  Sometimes, creationists have criticized evolution by saying, “It's just a theory.” This usually brings howls of ridicule from evolutionists explaining how a “theory” is more than just a “guess”; It's supposed to be a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. Here, though, they just mean “guess,” don't they? “Theories” are only well-substantiated when creationists suggest that evolution is just a guess. When evolutionists use the word, “guesses” are fine. The correct title of the countdown should be “7 Guesses About the Origin of Life.”

Notice too the huge range covered by the various guesses.  Maybe life began in hot vents or maybe it was in ice. Maybe it formed in the sea or maybe in the clay or maybe on another planet. Some of these competing theories... I mean guesses... aren't even close to each other but are mutually exclusive. It's not like scientists have narrowed it down to a range of ideas – they're wild guesses. This isn’t science; it's storytelling.

This brings me to my final point. It's painfully obvious that scientists truly have no real “theory” about abiogenesis. Yet, if they have no idea, then how can they credibly claim that God didn't create life? Do they really mean to say, “I don't know how life began but I KNOW God didn't create it!”? Yes, they really do mean to say that. Even though they have absolutely no idea how life began, they refuse to consider the possibility that God created life. It's disqualified in advance because of their tenet of methodological naturalism. I've written before how there is no scientific reason to reject a supernatural explanation. It's merely their bias.

Some evolutionists would rather continue in ignorance rather than consider a plausible, supernatural explanation for the origin of life. Still others would rather believe we are martians, planted here by aliens rather than believe we are created by God. It's their presupposed naturalism which blinds them to how silly they're being.