Lies evolutionists tell: The origin of life has nothing to do with evolution

People who militantly defend evolution (AKA evolutionists) like to look down their noses on 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.

I've written series in the past where I list 5 or 10 of some of the most egregious examples but I'm not going to write a series now. Instead, I'm going to visit this topic from time to time and make each, entire post about a single lie. If you want to read all the posts published under this topic, click “lies evolutionists tell” in the label cloud in the left column.

Have said that, on to the next lie!

THE ORIGIN OF LIFE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION

Tyler Franke, a self-described “theistic evolutionist,” once wrote:

[You don't understand evolution if] you think it has anything to do with the origin of life, let alone the origins of the universe.... This is like the king of all straw men, and it’s extremely common. It involves something like the thoroughly debunked theory of spontaneous generation (the idea that life can come from non-life under normal circumstances) being used as evidence against the theory of evolution. Hear me on this, guys: Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.

The original site where he posted this has been removed but it was republished (plagiarized?) here if you'd like to read the entire article in context. I like to cite original sources but, let's face it, I've heard this point made so many times that it really doesn't matter who said it. I just used this quote because Franke was so emphatic about it.

When evolutionists claim all life on earth is descended from a single ancestor that supposedly lived 3.5 billion years ago, the first question that usually comes to mind is, “Where did the first common ancestor come from?” It's a rather obvious question, yet if you press them on the subject, they invariably resort to saying, “that's not part of the theory!”

Strictly speaking, biological evolution does not address the origin of life. I get it. So if evolutionists say, “that's not part of the theory,” why do I call it a lie? Primarily, it's because they're not giving a sincere response. It's more of a dodge – a cover-up for the embarrassing fact that they don't have an answer. They invent a theory that all life descended from a single ancestor then excuse themselves from explaining where that critter came from. How convenient.

I think it's strange that critics ever use this objection. I mean, for something that's not part of their theory, they certainly spend a lot of time talking about it. For example, Berkley.edu has a web page called, Understanding Evolution, which begins with a section titled, “From soup to cells – the origin of life.” From that site, we read the following,

“Evolution encompasses a wide range of phenomena: from the emergence of major lineages, to mass extinctions, to the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria in hospitals today. However, within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from.”

It seems, at least, that Berkley feels the origin of life is of special interest “within the field of evolutionary biology.” So at the same time they're telling us the origin of life isn't part of evolution, Berkley admits that evolutionary biologists are keenly interested in studying it.

There's also a pop-science article from LiveScience.com that suggests 7 Theories on the Origin of Life. From that article, we read the following:

Life on Earth began more than 3 billion years ago, evolving from the most basic of microbes into a dazzling array of complexity over time. But how did the first organisms on the only known home to life in the universe develop from the primordial soup?

First, let me point out the casual use of the word theory in the headline. If a creationists says, “evolution is just a theory,” he's met with a chorus of groans and a lecture about the technical meaning of the word theory and that a “scientific” theory doesn't mean guess... but here, they just mean a guess, don't they? //RKBentley shakes his head//

Any way, see how LiveScience begins the article by saying life evolved “from the most basic of microbes into a dazzling array of complexity” before getting into their 7 guesses? They seem to tacitly agree that a discussion of evolution should include a discussion of how life began. Indeed, that's the whole point of their article. Of course, if a creationist wants to discuss it, then all of a sudden it's NOT part of the theory.

Finally, do I even need to point out all the biology text books that still include the Miller-Urey experiment from nearly 70 years ago! If you read the Wiki article on abiogenesis, there's the Miller-Urey experiment. Why is such an old experiment, one which failed to produce life, still included in biology books if abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution?

We have never seen life form naturally. Neither have we been able to create life in a lab. By every measure, bringing non-living matter to life seems to require a miracle which is why I sometimes use the origin of life as evidence for biblical creation.  Evolutionists don't have a response, so they try to convince me the issue isn't even relevant.  Yeah right!

Evolutionists can't have it both ways. They expend gallons of ink writing about the origin of life, yet when creationists point out there is no natural explanation for the origin of life, evolutionists retreat to saying that has nothing to do with evolution. Their smug confidence and feigned exasperation are all a ruse. They simply don't like being called out for clinging to an idea that is virtually indistinguishable from “spontaneous generation,” which was discarded about the same time as blood-letting. Their lack of any plausible scenario that might make matter become alive is a gaping whole in their theory. Yet when it's pointed out, they want to end the discussion. People who say this are seldom sincere; they just want you to shut up.