There is no “real theory” of abiogenesis!

I've talked about abiogenesis many times in the past. Abiogenesis is a term used to describe the necessary beginning of life from non-living matter that would have had to have happened sometime in the earth's past. It's an idea that is virtual indistinguishable from “spontaneous generation” and was discarded by science about the same time as blood letting.

The origin of life is a conversation evolutionists probably wish they could avoid having. But if they're going to assert that all life on earth is descended from a single common ancestor, then to ask where the supposed first ancestor came from seems a rather obvious question. As much as they may want to avoid the subject, they're dragged kicking and screaming to the debate to defend their theory.

The simple fact of the matter is that secular scientists really have no evidence showing how the supposed first life form began. All they have is conjecture. Actually, even conjecture is too generous a word – it's more like story telling. They're making up possible scenarios about how life could come from non-life but, thus far, they haven't thought of any that could actually work. In light of their long history of failed guesses about abiogenesis, evolutionists are left with no other alternative than to criticize creationists for bringing it up. The usual claim is that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. Another tactic they sometimes take is to make a straw man out of the creationists views of abiogenesis.

I found this cartoon (I'm not going to dignify it by saying it's a chart) on TalkOrigins.org some time back. It compares the “Creationist idea of abiogenesis” to the “Real theory of abiogenesis.” Now, I always try my best to keep up with evolution in the news but I must have missed something. Since when is there a “real theory” about abiogenesis? Did they take a vote on this or something? It sounds more than a little presumptuous to say this is somehow the "real" theory when there are some many competing theories being tossed about by scientists. It's even more ridiculous when you consider that we haven't yet discovered a successful pathway from non-living chemicals to life. How can they even claim this is the path the first cells must have taken?

According to the article [bold added]:

Note that the real theory has a number of small steps, and in fact I've [author, Ian Musgrave] left out some steps (especially between the hypercycle-protobiont stage) for simplicity. Each step is associated with a small increase in organisation and complexity, and the chemicals slowly climb towards organism-hood, rather than making one big leap.

Excuse me while I have a chortle.

From Scientific American we read this: “According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.” In the case of this cartoon, they're obviously being a little loose with the word “theory” (something they usually complain about creationists doing). There is no well-substantiated explanation or tested hypotheses that demonstrates how life could arise from non-living chemicals. Therefore, there can be no “real theory” of abiogenesis. What they mean to say is that it's just a “guess,” right? Ah, but this is the “real” guess. It even says so in the title! And even though there is not one shred of evidence for their guess of abiogenesis, it's still the “scientific” model because... well, because it's not the view held by creationists!

Sometimes it's difficult to take evolutionists seriously. Just where do they get off saying this is the "real" theory of abiogenesis? They usually make bad arguments but I can see they're at least sincere most of the time. When they make illustrations like this, though, I'm not sure they're even sincere. Oh, let's face it – they're not being sincere. When they invent things like this, they're just plain lying.