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.
No comments:
Post a Comment