One need not look solely to the cell to dispel notions of a naturalistic advent. In fact, many profound examples of purposeful design can be seen amongst the physical and behavioral characteristics of multicellular life.
As should be clear, the leaps required to sustain a plausible, naturalistic origin for life are too ridiculous to seriously and objectively entertain, be they the improbability of viable amino acid formation in the early Earth environments, to the staggering difficulty facing the consolidation of those amino acids into the range of proteins necessary for life. Even beyond that, we delved into the problems associated with explaining away the vast amounts of information locked within the genes of life’s nucleic acids, the decoding and synthesizing molecules required to translate that information, and the undeniable truth that, in accordance with the laws of information transmission and probability, the data within those genes could not have been functionally constructed purely by chance.
Everything that is currently classified as “alive” possesses cells. Bacteria and their kin consist of a single cell, with more complex creatures, such as humans, being made up of trillions. Though the general design at its most basic form is similar amongst the many forms of cells, a great deal of varieties exist, differing not only between the five kingdoms of life, but also within any complex, multicellular organism. Human beings for instance possess some two-hundred types of cells within their bodies,(1) including nerve cells, bone cells, muscles cells, and others. Sidestepping the more derived variations for a moment, let us examine the structure of a basic cell.
The Miller-Urey experiment set a dangerous precedent all those years ago. While it claimed, somewhat deceptively, to demonstrate that simple biopolymers could be produced through natural conditions, it failed to address a critical question, and in doing so caused many subsequent generations to ignore that aspect of naturalistic origins as well. That ignored question is simply ‘from where did the information for the construction of life arise?’
Compared to the ultimate complexity of life, the naturalistic advent of amino acids would be simple child’s play. The real meat of the problem comes with the formation of proteins, genetic material, and the cell as a whole.
Like any good religion, secular naturalism holds its own view of the origin of life. Its adherents believe that, several billion years ago, in a warm, moist world, inorganic natural compounds coalesced into the first self-replicating molecules, leading to the rise of the first simple life forms sometime afterwards. This process, originally termed chemical evolution, has more recently been referred to as abiogenesis. Darwin himself entertained this notion in his later years, declaring in a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker that life may have originated in a “warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes.”(1)
Proponents of the evolution theory assert that both macroevolution and adaptation are in fact two faces of the same coin, with adaptive changes over time accumulating until macroevolution has been accomplished, altering one form of organism into a tangibly different one. Indeed, the mechanism that drives the process at each stage is the same, a buildup of genetic mutations and other factors that cumulatively alter the physiology of an organism. The critical element between the two processes is time. Time and the generational progression of a species. Though adaptive shifts can occur in only a few generations, macroevolution requires hundreds or thousands of generations.
Evolution, in all its publicity, is rarely discussed without an almost holy reverence, and certainly never criticized by the mainstream. It is promoted as an undeniable reality, and that level of propagandization has swayed many into accepting the theory as uninhibited fact. Honestly however there is a great deal to discuss that I believe is critical to an overall understanding of what evolution is and what it isn’t. Among the most important consideration is the fact that evolution, rather than being a singular process, can neatly be divided into two separate phenomena: microevolution and macroevolution.
In the wake of Darwin’s revelations, the life science disciplines began to scramble in order to make sense of evolution and how it applied to their respective fields. In time, much of the established dogma was abandoned as new material flooded the scientific landscape. It was not a smooth transition by any stretch, with many proposing alternative variations of evolution and the processes that drive it. Ultimately each was abandoned. Continue reading “The Modern Myth”
Young Charles, blessed with a life of privilege, was reared to be a man dedicated to the call of science. His father, Dr. R. W. Darwin, an irreligious medical doctor, began grooming him to follow in his footsteps as a physician, and in 1825, at the age of 16, Charles enrolled in the University of Edinburgh Medical School as an apprentice doctor. Much to his father’s dismay, his foray into the field of medicine was short lived, with Darwin disinterested in his studies and finding himself ill at the very sight of blood.