When it comes to the subject of the origin of life, there are two basic views. Either life has arisen from the “goo” by some spontaneous process shaped by chance and time, or there is an intelligent Creator God who brought life into existence according to a plan and by His design.
While evolution claims that the “non-life to life view” is true, no one has ever observed this process happening. In fact there is a law of biology that refutes it – all life that has ever been observed, comes from life that already exists.
THE LAW OF BIOGENESIS
Further, as every scientist understands, for a theory to be scientific, there has to be physical evidence and repeatable experimentation to back the idea up. What has been a mystery to me is the fact that when it comes to the origin of life from non-life, evolutionists change the rules regarding what science is and what it isn’t.
For years creationists have been pointing out the fact that no one has ever observed non-life becoming life spontaneously. Perhaps this is why evolutionary scientists are now boasting non-life can become life in the lab with a bit of “applied intelligence” to help the process along.
For example, pay close attention to the following statement from an article titled “Creating First Synthetic Life Form” posted on the Internet, December 23, 2005:
The University of British Columbia is working on the first human-made species -- a microbe made from scratch. The project is being spearheaded by Craig Venter, who gained fame by completing a privately-owned map of the human genome in 2000. Several groups are trying to make synthetic genes in hopes of constructing microbes that perform useful tasks, such as producing industrial chemicals, clean energy or drugs. The Columbia team is pushing the technology to its limits by trying to put together an entirely synthetic genome.
A number of evolutionists were very enthusiastic about this “first human-made species” assembled by the University of British Columbia team. It seemed this achievement had provided conclusive evidence that the origin of life by some spontaneous chance process had now irrefutably proven the origin of life.
EVOLUTIONISTS CLAIM LIFE CAME FROM NON-LIFE
However, the article did say that “scientists” at the University of British Columbia were responsible for the engineering of the first “human-made species.” Further, we were told that this “scientific team” was “pushing technology” to its limits by trying to put together an entirely synthetic genome.
Now, please think about this carefully, critically and scientifically. If evolution only requires matter, time and chance for life to originate from non-life, why would a team of intelligent scientists pushing technology to its limits be necessary? I thought the point evolutionists are trying to make is that no intelligence is required.
Recently an American judge ruled that the teaching of intelligent design in Pennsylvania schools was unconstitutional because it was not scientific and nothing more than "a religious view."
However, stop and think! Isn’t there something wrong with this explanation? How can design initiated by intelligent scientists prove that design in nature is the product of unintelligence?
Am I missing something?