FALLACY #2 -- LIFE CAN COME FROM DEAD MATERIAL

Let's consider a second scientific fallacy of evolution. This is the claim that life can be made from dead material. Taken to the extreme, this claim states that all the universe, including living things, came from the explosion of gases, mostly hydrogen, in the Big Bang billions of years ago. After the Big Bang, hydrogen and other gases eventually coalesced into galaxies and stars; around some stars evolved planets like the earth, and finally on planets like the earth evolved life. The only thing that makes this scenario seem plausible is the huge mind-boggling time scale of billions and billions of years. It has been facetiously quipped, "Hydrogen is a colorless, odorless gas which, if given enough time, turns into people."

Actually the whole process of development from a simple gas to complex living things is less likely than a city repairing itself after being demolished in a war zone. There is no hint of this type of repair observed anywhere, yet evolutionary philosophy often claims to be scientifically observable! Since evolution believes in processes that we cannot really see, it falls outside the domain of science. It is a philosophy.

A major claim made by evolutionary philosophy is that, since life supposedly evolved from dead matter, scientists should also be able to create life in a test tube. Evolutionary scientists have for years been striving to show how life could be made in the lab from dead material. One classic example is the production of "microspheres" by Sidney Fox. The microspheres are microscopic spheres of protein, and Fox claims that somehow these are like living cells. But the microspheres do not have any of the structure of an actual cell. Even more to the point, since the early 1800s scientists have known that proteins and other organic chemicals can be manufactured from dead, inorganic substances. Thousands of chemical plants around the world carry out these syntheses every day.

We see then that organic chemicals can be made in the lab, but these chemicals are not life. No one has ever made life in the lab. All attempts to do so have produced complex but dead globules of molecules, or have utilized already living components. And even if life could be made in the lab, it still would not prove that life evolved by chance. After all, the so-called "generation-of-life" experiments such as the experiments of Sidney Fox, cost millions of dollars and take up thousands of man-hours. Ironically, the evolutionist working to generate life could summarize his attempts by saying, "If I can just synthesize life here, then I will have proved that no intelligence was necessary to form life in the beginning!"

Even if life could be produced in the lab, it would not prove that evolution had followed the same path in the past. Amazingly, if any scientist could ever make a reproducing, replicating molecule in the lab, it would simply show what the Bible has always taught, that life has come only by the action of intelligence. In reality, man will never be able to generate life in the lab anyway, because only God can create the breath of life. The most that science could ever do would be to produce a physical body, but the breath of life comes from God Himself. This is the essence of life that science can never produce.

We have now examined two fallacies of evolution, the claim that life can vary without limit, and the claim that life can come from dead material. The data of science show that neither claim is true. These claims are therefore scientifically false.