Before I move forward, I need to complete a thought I raised in the previous post about origins. I mentioned that while biological evolution is obvious in both the fossil and DNA records, on the micro scale there are serious issues. The first problem is with abiogenesis. The second is in the area of transitional forms of complex systems.

The Problem with Abiogenesis

Abiogenesis is the process of where non-living chemicals evolve into life forms. The primary definition of life is the ability to reproduce. We were taught in school that life spontaneously appeared through a long process where certain chemical compounds were converted into amino acids (the building blocks of protein) and then further evolved into the first cell of life.

When I was in high school, it was presumed that biogenesis happened when lightning hit a primordial soup of chemicals with a precise recipe. This was based on an experiment in 1953 (Miller-Urey Experiment) when sparks of electricity were introduced into a carefully created soup of chemicals and basic amino acids were produced. In 1977 this model was changed after volcanic vents were discovered on the floor of the Pacific Ocean. It was then assumed that it was more likely that biogenesis occurred in that high energy environment.

However, there is one problem. There is no mechanism within science that can create life out of non-life, not in 4.5 billion years, not in 4.5 trillion years, not in 4.5 quadrillion years. According to one documentary I watched about the problems in science, abiogenesis was listed in the top five.

Here’s the problem. An amino acid is like one brick, and it takes a functioning brick building with all the mechanisms of a building, electrical, plumbing, heat, etc. to be a protein. A functioning cell of proteins, which can reproduce (the requirement for life) is like a city of brick buildings with all the infrastructure of a city. So, if you had a wet, clay patch that was trampled by many animals, rainstorms, and wind, it is possible sometime within 4.5 billion years that clay could form a rectangle shape, that of a brick. You could even have many entangled bricks, representing polymers. But it is impossible that a city would ever form in that patch, even in infinite time. This is not hyperbole.

I’ve mentioned before, in 1990, when I considered leaving theism and was pondering atheism, I soon found that atheism held some of the same problems as religion (of which I am no fan). One of biggest problems of religion is that it starts with a conclusion (dogma) and tries to create evidence to support that conclusion. The Young-Earth Creationists are terrible at this. They start with the dogma that the earth is only six thousand years old and there was a worldwide flood. Since there is no scientific evidence to support that view, they use deception to manufacture evidence. They claim to be Biblical, however the Bible says nothing about the age of the earth, but does say in the Ten Commandments, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” Bearing false witness is the cornerstone of their arguments.

In this case of abiogenesis, the atheist starts with a conclusion, there is no creative god, therefore they must find a way for life to start, even though there is no evidence that’s even possible. This is why some have resorted to such ideas as panspermia, that life came here from other planets via meteorites, or planted here by alien beings. This only kicks the can, the beginning of life, down the road.

If you are interested in studying this issue more, I highly recommend a “debate” and discussion about this problem held at Harvard. It is almost three hours long but is quite good. See it here. It is a debate between the scientist Dr. James Tour, a theist and abiogenesis researcher, and Dr. Lee Cronin, an atheist and abiogenesis researcher. I must add that I was a bit disappointed with Dr. Cronin, who is a leader in the field, but did not use science to refute Dr. Tour (I believe because there is none) but used an Ad Hominem Argument (claiming that you cannot trust Dr. Tour’s view because he is a theist).

Good thinking can lead someone to atheism, but they only stay in atheism when they stop thinking

There is a famous quote, and I cannot find it this morning, that says something to the effect of, “Good thinking can lead someone to atheism, but they only stay in atheism when they stop thinking.” This is what happened to me personally in the 1990s. My Christian leader (whose hypocrisy caused me to start questioning the validity of Christianity) warned me, “Don’t think, or you will become an atheist.” But just as I could no longer accept Christianity with a blind faith, I didn’t just accept atheism but kept wrestling with the big questions. Abiogenesis was one of about five key reasons I found atheism absurd. Another reason was the problems with transitional forms in evolution.

The Problem with Evolutionary Transitional Forms in Complex Systems.

I am hesitant to bring this up because this is one of the key arguments of the Young Earth Creationists, with whom I strongly disagree. To be frank, the Young Earth Creationists lie about this issue. They claim there are no transitional forms in nature because they don’t believe in evolution at all.

The evidence of evolution is overwhelming. Yes, there are many, many transitional forms, even with our own species. There are fossils of at least 20 species in our hominid group (transitional between ape and human). The problem that does exist in evolution is the transition of complex systems. Evolution only works if the mutation increases the ability to reproduce. The eyeball is a good example of this issue, that it gives a huge advantage in the ability to survive to reproduce, but only if that complex system is complete. Yes, there are examples of a photo-sensitive nerve near the surface of some creatures, however, there is no partial eyeball, and if there was a partial eyeball, it would give no advantage and thus not be naturally selected.

Mike