Science Schmience 2

“The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going.”
- Sir Francis Crick

The Origin of Species… and Life
So not only did I just plagiarize that title from Charles Darwin, but I also intend on suggesting that his evolutionary theory is insufficient in explaining the origin of life. Said theory unquestionably describes one of many driving forces of producing incredible variation within a species, and whether or not it causes speciation is questionable, but I’m inclined to believe that it is seriously lacking in explaining how life began in the first place.
But let’s start specifically with the speciation aspect of Darwin’s theory (which some people might refer to as “macroevolution”, but uh, even scientists have disagreements over this terminology). Actually, I’m not going to bother going into much (make that “any”) detail with this topic because it’s a pretty tired issue with regard to the Creation vs. Evolution debate, and I doubt that I can shed any new insight into it. I could go on and on about the apparent deficiency of transitional forms (sources such as National Geographic are accountable for several cases of misinformation about “missing links” in the fossil record) or the lack of reproducible, experimental data (there have been documented laboratory attempts in speciation using fruit flies and such, all of which failed) and get absolutely no where, because, seriously, there is not enough evidence for either side given the predetermined bias that we have when approaching such a subject. There is one thing I would like to point out, however. Genesis 1 relates the order that certain life forms came to existence, which was later shown to correlate perfectly with fossil records, which was even later applied to an outline of how life theoretically evolved from one common ancestor. Theories based on clear observations and evidence are certainly scientifically derived, but could it be that ancient text describing seemingly unimportant yet highly detailed information proving to be accurate despite a lack of knowledge or even intent were miraculously derived? Perhaps it was just a coincidence, along with the 300 plus Messianic prophecies that were fulfilled in the short lifetime of Jesus Christ. But I digress.
The more important issue of Darwinism (in terms of objecting to creation) is that it fails to explain how life initiated from non-life. I’m sure most people are familiar with the primordial soup idea, which many science rookies cradle as the answer to the origin-of-life question. Basically, Stanley Miller simulated what was thought to be earth’s early atmospheric conditions in a flask, shot electricity through it to imitate lightning, and, soon enough, discovered that amino acids have formed, which are the building blocks of proteins. Even though a long string of amino acids have to be grouped in just the right way to create one protein molecule, and an even larger collection of proteins have to be arranged to create one cell, and all of that requires DNA or RNA, the creation of which was an even larger problem and has never been accomplished in any sort of laboratory condition, the Miller experiment was still significant… historically. What the average Joe doesn’t know is that the Miller experiment was actually flawed; the primordial atmosphere was nothing like what Miller had assumed, and under the actual conditions, the experiment simply did not work. Even Miller himself later conceded, “The problem of the origin of life has turned out to be much more difficult than I, and most other people, envisioned.”
I have to admit that I was miffed when I first heard that bit of news. I actually didn’t believe it to be true, especially since my science textbooks didn’t mention it. And, in case you don’t believe me, here’s an article that I found on that subject: Reflections from a Warm Little Pond.

The article also mentions two newer theories that have emerged, but they each pose major problems as well. Miller likewise expresses his distaste in both theories. On seeding from space, he says:

If you don't make [organic compounds] on Earth, you have to bring them in on comets, meteorites or dust. Certainly some material did come from these sources. In my opinion the amount from these sources would have been too small to effectively contribute to the origin of life.

On vents in the ocean:

I have a very simple response to that. Submarine vents don't make organic compounds, they decompose them. Indeed, these vents are one of the limiting factors on what organic compounds you are going to have in the primitive oceans. At the present time, the entire ocean goes through those vents in 10 million years. So all of the organic compounds get zapped every ten million years. That places a constraint on how much organic material you can get. Furthermore, it gives you a time scale for the origin of life. If all the polymers and other goodies that you make get destroyed, it means life has to start early and rapidly. If you look at the process in detail, it seems that long periods of time are detrimental, rather than helpful.

In Discover Magazine, he even goes as far to say, “The vent hypothesis is a real loser. I don’t understand why we even have to discuss it.”
Even if the amino acids from meteorites or vents in the ocean did amount to anything, it still doesn’t answer the question of how amino acids were capable of linking together to form actual proteins without the help of genetic information.
Clearly, scientists have yet to discover a natural way of creating life spontaneously. Until then, I can’t see why it would be unreasonable to deduce that the solution is not natural at all, and I am compelled to believe that the origin of life was indeed a supernatural phenomenon.

Side Note: Objective Morals
Honestly, I could care less about how life happened to appear and whether or not species are capable of evolving into separate ones if it weren’t for my belief that humans are distinct from all other forms of life in that we have a sense of objective morals. An evolutionist would claim that morals are the result of socio-biological evolution, and what we deem as right or wrong is simply a matter of what is or isn’t beneficial in ensuring the endurance of humanity. Philosopher of science Michael Ruse asserts that “Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth… Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction… and any deeper meaning is illusory.” If that’s the case, then any action that is supposedly good or bad is simply a matter of taste. If that’s the case, then persecution of homosexuals is justifiable because they’re not contributing to the survival or our species. If that’s the case, then rape isn’t actually evil; it only became taboo because it wasn’t necessarily an efficient means of reproduction. If that’s the case, then there is no need to get so upset over a loved one dying from an illness because, hey, they’re just a consequence of natural selection, and they’re consuming less of the earth’s resources that could now be put to better use on a healthier individual – and such a statement is not offensive because, well, it’s true.
If morality is merely a product of evolution, then everything is morally neutral and dependent on an individual or a society. You don’t like discrimination? Torturing children? Mass genocide? That’s too bad; you have no right to accuse Hitler of being an evil person when he was only expressing his personal preferences and taking survival-of-the-fittest to the extreme, because there is no difference between good or evil in the first place.
I don’t think morality works that way, however. I do believe that there are some absolutes. I do believe that the ethics of certain issues is independent of what others believe to be true. Even if Hitler didn’t mind attempting to wipe out entire populations, even if thousands followed his lead, heck, even if the entire world thought that what he did was okay, the Holocaust was still evil no matter what. My sense of objective morality – and that of humanity – does not come from evolution; the only logical source is from God.