The Origin of Life did not Happen by Chance

Page Contents:

A Computer is Designed, but the Designer came by Chance?

Some think that God is an imaginary being that people believe on faith to make them feel good. However, it also takes faith to be an atheist. An atheist must believe that DNA is the result of chance. The DNA molecule is like a very complicated computer program.

Nobody would believe that Windows 7 is the result of chance, but many believe that the human brain that created Windows 7 is the result of chance.

Below is a picture of Mount Rushmore. Four faces were carved out of solid rock. It was caused by a process of time and chance. Over the course of many years, wind, rain and blowing sand carved the faces in the rock:

Mount Rushmore. Four faces were carved out of solid rock. It was caused by a process of time and chance

That sounds ridiculous to claim that erosion carved the faces into the rock, right? But, many people believe that the men who are depicted in the rock carving and the people who carved the rock are a result of a process of time and chance. I myself believed it for many years. A living thing is much more complex that a rock. It should sound just as ridiculous to say that life began by a process of time and chance.

One-celled Life is not Simple. It is Incredibly Complex

Years ago, microscopes weren’t nearly as good as they are now. The cell used to look like a blob and it was easy to think that a blob could come about by accident. We have better microscopes now. According to Michael Behe, a biochemist, a cell is run like a really a big city with freeways to deliver nutrients and garbage to their destinations. For more information, see his book:

 Darwin’s Black Box:
The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution
by Michael J. Behe
Darwin's Black Box

There are other people besides Biblical creationists who do not believe that life is a process of time and chance. These people support the Intelligent Design Theory. Michael Behe is a major proponent. He believes that the scientific evidence supports the notion that life requires a designer and that the cell is too complex to be a product of time and chance. The black box in the title of his book refers to the cell.

There is an illustration of a Bacterial Flagellum on the front flap of “Darwin’s Black Box”. This is the little gizmo that turns the little hairs on a bacterium so it can move around. The parts are all labeled, bushings, universal joint, rotor, drive shaft, and so on. It is a microscopic machine just to turn one little hair on a little bitty bacterium. Henry Ford invented the Model T a long time before the microscopes were very powerful otherwise, I might think he used this as an example of an efficient motor.

Spontaneous Generation was Disproved Long Ago

Spontaneous Generation is a theory that was developed many years ago. It said that living organisms developed from non-living matter. It was proven false by Louis Pasteur. Here is an except of an address that Louis Pasteur delivered at the “Sorbonne Scientific Soiree” of April 7, 1864:

No, there is not a single known circumstance in which microscopic beings may be asserted to have entered the world without germs, without parents resembling them. Those who think otherwise have been deluded by their poorly conducted experiments, full of errors they neither knew how to perceive, nor how to avoid.

Pasteur said this in 1864, yet many people still prefer to believe that life can come from non-life rather that attribute the origin of life to a miracle.

People Still Believe in Spontaneous Generation

Even many scientists today can see the problems with proving it, but they believe anyway, even without the proof that it needs.

For example, this biologist says flat out says he believes in something that he knows is not proven:

Wald, George, The Origin of Life, in The Physics and Chemistry of Life (Simon & Schuster, 1955), 270 pp. p. 9

One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are — as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.The important point is that since the origin of life belongs in the category of at-least-once phenomena, time is on its side. However improbable we regard this event, … given enough time it will almost certainly happen at least once …

Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the impossible becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs miracles.

He believes this on faith, and he admits it.

An Example of Doublethink

One semester in health science class I was taught about how Spontaneous Generation had been disproven. In the Biology class, the same semester, I was taught that is was proven that life emerged from inorganic chemicals.

In his book “1984”, George Orwell coined the word “Doublethink” to mean the belief of two contradictory things at the same time.

  • Spontaneous Generation: False
  • Abiogenesis: True

I was able to hold both thoughts for several decades, then I gave up and had to choose one.

DNA Could Not Have Happened By Chance

The DNA molecule contains all the directions to make life, every component, the skin, the heart, the brain, the bones, the muscles, and so forth. I would like to challenge any one of you to make a computer program to do any O
NE thing where the program fits on an information storage device so small you cannot even see it. When James Watson and Francis Crick discovered DNA they did not really see it, they saw its shadow and from the shadow they hypothesized what the shape was.

DNA can only work in the cell, and a cell is made by the directions in the DNA. The whole kit and caboodle had to come about by chance all at the same time or it would not even work. Scientists do not quite understand DNA yet. It took years to map the genome. If DNA is so simple that it happened by accident, why did it take so long to just write a list of all of its parts?

Life Requires More Than Biology

Why do bodies die in the emergency room? Why cannot the repair be made and the body jumpstarted back to life? Life is said to have come from the gathering of random inorganic chemicals. If that is so, why does a body die? There are just as many chemicals before death as after death.

My comments refer to the origin of life. If creation by God is not an option, then random chemicals got together and formed the first living cell. If this could happen (it has never been proven) how are we sure it would be alive? A dead body has as many cells as a live body.

“Life” is something outside of just the physical components of biology.

How did life begin?

I was too hard headed to just up and believe that there is a God, especially at my age. However, through a process of elimination while I was studying the proof for life arising spontaneously from nonlife, I was able to determine scientifically and logically that it was not true. This was a big surprise to me, I tell you what! I had believed it all my life, and remember I was in my forties. My beliefs were fairly set in stone. However, when I found no proof that life began without god, the basis of my disbelief in god had no justification.

How do Birds and Butterflies Migrate?

Some birds and butterflies migrate thousands of miles to places they have never been to before. Science does not know how they navigate. People need maps and other navigational aids to fly somewhere in a plane. Should not a highly evolved human being be better at navigating than a butterfly? Science does not know exactly how birds and butterflies navigate. If creation by God is not an option, then birds and butterflies evolved capabilities that more highly evolved creatures, humans, do not have. Evolution is about the improvement of life. Butterflies are insects, far down on the evolutionary scale. How could they have such an advanced capability that humans, the most highly evolved life, does not have?

Our Technology Cannot Improve Upon Nature

There are many things in nature that our technology cannot replicate, much less improve upon. Why? Things in nature are said to be a product of chance. It seems that our technology would be able to improve upon things that happened by chance.

Here is an example:

I am a birdwatcher. This is something I think about often. Birds can land on a piece of wire or branch about as big around as their eyeball. Airplanes are designed by human beings, highly evolved human beings. Why cannot an intelligently designed machine do something as well as a random happenstance bird? Why cannot man design an airplane that slows down, grabs onto a perch, and remains upright? Why cannot an airplane land on something as big around as the cockpit window? Why cannot an airplane maneuver as well as a bird? If a bird is just a random chance occurrence, and humans are the most advanced life on earth, why cannot humans come up with a design that works better than a random chance?

Life On Earth Was Designed

God designed life on earth. God designed his creations in such a way as to demonstrate his existence. The evidence is there.


14 responses to “The Origin of Life did not Happen by Chance

  1. Pingback: Reasons Why I Believe in God: Introduction and Summary of | Reasons Why I Believe in God

  2. Pingback: Reasons Why I Believe in God: Outline of my website | Life in Our Backyard

  3. I want to believe in God creation and the christian way of life,but there things
    that puzzle me and i would like to know the truth if there is any truth.
    If God loves us so much and he knows every word we speak and every
    thought. why does he speak in dreams and signs. I have heard a lot of
    preachers say Ithank God is trying to tell us somthing.If God had s[oken in
    a language he could understand then he would have been shure of what God
    ment no doubt.

    • John

      God no longer is speaking to us in dreams and visions, angel visitations, or any other supernatural way. God only speaks to humans through His Word, the Bible.

      This can be proved by reading Revelation 22:18, which states that if anyone adds to the Words of the Bible, God will add to him the plagues written therein. In other words, that person will still be under the wrath of God, i.e., it will be evidence that they are not saved.

      God is under the same Law as we are (Psalm 138:2), and so He will not supernaturally reveal Himself to any person. If He did so, He would violate Revelation 22:18, and this, of course, is not possible with God.

      Note: God did perform miracles at one time, such as dividing the Red Sea, raising the dead, walking on water, speaking in dreams and visions, etc., because at that time, the Bible was not yet finished. God was still adding to His Word, His Revelation to man, and so He was able to supernaturally act in the world.

      The preachers who teach that God is still speaking today in dreams and visions, etc., do not understand the Bible. They are in violation of Revelation 22:18. They do not understand that the ONLY Words we are to understand as coming from God today are all of the Words of the Bible, and nothing more.

  4. Just a thought,
    Near death expiriences at that moment are both within and outside the physcial body-Aware that they are dead yet looking down at er team-etc,ete
    This seems to me a cue,as to jesus 2 quotes on a state of exsietence both ouside and within a person,dead or alive.
    The Kingdom of God is in your midst-and also,the kingdom is within you
    WHEN HE Jesus tells nathanial, you will hear after see heavan opened and beings asending and desending from hevan,well its quite profound to me any way,and jacobs ladder here is relevent also.
    Science has life and its meaning and origens all sewn up in to a unifyed certainty,but its not so clinical as that,we are missing a key part to life we dont have all the answers but niever does science,

  5. Matt

    You said that “God designed life on earth. God designed his creations in such a way as to demonstrate his existence. The evidence is there.” this would include the bacterial flagellum wouldn’t it? Therefore God created the bacterial flagellum as one evidence of his design.

    Now the bacterial flagellum participate in the cause of quite a few bacterial diseases, including diarrhea, ulcers and urinary tract infections. If God is directly responsible for flagella then he is implicated as a cause of human diseases. Diarrhea is no joke; it is a leading cause of infant death in some parts of the world. To make matters worse, one can hardly give the God credit for the bacterial flagella without also crediting him with TTSS’s in general. This puts God solidly behind Bubonic plague and many other diseases .

    So are you saying that in order for God to show off how good a designer he is he has caused the deaths of millions?

    • Student

      This argument shows your lack of concern for logic as well as your lack of understanding of the Scriptures. If you’re going to follow the premise that God created life, then you have to continue with that train of thought along its Biblical path. God created the world without imperfection and He called it good. The Fall of man is where sin, death, disease, and imperfection were introduced. Whether you believe it or not is not the point. The point is that if you’re going to build an argument, you have to build it on the full picture, not just the parts that are convenient. Otherwise, you, too, are guilty of quote mining.

  6. Matt

    You have quote mined again. In this case it’s from George Wald’s The Origin of Life where you say “For example, this biologist says flat out says he believes in something that he knows is not proven:”

    Please correct your quote so that it shows the intended meaning. I point you now to a talkorigins link which shows why what you have quoted is mined and explains in full detail what George Wald actually meant.

    • Student

      Actually he did the quote justice and did not represent the meaning of the quote. From your own link, George Wald’s point in that whole discourse was that:
      “The important point is that since the origin of life belongs in the category of at-least-once phenomena, time is on its side. However improbable we regard this event, or any of the steps which it involves, given enough time it will almost certainly happen at least once. And for life as we know it, with its capacity for growth and reproduction, once may be enough.”
      This was not misrepresented. George Wald is indeed saying that he believes this on the basis that just because it was never reproduced does not mean that it could not have happened once. Based on that logic, where are the limitations? It seems this school of thought abandons all scientific process and logic.

  7. Matt

    You say “I was able to hold both thoughts for several decades, then I gave up and had to choose one.” yes that would be the truth of evolution or the fraud of literal biblical creation that a 5 year old could poke holes in.

  8. Matt

    You say “Nobody would believe that Windows 7 is the result of chance”. I do but then I’m a Linux nut. I tend to agree with any comment that makes MS Windoze sound like crap. That said there is a huge difference between say a piece of software that runs on a pc and replicating living cell.

    Lets start with the basics.

    1. an argument that god created life isn’t an argument against Evolution itself. Evolution occurs after life has started.
    2. What Louis Pasteur and the others who denied spontaneous generation demonstrated is that life does not currently spontaneously arise in complex form from nonlife in nature; he did not demonstrate the impossibility of life arising in simple form from nonlife by way of a long and propitious series of chemical steps/selections. In particular, they did not show that life cannot arise once, and then evolve.
    3. Even if the chance of Abiogenesis is extremely small that is really no proof that it didn’t occur since the odds of it happening now, that it has happened, makes the odds null and void. It’s like predicting the chance of you, as in your particular genome, being born.
    4. The only way to disprove Abiogenesis is to show that it hasn’t occurred or that something else happened instead. Talking purely about chances doesn’t cut it. Prove literal biblical creation and then you’ll be able to show we are wrong about Abiogenesis. Note: quote mining and bad science aren’t proof.
    5. The Bacterium Flagellum is not Irreducibly Complex. There is a great video by CDK007 on youtube at . Check it out and please try and show where CDK007 is wrong.

  9. John

    I too believe that life did not come from nowhere, by accident. I agree that life is far too complex to have happened by chance, there is some element of pattern, a code, a key to life. However this does not make me believe in religion. Some people really need to get their heads out the bible and engage their intellect. God, Jesus and all this blah blah is mythology written when man new nothing and looked for some understanding. Wakey wakey folks its now 2012, don’t you think its time you put the kids books down!

  10. BlueBallsBilly

    If you think about it, everything has a genesis. So if there is no intelligent being creating the matter that is said to have created everything, where was ITS genesis? Where did the matter that spawned our universe come from if there is nothing to create it? Doesn’t that void BOTH theories?Things don’t arise out of nowhere…

Leave a Reply to John Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s