The Forgotten Story of Our Earth, #4: Stories about Origins
The Evolutionary story (the short version) goes something like this: billions of years ago on our earth there was a chemical soup, and in that soup the right chemicals came together to form amino acids, the building blocks of life. Under the right conditions, these acids eventually came together to form the first cell.
From the first cell evolved more complex organisms. Over millions and millions of years this process has gone on, until finally mammals evolved. These mammals did not rule the earth in their day, but would eventually come to rule the earth in the present era. In the present day, humans are the pinnacle of the evolutionary chain.
As stated in my previous blogs, there are always assumptions when it comes to Evolution (in this case macroevolution). When this story is told, rarely does one see much material on how all of this happened; those who hear it are just supposed to believe that it did.
Here is what the above story assumes:
1. That the earth is billions of years old.
2. That the environment is just as described.
3. That the right chemicals were naturally and readily available (as opposed to everything just being made of stone).
4. That physical conditions would allow such chemicals to come together in just the right amounts
5. That once the building blocks of life came together, it could be animated naturally.
6. That there are no boundaries to the power of Evolution.
Assumptions such as these may not have seemed like much of a stretch when Darwin wrote his Origin of Species, but considering what we know about life today, all of the above assumptions may be called into question.
First of all, evidence from the orbit of the moon, to observations on the sun, to the various natural processes which occur on the earth (such as erosion) point to a young age for the Earth. Secondly, since we can’t empirically observe the original environment of the earth, how do we know it wasn’t simply different than the way evolutionists describe it? Related to this observation, we are to assume that there was a chemical soup just as described, but who is to say that there should have been the right material to allow for the composition of life? Why did there even have to be the building blocks of life? Could not all of the universe have been one big black vacuum, absent of light? Why did there have to be any amino acids in the first place, or even water, which for life is one of the most important molecules found in abundance on the earth? Furthermore, physics has suggested that the probability of the right chemicals coming together is so astronomical as to become impossible, as not only are the chains of acids so utterly complex, but such coming together is impeded by natural laws. Amino acids tend to naturally degrade rather than to come together. When we produce them synthetically it requires the proper conditions. If such an endeavor is difficult in a pristine lab, no doubt conditions are far from perfect in the field. Another issue is brought up when we speak of the issue of animation. It is one thing to have all the proper building blocks, and have all the engineering in its proper places; it is quite another to make it live. In other words, there is a chasm that not even we as the top of the food chain can cross, and that is the impassable chasm between life and death. Even if we could put all the proper building blocks together, it would not be possible for us to animate them.
Finally, it is simply a fact of life that certain boundaries between species—or in some cases, slightly higher on the taxonomical hierarchy—cannot be crossed. I am stating all of this in the simplest manner possible, so hopefully any accuracy has not been sacrificed here.
In the realm of Evolution, we do not have the ability to look at the described events and say that someone was there to witness them, so we have to make guesses. The story above was built on numerous assumptions. However, what if someone was there to witness everything as it happened and then record it? Those observations would certainly be greatly more valuable than blind guesses wouldn’t they?
The Scriptures actually claim that something like this occurred. The Bible tells us that God, who created the heavens and the earth was there. He passed this story on to men to record it. As the Creator, He would certainly be a valuable witness.
By Darwin’s time, men had a very different view of the Bible than they had in the past. Philosophical speculation over the course of time had paved the way for men, wise in their own thinking to reject what the Scriptures said. However, if what the Scriptures say about the beginning is true—and I believe that the story the Scriptures tell is true—then even the “wisest” men who reject them are errant in their thinking. –Cal Samuel August
Leave a Reply