Spontaneous Generation

 

Directed by All-powerful selection, chance becomes a sort of providence, which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshipped.” (1) Grasse

“Life from non life”?

‘An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.” Francis Crick, co-discover of DNA, ‘Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature’, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY, 1981 p. 75

“Life Science” ch. 1-2. “Where does life come from?” pp. 10,11

In this chapter the old medieval theory of spontaneous generation is discussed. The text states, “For much of history people believed that living things came from non- living matter, an idea called “spontaneous generation”. The text goes on to explain, quite rightly, how Redi and later Pasteur clearly disproved this idea. It then relates how this medieval belief was replaced by the idea of biogenesis, meaning life can only come from life. This is often referred to as the First Law of Biology.

Strangely enough the text then goes on to suggest that life did indeed come from non life, sometime in the distant past. In other words, after praising Redi and Pasteur for dispelling the medieval myth of spontaneous generation, the textbook appears to be promoting this myth as a reality.

This is a very large problem for people who want to believe in evolution. As the Nobel Prize winning scientist George Wald (2) suggested, it would have been far better for evolutionists if both Pasteur and Redi had been proven wrong. Why? For the simple reason that belief in evolution demands a faith in spontaneous generation and that requires a violation of the first law of biology, the law of biogenesis.

Despite contrived experiments by men like Miller, empirical science knows nothing of life emerging spontaneously from dead matter. And remember, even if the many intelligent scientists using their brains, test tubes, and millions of dollars did succeed at creating life, this would not be the same as life emerging spontaneously (by itself) without the “help” of an intelligent designer.

Dead matter does not form itself into complex biological machines, let alone machines capable of self reproduction. Why would it?

At any rate, at the very beginning, it would appear that the theory of evolution goes dead against the first law of Biology, “Life begets Life”. If life arose from dead matter in the distant past, Man certainly didn’t observe it. But we do know for a fact, it’s not happening today. Therefore it definitely can’t be claimed as a fact of empirical or observable operational science.

(1) Pierre Rene Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press N.Y. p. 107

(2) “We tell this story (Pasteur’s falsification of spontaneous generation) to beginning students of biology as though it represents a triumph of reason over mysticism. In fact it is very nearly the opposite. The reasonable view (from an atheist mindset) was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative is to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position.” George Wald, nobel prize winning scientist, The Origin of Life, Scientific American, vol. 191(2) August 1954 p.46

The Problem of Spontaneous Generation; Quotes (only evolutionist’s quoted)

“No matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have had a random beginning…There is no way in which we can expect to avoid the need for information, no way in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup, as we ourselves hoped might be possible a year or two ago.”

Hoyle and Wickramasinge, Evolution from Space as quoted by Thaxton, Bradery,Olsen p.l96. (Hoyle was Nobel Prize winning scientist)

“And so we see that even if we believe that the “building blocks” are available, they do not make spontaneously make proteins, at least not by chance. The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability…” Yockey, Information Theory and Molecular Biology’, p. 2 79

“…calculable values of the probability of spontaneous origin are so low that the final probabilities are still vanishingly small.” Morowitz, Energy Flow in Biology, p. 12

“More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution, have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life rather than to its solution.”

Klaus Dose, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 13 (4), 348, 1988

“If all the matter in space consisted of DNA molecules of the structural complexity of the bacterial genome, with random sequences, then the chances of finding among them a bacterial genome or something resembling one would still be completely negligible.” Kuppers, Information and the Origin of Life, the MIT Press, 1990, np.59-60

“I have said for years that speculations about the origins of life lead to no useful purpose as even the simplest living system is far too complex to be understood in terms of the extremely primitive chemistry scientists have used in their attempts to explain the unexplainable…” Earnest Chain, Nobel Prize winning biochemist. Quoted by R. Clark in The Life of Earnest Chain, pg. 148.

2 Responses to Spontaneous Generation

  1. face reality says:

    In fact it’s biblical literalism which still holds the arcane notions of extreme spontaneous generation of macro-organisms (not only microbes, which are still a problem anyway). Not only it’s believed that animals sprout from the earth and water “like plants” (which also sprout from descent, by the way), but it’s thought that sorcerers can create animals with magic, like it’s said they do in the bible. But that was never, ever, reproduced in any lab or church.

    Non-biblical-literalist scientists in the other hand only ascribe to the observed forms of spontaneous generation, which are inorganic chemistry spontaneously assembling into organic chemistry and increasing degrees of chemical complexity depending upon the circumstances. That’s still a long way from actually knowing the whole gradation from “non-living” matter and the simplest possible living organisms, but the truth is that there’s no fundamental difference between living and non-living matter, only organization, which also occurs spontaneously.

    The law of biogenesis, that is, that life comes from life, has on one side universal common ancestry as a consequence, and gradual abiogenesis in the other. There’s absolute no evidence of fully-formed macro-organisms (or micro organisms) being independently originated from earth and water, coincidentally looking just as if they were biologically related.

    Like

    • notmanynoble says:

      That arcane notion you mention is taught in every classroom textbook my kids had and that I had. Raw energy destroys, it doesn’t cause life to organize from dead matter. The biological machine that is able to process energy must be there first. Even my college biology professor begrudgingly admitted that.
      “Since science does not have the faintest idea how life on Earth originated…, it would be honest to confess this to other scientists, to grantors, and to the public at large. Prominent scientists speaking ex cathedra, should refrain from polarizing the minds of students and young scientists with statements based solely on beliefs.” Yockey. Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol.91, p.13

      Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s