How Did Life Begin?

SOME might assume that a scientifically-minded person would

pick “evolution” and that a religious person would pick “creation.”

But not always.

Rama Singh, professor of biology at Canada’s McMaster University,

says: “The opposition to evolution goes beyond religious

fundamentalism and includes a great many people from educated

sections of the population.”

Consider Gerard, a professor of entomology who was taught

evolution at college. “When I took tests,” he says, “I would give

the professors the answers they wanted—but I did not believe it.”

Why is it that even some

scientifically-minded people

have trouble accepting evolution

as the origin of life? To

answer that, consider two

questions that baffle many researchers:

(1) How did life get

its start? and (2) How did living

things develop?

˙ Scientists can only speculate

about what conditions on earth

were like billions of years ago.

They have differing views about

where life began—for instance,

whether within a volcano or under

the ocean floor. Another belief

is that life’s building blocks

first formed elsewhere in the universe

and arrived here embedded

in meteors. But that does not answer

the question of how life began;

it just pushes the issue farther

into space.

˙ Scientists speculate about the

existence of molecules that preceded

genetic material as we

know it today. These molecules

are supposedly more likely to

arise spontaneously from inert

material and are self-replicating.

Yet, science has found no evidence

that such molecules ever

existed, nor have scientists been

able to create any such molecule

in a laboratory.

˙ Living things are unique in

the way they store and process

information. Cells convey, interpret,

and carry out instructions

contained within their genetic

code. Some scientists liken the

genetic code to computer software

and the chemical structure

of the cell to computer hardware.

But evolution cannot explain the

source of the information.

˙ Protein molecules are necessary

for the function of a cell. A

typical protein molecule consists

of hundreds of amino acids

strung together in a specific sequence.

Additionally, the protein

molecule must fold into a specific

three-dimensional shape for it

to be useful. Some scientists conclude

that the odds of even one

protein molecule forming spontaneously

are extremely improbable.

“Since a functioning cell requires

thousands of different

proteins,” writes physicist Paul

Davies, “it is not credible to suppose

they formed by chance

alone.”

CONCLUSION. After decades of research in virtually all branches

of science, the fact remains that life comes only from preexisting

life.

˙ Scientists have discovered within

each cell intricate molecular

machines composed of protein

molecules that cooperate to perform

complex tasks. These tasks

include transporting and converting

nutrients into energy, repairing

parts of the cell, and conveying

messages throughout the

cell. Could random mutations and

natural selection account for the

assembling and functioning of

such sophisticated components?

Many find that concept difficult to

accept.

˙ Animals and humans develop

from a single fertilized egg. Inside

the embryo, cells multiply

and eventually specialize, taking

on different shapes and functions

to form distinct parts of the body.

Evolution cannot explain how

each cell “knows” what to become

and where it should move

within the organism.

˙ Scientists now realize that for

one kind of animal to develop

into another kind of animal

would require that changes take

place within the cell, at the molecular

level. Since scientists cannot

demonstrate how evolution

can produce even the “simplest”

cell, is it plausible that random

mutations and natural selection

could be responsible for the different

kinds of animals on the

planet? Regarding the structure

of animals, Michael Behe, professor

of biological sciences, says

that while research “has revealed

unexpected, stunning complexity,

no progress at all has been made

in understanding how that complexity

could evolve by unintelligent

processes.”

˙ Human beings are conscious

and self-aware, have the ability to

think and reason, and possess

moral qualities such as generosity,

self-sacrifice, and a sense of

right and wrong. Random mutations

and natural selection cannot

explain the existence of these

unique qualities of the human

mind.

CONCLUSION. While many insist that an evolutionary origin of life

is an indisputable fact, others are not satisfied with the answers

that evolution provides regarding how life began and how life

developed.

AFTER considering the evidence, many people conclude

that life is the product of a superior intelligence.

Consider the example of Antony Flew, a professor

of philosophy who at one time was a leading

advocate of atheism. When he learned about the

staggering complexity of life and the physical laws of

the universe, Flew changed his opinion. Citing an ancient

approach to reasoning, he wrote: “We must follow

the argument wherever it leads.” For Professor

Flew, the evidence pointed to the existence of a

Creator.

Gerard, mentioned earlier in this series of articles,

came to a similar conclusion. Despite his advanced

education and his career in entomology, he said: “I

saw no proof that life arose spontaneously from nonliving

matter. The order and complexity of living

things convinced me that there has to be an Organizer

and Designer.”

Just as a person can learn about an artist by examining

his artwork, Gerard came to discern the Creator’s

qualities by studying the natural world. Gerard

also took time to consider a book attributed to the

Creator—the Bible. (2 Timothy 3:16) There he found

satisfying answers to questions about mankind’s

past and practical solutions to the problems facing

people today. He thus became convinced that the Bible

was also the product of a superior mind.

As Gerard found, the Bible’s answers are worth

considering. We encourage you to examine them for

yourself. ˛