Once again I drafted an answer to a post on a public discussion board wherein the atheist contends there is not controversy in the scientific community concerning the scientific certainty of the Darwin’s theory of evolution. I make no claim to being thorough and probably missed some of the best arguments, but thought, dear reader (dear reader? Okay, so I’m a century or so old and borrowed from the old English authors.) you might find these researched arguments interesting.
"Evolution" is one of those words that needs some definition, I propose, if we are to have meaningful discussion. I think most people understand certain principles of evolution in breeding livestock to give more milk, or to produce beefier cattle herds, or to develop a faster line of race horses. I understand there are over 200 purebred breeds of dogs (as opposed to multiple thousands more dogs we might affectionately call mutts), most of which do not look alike, and are bred specifically over time with man’s direction guiding the way to becoming an animal that reproduces true to the breed’s characteristics. In that sense, I doubt many scientists or non-scientists would claim there is scientific controversy about many of Darwin’s conclusions.
But here is the point, and I think the only point of our arguing this issue: Evolutionists have exalted Darwin’s theory far beyond Darwin and use the theory from the 1850s as the alleged scientific answer to creation, as well as the myriads of different creatures that cover the world. I am fairly certain Darwin wrote and atheists thereafter threw a big party; the explanation of how life came about was now "scientifically" formulated.
The speculation is–yes, "speculation" no matter how often or loudly they shout "science"–that the building blocks of life, amino acids, a slimy pond and lightning, somehow existed billions and billions of years ago (and if that is not long enough just add a few more billions). Those ingredients are necessary, yet the Darwinists don’t have a decent explanation or even a reasonably rational one about where the tiniest speck of space dust or whiff of gaseous matter came from...yet they think they can explain the formation of the first single cell and our evolved beginnings as humans. I’ve no doubt that "scientists" schooled in Darwin since grade school and continuing on to science being their chosen profession are extremely reluctant to admit to any scientific controversy. To most of them, whether atheists or theists, there is terrific pressure to further the "long accepted Darwin science." Yep, even subjective agendas get in the way of true scientific neutral testing.
I’m about to summarize from books of various scientist authors. It is near impossible to present an adequate post of readable length of such a subject or to highlight the academic credits, publications and peer esteem of the many authors. At any rate, I’ll present enough that we can see there is controversy about Darwin’s theories explaining the origins of life. An important book is "The Mystery of Life’s Origin," Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen. These men are in fact scientists with fine academics, terrific professional recognition and experience, with publications, etc. It is pointed out that Darwin came from a time when it was generally thought even among the average scientist that maggots spontaneously developed from decaying meat. Later, the famous Louis Pasteur further exploded such "scientific" ideas as ‘spontaneous generation’ by showing that things developed in known pure water because air contains microorganisms that multiply in water.
In more modern times, Miller gained fame by conducting a laboratory experiment by shooting electricity through his reconstruction of primitive earth atmosphere. He did form amino acids and he received the acclaim of numerous scientists. "For a while, evolutionists were euphoric." Then it seems that from 1980, as shown by NASA scientists, "science" became scientifically certain that the earth’s primitive atmosphere did not contain the ingredients Miller used to form amino acids. Miller had "stacked the deck" with methane, ammonia and hydrogen, when the primitive atmosphere had little or none of them. Scientists performed laboratory experiments repeatedly using the best scientific replication of primitive atmosphere and "It just won’t work."
This is not the first instance of the scientific community having their "science" found to be, if not outright fraud, based on eager haste to prove Darwin derived ideas correct. Ever hear of the Pitdown Man? For about 40 years or so doctoral dissertations were written in the finest universities by promising scientific genius wannabes explaining how the Piltdown Man provided all the proof anyone would ever need that Darwin’s theories were proven correct. Then it was discovered that Piltdown Man was a man-made fraud.
As late as 1905, one scientist, Haeckel, wrote saying living cells were relatively simple ‘homogeneous globules of plasm.’ He did not have the scientifically advanced laser microscopes, etc, of a modern lab to see the complexity within the membrane of a single simple cell. In fact, the description of the formation of a cell is a bit overwhelming: amino acids come in eighty different types, but only twenty are found in living organisms. Nature (ahem) and randon chance would have to isolate only the correct amino acids; then the right acids have to be linked in the right sequence to produce protein molecules. There are a lot of complicating factors. Other molecules tend to react more readily with amino acids than amino acids react with each other. In Miller’s experiment, only 2% of the material he produced was composed of amino acids. Lots of other chemical material would foul the process of forming something. Then, for what has been simplistically (to aid the understanding of a non-scientist as I am) described, there are an equal number of amino acids that are right- and left-handed and only left-handed ones work in living matter. So, as I understand, the selectively fewer types of amino acids must link up in the right order but they must also be left-handed! If, for the sake of argument, Miller had really done something, and IF he created amino acids, then perhaps as many as 100 amino acid particle molecules would have to come together in an exact way to make a single protein molecule--quite a chore for random chance. If you create a protein molecule you haven’t created life. Random chance would need to do the amino acids routine over and over again. It is said you might need about 200 protein molecules that assemble together "with just the right functions" before you could get a single cell organism. The process would be "mind-boggling." Now, if that is not complicated enough, I’m informed that every cell of every plant and animal has to have a DNA molecule. It’s DNA that enables reproducing the cell, along with a ghastly long list of tasks that I will not try to set forth.
DNA is something like a microprocessor that sorts things out. In summary, the "making of DNS and RNA would be an even greater problem than creating protein," and "much more complex." Klaus Dose, Biochemist in Mainz, Germany, acknowledged that the difficulties in synthesizing DNA and RNA are beyond our imagination. Nobel Prize winner Sir Frances Crick said, "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."
Now, germane to this thread, Bradley says the odds of Random Chance happening to assemble "a living organism are so astronomical that "nobody still believes that random chance accounts for the origin of life. ...the odds of creating just one functional protein molecule would be one chance in a 10 with 60 zeros after it."
I think it was 3-4 years ago that I ran across an article wherein around 300 scientists in Biochemistry, Molecular-biology, etc, including European and U.S. university and laboratory research scientists signed a simple statement that they question Darwin principles of random mutation and random chance being applicable to the formation of a living organism.
Because Random Chance has been basically rejected other theories have been offered. Chemical Affinity theory proposes that there must be some inherent attraction that might cause amino acids to link up in the correct sequence. Researchers studied and performed experiments. A team of scientists working together showed conclusively that the sequencing had nothing to do with chemical preferences. Even scientist Kenyon, the main proponent of the theory, has repudiated his own idea.
There are some other desperate ideas to try to explain how we could be "us" without a transcendent Creator. That is, Self-Ordering Tendencies, Seeding from Space (even more bizarre than the idea that God created everything), Vents in the Ocean, Life from Clay. These ideas have not stood the test of scientific scrutiny–summarily stated.
I fail to see how anyone could say with a straight face and without blushing there is not controversy about certain parts, at least, of Darwin’s theory. Yet, for the most part the scientific community clings to their faith in Darwin; denial of the slightest scientific doubt about Darwin is the atheists’ major defense of their fantastical beliefs even in the face of contrary modern scientific advances.
I’ve written only about biology, only one of the modern scientific fields wherein true "science" cannot find support for things just happening by chance. Before I write similarly on any other field I need a refresher course in my speed reading ability. Then even if I were to bring to you, "dear reader," persuasive information that many giants of the scientific world, in such other fields as astronomy for example, conclude that science has no answer we could never expect the Darwin community group to openly admit to a change of their minds.
After many words have been written and arguments made, my position is summarized for me by a hymn I was singing recently with lines (from memory), "I make no further argument, I make no further plea. I only know that Jesus died, and that He died for me." -–That is my ultimate position on this topic. Tear up the post, forget it immediately, if you will, but I know what I believe and my belief seems scientifically and religiously valid and very good to me.
