Key Highlights

The National Academy of Sciences (10) acknowledges, “Two amino acids do not spontaneously join in water. Rather, the opposite reaction is thermodynamically favored.”

1. The reason for showing all the complex science is to provide evidence for intelligent design and the immense improbability of first life by abiogenesis.
2. Friedrich Nietzsche (11) said, “If one were to prove this God of the Christians to us, we should be even the less able to believe in him” and “It is our preference that decides against Christianity, not arguments.”
3. Even with a $10 million dollar prize for creating the first living cell, scientists cannot do it.
4. Every year more and more is discovered in the hardwiring of a cell and its complexity. No one knows what we will discover in the future. The more we learn about the cell the more we learn there is still much more to learn.
5. "the simplest conceivable life form (still much simpler than any actual organism) would have to be so complex that accidental self-assembly would be nothing short of miraculous even in two billion years.
6. "...we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
7. If the origin of life problem cannot be solved "inside the room", or "within materialistic parameters" then we must look for other ways of solving the case of the origin of first life. We know God by His effects, the world and the universe
8. Becoming a Christian, a follower of Jesus is very simple. If you answer yes to each of the following, then you may become a follower of Jesus Christ.
9. God is sovereign. God is the sovereign ruler of the universe. There is no higher authority. He is all powerful. He is present everywhere, so no one can hide from Him or escape His scrutiny. There is absolutely nothing that happens in the universe that is outside of God's influence and authority. As King of Kings and Lord of Lords God has not limitatins. That's what being sovereign means. It means being the ultimate source of all power, authority, and everything that exists. Only God can make those claims; therefore, it’s God’s sovereignty that makes Him alone, worthy of worship.

​Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as “an evidence-based scientific theory about life’s origins”. Proponents claim that “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection”. However, ID is NOT a form of creationism. The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a Christian conservative think tank based in the United States. It is the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity. Bing

Proponents of intelligent design argue that the complexity and intricacy of these features of the universe cannot be adequately explained by natural processes alone, such as random mutation and natural selection.

According to the concept of intelligent design, the presence of specified complexity in biological organisms, such as intricate biological systems or the information-rich nature of DNA, implies the involvement of an intelligent agent. Advocates of intelligent design believe that these features are analogous to human-designed artifacts (such as Mount Rushmore), which require an intelligent mind to create.

Intelligent design proponents often point to examples like the complexity of the human eye, the intricacies of cellular machinery, or the fine-tuning of the laws of physics as evidence for an intelligent creator. They argue that these features are too unlikely to have arisen through purely natural processes and must have been intentionally designed. It is important to note that while intelligent design offers an alternative explanation to naturalistic evolution, it is not widely accepted in the scientific community.

Critics argue that intelligent design lacks scientific rigor and does not provide testable hypotheses or empirical evidence. The prevailing scientific consensus believes the theory of abiogenesis is the best explanation for the origin of life on Earth. Such theory is incorrect based on evidence from multiple disciplines such as genetics, paleontology, and comparative anatomy. But, what the prevailing attitude (world view) towards intelligent design is, is exactly what abiogenesis proponents are guilty of. Where is the science of their using their intelligence to make the first living cell. No body is even remotely close to doing this. Will this be solved in the future? Right now, nobody knows.

Once we make this (cell) in the lab I'll have shown that no intelligence was required to make it"" (lol Facebook post).

​Intelligent Design proponents have cited several examples to support their claims. It is important to note that one of the words in ID here is "design". a pile of bricks, conduit, 2x4s, and sheetrock do not necessarily make a house. Neither does amino acids, lipids, nucleic acids and carbohydrates necessarily make a cell. What is necessary is a design, and a designer.

Here are some examples of intelligent design:

1. Irreducible complexity: This concept argues that some biological systems are too complex to have evolved through natural selection alone. Proponents of ID claim that these systems could only have been created by an intelligent designer.
2. Fine-tuning of the universe: This argument states that the universe appears to be fine-tuned for life, with many physical constants and laws set at just the right values to allow for the existence of life.
3. Information in DNA: Proponents of ID argue that the information content in DNA is too complex to have arisen through natural processes alone, and must have been designed by an intelligent agent.

"the only satisfactory explanation for the origin of such ‘end-directed, self-replicating’ life as we see on earth is an infinitely intelligent Mind". Former atheist Anthony Flew ( 5). It was the vast complexity of DNA that led him to a theistic viewpoint.​

Give us detailed, testable, mechanistic accounts for the origin of life, the origin of the genetic code, the origin of ubiquitous biomacromolecules and assemblages like the ribosome, and the origin of molecular machines like the bacteria flagellum, and intelligent design will die a quick and painless death. Wiliam Dembski.

Top Five Problems with Current Origin-of-Life Theories, Casey Luskin (9)

• Problem 1: No Viable Mechanism to Generate a Primordial Soup
• Problem 2: Forming Polymers Requires Dehydration Synthesis
• Problem 3: RNA World Hypothesis Lacks Confirming Evidence
• Problem 4: Unguided Chemical Processes Cannot Explain the Origin of the Genetic Code
• Problem 5: No Workable Model for the Origin of Life

As the National Academy of Sciences (10) acknowledges, “Two amino acids do not spontaneously join in water. Rather, the opposite reaction is thermodynamically favored.” In other words, water breaks down protein chains into amino acids (or other constituents), making it very difficult to produce proteins (or other polymers) in the primordial soup.

​​It is extremely apparent that the creation of a single living cell is astronomically impossible. We can’t even make one of the four compounds that are required for a living cell.  Irreducible complexity rules out the notion that an incomplete cell/organism can function unless all parts are present and functioning.

​Friedrich Nietzsche (11) said, “If one were to prove this God of the Christians to us, we should be even the less able to believe in him” and “It is our preference that decides against Christianity, not arguments.” Nietzsche’s disbelief was based on his will, not his intellect.

​Science alone cannot present the reasons of how and why the first cell was created (if it was created there must be a creator), then maybe philosophy or theology are needed in this discussion. The creator as a designer, what is the identity of the designer? If designed, then a mind must be behind the designed.

​In China you can question Darwinism but not question the government. In America you can question the government but not Darwinism. Which county is really freer?

The scientist knows what the end goal is in his research, and some of the steps to get there. They try to do research form top down (start at a cell and work backwards) and bottom up (start with just a few chemicals. Scientists cheat by adding agents and processes that would never be found in early earth and using their intelligence for a supposedly unintelligent event. While wrongfully manipulating the processes they are unaware of investigator interference. And to make things worse, when their findings are published the media claims life has been created when it has not.,

​Chemistry is actually hard to get to work. The molecules precipitate. The molecules hydrolyze. The molecules decompose. And do it's very much a constraint that you have to deal with...it's one g**-d*** problem after another. Steve Benner, (1), time stamp 4:15.

Reasons abiogenesis is not true

1. No one has ever made a cell in the lab
2. No assembly instructions (3.2 billion bit code) have been found
3. Amino acids will not polymerize in water
4. No one has made a functioning protein
5. No one has made a functioning lipid, carbohydrate or nucleic acid
6. No one can make a functioning molecule of DNA or RNA
7. No one can make a functional cell membrane
8. No one can make a functional cell organelle
9. No one can make a functional cellular nano-machine
10. No one knows what the supposed early earths atmosphere was
11. No evidence of a primordial soup
12. The public has been lied to about cells or organisms being created in the lab
13. No Nobel Prize for origin of life research
14. Two organic chemists said life would be created within 3-5 years, that was in 2011 and 2014. How's it coming Lee? How's it coming Jack?

​Follow the science!

​"the simplest conceivable life form (still much simpler than any actual organism) would have to be so complex that accidental self-assembly would be nothing short of miraculous even in two billion years. (Spenter 12)

​The origin of life from nonliving molecules to macromolecules to a single cell is extremely improbable. Most interactions result in the degrading of structure and function. When an interaction is destructive the evolution process does not know what to do. It does not know the end goal. Without a lab notebook to go back to, evolution is trapped.​

Evolution makes it "possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

Dr Richard Dawkins (3)

​​"Think outside the room"

Many origin of life scientists believe in a materialistic world. They believe that in some way, some time and somehow they will find a materialistic answer to the origin of life. If we cannot find the origin of life from within the box (materialistic world view), then we probably need to step outside the box to determine the cause of first life. For them, nothing supernatural exists outside the box.

​Jim Warner Wallace (15) is a cold case detective from Los Angeles who has appeared on TV talking about solving 20-year-old murder cases. When assessing the murder scene Jim tries to solve the case by "staying in the room".  Can the dead body and what's in the room provide an answer why the dead body is there. Maybe the person simply had a heart attack, maybe it was a self-infected gun shot, maybe someone shot the person. If it was a heart attack, there would be no gun. If it was suicide, there would be a gun. If the person was shot but no gun, then somebody probably shot the person in which case there probably is not a gun present. No bloody footprints in the room? At this point he starts looking outside the room, in another area of the house or outside the house. Jim's question is, "can I stay in the room". If not, it is time to step outside of the room.

​"The origin of life is about as good as it gets in terms of scientific 'proof' for the existence of God."

​If the origin of life problem cannot be solved "inside the room", or "within materialistic parameters" then we must look for other ways of solving the case of the origin of first life. We know God by His effects, the world and the universe. And the origin of life. There are really two questions, 1) how life originated and 2) how life operates.

​Why do scientists come up with different ideas on the origin of first life? They all look at the same data. Yet they have different views. Mostly due to their personal worldview.

​For example, let's look at the O.J. Simpson trial. 75% of the people believed he was guilty, but when considering ethnicity, 85% of whites believe he was guilty while only 29% of backs believed he was guilty. Why? Both blacks and whites look at the same information. The difference is within their worldview.

​It is almost 75 years since the Miller-Urey experiment. Are we any closer today in solving the origin of life question? Not really. The more we find out, the more we things we do not know. The more we know the more difficult it is to believe that such an intricate cell could just simply be formed by random processes.

​Don't let facts get in the way of a worldview

​"The man of science is a poor philosopher"

Einstein (4)

"anyone who tells you that he or she knows how life started on earth some 3.4 billion years ago is a fool or a knave. Nobody knows." Professor Stuart Kauffman (7)

​"...we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations." Franklin M. Harold (6)

Chemical soup is not your ancestor!

Dr Aw Swee-Eng (13)

​"We are almost as much in the dark today about the pathway from nonlife to life as Charles Darwin was when he wrote, it is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter'" Paul Davies (2)​​

"There is no known law of physics able to create information from nothing."

Paul Davies

​"How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software? Nobody knows."

​Davies, P. Davies (2)

​Why are students and parents wasting time and money on hearsay and illogical guesses about the origin of life, and not learning the scientific evidence of the origin of life? There are unreasonable assumptions which lead to contradiction of the evidence. (Jeff Miller, in Apologetics Press Feb 2012). Again, no one has been able to make a living cell (or even a protein) even if given all the raw materials.

Science does not say anything, scientists do.

As presented in another section, a person’s worldview is often the basis for what they believe. A worldview is how a person perceives their world, most often based on their views on:

1. ​Origin, where did we come from

2. Meaning, what is the meaning of life

3. Morality, what is right and what is wrong

4. Destiney, what happens to me when I die

Einstein’s world view got in the way of his theory on general relativity. According to his theory the universe was expanding, and if expanding it must have had a starting point. But who/what started it all? God? His concept of an expanding universe was infuriating to him. Since he refuted the expanding universe, he added a cosmological constant to his formula to show the universe was not expanding, and therefore no need for a God. His world view on origin of life did not match reality. He later said this was the biggest blunder of his life.

​What are the scientists saying?

“In my view the question of origin seems always left unanswered if we explore from a scientific view alone. Thus, I believe there is a need for some religious or metaphysical explanation. I believe in the concept of God and in His existence.” Charles H. Towns, Professor of Physics, Berkeley, Noble Prize in Physics, 1984, Discover of the laser.

“We are fortunate to have the Bible, and especially the New Testament, which tells us so much about God in widely accessible human terms.” Arthur L. Schawlow, Professor of Physics, Stanford University, Nobel Prize in Physics, 1981

“God’s nature is revealed most perfectly in the life and teachings of Jusus of Nazareth as recorded in the New Testament.” George Ellis, Professor of Applied Mathematics, University of Cape Town, South Africa.

“I take God very seriously indeed. I am a Christian believer, and believe that God exists and has made himself known in human terms in Jesus Christ. John Polkinghorne, Professor Mathematics Physics, Cambridge University, later President of Queens College, Cambridge.

I certainly don’t believe that there is some fundamental difference or conflict between a theistic (Christian) perspective on the world and the practice of science.” John Barrow, Professor of Mathematical Sciences, University of Cambridge, England. Cosmologist who “wrote the book” on the fine tuning of the universe in The Anthropic Cosmological Principle.

Question: Can a person be a scientist and also a Christian?

Answer: “Yes. The world is too complicated in all the parts and interconnections to be due to chance alone. I am convinced that the existence of life with all its order in each of its organisms is simply too well put together.” Allen R. Sandage, Astronomer, Carnegie Institution, Pasadena, California. Recipient of the 1991 Crafoord Prize of the Royal Swedish Academy of Science.

“I’m a conservative Christian in the sense of pretty much taking the Bible seriously for what it says. Of course, I know that certain parts are not intended to be read literally, so I’m not precisely a literalist. But I try to believe in the meaning I think it is intended to have.” Donald N. Page, Professor of Physics, University of Alberta.

“If the universe basically is very simple, the theological implications of this would need to be worked out. Perhaps the mathematical simplicity of the universe is a reflection of the personal simplicity of the Gospel message: that God send His Son Jesus Christ to bridge the gap between Himself and each of us who have rejected God or rejected what He wants for us by rebelling against His will and disobeying Him. This is a message simple enough even to be understood by children.” Donald N. Page, Professor of Physics, University of Alberta.

“Recently I have gone back to church regularly with a new focus to understand as best I can what it is that makes Christianity vital and powerful in the lives of billions of people today, even though almost 2000 years have passed since the death and resurrection of Christ. Although I suspect I will never fully understand, I now think the answer is very simple. It’s true.” Richard E. Smalley, Father of Nanotechnology, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1996

The novelty and complexity of the cell is so far beyond anything inanimate in the world today that we are left baffled by how it was achieved. M.W. Kirschner and J.C. Gerhart

The biggest gap in evolutionary theory remains the origin of life itself ...the gap between such a collection of molecules, amino acids and RNA, and even the most primitive cell remans enormous. Chris Willis, Professor of biology at the University of California.

​Logically, what makes the most sense for the creation of life?

​Remember from the first page of this website it was said this website guarantees it will change your life? Will you think the first life just so happened to occur? Or will you look outside the room, that God is outside the room? Waiting for you to accept Him. C.S. Lewis said there are two kinds of people, "those who say to God 'thy will be done' and those who refuse to accept Him and He says, 'alright, thy will be done.'"

​What is the simple good news of Jesus?

There is more evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the grave that any other event in history! What does that mean for you and me? The resurrection gives Jesus authority over death, hell, and the grave. He died, was buried, and rose again so that we might have salvation through faith in Him. (From Faithworks Media; faithworksmedia.com)

God loves you with an everlasting love.

Have you ever realized that while you may feel hopeless, empty, even separated from your home, family, or those you love, there is a God who know just where you are? He created you in His image with a special purpose. He loves you with an everlasting love.

Jesus said, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

Every person is born with a sin nature.

Although God loves every person, each of us are born with a sin nature, we are sinners by birth, and we are sinners by choice.

God’s Word tells us that, “As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one.” All of mankind is lost in sin. “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” Our sin separates us from God.

Sin carries the penalty of death.

Our sin must be paid for. The awful consequences of your sin is separation from God forever in the place the Bible calls Hell. Of course, Hell was not created for mankind, but because of our willful rebellion against God, we are condemned to die and spend eternity without Christ.

“he that believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”

Jesus Christ paid your sin debt.

God’s Word says, “For God do loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son.” God loves you so much that He sent His sinless Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, from Heaven to be born of woman and to be, “in all points like as we are, yet without sin.”

“But God commended his love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”

Jesus Christ, God’s sinless Lamb, suffered our death on the cross, paying our sin debt in full. Christ took the punishment we deserve. He died, was buried, rose on the third day, is alive, and is seated at the right hand of God the Father.

Receive Christ by faith as your Savior.

Each person must personally pray and receive Christ by faith as Savior. Just praying words of a prayer cannot save a person-only through faith in Jesus Christ can save. Cry out from your heart to Him for salvation.

“That if you will confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and will believe in your heart that God has raised from the dead, you will be saved.”

If you do not know how to pray, you can speak to God from your heart something like this:

Dear Lord Jesus, I know that I am a sinner separated from you. I deserve to die and spend eternity in the place called Hell. I believe that you die for me, and I trust You now as my personal Savior. I ask You to forgive my sin and come into my life. I trust You for my salvation. Help me to live for You. In the name of Jesus.

God promises. “For whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved.” God always keeps this promises.

If you have trusted Him as your Savior, He lives inside you at this moment. Gpd promises the believer that He will “never leave you for forsake you.”

Becoming a Christian, a follower of Jesus is very simple. If you answer yes to each of the following, then you may become a follower of Jesus Christ:

1. Do you believe Jesus is the Son of God?
2. Do you believe you have sinned against God?
3. Do you believe the penalty for sinning against God is spiritual death and hell?
4. Do you believe you can confess your sins and repent of them?
5. Do you believe you can ask Jesus to forgive you and save you and he will?

​If you answered yes to all these questions, then talk to Jesus. Tell him you have sinned against Him and that you repent (are sorry for) of your sins and ask Jesus to save you. If you do this, then you are a follower of Jesus.

​After this you need to do several things to become a stronger and bolder Christian:

• Go to a Bible believing church
• Get into a Bible believing Bible study
• Fellowship with other Christians
• Have a daily time of Bible reading and study
• Have a daily time of prayer (talk) with Jesus.

​

References

1. Benner, Steve. YouTube, Steven Benner: Breakthrough Discuss 2019
2. Davies, Paul. The Cosmos Might Be Mostly Devoid of Life: We still have no idea how easy it is for life to arise-and it may be incredibly difficult. Scientific American 2016.
3. Dembski, William. From William Dembski Quotes .
4. Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker, p. 115, 1986
5. Einstein, Albert. Brainy Quote. 
6. Flew, Antony and Roy Varghese (2007), There Is No God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (New York: Harper One)
7. Harold, Franklin. The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life. p.4 205, 2001.
8. Kuffman, Stuart. At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self Organization and Complexity, p. 31, 1995
9. Lewis, C.S. Goodreads
10. Luskin, Cassey. Top Five Problems with Current Origin-of-Life Theories, December 2012,
11. National Academy of Sciences. Committee on the Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems, Committee on the Origins and Evolution of Life, National Research Council, The Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems, p. 60 (Washington D.C.: National Academy Press, 2007).
12. Nietzsche, Fredrich. Quoted in I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, p. 30
13. Spenter. Not a chance! Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution, 1997
14. Swee-Eng, Aw. Chemical soup is not your ancestor, 1994
15. Wallace, J. Warner. Why The Beginning Of The Universe Cannot Be Explained From “Inside The Room” 2015
16. Willis, Chris. Professor of biology at the University of California.