Wednesday, March 3, 2010

Primordial Soup Fails ... So, Did God Do It?

As I predicted, creationists have jumped on the admission that life did not arise from the primordial soup. They are trumpeting it as a triumph for creationism.

I don't know about you, but I believe God created the world because he said so—to Abraham, to Moses, and to the churches of Jesus Christ. For me, "Hmm, I don't think life arose from primordial soup" is not proof of creation any more than "Hmm, I don't think you've robbed a bank" proves that no one ever robbed a bank.

I really want to focus on just one thing the article referenced above said:

Why have scientific critiques coming from those who suggest God as an alternative source for life not been published in the standard scientific journals?

The answer's pretty simple. No serious journal is going to publish an article that says, "Now that evolutionists have admitted that life didn't arise from the primordial soup, everyone needs to admit the earth is created."

Such an article would be short, boring, and of no scientific value.

Wouldn't you agree?

Listen, what scientific evidence do you think can be published to prove God created the earth?

Michael Behe, in his book, Darwin's Black Box, argued that bacterial flagellum—a sort of motorized tail used for locomotion—could not have evolved because it could not be broken down into functioning parts. No functioning individual parts means no small steps to lead to the evolution of the flagellum.

No one published that as a study because it's an unprovable assertion. The best you can say is that no one has figured you yet how some smaller part of the flagellum could function without the rest.

And it's a good thing no one published it. Given some time, scientists did find a functional part of a flagellum:

As the evidence has shown, nature is filled with examples of "precursors" to the flagellum that are indeed "missing a part," and yet are fully-functional. Functional enough, in some cases, to pose a serious threat to human life. (Kenneth Miller)

To publish a paper stating that because life probably or even almost certainly did not arise in the primordial soup, then life could not have arisen anywhere else either would be just as foolish.

And it certainly would not constitute science.

God as Creator

God does not need our help to prove that he is the Creator. As the Scriptures say, "In him we live and move and have our being." He is well able to testify on his own, by his handiwork and by his testimony to the human heart.

He could also testify by the lives of Christians, but we make that very difficult when we make a habit of scientific naivete, slander against scientists, and division and lack of love between one another.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Feel free to comment, and I'll even let links be posted, particularly on the subject of evolution from either side. No spam, and no pointless links. The comments are moderated.