“It is reasonable for historical scientists to infer that an intelligence acted
somehow in the past to produce the existing information-rich
sequences in living cells.” 1
Stephen C. Meyer
Ask earth’s seven billion citizens if they believe an electric light bulb created itself accidentally, without intelligent design or designer—it might be difficult to find even one naive believer. Ask the same human “jury” if the infinitely more complex living cell created itself from non-living matter, complete with DNA, and evolutionists might swear allegiance to unproven, assumptive myth.
The chance hypothesis offers neither clue nor explanation as to the origin of that first “simple” cell. Building the chance hypothesis on this unscientific nonsense makes no more sense than trying to design a functional GPS by relying on a Medieval era, flat-earth map of our three-dimensional planet.
Chemical evolution of the elements from a theoretical Big Bang or biological life from non-life has never been demonstrated in a laboratory. Lack of a scientific explanation for the source of genetic information packed in the simplest living cell compounds the dilemma gnawing at the core of the chance hypothesis.
Neither Darwin nor his disciples have been able to explain the original source of the “mother cell” of all plant and animal life observed on earth.
Paper and ink alone lack meaning until an intelligent source inscribes letters and words to record a message. A book with an attractive cover that binds a package of blank white paper would never top the best-seller list. It’s the printed message that tells the story and sells the book.
Matter alone, is abstract. “Living” matter, without information, could not exist. The suggestion that the first living cell created itself from non-living matter by spontaneous generation, epitomizes intellectual incoherence.
Lacking a coherent scientific explanation for life’s beginning on earth, Darwin proposed the faith-based assumption that life originated by accident in some “warm little pond.” This was the sterile soil he selected on which to plant his imagined “tree of life.”
Unaware of the existence of a cell’s nucleus, much less its DNA, Darwin and nineteenth century contemporaries like German evolutionist, Ernst Haeckel, erroneously viewed living cells as “homogeneous and structure less globules of protoplasm.” 2
Then came French chemist and microbiologist Louis Pasteur, perhaps best known for pasteurization of milk and his advocacy of vaccination. With his experiments on microorganisms in a swan-neck flask, this scientific genius blew away spontaneous generation superstition. Pasteur believed: “Chance favors only the prepared mind,” 3 or in the words of the legendary sports manager, Branch Rickey, “Luck is the residue of design.”
Nor was Pasteur a fan of life by accident. Recalling his findings, he predicted in 1864 that “never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment.” 3
The living cell’s world was turned upside down in 1931, when German physicist, Ernst Ruska, introduced a prototype electron microscope. Once perfected, the invention revolutionized life sciences, implicitly challenging the chance hypothesis with devastating implications.
Gross misconceptions about the living cell faded to obsolescence. The discovery opened access doors to the cell’s previously unseen secrets. Rather than origin science’s preoccupation with bone fragments unearthed in fossil graveyards, molecular biology focused on the complexity of the living cell and its pivotal role in the design of life forms.
Armed with the electron microscope and other sophisticated scientific tools unknown to Darwin, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey attempted to do in a science lab what the chance hypothesis had credited nature with doing accidentally: create a living cell from non-living matter.
In 1953, the ambitious team reported failure.
That same year, two molecular biologists, American James D. Watson and Englishman Francis H. Crick, co-discovered DNA’s double-helix molecular structure, the cell’s information storage center. Impressed by the complexity, Crick saw more than “globules of protoplasm.”
“An honest man,” he wrote, “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.” 4
This is an excerpt from a chapter of the 2016 Edition
of “Three Days Before the Sun”, now available
from leading online retailers.