Superstitious Nonsense

Spontaneous Generation?

“The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.”1

Michael Denton

Darwin never heard of DNA, or even a cell’s nucleus, so he waved his wand imagining that the magic of self-creation took place accidentally in some mythical, “warm little pond.”3 The “pond” scenario seems less likely than finding an iceberg floating in a desert mirage.

More than 150 years after he went public with his speculations, the question of how the first living cell managed to emerge accidentally from non-living matter continues to confound. Even as today’s culture is blessed with research technology unavailable to Darwin, flawed logic plagues evolution theory.

A foundation assumption claims that biology, the science of life and living things, with its botany and zoology components, created itself, coincidentally, from inert chemical matter. Stark reality points to the improbability of the Science of Biology existing thanks to some less than scientific luck-of-the draw!

So flimsy conjecture is the starting point for the alleged “science” of evolution? And evolution’s theoretical point of beginning is not faith based?

Spontaneous generation of a living cell from non-living inorganic matter overwhelms imaginations. Just how could a cell, without evidence of prior ancestry, arrive from nowhere, pre-loaded with genetic information?

The dubious ancestry of biology science didn’t deter Darwin. He imagined “All the higher mammals are probably derived from an ancient marsupial, and this through a long line of diversified forms, either from some reptile-like or some amphibian-like creature, and this again from some fish-like animal.”4
Richard Hutton, Executive Producer of the controversial PBS TV series, “Evolution,” was asked, “What are some of the larger questions still unanswered by evolutionary theory?”

He replied: “The origin of life. There is no consensus at all here—lots of theories, little science. That’s one of the reasons we didn’t cover it in the series.
“The evidence wasn’t very good.”5

Maybe “worthless” rather than “not very good?”

Lacking the first clue as to the what, how, when, and where a coincidence of nature activated first life, Darwin conceded, “Science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life.”6

The best Darwin could do to explain this “far higher problem” was to side-step the non-explanation’s dubious adequacy. Undeterred, he chose to rock the 19th century world by releasing his 1859 edition of Origin of Species.

Claiming all life began with that mother cell from nowhere, he conjectured the unexplained event was followed by a fanciful series of incremental changes over large chunks of deep time.

The chain of do-it-yourself “biological transit stops” supposedly produced every known plant and animal species, eventually replacing all ancestors with radically new and different body plans.

Mount Rushmore, South Dakota USA

Human intelligence created the presidential profiles sculpted on the face of Mt. Rushmore. Still, some claim the intelligence of the human designers evolved by chance, without a Master Designer.

Kids understand that two atoms of hydrogen joined to a single atom of oxygen build a water molecule. Yet minds swearing allegiance to the spontaneous generation fallacy are unable to conjure up the chemical recipe mix for the quite hypothetical and life-creating, “prebiotic soup.”

Darwin aligned his faith with philosophers like Aristotle, who preached spontaneous generation as some pagan brand of superstitious gospel. Then along came French scientist Louis Pasteur with scientific demonstrations that shattered the spontaneous generation myth.

“The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible
in probability in the same way that a perpetual motion
machine is impossible in probability.” 7

Today, the formula for first life continues to baffle devout evolutionists, who can’t begin to replicate the simplest cell and are at a loss to account for the source of genetic information packed into that first cell’s DNA.

Lacking elsewhere to turn, evolution’s more dedicated shills tout outer space as a possible ultimate source of life on earth. Even if plausible, a pair of problems looms: How could a life form survive the hazards of space travel and how did it manage its own life’s accidental kick-start to begin with?

Evolutionism’s recipe for life’s “Formula One” evades hot pursuit. By default, it is left to Mother Nature’s whims and Pappy Time’s antiquity to parent first life.

WLJ—Excerpted from Chapter I, Three Days Before the Sun.


1—Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, (Bethesda, Md.: Adler & Adler, 1986) 250, 264
2—Bert Thompson & Brad Harrub, “15 Answers to John Rennie and Scientific American’s Nonsense,” (Montgomery, Alabama: Apologetics Press, September, 2002) 31.
3—Charles Darwin, Letter to J.D. Hooker [1 February] 1871, in Darwin, F., ed., The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, [1898], (New York: Basic Books, Vol. II, 1959), 202-203.
4—Charles Darwin, Descent of Man, Vol. II, 389.
5—Richard Hutton, “Evolution: The Series,”, Live Online, Wednesday September 28, 2001.
6—Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, 637.
7—Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory and Molecular Biology (Cambridge: University Press, 1992), 257, quoted by Overman, 61, 62.
Copyright © 2012 Warren L. Johns.  All Rights Reserved.  Contact: