George T. Javor, Ph.D.

Molecular Biology of Origins

Brown University (1962) 

B.S. – Chemistry

Columbia University (1967) 

Ph.D. – Biochemistry 

Rockefeller University (1969) 

Postdoctoral fellowship

George T. Javor is a Professor Emeritus of Loma Linda University School of Medicine. He earned his PhD in biochemistry from New’ York”s Columbia University. After post-graduate study at Rochester University he spent a 37-year career teaching undergraduate as well as medical and dental.

During his science career he investigated the mysteries of heme and ubiquinone biosyntheses in Escherichia coli and authored three articles relating to this subject.

  1. Javor, G. T. and Febre. E. : Enzymatic basis for thiol stimulated porphyrin secretion in E. coli. J. Bacteriol. 174:1072-1075, 1992, 
  2. Zhang, H. and G. T. Javor. Identification of the ubiD gene on the Escherichia coli chromosome. J. Bacteriol. 182:6243-6246, 2000, and 
  3. Zhang, H. and G. T. Javor. Regulation of ubiD and ubiX genes in Escherichia coli. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 223:65-72, 2003.

The Scandal of Biochemical Evolution

George T. Javor, PhD

When it comes to the origin of life on Earth, there are only two possibilities. Either life was created by the Creator or life developed spontaneously from inanimate matter.

Until recently there was a third possibility; that life came to Earth fortuitously from another source in the cosmos. However, this third possibility has been abandoned. Extensive search for life in the solar system showed that only our globe is covered with living organisms. The rest of our cosmic neighborhood is completely sterile. The closest star system beyond the Solar System is three and a half light years (more than 20 trillion miles) away,

As for spontaneous generation of life on Earth, the French Academy of Sciences awarded the Alhumbert Prize (consisting of 2500 franks) to Louis Pasteur in 1862, for confirming it could not happen

There are no meaningful alternatives to the Biblical Creation narrative. Moreover, two indisputable evidences, coming from antiquity, suggest there was a period in human history when the Biblical account of the seven-day week was recognized through most of history.

Modern historians tell us the weekly, seven-day cycle originated with the Sumerians and the Babylonians, suggesting Moses copied the Babylonian calendar when he wrote his books. 2 These assertions are wrong for at least two reasons!

First, we know from the Bible that Solomon began building the Temple in 965 BC (I Kings 6:1), 480 years after the Exodus (Exodus 12:40). Moses was alive at the time of Israel’s Exodus from Egypt, an event dated by some scholars as early as 1446 BC, and others at 1225 BC. Moses lived, and authored Genesis, before emergence of the Babylonian Empire, 626-539 BC.

Second, of the 150 to 200 major ancient and modern languages (languages spoken by more than a million people), more than 100 use the word “Sabbath,” or a derivative, for designating the seventh day of the week.3

The most reasonable explanation of this remarkable phenomenon is, there was a period, early in humanity’s history, when most everyone acknowledged the Biblical story of Creation.

Amidst the confusion of languages during the attempted building of the Tower of Babel and the dispersal of humanity, the weekly seven-day cycle, and the uniqueness of the seventh day, were somehow largely preserved.

The singular designation of the seventh day, as variations of the Hebrew “Sabbath” in so many languages is not only a validation of the Biblical account of the origin of human life, but it is also a repudiation of any evolutionary narrative.

This curious leftover from antiquity, has been ignored by thought leaders during the past one-and-a-half century, because it does not fit their tiresome “scientific” narrative of our past. Unwilling to concede the invalidity of their postulates, they suggest that Bible-based religious considerations be isolated from scientific facts and placed into a separate “magisterium”.

“Scientific narrative” is the code word for the postulates and guesses proposed by scientists, to find an exception to Pasteur’s dictum that spontaneous generation of life cannot happen.

In the 1870-s, Charles Darwin suggested that life on Earth probably began in a “warm little pond.” 1 In the 1920-s, J. B. Haldane and A. I. Oparin both proposed that primitive living cells came into existence when organic substances, formed in an air-less atmosphere, collected in puddles and interacted with each other. 5,6

In 1953, ninety-one years after Pasteur’s discovery, Stanley Miller, a graduate student in Harold Urey’s laboratory at the University of Chicago, published the results of his experiments, where he exposed a mixture of gases (ammonia, hydrogen, methane and water vapors) to electric discharges and showed the formation of amino acids. 7

Because proteins, the all-important substances of living matter are composed of amino acids, here was a laboratory demonstration how life may have originated on earth. Thus the discipline of biochemical evolution was born.

Over the next decades numerous laboratories jumped into this field and produced an impressive number of biologically relevant substances, using a variety of imagined “primordial” conditions. The one common denominator among these efforts was the exclusion of the gas oxygen, because it destroys the desired products.

Practitioners of these biochemical evolutionary efforts completely ignored a surprising discovery by the astronauts of the 1972 Apollo 16 mission to the moon; that vast amounts of oxygen are generated constantly, high in the atmosphere, by the ultraviolet radiation of the sun acting upon water vapors. 8

The news release of this discovery suggested that this “photolysis” of water maybe the main source of oxygen in the atmosphere, instead of photosynthesis. Since this phenomenon has been present all through Earth’s history, the concept of an oxygen-free atmosphere, at any time, was rendered null and void.

In 1975 Stanley Miller wrote: “We are confident that the basic process [of chemical evolution] is correct, so confident that it seems inevitable that a similar process has taken place on many other planets in the solar system…We are sufficiently confident of our ideas about the origin of life that in 1976 a spacecraft will be sent to Mars to land on the surface with the primary purpose of the experiments being a search for living organisms.9

Indeed, in the summer of 1976, two sophisticated space-crafts, the “Viking” landers, settled on Martian soil, 4,600 miles apart from each other, and began their search for living organisms. The results stunned the scientific community. Not only were there no living organisms on Mars, there were no organic substances at all in the soil! These results completely repudiated biochemical evolutionary predictions. 10, 11

Near the end of the 20th century a new field of inquiry emerged, synthetic biology. Here laboratories are attempting to create living organisms! There is wide spread optimism that with this development we are at the cusp of a new and exciting era of biology! 12

However, these scientists have bumped into a hitherto largely overlooked aspect of living organisms. The phenomenon of life is based on continuous chemical reactions within each cell and no one has the technology to construct living cells with continuous on-going chemical processes within! Such a feat requires an ability to control, simultaneously, myriads of molecules. Only the Creator has this capacity! 13

The study of ecology, the relationship between different types of organisms in the biosphere, revealed that no single kind of organism can survive by itself on Earth. Plants depend on mammals for CO2 to make sugar and oxygen through photosynthesis. Bacteria, living in root nodules of plants, convert nitrogen of the air to nitrate salts, so that plants utilize it for growth. It is overwhelmingly clear now that the various organisms of our biosphere do not compete with each other, rather they form an obligatory network of mutual support

Thus, if through putative evolutionary means, a single organism were to emerge, by chance, it could not survive in the absence of a supportive biosphere!

Since 1862 there has been no new scientific discovery, which would invalidate Louis Pasteur’s annihilation of the theory of spontaneous generation. The enterprise of biochemical evolution, from 1953 to the present, constitute a futile effort to find an exception to Louis Pasteur’s dictum.

The scandal of biochemical evolution is, that despite its long history of scientific failures, and a lack of prospect of ever succeeding, conventional scientific thought continues to insists teaching it to students of all ages as gospel truth!

Moreover, through one of its organizations, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, (AAAS), it actively crusades against teaching creationism in science classes.14 This, in turn, leads to depriving generations of students of knowing their true origins and the wasting of untold billions of dollars on hopeless projects!

George T. Javor, PhD

  1. Porter, J. R. (1961) Louis Pasteur: achievements and disappointments, 1861. Bacteriological Reviews 25/


  2. Internet: Wikipedia: “week”. Coolman, Robert: Keeping time: origins of the days of the week (2014).

  3. www. Sab. Htm.

  4. Darwin, C. (1871) in a letter to Joseph Hooker.

  5. Tirardi, S. (2017) J B S Haldane and the origin of life. Journal of Genetics, 96 (5) 735-739.

  6. https:// physicsoftheuniverse,com/scientists_oparin html/.

  7. Miller, S. L. (1953) Production of amino acids under possible primitive earth conditions. Science 117, 528-529.

  8. Also: Review and Herald, March 14, 1974.

  9. Miller, S. L. (1974). The Heritage of Copernicus, ed Jerzy Neyman, Cambridge, Mass. : MIT Press, p 328.

  10. Ponamperuma, C., A. Shimoyama, M. Yamada, T. Hobo and R. Pal. ( 1977 ). Possible surface reactions on Mars: Implications for Viking biology results. Science 197: 455-457.

  11. Soffen, G. A. (1976) Scientific results of the Viking missions.Science 194: 1274-1276.

  12. Szostak, J.W.; Bartel, D.P.; Luisi, P.L. (2001). Synthesizing life. Nature 409:387–390.

  13. Javor, G. T. (2021). Synthesizing life in the laboratory: Why is it not happening? Geoscience Research Institute Website, \July 26.

  14. Javor, G. T. (2008). Letters to Microbe Magazine, vol 3, November 5. Since one has to be a member of the American Society of Microbiology to access the archives of Microbe Magazine, the letter is reproduced here: “Evolution in the Classroom. Risking the ire of the National Academy of Sciences, attention needs to be called to the irony of their current crusade against creationism in science classrooms. Sir Francis Bacon, who is credited with formulating and establishing the scientific method, was a creationist. So were Sir Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Louis Pasteur, Carl Linnaus, Michael Faraday, Blaise Pascal, Lord Kelvin, James Clerk Maxwell, Jean Louis Agassiz, Rudolph Carl Virchow, Johannes Kepler and numerous other intellectual giants on whose shoulders stand the modern scientific enterprise. Clearly, creationism did not hinder the scientific work of these greats, rather it encouraged them to seek keener insights into the secrets of the physical realm. Permitting students to peek outside the box of evolution is hardly a dilution of science. Rather it is granting them freedom of imagination and thought similar to what students of previous generations were allowed to have”.

Genesis File is an educational website.
While not a format for debate, the Editor welcomes all good faith contacts.