The Goal-Driven Argument

In the creationist-evolutionist debate, often overlooked is the argument that living matter possesses an inherent goal oriented nature that is not present in the non-living matter that preceded it. As Antony Flew asks in his book, There is a God, "How can a universe of mindless matter produce beings with intrinsic ends, self-replication capabilities, and 'coded chemistry'?"

The absence of a satisfying answer from evolutionists poses a significant problem and one that must be answered by any origin of life theroem.

All living matter strives to reproduce. The fatal blow thus far to mainstream evolution is the failure to adequately demonstrate the means by which reproduction arose, naturally, from non-reproducing matter.

How did self-directed, reproductive purposes emerge from inert matter? Biologists have no answers, yet, in no other area would the absence of such a fundamental and necessary requisite be tolerated. Why is it tolerated for evolution?

In the absence of a natural explanation, its reasonable to assert that living matter could not have emerged from non-living matter.

What makes more sense? Goal-oriented, purpose-driven life emerging from an intelligently guided source or from inert matter which has no potential for producing goal oriented purposes?

In summary:

P1. Goal oriented behavior is an inherent attribute of all living matter.

P2. Inert matter does not live, is not goal-driven and possess no capability to produce goal oriented behavior.

Therefore, living matter could not have originated from inert matter.