The Problem of Life's Origins

The origin of life poses a huge problem for mainstream scientists. When the origins of life are considered, the distinction between living organisms and non-living matter must be distinguished, and, once accomplished, the progression from non-living matter to living cells must be demonstrated.

Mainstream scientists posit living organisms spontaneously arose from non-living matter in a process called abiogenesis. However, abiogenesis has not been experimentally proven in any laboratory experiment and there exists many conflicting theories explaining the origins of life.

Because mainstream science has failed to produce a standard model for the origins of life, their assertion that life arose from non-life is a belief system much like religious belief systems. Evolutionary scientists have faith that, one day, experimentation will prove naturalism true.

In order to accomplish this feat experiments must clearly link, at the genetic level, non-living with living matter. Personally, I don't this will ever be done.

Part of the problem is the definition scientists have given for life, or specifically, living things. In the fourth edition of her text, Biology, Helena Curtis assigns 7 characteristics that distinguish living things from inanimate matter. These are:

1. Living things are highly organized and possess complex structures. Inanimate objects do not.
2. Living organisms are homeostatic meaning they remain internally consistent (temperature, chemistry, blood pressure etc.) despite their changing environment. This is untrue for inanimate matter. A fragile water flea, for example, maintains its internal chemical composition that differs from its constantly changing environment.
3. Living organisms reproduce...inanimate matter does not.
4. Living organisms grow and develop - a single living cell into a human being, for example. Inanimate matter does not grow and develop.
5. Living organisms convert energy from their environment into different forms of energy. Inanimate matter can not convert energy.
6. Living organisms respond to stimuli. Inanimate matter can't respond to any stimuli.
7. Living things adapt to their environment, inanimate does not.

All of these life-defining characteristics have their origin in DNA. It's at this level that mainstream scientists need to demonstrate, clearly, the transition from inert, lifeless, matter to living, reproducing cells. Until they do, abiogenesis can not be considered science.

Moreover, since evolution from one species to another has its foundation in abiogenesis, ultimately, evolution must be regarded as faith and not science.

In order to silence creationists, mainstream scientists must conclusively demonstrate through repeatable experimentation that life, at the DNA level, arose from inanimate matter that contains no DNA. Everything else is educated speculation, at best.

In the next few posts, I'll explore the various abiogenesis models as posited by mainstream scientists, show their inadequacies and why it's more reasonable to believe life arose from a creator.