Igor, it’s alive!! OR It's a slime to none chance
Fred:
Your list of creatures that contradict evolution accentuate the wonder of God's creation. Proponents of evolution often criticize the story of Adam and Eve as being folksy mysticism. But I've come to believe God made all creation, whether it was in 7-days, or 7-millennia, the scale of time doesn't seem important. His creation of the stars before the earth doesn't cause any consternation. I also believe that there was an “original” Adam and Eve; and that their story is told in Genesis. It's not important that the mythical names 'Adam' or 'Eve' are accurate representations; 'Fred' and 'Jane' would have done as well. Whether the Genesis is symbolic story isn't a difficulty. I understand Genesis as a story that defines God's love for his creation. Any theory that maintains the dignity of man separates humanity from lower forms and views God as the first Cause can be entertained. Darwinism doesn't do this. In fact Darwinism does the opposite; it dehumanizes mankind, placing man in the same category as animals ruled by instinct thereby denying God as first cause of all creation.
In my opinion evolutionist are working with a broken theory, and if not, it still doesn't explain first cause –the root cause of all things created. There are those who use evolution as an intellectual excuse to reject God. The philosophy holds that God didn't create man; rather man evolved from some primordial puddle of ooze. Some would extend this further suggesting that man evolved into God; and further still, evolved to create God. In the search for truth the supernatural is rejected and replaced with science, a disciplined body of knowledge. One such body of knowledge deals with the natural sciences, not the wondrous science of God's created beauty and majesty, but rather a cold heartless study of numbers, data, and statistics.
The Darwinian theory of evolution depends on mankind's ability to axiomatically define observable surroundings and explain how sustained life can be perceived in nature without the aid of God. To do this, science depends wholly on man's ability to identify those things not perceived in nature and how they might affect our measure nature. Thus, we conclude that Darwinian science is an absolute truth, one only need to know math, chemistry, physics, and biology; not to mention a dozen or so other natural sciences. Such clerics of science have turned the supernatural question of “how did God make heaven and earth” into “prove that God made heaven and earth.” The problem with the scientific approach is best expressed by G. K. Chesterton observation, “A man might measure heaven and earth with a reed, but not with a growing reed.” (1905 Heretics )
In 1953 Stanley Miller's experiment for the first time produced the basic building blocks of proteins necessary for all life; a primordial soup of amino acids in a strictly controlled experiment. The problem was that the experiment was conducted in a mixture of methane and ammonia gasses not found in the prebiological environment. In 1983 the experiment was repeated by Miller using a mixture of carbon dioxide and nitrogen now thought to be the prebio conditions. The experiment failed to produce the goo of life. In 2007 the experiment redone again by chemist Jeffrey Bada; this time changing the reactive mixture once again. This narrowly constrained experiment finally produced primordial soup. (Igor, it's alive!! ) Only under strictest of laboratory conditions can the very basic building blocks of life be produced. But, beyond that science using Darwinaianism can not show how “intelligent” life is then derived. The probabilities of this being repeated in nature are slime to none (Pun was intended).
To date, science has failed to produce a realistic, repeatable, unconstrained theory explaining creation of the simplest of life forms. Furthermore, it cannot produce a plausible theory of how the first proteins evolved in nature. Even doing so, science would be faced with the enormous problem explaining how prebio conditions were stable and sustained for sufficient time for these basic proteins to form an amino acid linked in a group. Science's difficulties get exponentially enormous when explaining how this simplest of these linked chains remained in equilibrium to form genes that, to add more complexity, form chromosomal chains of DNA. Logically, we would expect the most simple of these chains to form first, presumably by magic, change to chromosomes of sufficient self-knowledge to reproduce, first to a simple one cell organism, then to a more complex organism, finally through billions of years, billions of self initiated changes (a yet unknown process, all the while in perfect atmospheric conditions), morph into the one, and only one, sentient, self-aware being.
Scientist thus far failed to explain how simple chains of amino acids, through successive changes, evolve into a complex animal or plant; they certainly can't explain how an amino acid chemically reacts with an agent to become self-aware.
As shown, the probabilities of man rising from a pool of primordial goo by chance are infinitely improbable; you would need a firm “faith” in the science to hold these views. In fact they are so improbable that only God could unravel the complexities. Therefore, it would be more intellectually honest to turn science back to measuring God's laws so as to define His creation, as opposed to asking nature to prove man created God.
Considering the inadequacies of science you have to ask how can a sentient self-aware being came into existence by chance through a chemical reaction of amino acids; later to be refined into animated beings through natural selection, ultimately evolving into man? There are two very important questions the proponents of evolution seem unable to answer. The first is at what point an inanimate chemical solution comes alive. Secondly, when, where, and how, do amino acids become sufficiently aware of themselves to know that cell division is necessary to sustain life. It seems to me that only with His supernatural grace can life come to inanimate objects.
God created heaven, earth, and man; the how is only important in the need to know the details of His natural laws, a real discipline of knowledge.
JoeT
