Buy the Book

Biological Scientific Evidence for Creation

Law of Biogenesis/Origins

Teachers, scientists, and journalists talk as if evolution were observed fact—but the fact is, no one has ever observed evolution and no one really has any scientific explanation of how the immensely complex, information-bearing molecules could have arisen from “nonlife” without preprogrammed design and outside intelligence. Also, as mentioned in the previous section, the property of a cell that “makes it alive” cannot be explained by just referring to its chemical or genetic properties.

Living things get their information from their parent organisms, and contrary to evolutionary doctrine, scientists have never observed life arise from raw, unprogrammed matter (a hypothetical process known as abiogenesis).  Abiogenesis describes a hypothetical process coined by evolutionists whereby life arose spontaneously from non-life. No one has ever observed or demonstrated spontaneous generation of life from non-life. As proved by the French scientist, Louis Pasteur, in the mid-1800s, life cannot be produced from nonliving matter. Law of Biogensis states that life can only arise from pre-existing life, not from nonliving matter. This is one of the most fundamental laws of science. No one has ever seen or demonstrated "spontaneous generation" of life from nonlife. Biogenesis describes a process whereby living organisms can only arise from other living organisms.

The major problem for evolutionists is the origin of life from nonlife and a mechanism for an expanding, more complex gene pool. No one has ever observed or demonstrated spontaneous generation of life from nonliving things and, for that matter, no one has ever observed any organism give rise to a different type or kind of organism. Macroevolution is another name for evolution. It is theoretical changes in an individual because of new genetic information introduced into the gene pool which, in turn, produces a new kind (or category) of organism. Such changes have never been observed to occur within living populations — it remains purely conjecture.

As far as I know, no one has ever produced a single transitional, in-between type. The variations in animal and plant groups are NOT evolutionary changes but merely reshuffling of genes within the existing “gene pool” that was originally present in a certain “kind” of animal or plant population. Examples are change in dominant color, long-haired versus short-haired animals, insect resistance to DDT, and bacterial resistance to antibiotics. No one has ever observed “uphill” drift or the addition of genetic information to the gene pool. Genetic drift has always been “downhill” which is consistent with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Let's take a look at life's basic building structures (or genetic structures)—amino acids. A phenomena in nature is that all amino acids that make up proteins in living things—from higher order animals and plants to bacteria, molds and viruses—are 100 percent 'left-handed.'  When scientists have attempted to produce amino acids necessary for life, what was produced was a mixture of left- and right-handed amino acids which is harmful to life.

In such experiments, oxygen was excluded because it is well known that biological molecules (amino acids) are destroyed in the presence of oxygen—evidence indicates the earth has always had oxygen in the atmosphere. And if the earth's ozone layer did not exist, ultraviolet rays would have destroyed biological molecules. Also, secular scientists maintain that life originated in the oceans but the process of hydrolysis (water splitting) would have destroyed amino acids.

How did immensely complex genetic code—equivalent to a supercomputer—arise from random “nonliving chemicals” without “preprogrammed design and outside intelligence”? Consider the unimaginable improbabilities of getting the process started—and contrary to the First and Second Laws, and Law of Biogenesis.

Scientists do not have the slightest idea why biological proteins use only left-handed amino acids. The probability of just getting an average-size protein of left-handed amino acids (300 amino acids) occurring naturally is 1 in 4.9 x 10191 (Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, New York: Philosophical Library, 1984, p. 80), and this protein is not even close to becoming a complete living cell. According to the laws of probability, anything smaller than 1 in 1 x 1050, the chance of an event occurring is ZERO. The probability of getting a living cell by natural processes is 1 in 1 x 1040,000 (Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, “Where Microbes Boldly Went,” New Scientist, vol.91, August 13, 1991, p. 415).

To provide a perspective regarding this ratio, the number of atoms in the entire observable universe is estimated to be 1 x 1080. The probability of protein evolution is like trying to find just one unique atom in the entire observable universe, and the probability for cell evolution is much worse. Statistically, a gene consisting of thousands of precisely arranged amino acids functioning interdependently could never arise by random chance. The only way to link together left-handed amino acids is through purposeful design.

Statistically, a protein molecule, consisting of thousands of precisely arranged amino acids with complex genetic machinery functioning interdependently, could never arise by random chance. Such programming and design, including the “breath of life” (Genesis 2:7, NIV, NAS, and KJV), would be expected from a Divine Creator—not from random unobserved evolution. Every living thing gives powerful evidence for intelligent design and only “willfully ignoring” the facts, and turning away from the truth, would lead someone to assign such complex design to mere chance. As stated in 2 Peter 3:4–5, “they wish it to be so” and “they willfully forget” (2 Peter 3:5, NKJV). In today’s world, the science community simply rejects or ignores all evidence for ‘supernatural creation.’