Response to the Columbus Dispatch Article Titled:
"What is life? Scientists closer to finding answer"
In order to avoid possible copyright infringements, we do not quote the entire Columbus Dispatch article in our response. To obtain a copy of original Dispatch article, click here.
excerpts from original article = brown
our responses = black
See also these links: Origin of life: the polymerization problem Origin of the Life Questions -Creation SuperLibrary From Nonlife to Nonlife (PDF document)
The discovery of what appears to be the simplest recipe for making a living thing, described in today's issue of the journal Science, could shed new light on the origins of life and the myriad ways that biology has cooked itself up since evolution first stirred the primordial soup.
Scientists have never observed a dead primordial soup cooking itself into living organisms. In fact, life has never been observed creating itself from dead chemicals under any circumstances. Additionally, the mathematical improbabilities of this ever occurring are overwhelmingly against it happening, especially in the time frame that evolutionists claim that it did. We have already aired one video concerning these mathematical improbabilities on Community 21. It was titled "A Question of Origins". It's available at the Columbus Metropolitan Library. Click here for information on where to buy it, or how to get it from the library. We'll be airing different video on this same topic in the second half of January, 2000. Click here to see airing dates/times for The Origin of Life. Also see Life can't arise on its own.
But of greater interest to ethicists, who have been tracking the Minimal Genome Project since its inception two years ago, the new research might enable researchers to engineer life in the laboratory from essential chemical ingredients - as opposed to altering existing organisms, as genetic engineers to today.
Let's assume for a moment that researchers are able to do this. One might think that creation scientists would be alarmed. Actually, this would be good news for creationists. There are a few reasons for this.
1. Think about this. They've invested years of research into this so far. They'll used millions of dollars worth of high tech equipment and the combined brain power of who knows how many scientists to get it done if they can do it at all. In other words, incredible amounts of DESIGN will be done by LIVING beings using INTELLIGENCE to bring this about. Does this sound familiar? Creating even the most simple form of life under these conditions doesn't prove it happened purely through natural processes. It will prove that intelligence and design are necessary to create life. If they do pull this off, they'll have given creationists an excellent argument against evolution because of the way in which it was done.
Of course, it's almost a given that if they are successful, liberal news media organizations like the Columbus Dispatch would not present it to you in these terms. They will do as they've always done. They'll obediently print the story, probably on the front page as this article was, as compelling evidence of evolution. And they will continue to mislead the public with their highly biased, evolutionary propaganda campaign. Notice that once again, the Dispatch did not print any opposing views. If there are any journalism students reading this web site, please watch carefully as we point out over and over again the compelling evidence that the Dispatch will not let you see in their paper. We hope that when you start your career as journalists, that you will be willing to be much more ethical in the way you present news like this.
2. Evolutionists still have not explained where the matter they will work with in their dead soup came from? Nobody has ever observed matter creating itself from nothing, and it makes no logical sense whatsoever that it could have happened anyway. So in their efforts to create life, they'll be starting off with matter that God created. Evolution can offer no plausible explanation for where this matter to make their dead soup came from. So again, the conditions for these experiments do not match the conditions that evolution allegedly occurred under. If they are successful, they will in no way have demonstrated that evolution is true.
3. Scientists have many examples to point to that microevolution occurs. Creationists agree that mutations within the same "kind" as the Bible calls it happens. However, in spite of the millions of living creatures that exist, evolutionists can't point to a single example where macroevolution has occurred. So even if they can create a simple life form, it still doesn't prove evolution happened. That simple life form will likely not fare any better than life forms that already exist in terms of being able to organize themselves, without assistance from outside intelligence, into higher, more complex life forms. They'll still be at the same evolutionary dead-end they're at today. This one of many thorny questions for which evolutionists still have not given believable answers to.
Is it appropriate to define life in narrow, purely scientific terms, or is there a spiritual component to being alive?
This is another big problem for evolutionists. It's bad enough they can't demonstrate that it's possible for dead chemicals to produce life, on their own, with no outside intelligence or design to aid in the process. Neither can they explain consciousness, an awareness of good and evil, or many of the other psychological and spiritual traits that human beings posses. They have all kinds of outlandish explanations, but none make any logical sense, and none have ever been scientifically observed happening. Evolution simply cannot give any plausible explanation for these things. Creation by God, however, explains them very nicely.
Contact us with your comments or questions.