A third serious problem faced by chemical evolution is that of chirality. All
amino acids derived from living organisms come in the left-
Finally, in all of our collective experience we have yet to see life formed
Might scientists sometime in the future produce life in a test tube from inorganic
matter? Perhaps. But what would this tell us about design, order, and intelligence
in the universe? In the meantime, based on the hard, scientific evidence available
to us, it seems far more reasonable to believe that life did not arise from non-
1. Bryson, Bill, A Short History of Nearly Everything, Broadway Books: NY, 2003,
2. Peter Radetsky, Life’s Crucible, By: Earth, 1056-
A second problem faced by the evolutionary hypothesis is that the same energy sources needed for the development of the amino acids would also be detrimental to their continued existence. In Miller’s experiment a trap was set at the bottom of the tube which collected the product and prevented the next discharge from affecting the newly formed amino acids. But if the ocean acted as a crucible in which life was formed, new molecules would have to be forming as older ones were being destroyed by heat, lightening or ultraviolet radiation. Though ultraviolet light would have been an excellent source of energy, it would also have destroyed any new chemicals produced without an ozone layer to protect them.
Life is exceedingly diverse and abundant on this planet. Estimates range from anywhere between three million to two hundred million different varieties of animals, 70,000 fungi, 4,000 species of earthworm, 750,000 species of insect, 248,000 species of plant, 20,000 types of Lichen, 50,000 species of mollusk, 400,000 beetles, and 4,000 types of bacteria that inhabit our planet.1 The prevailing theory among evolutionists is that all of this rich variety of organic life sprang from a mixture of inorganic matter–certain amounts of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor energized by an electrical discharge. Life, it is said, began in a primordial, prebiotic soup.
The problem with this scenario from the scientific standpoint is that it has never been observed or duplicated. This is not to say it has not been tested. It has. A lot. In 1953 Stanley Miller conducted an experiment in which he was able to produce a few amino acids, which are often touted as the building blocks of life. In fact, they are the building blocks of proteins and proteins are essential to life. But what was produced in the laboratory was not life, it was far from it. As noted by Peter Radetsky,
“how do you get simple molecules such as amino acids to go through the necessary chemical changes that will convert them into more complicated compounds, or polymers, such as proteins? Miller himself throws up his hands at that part of the puzzle. "It's a problem," he sighs with exasperation. "How do you make polymers? That's not so easy."’2
Indeed. Radetsky concluded, “One thing is for certain: No one has solved the mystery.”
The prevailing evolutionist’s hypothesis for the origin of life on a primitive earth faces several very difficult problems. We will examine four. The first of these is the composition of the early atmosphere. Miller postulated, and it was long believed, that the primitive atmosphere was without any free oxygen molecules. It was under these conditions that amino acids were produced in Miller’s experiment. However, though it is really impossible for anyone to know just what such an atmosphere might be, it is now generally believed that the early atmosphere did possess oxygen. “Wickramasinghe and Hoyle support the view of a less reducing atmosphere due to geological data that shows the earliest rocks show signs of oxidation.”3 Oxygen in the atmosphere would have been detrimental to such amino acids.