Have We Created Life?

The origin of life has been the bane of the evolution debate for decades. The theory of evolution holds that all biodiversity on earth descended from a single common ancestor that lived more than a billion years ago. However, evolutionists have always dismissed themselves from having to show where this original ancestor came from. They common retort is that evolution only explains what happens after the first life form was formed. Where the first life form came from is a separate issue. Well, separate or not, there had to have been a first life form or the rest of their theory is academic. So where did it come from?

Well, today the New York Times ran the headline, Chemist Shows How RNA Can Be the Starting Point for Life. Hmmm. For something that’s not even part of their theory, they’re quick to tout it when they think they finally have an answer. I think they think they’re finally on to something.

I encourage everyone to read the article but let me make a few points.

First, the article says researchers have been working on this problem for 20 years. So, after 2 decades of work, they start to make a little head way and say, “See! Intelligent design isn’t needed to create life!” It’s kind of funny in a sad sort of way that they’ve spent 2 decades trying to accomplish something they don’t believe took intelligence in the first place.

But regardless of that, what did they find? The article puts it this way:

The author, John D. Sutherland, a chemist at the University of Manchester, likened his work to a crossword puzzle in which doing the first clues makes the others easier. “Whether we’ve done one across is an open question,” he said. “Our worry is that it may not be right.”

So, they’ve likened the origin of life to a crossword puzzle and they believe they’ve gotten 1 across. However, they’re not even sure about their answer. That still leaves a lot of the puzzle.

If you read the article, what they’ve done is take the first step in creating RNA. The article says, "Scientists have long suspected that the first forms of life carried their biological information not in DNA but in RNA, its close chemical cousin." Read that again carefully because the implication is easily overlooked. Scientists are looking for the origin of life. They SUSPECT the first life forms carried biological information not in DNA but RNA. They’re not even sure about the RNA! For all we know, they’re barking up the wrong tree.

And there's still another glaring flaw in this article. Even if scientists someday create life in a lab, there's still no way to know that's how it (supposedly) happened (supposedly) a billion years ago. Creating life in a lab is science. That event known as abiogenesis happened long ago; it can no longer be observed or repeated. If abiogenesis occurred, it's history - not science.

This is just another flash in the pan for evolution. Frank Benavidez, a fellow creationist I’ve read online, made this great quote: “[It’s] just more hype for evolutionist to bang their chest about while the dust settles on their dashed hopes.”