Spontaneous Generation

How does the evolutionist explain the existence of that first one- celled animal from which all life forms evolved? For many years spontaneous generation was the accepted explaintion. According to Webster, spontaneous generation is "the generation of living from nonliving matter ... (it is taken) from the belief, now abandoned, that organisms found in putrid organic matter arose spontaneously from it."

Simply stated, this means that under the proper conditions of tempature, time, place, etc., decaying matter simply turns into organic life. How can decaying matter exist without the existance of life? Sounds like a circular definition.

This simplistic idea dominated scientific thinking until 1846 when Louis Pasteur completely shattered the theory by his experiments. He exposed the whole concept as utter folishness. Under controlled laboratory conditions, in a semi-vacuum, no organic life ever emerged from decaying, nonliving matter. Reluctantly it was abandoned as a valid scientific issue. Today no reputable scientist tries to defend it on a DEMONSTRATABLE BASIS. That is why Webster said it was "now abandoned." It has never been demonstrated in the test tube. No present process is observed that could support the idea of spontaneous generation. If spontaneous generation actually did take place in the distant past to produce the first spark of life, it must be assumed that the laws which govern life had to be completely different from what they are now. ..this thought won't work either because the evolutionary theory strongly rests upon the assumption that conditions on the earth have remained semi-uniform throughout the ages. If the first cell of life sprang up spontaneously from no previsous life, it contradicts a basic law of nature which forms the foundation of the theory. Yet, without believing in spontaneous generation, the evolutionist would have to acknowledge other than natural forces at work.

Dr. George Wald, Nobel Prize Winner of Harvard University, states it as cryptically and honestly as an evolutionist can: "One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are -- as a result, I belive, of spontaneous generation." Scientific American, August 1954. Dr. Wald's statement demonstrates greater faith that a religious creationist can muster. First he says it could not have happened, that it was impossible. Yet he believes it happened. ( At least a creationist believes God was able to create life as we know it in this form; perhaps a better viewpoint of who God is and on what grounds people put so much faith in him is worth looking at in a bit. ) The above statement (read it again) is BLIND FAITH IN THE CONCEEDED TO BE IMPOSSIBLE.

Here we see a miracle of creation is required: either God did it by divine intervention, or blind and unintelligent nature produced the impossible act. Does it take more faith to believe that chance could produce life or that an infinite intelligence could produce it? A scientist's exhaustive search ending in failure still leaves him a believer of one theory. A Christian under the same experience would be called naive and gullible. What a difference the cloak of higher education makes upon our minds. Okay, but what are the real chances of evolution?

Previous: Life, The Universe, and Everything Next: Chance Life - A Ridiculous Improbability (Believe) Religion Page KJV Bible