This is part 6 of a series on Who Am I?
Evolutions Standing in Modern Science Today?
So, with this delve we have made into the scientific theory, when you take its pieces apart, and when you look for empirical evidence that would prove this theory of Evolution, Modern Science cannot provide such evidence that this theory is plausible. In fact, it has so far been impossible to substantiate Evolution as a workable theory. What other conclusion are we left with? There on the other hand, is substantial proof that life is made up of complex intelligent design. Design so complex we are still studying it, and trying to figure out how it could have been created and made to work in the first place, because it is superior to any technology we have ever been able to create. THIS IS WHAT MODERN SCIENCE HAS PROVEN EMPIRICALLY!
When trying to discover “who we are” and the origin of life on this planet, it is clear that Modern Science is still investigating, and even concealing its findings, and their meaning. Why? Because it has a theory it wants to give us… one it wants so much to believe in; but it’s a theory that its own scientists can’t prove. Modern Science holds up the mantra, that true science must be empirically proven to be substantiated. Its claim is that Evolution is all about empirical evidence. In fact, this is their main case against Religion; saying it can’t be empirically proved, therefore, it can’t be accepted as fact or truth. Yet their own foundational theory of Evolution, has no empirical evidence! Let’s look more closely.
After the 1960s, Scientists studying the origin of life divided into different camps. With the discovery of DNA and Genetics; out dated thinking now needed to be updated, because the science had grown. Darwinian ideas, popular from the 1800 to 1960, no longer applied. The theory of Evolution now had huge challenges to still remain viable. If life self-started, how did it do it?
How did this theory of Evolution turn on and start up?
Not everyone in the scientific community could agree which part of life’s bio-system would have come together first, as they have not been able to recreate life in a lab, or even to produce a successful experiment to simulate or demonstrate its origin.
On a quest to understand and explain life’s origin, these specific camps of believers formed by gravitating towards their preferred belief, in how this process of life came into being. Out of this grew 3 theories that were being explored.
3 Leading Theories (Scientist at Odds)
Each leading theory has been supported by the most advanced minds of the times in their respective fields of science, and each had reasoned arguments to back up why they believed their theory for this process was the correct one. The leading theories came down to: the Cell, the Metabolism, or the Genetics.(1)
- “Some were convinced that life began with the formation of primitive versions of today’s biological cells.” A basic cell structure that could hold and isolate the first necessary chemical compounds was paramount before anything else could happen.(2) The old Oparin-Haldane hypothesis building on Darwin’s ideas.
- “Others thought the key first step was a metabolic system.” Without the ability to consume energy to power life— it can’t be alive to do anything. Metabolism, or the process of consumption must have come first, before anything else could be fueled or constructed and enabled to happen.(3)
- Finally, a third group focused on the importance of genetics and replication as the catalyst for life. This starting point, they believed, might be centered in the construction of RNA (ribonucleic acid) to kickstart the life process. RNA has a less complicated bio-structure to be assembled, and to form— than its more complicated partner DNA. If RNA could be proven to come together naturally, it might begin the process to construct everything else. (4) At the very least, if they could construct RNA, it would be a strong case to suggest other components could self-construct as well.
As each group has tried to prove their theory and provide the science to back it up for the last 60 years, each of these groups have run into problems. None of them have been able to provide the answer or demonstrate life’s true starting point. While they continue to manipulated all the variables, and have watched and recorded the reactions of cellular components during their experiments—attempting to ignite parts of the system to come together and start up; all have fallen short of producing “the successful experiment, to ignite life”, and provide a workable method, simulation, or process to show how their evolutionary theory is able to provide the solution; even to produce a single workable functioning part of the cellular system.
Irreducible Systems
To make a system go (which requires all its parts to function), it would be difficult to isolate one part as the driving mechanism for all the others. If each provides a critical function that the others don’t; all are required as a needful part of the equation to explain or have existing biological life. This is what has been called an irreducible system. Darwin, himself spoke of such a challenge to proving his theory. If something living requires a basic set of needed parts to be able to exist, and by removing even one of those basic parts you can’t have a living life form; then you cannot start with less. It is irreducible. Therefore, the challenge for a scientist who believes life Evolved—is to find a way to prove how one of these critical parts came to be without the others; and then created the rest. To conduct their experiments (since scientists can’t create any kind of life), they must take exiting biological life and experiment with living organisms.
Marshall, in his article points out that because of the passion with which each group supports its own theories, “scientific meetings on the origin of life have often been fractious affairs.” (5) With these independent groups religiously dedicated to their own theories; they are somewhat tribalistic.
“All three ideas acquired adherents and have survived to the present day. Scientists have become passionately committed to their pet ideas, sometimes blindly so…and journalists covering the subject are regularly told by a scientist in one camp that the ideas emerging from the other camps are stupid or worse.” (6)
– Michael Marshall
The scientific society at large today is clearly divided; each division to a point of criticizing and invalidating the work of the others; and not sure what the answer is as to life’s spark.
One thing all of them are united on though; is that there is no God, and that life came from Evolution, even though they have yet to prove the theory. And if you can’t prove a theory, then it remains a theory and is based in a belief system, not empirical scientific evidence.
Self-Evident Truth
In looking over the ongoing investigations into Evolution by the scientific community; and looking what the self-evident discoveries of science (that are empirical) have proven about the function of biological life: with the cell, genetics, and the DNA; I think a credible self-evident truth has been emerging. The only answer that can provide a credible explanation of the truth we see in the structuring and function of that life, is that intelligent life had to have produced it. Creation, and not Evolution is the logical explanation behind the life on this planet.
While the Atheist Leadership who rule Modern Science in academia will never make such an admission, adjustments needed to be made to their theories to accommodate these new scientific truths of the complexity of life. Hence the admission of Papineau and Dodd we discussed earlier:
“…it looks likely that microbial creatures started swarming Earth almost as soon as it formed. Even without consensus on how and where life got going, everyone pretty much now agrees on a basic when: early. And quickly.” (7)
This statement reveals that Modern Science has had to give up one of its cardinal beliefs of Evolution, to now admit that early life on the planet did not evolve over millions of years to produce the first life forms. They now must recognize that a viable complex cell containing DNA was required right from the beginning, to explain the life we find in ancient fossils.
Not only that, but this life was designed to procreate and perpetuate itself within a delicate environment carefully and distinctly designed to support it.
Why can’t this be admitted to in scientific circles? The only logical conclusion that can be reached, is that the discovery of “actual truth” is not the aim of Modern Science; but the support and evangelizing of an anti-God belief in the development and unfolding of the universe. They are accepting of any science or theory that supports a self-constructing universe; but they will ignore any evidence or truth that challenges their Atheism.
Alien Life
A fourth group has emerged that will admit to this, yet they still come up short of calling it God. Some call it aliens from another world; or drifting natural living spores arrived from a distant planet. (8) The trouble with this theory is it just starts the same argument over again on another world. How did that intelligent life come to be— to create the intelligent life that exists there? Religion faces a similar problem with where did God come from?
Creation VS Evolution
We may not know how life was ignited and accomplished originally in any part of the universe; but what we see and understand about life here (from the provable science we do have), clearly demonstrates, that the simplest and most reasonable conclusion that can account for this mind-blowingly detailed and complex biosystem of life on this planet; is that it was engineered and constructed by intelligent life.
Creation—not Evolution, is the only viable explanation.
To be continued . . .
Sources:
1. The Secret of How Life began on the Earth, Article by Michael Marshall, 31 October 2016 http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161026-the-secret-of-how-life-on-earth-began
2. The Secret of How Life began on the Earth, Article by Michael Marshall, 31 October 2016 http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161026-the-secret-of-how-life-on-earth-began
3. The Secret of How Life began on the Earth, Article by Michael Marshall, 31 October 2016 http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161026-the-secret-of-how-life-on-earth-began
4. The Secret of How Life began on the Earth, Article by Michael Marshall, 31 October 2016 http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161026-the-secret-of-how-life-on-earth-began
5. The Secret of How Life began on the Earth, Article by Michael Marshall, 31 October 2016 http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161026-the-secret-of-how-life-on-earth-began
6. The Secret of How Life began on the Earth, Article by Michael Marshall, 31 October 2016 http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161026-the-secret-of-how-life-on-earth-began
7. A new finding raises an old question: Where and when did life begin? By Kat McGowan September 8, 2017 https://www.popsci.com/where-and-when-did-life-begin/
8. Panspermia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia
Mountain Star Network 