Life Could Not Exist Had Not God Created It

There is a vigorous debate going on concerning Evolution vs. Intelligent Design. In my opinion, there is no possible way that life could exist on earth had God not created it.

First of all, I see less conflict between the two ideas than some people do. Even if it could be conclusively shown that some forms of life evolved from others, that in no way proves that God did not start the entire process. God has all the time in eternity and just because he did not create life instantly does not mean that he did not create it at all. If you bake a cake, the process is not instantaneous, the baking cake goes through certain stages, but that does not prove that you did not bake the cake if you did not create it in an instant.

We could argue all day about what life forms evolved into what other life forms and come up with inconclusive results. To get to some proof of whether or not God created life, we must go back to the very beginnings of life. Anyone who wishes to demonstrate that God did not create life but that it "evolved" must show how life got started in the first place.

The greatest weakness of the Theory of Evolution is that it does not satisfactorally explain how life got started in the first place. We can talk endlessly about one species evolving into another through beneficial mutations but cannot explain how life arose from inanimate matter through natural processes. Evolution tries to explain the survival of the fittest but does not explain the arrival of the fittest.

Lets go back a few billion (thousand million) years to a barren earth with no life at all and nothing that comes from life. There is water and the atmosphere but no oil, limestone, coal or, humus in the soil. So now, if there is no God that created life, how then did life get started?

We tend to think of nature as life itself, meadows, trees and, grass. But the fact is that life is actually against the properties of inanimate, non-living nature. Life in any form requires extreme intricacy. The simplest biological cell is far, far more intricate than a watch or even the latest computer processor chip.

The difference between intricacy and complexity is size. The earth, with it's atmospheric, geological and, hydrological dynamics is complex. But the earth is 8,000 miles in diameter (13,000 km). The non-living forces of nature do not create the great intricacy that would be required for a biological cell to come into existence just by chance, plain and simple. The simplest biological cell that must have formed to get life started would have at the very least, five billion atoms and a very high degree of internal order of those atoms would be required.

A cell intricate enough to reproduce itself by mitosis (division) simply could not form by any natural forces unless it was created by God. If anyone should claim that our primal original cell could have got it's start by the molecular route, the building up of complex molecules until it got complex enough to get life started would run into insurmountable roadblocks.

First of all, complex molecules simply do not form independently of life. Rubber and petroleum molecules are complex but they are synthesized by living things and remember that we have gone back to the early planet earth before there was any life. Atoms that are now abundant in living things like carbon, hydrogen and, oxygen do not form very complex molecules without being synthesized by living things.

An atom of carbon might join four of hydrogen to form methane. Two hydrogens easily combine with an oxygen to form water. Or two oxygen atoms might link up with a carbon atom to form carbon dioxide. If there is a shortage of oxygen atoms, it might join with only one oxygen atom to form carbon monoxide. Carbon under pressure in the ground may join with other carbon atoms to form graphite.

That is about it. If you put all living things aside and look at the world around you, it will be obvious that the molecular route to life formation did not happen. By nature, the atoms that are found in life simply do not form complex structures necessary to approach the intricacy of a living cell by themselves. They form various simple molecules but do not, without synthesis by living things, form more complex structures.

All life as we know it is based on carbon because of it's ability to form very complex molecular structures. But even if a structure of carbon atoms like graphite forms, it is still a simple formula repeated over and over. The incredibly intricacy that would be required to get even the simplest biological cell started is simply not there.

If very complex carbon molecules could form without synthesis by living things, we would be finding globs of plastic around. Have you noticed that plastic does not occur in nature but must be man-made? That is because even though life as we know it is based on carbon, it simply does not naturally form complex molecules on it's own by the inanimate forces of nature.

Our original living cell did not form by complex molecular structures building up until it got complex enough to form life. Suppose that somehow very complex molecules did form by natural processes. Could a single biological cell have formed by random chance to get life started on earth? The answer is absolutely not.

If very complex carbon molecular structures formed by the forces of nature, it could not possibly form a living cell. Large and complex molecules in close proximity to each other will lock together to form interlocking structures. That is what plastics and rubbers are. We would not get life or a living cell, we would get something like nylon or polyethylene. And if these materials formed naturally, without living things, there would not be enough organic materially available for living things to exist.

The only way for single biological cells to reproduce is by mitosis, or division. The cell, when fully grown, splits itself in half to form a copy of itself. To do this, a cell must have a very high degree of instability. If the cell was formed by complex molecular structures, the structures would lock together like they do in plastics forming a very stable structure and mitosis would be impossible.

If a cell were anywhere near stable enough to hold together billions of atoms with a high degree of internal order so that the cell could live, it would be far too stable to reproduce by dividing itself in two. And there is simply no other way for a simple cell to reproduce. It is kind of like seeing a want ad looking for someone 19 years old or younger with 25 years of work experience. The pool of potential candidates would be zero. Anyone 19 or younger could not have 25 years of work experience and anyone with 25 years of work experience could not be 19 years old or younger.

So what we must have for a simple, single biological cell to form is at the very least five billion atoms of the right kind and with a very high degree of internal order ( carbon atoms must be in the right places, oxygens in the right places, etc.). All of these atoms must hold together very carefully so that the cell can live. Yet our primal cell must have a very high degree of instability if it is to divide itself in order to reproduce so there cannot be large molecular structures that lock together and create too much internal stability.

To sum it up, lots and lots of simple molecules would have to come together by random chance, be lined up just right by random chance, hold together but remain unstable enough to divide for reproduction.

Even if this could happen, we run into another roadblock called osmosis. We know that life began in water and it would be even more difficult for the formation of the first cell to happen on land than in water. If other atoms and molecules are dissolved in water, the water tends to pull them apart. If you put a spoonful of sugar or salt in a glass of water, it is not long before it dissolves and distributes itself roughly evenly throughout the glass of water. The same force tends to even out the salinity of the oceans. What this means to us is that the simple molecules that must make up our primal biological cell, even if they somehow came in close proximity to each other by random chance against trillions to one odds, would be pulled apart by osmosis long before they were able to form any kind of biological cell.

The only alternative to this to form of life is the complex molecule route. But this is impossible first of all because complex molecules like this simply do not form naturally, without being synthesized by living things. Secondly, even if they did, large molecular structures in close proximity would lock together and form plastics, not living things. Whichever route we try to take to the formation of our primal cell without God, we come to an impassible roadblock.

Even if we could somehow conceive of a functioning biological cell forming by random meetings of atoms, the struggle to explain how we could have come to exist without God would be just beginning.

First of all, why would a single cell gain any benefit from joining with other cells. Eventually, it may be advantageous to have such a division of labor but initially when a single cell went to being a double cell, it would certainly reduce the mobility of the pair while doubling the amount of food it would need to survive. If you were stranded on a desert island and trying to survive, would your chances of survival be increased if someone else were handcuffed to you?

Life almost certainly had to develop in the sea during it's fragile early days for protection from ultraviolet radiation. But how can anyone explain why living things moved from the sea to the land unless God wanted it to do so? A marine creature would not have the lungs, legs, senses or, bodily structure to move onto land. Some may say that the creatures developed these attributes gradually, but that would require millions of years. Why would a marine creature such as a fish attempt to move onto land and how would it move around enough to find food once it did?

The entire method of reproduction is completely different for land and sea creatures. Sea creatures tend to reproduce externally by laying eggs while land creatures usually reproduce internally. An adventurous sea creature who moved onto land and tried to reproduce by laying eggs on the dry land would get nowhere.

I maintain that the moving of life from sea to land, unless it had the backing of God, would be completely impractical and nonsensical from an evolutionary point of view. It would be somewhat like the astronauts going to the moon, getting out of their spacesuits and expecting to survive and reproduce so as to populate the moon with people.

Another thing that happened but made no evolutionary sense is warm-bloodedness. A warm blooded creature would require more food, a wider variety of food and, more vitamins than a cold-blooded creature. Thus, warm-bloodedness would decrease, rather than increase, the chances of survival of a species. I believe that warm-bloodedness made no evolutionary sense and happened because it was the will of God. Remember that the whole point in evolution is to survive long enough to reproduce.

Yet another question for evolutionists is how invertebrates (without a backbone) changed into vertebrates during the evolutionary process. What would cause creatures to develop a backbone when none had been there before? Could it have been because God was working gradually on the eventual design of higher-order living things? Why have human beings developed such large brains. I find that this runs against the supposed logic of the evolutionary process. Our brains are far, far larger than we need to survive and reproduce. Human brains require a large amount of energy that is then unavailable to the rest of the body. I say that it turned out this way because it is the way God wanted it.

What about our eyes? If we really stretch reality, we could say that other organs "evolved" over time. But we cannot say this about our eyes. The reason being is that the eye has to be there a hundred percent or else it is useless. Any gradual evolution of the eye is nonsensical. I read of a biologist claiming that eyes could have started by the random development of a patch of light-sensitive skin. But a patch of light-sensitive skin on the body would only reveal that a bright sun was shining and would be much more valuable as a source of energy via photosynthesis. The patch of light-sensitive skin as a conveyer of any useful information by visible light would be far, far away and if photosynthesis in animals did not become an established process, there would be no evolutionary logic in handing down the patch of light-sensitive skin to future generations.

I do not see the idea of evolution as denying the existence of God but we must face the fact that living things simply could not have arisen from inanimate matter by natural processes alone. Evolutionists seem to show one case of evolution as proof that life "evolved" and thus, there is no God. This is not the case at all. In one article, the writer demonstrated how imperfect the human design was as evidence that there was no God, as if God would surely made human beings perfect had he created them. I have never seen in the Bible anything about human beings having a physically perfect design.

Finally, life in any form is more than a collection of atoms and molecules, no matter how complex. Life requires a certain "spark" that cannot be explained by analyzing the inanimate forces of nature. Just having the required biological structure does not make something alive. If you dissected organs from dead animals and put these organs together would they suddenly come to life? Of course not. If this were so, people and animals would be dying and then suddenly coming back to life all the time. This "spark" can only be from God.

Plainly and simply, God created us. There is no other way to explain why we exist. The reason that the idea of evolution is so popular is that it makes no moral demands on anyone. If life just evolved and there is no God, then anyone can pretty much do whatever they want, since they would have no God to answer to.