The Blog

Naturalistic biologists assert that life generated spontaneously from nonliving chemicals by natural laws without any intelligent intervention.

Such a theory might seem plausible to a nineteenth-century scientist who didn’t have the technology to investigate the complexity of the cell. But today this naturalistic theory flies in the face of everything we know about natural laws and biological systems.

Since the 1950s, advancing technology has enabled scientists to discover a tiny world of intricate design and astonishing complexity.

At the same time that our telescopes are seeing farther out into space, our microscopes are seeing deeper into the components of life.

While our observations has yielded an Anthropic Principle of Physics, our life observations are yielding an equally impressive Anthropic Principle of Biology.

Let us take a look at an example of a so-called “simple” life—a one-celled organism called the amoeba.

Naturalistic evolutionists claim that this one-celled amoeba came together by spontaneous generation (which means it appeared out of randomness without any intelligent intervention) in a warm little pond somewhere on very early earth.

According to their theory, all biological life evolved from the first amoeba without any intelligent guidance at all. This theory is known as macroevolution. Believers of this theory of origin are called by many names: naturalistic evolutionists, humanists, atheists, materialists, and Darwinists.

Forget the Darwinists’ assertions about men sharing a common ancestor with apes or birds evolving from reptiles. The supreme problem for Darwinists is not explaining how all life forms are related. The supreme problem for Darwinists is explaining the origin of the first life.

For unguided, naturalistic macroevolution to be true, the first life must have generated spontaneously from nonliving chemicals.

Unfortunately for Darwinists, the first life—indeed any form of life—is by no means “simple”.

How complex is the first life?