How did life start? Where did life start? What is life? Inquiring minds want to know.
One dictionary says life is the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity and continual change preceding death.
Another definition says life is defined as any system capable of performing functions such as eating, metabolizing, excreting, breathing, moving, growing, reproducing and responding to external stimuli.
One more says life is a quality that distinguishes matter that has biological processes, such as signaling and self-sustaining processes, from matter that does not, and is defined by the capacity for growth, reaction to stimuli, metabolism, energy transformation, and reproduction.
Those definitions don't pretend to address how life originated, and they make sense.
Now let me mention several -- supposedly scientific -- articles I read on the origin of life.
One article tells us that we have an idea of what earth looked like 4 billion years ago. But it's only a guess.
Several agree that our atmosphere contained water, methane, ammonia, hydrogen and other common elements. But they don't have a scientific basis for the assumption.
They also agree on what they call the four main stages for how life evolved from nonliving matter. But that is not science; it's only humanistic imagination.
Another thing they agree on is that small organic molecules -- such as amino acids that make proteins and nucleotides that make DNA -- were made. A quick study into the structure of DNA will easily dispel this nonscientific myth.
Some astronomers have their ideas about how life began. They think we may have been seeded by visitors from other solar systems or by meteorites bearing bits of life forms and evolution took over from there. But that's not the origin of life. At best, that would be a continuation of life already in existence. And the concept of evolution falls into the genre of science fiction.
Some biologists have ideas about how life began.
In an article titled, "How Did Life Spring Up From Non-Life? Scientists May Finally Have Some Clues," by Monique Brouillette, we read, "Scientists have continually tried to pinpoint the exact origins of life on Earth. One of the leading theories is that life emerged from chemical processes in Earth's early ocean. Simple chemical precursors, such as water, carbon and hydrogen, mixed and mingled until they formed complex polymers like DNA, RNA, and protein – the building blocks of life."
But wait a minute! Simple precursors mixing in this primordial soup until they formed complex things such as DNA, RNA and proteins? This myth is almost laughable. People who believe this have no understanding of the structure and multi-complexity of DNA. Those people are not addressing the origins of life. In their mythologizing, they're not even adhering to their own philosophy of what science is. It's like watching a magnificent Boeing 747 take off and fly into the clouds, circle around, and land -- then exclaiming that the 6,000,000 parts of the plane were in a tumbler for millions of years and came out a beautiful jumbo jet.
Science is not involved in these hypotheses of how life originated. They are speculations based on humanistic bias merged with predetermined conclusions. It is actually religion based on the belief that either there is no God, or that God -- if He exists -- had nothing to do with creation.
It gets so irrational that an honest scientific discussion is not possible. The word science means knowledge. The scientific method deals with observation, testing, getting results, retesting to see if the results differ, proving or disproving theories and establishing fact.
In the true manner of scientific endeavors, we must address all possibilities in order to determine truth. But to declare as invalid a rational source, then declare as fact a highly improbable and non-verifiable concept, is not science. In fact, science is not involved.
Yes, I am a Christian. And yes, I have a scientific background. And I affirm to you today that there is no discrepancy between belief in Jesus Christ and the Bible and being a scientist. Many highly acclaimed scientists have been and are Christians.
Do not believe the myth that science and the Bible are at odds with each other. They are not. Both scientists and Christians make mistakes, but scientific endeavors have proven the Bible to be true many times.
Study science and study the Bible. But base your life on Jesus Christ.
S. Eugene Linzey is author, speaker and mentor. Send comments and questions to [email protected]. Visit his web site at www.genelinzey.com. The opinions expressed are those of the author.