top of page


Updated: Aug 22, 2022

Human knowledge is increasing at a rate far beyond what ancient man was able to accomplish. A recent survey of the scientific literature noted an exponential increase with the volumes of information, now doubling every fifteen years. [1] The human brain is capable of incredible discoveries in the natural world, and more mysteries are unraveling themselves every day. However some mysteries still remain somewhat impenetrable, including the human brain itself. Some biologists are even calling it "the last and grandest biological frontier." [2] The nature of consciousness is another related mystery where progress has been slow. However experiments with quantum mechanics has shown that the universe is inexplicably tied to, and seemingly designed for consciousness. The universe was demonstrated to respond to the presence of consciousness in experiments like the two-slit experiment. [3] Discoveries like these demonstrate that the universe behaves differently if there is a conscious mind observing it, and gives evidence for the idea that the universe was designed to hold conscious entities, instead of consciousness being more of an accident or a by product as naturalism might suggest.

But perhaps one of the most frustrating remaining mysteries of science is in the origin of life, at least for those who believe that the material universe is all that exists. Naturalist researchers seem to be stuck at a complete roadblock and cannot move past the basic Miller-Urey level experiments. [4] These type of experiments are able to produce basic amino acids using only natural processes, but are completely unable to create anything resembling complex protein machinery or information out of them. Even the simplest known forms of life require a complete cell with a complex factory of protein machinery already operating inside, and volumes of instructions and body plans already present inside a DNA or RNA molecule. It is not hard to imagine why Darwinists are having a difficult time getting something like that from natural processes.

Some of the newer proposed concepts for a natural origin of even the most basic forms of life sound like they are right out of a bad science fiction movie. The leading theories include a lightning strike in a body of water full of semi-organic molecules, or life forming on the backs of crystals [5], or having just the right molecules fall in order on a clay substrate to create a basic cell. [6] These theories completely ignore the basic facts about our universe, such as the universe always tending toward disorder [7], otherwise known as entropy. As far as humanity has observed the entire universe is breaking down, and this has been quantified by physicists using testable equations. Yet the naturalists insist that the arrow of entropy can be reversed and complicated things can come into existence on their own, just without any actual observations or evidence. And they propose that life can also become more complicated as time goes on, even though this has never once been observed in the laboratory. However the science is clear, the only known or observed force that can create information, machinery, or reverse entropy is intelligence. [7] This suggests that a greater intelligence would have to be responsible for something as complex as life.

- IT'S ALIVE ! -

The failed Miller - Urey experiment is the closest secular scientists have gotten

to a natural origin of life. Like the fictional Dr. Frankenstein the

naturalists also attempted unsuccessfully to use lightning to create life.

However researchers have been sitting on a known mechanism that can create information and complex protein machinery for nearly 30 years. In 1991 creation scientists Dr. William Dembski first proposed the theory of intelligent design in his landmark paper "Randomness by Design," which was published in the journal Noûs. [8] Since that time, countless new discoveries in intelligent design have confirmed Dembski's original hypothesis, which claimed that intelligence was required for the creation of living cells. Confusingly, the secular scientific world refuses to consider that an intelligence may be responsible for the creation of life from non-living chemicals, regardless of the fact that the theory still has unrivaled explanatory power. Still to this day, countless resources and funding seem to be wasted on the natural origin of life research, apparently attempting to force an answer from chemical evolution. One cannot help but wonder why naturalists ignore what promises to be the future of biology, and to open up countless new avenues of research and discovery. Is it possible these evolutionary scientists have some sort of an agenda besides discovering the truth?

The debate about the origin of life is an ancient one, but there have always only been two possibilities, an intelligent agent or a natural one. Although these two possibilities have taken different forms throughout time, fundamentally humanity has been having the same debate since the beginning of history. Early humans had two kinds of religion, the pantheistic or nature worshipping religions which taught that humans come from nature itself, or other religions taught that humanity was directly created by God or gods. Down through the ages humanity continued to be split, even during the time of the great philosophers of ancient Greece. Some schools argued for creative intelligence designing life and the universe such as Socrates and Plato, while others held that the gods who they believed created life were more of a manifestation of nature. In more modern times the sciences are simply repeating the same debate, with many arguing on both sides.

But if nature could create life, exactly how did this happen? Darwin thought that his theory explained how nature created new kinds of animals, but he was aware of the bigger problem that this line of thinking created, in the natural origin of life. He proposed a possible solution, which is still held by modern evolutionists, now called abiogenesis. Darwin wrote about the origin of life in 1871, "We could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity are present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed." [9]

- The Grand Prismatic Spring, Yellowstone Park -

Did Darwin have this spring in mind when he proposed abiogenesis in 1871?

Regardless no life forms have ever been observed forming spontaneously in it

or any other body of water. It seems that intelligence is the missing factor in the

creation of life.