A New Fantasy Concerning the Origin of Life from New Scientist
In its 27 September, 2003, edition, New Scientist
carried an article called “Relic Hints at Primal Force.” This article
added further speculation to the fantasy that life began with natural phenomena
and coincidences.
The report in New Scientist described
an enzyme existing in modern bacteria and which draws energy from a molecule
known as pyrophosphate, and claimed that this enzyme could have supplied the
necessary energy requirement at the so-called chance beginning of life. It is
evident, however, that this claim provides no support for the thesis that life
began by chance. As noticed, the existence of an enzyme is referred to in this
scenario. Yet New Scientist never once touched on the subject of how
this enzyme could have emerged by chance. The reason for this is clear: there
is no possibility that it could have done so. The evolutionist geologist William
Stokes admits the impossibility of a protein (or enzyme) coming into being by
chance in these terms:
… it [protein] would not occur during billions
of years on billions of planets, each covered by a blanket of a concentrated
watery solution of the necessary amino acids. (W. R. Bird, The Origin
of Species Revisited, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Co., 1991, p. 305)
As we have seen, New Scientist has begun covering
up a number of impossibilities regarding its scenarios based entirely on imagination.
Furthermore, the origin of the enzyme in question is not the only problem which
New Scientist, so devoted to the dogma that life emerged by chance,
needs to overcome. There are a number of unsolvable difficulties facing the
materialist/naturalist theses regarding the origin of life. We advise New
Scientist to cease defending superstitions regarding the origin of life
and to accept the fact that this subject can only be accounted for in terms
of intelligent design and the fact that God has created all living things.
