Return to Crystal Lake Church of Christ
home page01/02/03
by Raymond T. Exum
Crystal Lake Church of Christ, Crystal Lake, Illinois
Sept. 24, 1995
For a copy of this lesson on audio cassette, click here.
Consider the idea that the universe has not always existed. There is ample evidence to show that the universe has had a beginning. And I don't know of anybody who disputes that idea. Did the universe create itself? It would have been impossible for the universe to have brought itself into existence. We also have considered the idea that the universe is slowly moving toward disorder. All of these facts, borne out by the evidence, point to a creator of the universe! And this is exactly what the Bible indicates, that it was God who brought the universe into existence.
For those who may not believe, I would urge you to consider the evidence carefully about the origin of the universe, and see if the Bible does not have the only consistent theory about where the universe came from! I hope this lesson will severely damage the theory of evolution. The more you study this subject, the harder the case is to believe in evolution.
Where did life come from? There is a huge gap between dead matter and living matter. For example, we could take something such as this microphone that is not made up of anything that was ever living, as far as I know. It is certainly dead today. And we can see that the difference between something such as this, which is inanimate, non-living matter; the difference between this and our bodies, is a huge difference. We could say that the difference between something like this microphone and a one-celled organism is a huge chasm, that, frankly, cannot be crossed! However, there are those today who say that life had to come from dead matter, at some point, in the history of the universe.
Really, the question about the origin of life was settled a little over a 100 years ago with one of the greatest bacteriologists ever to live, Louis Pasteur. Pasteur discovered many things about the microscopic world. Pasteur, for example, discovered that bacteria caused disease. He discovered the principle of immunity against disease. That is, you take dead bacteria and dead viruses, inject them into a person, and in some cases, the body will produce antibodies against those diseases, so that we will never get those diseases! The idea of vaccination, therefore, goes back to Louis Pasteur. Louis Pasteur found a vaccine, for example, against rabies. He made many other discoveries of the microscopic world.
But in the 1800's, there was a widespread belief in what was called "spontaneous generation." That is, most people in the 1800's believed that after a rain, there would be flies that would be generated by mud puddles! This was a common belief; that mud produced flies. It was believed that cheese would produce baby mice. I mean, after all, this is logical... you put out a piece of cheese, and after a while, you see little mice running around! So their assumption was that mice came from cheese. They believed that dew drops produced lightning bugs. They also believed that worms came from rotten wood. They had many similar beliefs such as that; that dead, inanimate material could produce life in one form or another.
And it was Louis Pasteur who conducted, probably, the most famous experiment in the history of bacteriology. He took a glass beaker with a long skinny neck on it with a number of bends in it, but it still was open at the end of all of the curves of the neck. He put a broth in there and he boiled it. That is, he sterilized the broth. He turned the beaker sideways so that these bends were horizontal - but remember that the beaker was still open at the end - and then he set it there. The common thought of his day was that the broth inside the beaker would produce life! It would produce either bacteria, fungus, or various things such as that. But Louis Pasteur knew that the reason that things could get contaminated is because of spores in the air; bacteria in the air that settle on things such as the broth. However, with all of these bends in the beaker, the dust could not make it to the broth. It settled in the lower part of these bends in the glass neck of the beaker. After several weeks, therefore, he convinced the scientific world of his day that life does not come from dead matter! Because nothing grew in the beaker. This was an astounding experiment that he conducted. And he proved with this experiment, once and for all, that life does not come from dead matter. He proved that forever!
Well, not quite forever. Because there was a guy named Charles Darwin that came on the scene. Darwin came up with this theory of evolution which sounded fine, but there was one big problem to it...how did life begin? Darwin, therefore, had to go around this experiment by Pasteur. I want to read from The Letters of Charles Darwin, Volume 2, Page 171, what Darwin, himself, said about the origin of life:
"Though no evidence, worth anything, has as yet been advanced in favor of a living being being developed from inorganic matter; yet, I cannot avoid believing the possibility that this will be proved some day."
Well, he was certainly right on the first part, and that is, there was no evidence. There still is no evidence that life has ever come from dead matter. But Darwin wanted to believe in evolution. Therefore, the second part of this statement is: "...I've got to believe" (which is true, he had to believe) "that at some point in the future life could be shown to have arisen from dead matter." Well, it was an honest statement, but it was based on faith, and thus far, since the days of Darwin, there is still no evidence of life coming from dead matter.
Let us look, therefore, at this idea, the basic assumption of the theory of evolution, whether or not life has arisen from inorganic or inanimate matter at some point in history. I'd like to discuss the recent history of this question, and secondly, two big insurmountable problems with the idea that life has come from dead matter. Then finally, let us look at what the Bible says about the origin of life.
Let us look at the recent history of this question, over the last 50 years. What has been going on, concerning the origin of life? In 1953, there was an extremely famous experiment that was conducted by two scientists: Harold Urey and Stanley Miller. In fact, it is referred to as the Urey and Miller experiment. They mixed a bunch of chemicals together, heated it up and let it sit there for a while. And as a result of tinkering with it and so forth, what finally came out of that batch of chemicals, was the fact that the chemicals had produced two amino acids. And I remember so well when this was carried out. At one time I was studying to be a bacteriologist. You may find that hard to believe, but nevertheless, that was going to be my chosen profession in life, which is why I was so familiar with this experiment. The Urey-Miller experiment was taken, at that time, as the first step that eventually would result in producing life in a laboratory. They were awarded prizes for this experiment. It was extremely famous. It was terrifying to many Christians. I remember preachers talking about the Urey-Miller Experiment and how we shouldn't let this upset our faith and so forth. Many articles in magazines said they were right on the verge of creating life because they had produced two amino acids from this chemical.
As we look back on it now, not even evolutionists consider that experiment to be valid. There are several reasons that has been discarded, even though everybody was talking about in the late '50's and the 1960's. One reason is that it did not take place as a chance occurrence. It was in a laboratory. It was conducted by intelligent men. That is, it was orchestrated by the human mind. And it is not believed that it could be duplicated out in nature without intelligent guidance.
But there's a second problem with it that has only come about in recent years. Urey and Miller assumed an atmosphere without oxygen. That's how the experiment was conducted, without oxygen in the atmosphere.
Lately they discovered something called the ozone layer, which is a derivative of oxygen, .and they have found that life cannot live without the ozone layer! Therefore, this experiment is worthless from the point of view of modern evolutionists because it leaves out the ozone layer. It does not account for that. And therefore, radiation from the sun would have destroyed any life that might have developed from these chemicals. So that experiment has come to an end.
For many years, I have subscribed to Popular Science magazine and I enjoy reading it every month. And I'll tell you the current theory, according to that magazine and the number of articles they've had the last couple of years. The current theory concerning where life came from is that it came from outer space. Isn't that brilliant? I mean, what great thinking this is! "Well, we can't explain it here on earth...that means it had to come from outer space!"
Well, there's several problems with saying that it came from outer space! The biggest is, well, how did it get started in outer space? I mean, if you can't make life on earth from dead matter, then how can you explain life from outer space? Give us a consistent theory about where life developed or how it could have developed in outer space.
There's a second problem. If it arrived from outer space, it arrived on a meteorite. Thus far, no meteorite has ever been discovered to have any life forms, no remains of bacteria, no fossils; no organic or animate matter has ever been found on a meteorite that has hit the earth! Therefore, we see some tremendous problems with this theory today that says "Well, it came from outer space, somewhere." That does not deal with the issue. That is another way to skirt what the evidence says today.
[Editor's note: Since this sermon was delivered, several scientists have claimed a meteorite from Mars shows evidence of life. This is currently a very controversial issue among scientists, with many top scientists disagreeing with the findings. Even if it does contain evidence of life, it may be that a meteorite from earth seeded Mars with life. We shall see.]
Well, that brings us up to date, basically, on the history of this question. Let us look at two areas that indicate this theory of life coming from dead matter, really is in extremely serious trouble.
Number one, consider the complexity of life. It is hard for most of us, as non-scientists or non- biologists, to really understand how complex life really is, compared to dead matter. Somebody might say, "Well, you take the simplest form of life, which is the virus, .and viruses aren't too complicated. Maybe, the first life that arose was in the form of a virus, the simplest of all organisms. Maybe there was a warm pond out there that got hit by lightning, and when the storm was over, there were viruses growing. And from viruses, we proceed to one-celled bacteria, and on up the scale and here we are today!"
There are a few problems with that idea. Number one, viruses are not as simple as some people think. Look, for example, at the disease of AIDS. That is caused by a virus, not by a bacteria. Big difference, there, between viruses and bacteria. Here is a virus that destroys the immune system in a human body over a period of years. If it is such a simple organism, why can't we cure it? Why can't we somehow get around these simple little organisms that infect the bodies of people? I submit that viruses are a lot more complicated than what some people want to admit.
There's a second problem with saying that life started with viruses. This really seals the case. Viruses cannot live without a host organism. They cannot live on their own. That is, they have to live in the body of something bigger: maybe a one-celled bacterium, maybe a human, an elephant, whatever. They cannot live on their own. Life did not begin with viruses. Evolutionists, therefore, have said that it began with a one-celled bacteria. I don't know how you explain viruses. Was there a de-evolution that took place? I mean, did evolution go backwards for a while, from a one-celled bacteria down to a virus? I'm not sure how they would answer that.
Let's go with their assumption, therefore, that life began with a one-celled bacteria. Somebody might say, "Well, I remember in high school biology, that we used to take the microscopes out and we would look at these cute little amoebas as they were oozing around from place to place." And somebody might say, "Well, they didn't look too complicated to me!." I don't think mankind will ever grasp the complexity even of a one-celled amoeba. We will never understand the mechanism that they use to reproduce, for example. In fact, let me read a statement by the head of the zoology department at Cambridge University, as he was talking about the complexity of life. He said, "The most elementary type of cell constitutes a mechanism, unimaginably more complex than any machine yet thought up, yet alone constructed by man."
When we begin studying these little one-celled animals, we find that they have the ability to grow, the ability to reproduce. They have a rate of metabolism. They have specialized organs. They can adapt to their environment. They show signs of irritability. They can repair themselves after an injury. We can take this microphone out and hit it with a hammer and put a big dent in it; it's not going to repair itself. That little one-celled amoeba has the ability to repair itself after an injury. It has the ability to dispose of waste. There are no parallels in the inanimate world that would correspond to that little one-celled animal.
We can take something such as the cell wall. When you see how far bacteriology, or as it's called today, pathology, has come in the last 50 years, with electron microscopes, with all of the advanced equipment that people have today, you still do not find anybody saying, "I'm going to make a cell wall for an amoeba." It is such a complicated structure that it goes beyond human wisdom. Let me read a statement by one of the most famous evolutionists of this century, Sir Fred Hoyle. He said, along these lines, "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way, is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." And he's an evolutionist who's admitting that!
We see, therefore, that life is extremely complicated, and thus far, the evidence indicates that life will never come from dead matter. There's a second thing to deal with, and this is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I have the entire statement written out here; it would take a while to read the entire wording, but basically, to summarize it, it states that everything tends to run down. Every- thing tends to break down in life, to simpler forms. Clocks run down. Wind-up toys run down. Rocks fall off cliffs. We don't see rocks, on their own, building cliffs up. We see, basically, that mountains tend to erode; rocks fall off and so forth. We go to the store, buy a bottle of shampoo, and on the bottom, there's the expiration date. Why is there an expiration date? Because of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, that things tend to revert to simpler forms. Medicine, and so forth, all of these things expire. Houses tend to deteriorate. Toys tend to break. Chemicals tend to decompose to their most basic elements.
People say, "Well, there's no God." We say, "Well, then how did life begin?" Well, lightning struck the warm pond or something such as that happened and this is how life began! Is it reasonable to believe that life violated the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and became more and more complicated in time? According to scientists, whose statements I have read, at this point in human history there has not been found one exception to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Not one exception! The evidence still supports what the Bible says. Life cannot originate from dead matter. It cannot organize itself and ascend up from the one-celled animal to the human beings that we see around us today.
What does the Bible say on this subject? I'd like to call your attention to two passages at this time. The first is back on the first page of the Bible, Genesis, Chapter 1. Let's read the biblical account of where life came from. I want to read verses 11 and 12, from the 3rd day of the Creation:
"Then God said, 'Let the earth sprout vegetation: plants yielding seed and fruit trees bearing fruit, after their kind, with seed in them on the earth.' And it was so. And the earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed after their kind and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind. And God saw that it was good." God, therefore, originated the plant kingdom, on the third day of the creation week.
If you would look over, please, to Verse 20, as we go through the 4th day. And also, I want to read beyond just the fourth day, to the fifth and sixth days. But notice how animal life began. Genesis 1:20: "Then God said, 'Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.' And God created the great sea monsters and every living creature which moves, with which the water swarmed, after their kind. And every winged bird, after its kind. And God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters and the seas and let birds multiply on the earth.' And there was evening, and there was morning - the fifth day."
Verse 24 is the beginning of the sixth day. "Then God said, 'Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle, and creeping things and beasts of the earth, after their kind.' And it was so. And God made the beasts of the earth after their kind and the cattle after their kind and everything that creeps on the ground, after its kind. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all of the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.' And God created man in His own image, in the image of God, He created him; male and female, he created them."
This is the passage that the evidence today bears out. There is no evidence that life comes from dead matter. The evidence supports special creation, as we see here in Genesis 1. I'd like to call your attention to one more passage, Romans, Chapter 1. Let us look at this passage with the question, "Why would people want to believe that life has arisen from dead matter?." Notice that question, and what Paul says in answer to it.
Romans 1:18: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness because that which is known about God is evident within them, for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations..."
Would you notice that statement, please?
"They became futile in their speculations and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and of four-footed animals and crawling creatures. And therefore God gave them over in the lust of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them."
Verse 25: "For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator - who is blessed forever. Amen."
What Paul is saying here is that people rejected God. They, therefore, had to come with some kind of theory concerning why we are here. We're obviously here, and they resorted to futile speculations.
I want to read a statement that demonstrates exactly what the apostle Paul is talking about here. This is a statement by Isaac Asimov. I'm sure some are familiar with his work in science and especially his science fiction writings. He is an atheist. [editor's note: he has since died] He is a thorough-going evolutionist. Isaac Asimov says this on this subject: "After all, from the mere fact that we are here, we are forced to assume that once upon a time, at least one case of spontaneous generation took place; assuming further, that one eliminates supernatural creation from consideration."
Isn't that what Paul said? They rejected God - eliminated supernatural creation from consideration- and therefore, in spite of the evidence, they still had to come up with a futile speculation concerning where life has come from. This is the same thing that happened with Charles Darwin. It is the same thing that happens with so many today as they reject God. And even though evolution does not make sense; it violates the known laws of science, they still have to accept it. Because, obviously, we're here, as Isaac Asimov said.
Ultimately, the theory of evolution is an attack upon Jesus Christ Himself. Somebody might say, "Well, where did Christ talk about evolution?" It is in Matthew, chapter 19, that Jesus referred to Adam and Eve, being made male and female at the beginning. They were made in that beginning week of creation. They were not people who evolved after billions of years of evolution here on the earth. Jesus said Adam and Eve were made male and female and they were there at the beginning. We cannot accept evolution without rejecting Jesus Christ. Jesus affirmed that special creation was involved in bringing Adam and Eve into existence.
If you want to pursue this subject further, I want to recommend two books: Josh McDowell has written a number of excellent books on evolution, Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity and Answers to Tough Questions.
We certainly hope that those who have considered evolution in the past will reconsider it and look at the actual evidence and not the foolish speculation that is going on today in many areas. We would urge you, ultimately, to believe in Jesus as the Christ, to be baptized into His kingdom for the forgiveness of your sins and to accept the creation account as it is set forth in the scriptures.