Evolution violates known physicals laws as to explain the origin of life

For evolution to offer an explanation for the origin of life, the known scientific physical law of biogenesis must be violated. The law of biogenesis states that “life can only generate from life”(1) yet, evolutionist imagine that somehow chemicals must have emerged into living organisms in a “warm little pond” for life to have first begun.(2)

Over 170 years ago, during the mid-1800’s, light years ago on the time scale of scientific advancement, the idea of the spontaneous generation of life was still widely accepted as the mechanism for the origin of life. Among these historically important scientists that believed at least some aspects to this model included: Jean Lamarck, Alfred Wallace, Thomas Huxley, and of course Charles Darwin.  Darwin wrote his book ‘The Origin of Species’(3)  which is still hailed to this day as the basis for the Theory of Evolution. In defense of these scientists, we must note that these ideas persisted before the discovery of microbes, the understanding of germs, the understanding of the complexity of the living cell, or DNA.

When these scientists of the nineteenth century (or earlier) witnessed a decaying animal on the side of the road, life did seem to emerge in the form of maggots and flies. These life forms seemed to have emerged from thin air.  Scientists of this time thought the living cell as simple. They imagined these cells as ‘blobs’ of ‘protoplasm’.  Compare this as a contrast to what we understand about the complexity of the living cell today, these ‘blobs’ of the 1800’s would be a ‘universe’ in the twenty first century.

It was Louis Pasteur’s experiments in the 1840’s(4) that confirmed spontaneous generation of biological organisms did not occur. He found that by sanitizing bottles and containers unwanted growths such as molds or germs could be controlled. If you have heard of ‘pasteurized milk’ it comes from this scientific determination of Louis Pasteur. In other words, living things are the only way other living things can come into existence and life forms such as germs (or literally any living organism) do not spontaneously emerge.

Today, scientists know that the spontaneous emergence of life does not happen, not ever. Yet, for over 170 years this evolutionary idea of the spontaneous arrival of life persists. Why would scientists continue to push forward a known false scientific principle?  Simply put: without this narrative, evolution has no explanation for the origin of life. Therefore, to preserve the ideals of evolution, we are still indoctrinated with the “primordial-soup-emergence-of-life” nonsense. To make it even worse, we are taught this in science class!

In summary, evolution must have the original biological organisms of earth arriving from spontaneous generation of non-living chemicals.(5) This must have occurred in the past as to explain the arrival of all living organisms on earth today.  This is held as a scientific explanation despite the fact that this so called ‘science’ violates the very science it presupposes to explain.

Evolutionary Chemist and author Andrew Scott stated in a New Scientist article a revealing perspective on this dilemma.  Mr. Scott remarked, “Take some matter, heat while stirring and wait. That is the modern version of Genesis. The ‘fundamental’ forces of gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces are presumed to have done the rest….But how much of this neat tale is firmly established, and how much remains hopeful speculation? In truth, the mechanism of almost every major step, from chemical precursors up to the first recognizable cells, is the subject of either controversy or complete bewilderment.”(6) (emphasis mine)


  1. http://(http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Law+of+biogenesis
  2. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/02/more-doubts-about-primordial-soup.html
  3. http://darwin-online.org.uk/EditorialIntroductions/Freeman_OntheOriginofSpecies.html
  4. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/a-history-of-medicine/louis-pasteur/
  5. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140724094021.htm
  6. Scott, Andrew, “Update on Genesis,” New Scientist, vol. 106 (May 2, 1985), pp. 30.

Leave Comment