I almost never check my blog during the day.  This morning I did.  One of the comments on yesterday’s blog—Evolution & GOD (part 2) was “Where can I find more information?”
  
I’m a political scientist by education and experience not a natural scientist.  I started from this position; the Bible says that GOD created everything and that position is maintained throughout the Bible.  If that is true and through faith I know that it is, then all other explanations including evolution must be wrong.  So then, I look for logical reasons why it is wrong.  To me there are a number of them however I could never support my conclusions based upon deep, theoretical, natural science explanations because that is not my field.


The post on Saturday gave two books that according to the M.D. who originally wrote the letter refute the ideas of evolution.  I could not confirm that since I have not studied the two books.  Also, I realize since the letter was written in 1998 those two books are not as current as some might like.


I was a trustee for one of my clients back in Tucson and continued when I moved to Illinois.  He died recently and for a number of reasons I resigned.  A new trustee has just been appointed and I need to get the information he needs to him this week.  Consequently, at this point in time, I can’t give any references as far as getting more information.  


However, I am going to send out requests to people who hopefully know more about the natural science part of it than I do.  Next week I will also have some time to do some research on my own.  Therefore, I am hoping that some time next week I can at least partially answer the question.  This I am certain of.  Evolution has gaping holes in it as far as logically explaining creation and the existence of man.


Yesterday, I responded to a letter to the editor that criticized the concept of intelligent design.  On January 26, 2005 the Peoria Journal Star published a letter to the editor which also dealt with the question of the first life on this earth.  Since it was before I started posting, I couldn’t comment on it at that time.  But, from my teaching days, I save articles that I think I might one day use.  That day is tonight.


First, let me say that the headline is another example of the misuse of headlines in the Journal Star.  The headline reads, “Experiments proved natural processes can produce life.”  In fact, the letter does not specifically state that the experiment proved that natural processes can produce life but it does hint that that conclusion might be drawn.  I’m not going to quote the full letter this time but I am quoting a good portion of it.

“Dr. Urey (who died in 1981) teamed with graduate student Stanley Miller in 1953 to perform experiments wherein electrical current (substituting for lightning) was applied to various inorganic chemicals, simulating the conditions as they existed on ancient Earth.  Through their experiment, Urey and Miller were able to produce 13 amino acids of the 21 acids necessary for life.  Amino acids are the key chemical building blocks of life.  Dr. Urey thus asserted that the first life on Earth may have arisen through natural processes similar to those utilized in his experiments.


Dr. Urey did not attempt to prove the existence or absence of God.  Rather, his experiments merely demonstrated that natural processes existent in the universe were capable of producing life, in either the absence or the presence of some overriding divine plan.”


Here are some of the problems I see with this letter.  First and foremost, the experiment referred to did not prove that natural processes can produce life.  This was a controlled experiment and yet the experiment was a failure—no new life was produced!  If the experiment proved anything, it proved that the Doctor’s experiment could not produce life.  Since when is producing 13 of a needed 21 points the equivalent of success?  That is like saying the batter hit a foul ball into the third base stands so we are going to credit the batter with a home run.  (Okay, I know that some can argue that we do just that in schools today but schools are not a scientific experiment.)  Failure to accomplish the goal does not proof that the goal can be accomplished!  That is just irrational reasoning!  


I said the letter hinted at the conclusion that natural processes can produce life because the letter hedged a clear specific conclusion.  He wrote, ”merely demonstrated that natural processes existent in the universe were capable of producing life.”  The key phrase is “were capable of.”  However, that too is wrong.  It did not show they were capable of doing any such thing.  The experiment was not a success.  Plus, the writer said this experiment was done in 1953.  Since then surely other scientists have had an opportunity to duplicate the experiment yet no one has claimed that life of any kind has been created in the laboratory.  


Again, the experiment was a failure.  My not being able to lift 500 pounds does not demonstrate that I am capable of lifting 500 pounds.  Even if I demonstrate I can lift 400 pounds that does not demonstrate than I may be able to lift 500 pounds.  Where is the application of sound, scientific proof from these scientists?  It is not present.  For scientists, this is absurd, illogical, irrational reasoning.  For anyone, this is absurd, illogical, irrational reasoning.


Then, of course, we have the same repeated problem with all of these theories.  Quoting the letter, “demonstrated that natural processes existent in the universe were.”  Where did these natural processes come from?  How did the first lighting develop?
Where did the inorganic chemicals come from?  Where did the earth itself come from?  Where did all the mass of the universe come from?  All these elements are necessary before a scientist can even begin to consider the creation of life.  Yet, no one has nor can anyone adequately explain where they came from without including GOD as the creator.  They assume they were there.  How!  Why!  Explain!  Explain correctly and scientifically!


One final point.  If life was created by natural processes, why was life only created once at one far distant point in time.  Why aren’t the same natural processes occurring over and over again to create new life over and over again.  Assuming a lightening bolt was the catalyst for the creation of life, why were the right components present just once in a history supposedly of 6 million years and then never again?  Is that logical?