"A fair result can be
obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts on
both sides of each question..." - Charles Darwin in
Origin of the Species by
Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured
Races in the Struggle for Life
Today's installment of our series on well-known
scientific weaknesses of neo-Darwinian evolution deals with
the origin of life itself. Many of you learned in high
school that this had been largely solved by Stanley Miller
and Harold Urey who put a mixture of gases in a closed
system, set up a trap to protect and extract any organic
molecules, and arced electricity through it to simulate
lightning. What you may not have been told is that this
work has been discredited as nothing more than an
interesting lab experiment. It used the wrong gases,
non-natural processes, produced poisonous organic molecules
(rather than the "stuff of life") and no longer has
relevance to origin of life chemistry. Darwin's "warm
little pond" remains sterile.
Even the Darwinists have largely punted on this one now,
with some of their "best" guesses being that life started
"on the backs of crystals" or came from outer space. How do
they currently address this question? They don't. They now
rule this question out-of-bounds. How convenient. If you
can't get the very first step right, ignore it and go to the
next steps but declare there is no problem.
Let's be clear: The issue is how to get from dead chemicals
to living cell components with zero guidance, no
pre-existing DNA or RNA, and using only random naturalistic
processes.
Separately, our petition to the SBOE for the retention of
time-tested "strengths and weaknesses" language in the Texas
Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) continues to grow.
For you or a friend or family member to sign up, please
visit:
http://www.strengthsandweaknesses.org/teachbothsides.htm. Please help!
TBSE
+++
|