Blog

by Steve Risner

Today, we’ll look at another wonderful example of poor logic, poor theology, and a terrible misunderstanding of both the arguments Biblical creationists make for their position and against the position a person who believes in abiogenesis and universal common descent (we call them evolutionists but this description as to what they believe is more useful, I think). We’ve discussed for some weeks the statements made by a theistic evolutionist and, frankly, how crazy much of what he says is. You can find the previous installments of this series here, here, here, here, and here. We began by outlining his initial statements and then, as he described what he felt were some inaccuracies concerning some arguments a meme had made about his beliefs.

We touched on entropy in our last two posts (linked above). I’ll wrap that up quickly and move on to biogenesis, this theistic evolutionist’s next argument. He finishes his critique of the claim that the second law of thermodynamics is violated by abiogenesis and universal common descent with this statement:

You'll note that this principle is so well established and provides such a clear source of increasing order for evolutionary purposes on planet earth that even the major anti-evolutionary organizations warn against using the argument that evolution violates the law of entropy. It's just too easy to point out that the argument is a falsehood.

He's right, you know. The principle of the second law of thermodynamics is one of the most well established in science. But it has nothing to do with “increasing order for evolutionary purposes on planet earth.” Not only does it not do this, but he didn’t even try to explain how.

He goes on to say the case is so strong (although he failed to tell us how) that “major anti-evolutionary organizations” (do you see how universal common descent has become an idol for this man?) tell us not to use this argument. Again, he’s right but not in the way he thinks. There are applications of this argument that are not profitable. They don’t seem to work. However, much of the talk on these “anti-evolutionary organizations” websites is replete with arguments explaining how abiogenesis and universal common descent require massive disruptions in this fundamental law of science. He provided a link (which I didn’t post here) that doesn’t work. It was nice he tried to offer some evidence for his claim, but the evidence is apparently outdated. Let’s move on to biogenesis and get the ball rolling with it.

On this topic, this theistic evolutionist, probably joined by most if not all others who share his beliefs, says:

The theory of evolution cannot violate ‘biogenesis,’ if there were actually a law of biogenesis. Evolution requires some sort of living, reproducing organism. Evolution requires biogenesis. Christianity requires abiogenesis, as well as biogenesis. The Bible clearly states (whether read figuratively or literally) that the first living organisms were generated from non-living matter. We came ‘from the dust.’ Other organisms are described as arising from the sea or the soil. It is also simply reasonable to think that the first living organisms were made of previously non-living chemical precursors. Hence an argument that evolution violates some requirement of ‘biogenesis’ is both a falsehood and an argument against the Bible. You have provided another piece of evidence that young-earthism and other anti-evolutionary notions are anti-biblical.

Biologyonline.com tells us that the law of biogenesis is the principle stating that life arises from pre-existing life, not from nonliving material. Now this evolutionist wants to act like this law isn’t real. Biologyonline.com disagrees. Medical-dictionary also disagrees, telling us it’s “a term given by [Thomas] Huxley [known as “Darwin’s Bulldog” due to his fierce advocacy for Darwin’s theory] to the principle that life originates from preexisting life only and never from nonliving material.” There were numerous other definitions on that page that essentially stated the same thing. Some seem to think that biogenesis is certainly a concept to be understood by biologists and laypersons alike. And to be honest, I don’t know a single person who has ever witnessed this not being the case. There has never been, in the billions, or more likely trillions, of organisms we’ve witnessed on this earth, a single time a living thing—whether a single cell or as complex as you’d like to imagine—has come from something not alive. They’ll sidestep this issue by claiming this was only applicable to spontaneous generation but doesn’t apply to abiogenesis. That’s hogwash. In fact, if you look at the definitions of those two ideas—spontaneous generation and abiogenesis—they are nearly identical.

Oxford defines abiogenesis this way: “the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances.” Notice how they accidentally slipped the word “evolution” in there. Our theistic evolutionist doesn’t think the two are related. Oxford says that spontaneous generation is “the supposed production of living organisms from nonliving matter, as inferred from the apparent appearance of life in some supposedly sterile environments.” Do you see how these two definitions are very similar? They are, really. Huxley (mentioned above) changed the term from spontaneous generation to abiogenesis for the exclusive purpose of getting away from this backward, naïve, thoroughly proven false idea. Oops. It’s still the same thing, no matter how you change the name.

I think this is a good place to rest. Next week, we’ll look at the rest of his comment on the law of biogenesis, which evolution gets a pass on. Is abiogenesis a foundational pillar of Christianity? We’ll take a look at his theology here and use some of our resources on Hebrew to discover what the deal is. Thanks for reading and may God bless you richly.

This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration.  All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved.  Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.