Blog

by Steve Risner

Last week, we started looking at the law of biogenesis and what this theistic evolutionist from a group I frequent on Facebook had to say about it. He was responding to a meme that said evolution violates the law of biogenesis. His exact statement was this:

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.

He erroneously claims that abiogenesis is a foundational block for evolution and Christianity alike, but I believe that’s a ridiculous claim. While it can be read in Genesis 1:24 that God said, “Let the land bring forth…” or some variation of that depending on your translation, this does not mean the land or earth or dust or whatever produced something by its own power. It has no power to do so. I consulted our local Greek and Hebrew egghead, Katie Erickson, about this passage. Her take, based on the word usage was as follows: “The verb for ‘produce’ can also mean bring forth, or cause to come out, or something like that. But the earth is clearly the subject of that verb, and it is a jussive, meaning it's translated as ‘Let the earth bring forth...’ rather than a more indicative statement like ‘The earth brings forth.’” This tells me God is the creative agent here. It’s not God asking the earth to do something as though it has the power to create; only God has this ability. His mind brings forth life. This is not abiogenesis by any stretch of the word. The author of life created life.

If we are going to suggest God is not the source of life and giver of life, then we need to read a bit of the Bible before making any further claims about the one who inspired it. Again, the creation of life by God Almighty is not an example of abiogenesis, although I’ve heard this canard many times from theistic evolutionists. The Bible doesn’t say only that we’re made of dust or clay or whatever variation he wants to throw in there. God formed dust and breathed life into it. His act of giving life is the key. It’s not that dust was used; it’s that God made us. In fact, using the dust makes us unique. He did nothing like this for any other living things He made. These facts make it all the more appropriate for the Old Testament writers to use concepts like the potter and the clay and so forth.

Does dust have the ability to create life? Obviously not. As A. E. Wilder Smith wrote, “The necessary information to build man does not reside in the few elements it takes to compose him.” We’re not even proportionately put together comparable to the earth’s crust. We are mostly oxygen like the earth’s crust, yes. But silicon is the second most abundant element in the earth’s crust. We are .026% silicon. That’s not in proportion to the 27% that’s found in the earth’s crust.

The fact is that all life on earth was born out of the mind of God. No natural process can account for its existence. Literally. There is no natural process that causes living things to be brought out of non-living matter. This theistic evolutionist even kind of hints at his own contradiction when he speaks of the first living things being “generated” from non-living matter. What did that? Was it necessary for God to do it this way? He doesn’t even believe this is a true account of the history of the world, so using it is a fairly strange happening. He also even states, after saying there is no law of biogenesis, that evolution hangs on it! Again, he says, “Evolution requires some sort of living, reproducing organism. Evolution requires biogenesis.” You can’t make this stuff up. In just a few sentences, he says two opposite statements.

His cop-out that evolution only deals with living things is noted. Unbelievers love to point out that universal common descent begins AFTER the first living thing was spontaneously generated billions of years ago. But the truth is, if this process cannot begin—if there’s no way for life to arise from non-living matter—then there’s no point in discussing the process after that because it couldn’t begin. That’s like asking, “If my car grew legs and walked away, where would it walk to?” It can’t grow its own legs, so the question is a non-starter.

He then deceptively describes evolution and Christianity in terms that don’t pass the sniff test. First, evolution clearly requires abiogenesis, but he fails to mention that. I know, I know – evolution describes how life diversified while abiogenesis describes how life began. But if life doesn’t begin, diversification isn’t a possibility. The two are very clearly intimately connected. You can read more on that here.

But does Christianity rest on abiogenesis? I thought Christianity rested on the resurrection of Jesus Christ, but maybe my theology is messed up here. I hope he’ll see my confusion here and explain it to me in the future. Now, he’s going to suggest that the creation narrative tells us God allowed the earth to produce living things and all that sort of gibberish.

Genesis 1:24 says, “And God said, ‘Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.’ And it was so.” Does this mean God used abiogenesis and evolution to make all the animals and plants on earth? Easy question, the answer is obviously NO. It means that from the mind of God, the earth was filled with living creatures. He seems to forget a verse just a few before where God calls sea creatures and birds into existence but does not call them out of the water (which would be weird for the birds, right?). “And God said, ‘Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky’” (Genesis 1:20). There is no mention of God telling the water or air to produce these creatures. It’s a bit of a stretch, is it not? And using verse 24 to support his beliefs while simultaneously NOT believing the verse is a true representation of the creation week is dishonest, in my opinion. You can’t reject the entire narrative as history and then cherry pick one verse and say it supports your man-made creation narrative.

Also, I’ve heard creationists criticized because they believe in “hyper-evolution” because we believe organisms diversified and developed the variety we see from their created kinds since the Flood—just 4400 years ago or so. This theistic evolutionist is saying that all the diversity developed in 24-48 hours, I guess. The timeline for creation is exquisitely clear. Genesis 1 tells us it took a week to make everything. Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 both confirm for us that God created everything and then rested in a 7-day week. There’s no arguing that. So, I guess I have to assume theistic evolutionists believe in a level of “hyper-evolution” that is beyond description. Or, the alternative is God created each individual species as it is today. Either way, they want to force the text to read in a way that is clearly erroneous and stretches their credibility.

Something is described as pseudoscience when it violates a known law of nature. The humanist origins myth is given a pass here even though ALL evidence (every single piece) tells us life can ONLY come from another living thing. The law of biogenesis, whether a person accepts it as a law of nature or not, is solid because we cannot point to a single instance—not one time—that we know life originated from non-living matter. So universal common descent and abiogenesis violate this law that has not one exception that we know of. Does that qualify it as pseudoscience?

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.