On the Origin of Species

Yes, I borrowed the title for this post from Darwin's seminal tome, but I'm going to do what Darwin didn't: pontificate on the origin of the first specie. The origin of life. The pertinent facts:

1) Whether creationist or evolutionist, we all know that at some time in history, biological life arose from non-living matter.
2) We have known from the time of Pasteur that life cannot naturally, spontaneously arise from non-living matter.
3) Therefore, life arising from non-living matter must have occurred outside of the laws of nature, or supernaturally.

Some evolutionists, most notably Richard Dawkins, try to avoid this logic by claiming that life on Earth was seeded by extraterrestrials. However, this only pushes the origin of biological life farther back. It still originated somewhere.

To those who would turn this logical progression back at me and ask about the origin of the Creator's life, I would remind you that I am discussing the origin of biological life. Since God is, by definition, above the laws of nature, one cannot use science to discuss the possibilities of whether he has an origin or is eternal. That discussion is for theologians and philosophers.

If Darwin and Pasteur were contemporaries, why did the scientific community rush to embrace Darwin's theory while seemingly ignoring Pasteur's conclusions? I think Sir Julian Huxley (nicknamed "Darwin's bulldog" because he was the leading evolutionist of his day), when asked this question, may have said it best:
"I suppose the reason that we all jumped at The Origin (of Species) was that the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores."

Now that we have dispensed with the supposedly spontaneous generation of life, we can critique the things that Darwin covered.

Because of the limited technology of his time, Darwin thought that the mechanics of biology were far simpler than they actually are. For example, he thought that cells were not much more than blobs of goo. We now know that cells can be more complex than the computer you're using now. I do not doubt that if Darwin knew what we now know about this complexity, and the irreducible nature of much of the complexity in nature, he would have never considered macro-evolution to be possible.

Additionally, Darwin wrote that he was confident that paleontology--a science still in its infancy in his day--would one day provide millions of fossils of creatures in transitional stages of evolving from one species to another. These are still missing.

Also missing is common sense from much of the scientific community today. If a blue-collar, college non-grad like me could figure this out, why can't they?

This simple article is only food for thought. Please read the linked web pages for more information.