The Impossibility of Life’s Evolutionary Beginnings: A Christian Perspective

Think about this for a moment. Skeptics go out of their way to avoid the “God-Theory” because they absolutely want the universe to be all there is, was, and ever will be. These agnostics desire to reduce the material universe to it’s only causation, without any divine hand involved. And in order to do so, they created the concept of life emerging from non-life, which is not only paradoxical, but self-contradictory.

The origins of life remain one of science’s greatest mysteries, and the ongoing quest to understand how life could emerge from non-life—abiogenesis—continues to challenge researchers worldwide. From the vantage point of Christian faith, the intricate complexity of life points unmistakably to an intelligent Creator. This belief is rooted not in a rejection of science but in the recognition of its limitations to explain the miraculous foundation of life without divine intervention.

Argument from design, or as some philosophers define as “teleology,” suggests that the universe is fine-tuned for life. No matter how many multiple worlds you create, no matter how many infinite universes you make up to avoid the God dilemma, the simple fact is this universe is remarkably created in such a way that to reject an intelligent designer is absurd.

Abiogenesis and the Complexity of Life

Abiogenesis, the hypothesis that life arose from non-living matter through natural processes, forms the bedrock of evolutionary theory. Yet, as scientific advancements unfold, the naturalistic improbability of abiogenesis becomes increasingly evident.

DNA, RNA, and proteins—the core molecules of life—exist in a system of interdependence akin to the chicken-and-egg dilemma. These molecules not only rely on each other for function but also carry encoded information so complex that it strongly implies an intelligent originator.

When taking cell biology, I noticed the type of words these evolutionary biologists are using to explain what the evidence is before them. They state DNA as the blueprint of life. They call genetics a “code”, molecular machinery, feedback loops, structural scaffolding, biological circuits, etc. These scientific terms just reiterate the fact of an engineering quality at the molecular level!

The Bible speaks of God as the source of life: “For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible… He is before all things, and in him all things hold together” (Colossians 1:16-17). Science may attempt to piece together the puzzle of life’s origins, but the grandeur of life’s design continually affirms the hand of a Creator.

Challenges to Naturalistic Explanations

Scientists proposing abiogenesis often suggest that Earth’s early atmosphere was reducing (low in oxygen), conducive to the formation of organic molecules. However, geological evidence indicates that Earth has always had significant oxygen levels, which would rapidly degrade essential biomolecules.

Studies of ancient rocks, such as those found in the banded iron formations (BIFs), suggest that significant amounts of oxygen have been present on Earth for billions of years, likely starting as early as 2.4 billion years ago during the Great Oxygenation Event. The presence of oxygen, even in the early atmosphere, creates a dilemma for abiogenesis, because oxygen is highly reactive and would quickly degrade organic molecules, particularly complex ones that are essential for life.

For instance, oxygen can break down amino acids and other organic compounds through oxidation, making it more difficult for life to arise in such an environment. This is why some scientists now propose that while the early Earth may have had some oxygen, it may not have been present in the same concentration as it is today. Other hypotheses suggest that the Earth’s surface could have had local, isolated environments—such as underwater hydrothermal vents or pockets in the atmosphere—where reducing conditions might have persisted long enough for organic molecules to form.

This paradox has led to debates about the true nature of Earth’s early atmosphere and the possible scenarios in which life could have originated. Some scientists argue that life could have emerged in more localized “safe zones” away from oxygen’s destructive effects, while others propose that the reducing atmosphere may have been a short-lived phenomenon, giving way to a more oxygen-rich environment as life and photosynthetic organisms began to flourish.

Overall, the relationship between oxygen and the formation of life remains a key challenge in understanding abiogenesis, and this contradiction between geological evidence and the conditions proposed for the origins of life continues to drive scientific inquiry in this area. Scripture offers clarity where science falters: “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it” (Psalm 24:1). This truth underscores the divine governance of Earth’s atmosphere, sustaining life rather than allowing for random processes to generate it.

The “RNA World” Hypothesis

One popular theory suggests that RNA molecules were the first self-replicating entities, preceding DNA and proteins. Yet this scenario faces insurmountable barriers, including the spontaneous formation of RNA’s complex nucleotides and the unstable nature of RNA outside a cellular environment. Without divine orchestration, the leap from inanimate chemicals to functional biomolecules remains inexplicable.

For one, there is no scientific evidence of an RNA-based life form. This is science fiction. The skeptics who argue this are merely speculating that this could have occurred in earth’s early history, but the evidence proves otherwise. Even if we give these naturalists the benefit of the doubt that an RNA-based life form could occur, it would be highly instable and prone to degradation by UV light, heat, and chemical reactions.

Another significant problem with this theory is the ability for RNA to act as a catalyst. While they do have this ability in ribozymes, it is much less efficient than proteins, which are far more robust in catalyzing biochemical reactions than RNA. In addition, RNA requires highly specific enzymes, such as RNA polymerase, which would then need to be coded for by RNA. This creates a problem for the evolutionist.