Page 477 - Atlas of Creation Volume 3

Harun Yahya

Experiment, which tried to explain the formation of amino
acids, let alone the origin of life, is now shown to be outmoded
and invalid. It has suffered the same fate as Jan Baptista van

Helmont's so-called proof for abiogenesis on the basis of mag-
gots in meat or Athanasius Kircher's experiment.
In his book Algeny: A New World—A New World, Jeremy
Rifkin makes the same comparison saying that if scientists had
taken the trouble to feel even the slightest suspicion, they would

at once have seen that the Miller experiment consisted merely of
a scientific fantasy tale, just like those scientists who previously
claimed, on the basis of observations of maggots emerging from

rubbish, that life emerged from inanimate matter. 11
Those who believe that Miller's experiment produced im-
portant results fail to understand the important point that Miller
conducted his experiment under artificial conditions produced
by himself, having nothing to do with the atmosphere of the

early Earth; so the experiment was carried out under invalid
conditions. And most importantly, this experiment only synthe-
sized amino acids. Formation of amino acids by some means

does not indicate creation of life. Stanley Miller
If we compare a living cell to a huge factory, amino acids are the
factory's bricks. It's vitally important how these bricks are designed and arranged. So far, no experiment
has shown how amino acids came into being spontaneously, or organized themselves by chance to pro-
duce a functional protein. To form a living cell, a complex mechanism must be wholly in place: hundreds

of different proteins, DNA codes and the enzymes to read them, and a selectively permeable cell mem-
brane. However, such a "chemical evolution" has never been shown to be possible. Moreover, to believe
in such a possibility is to believe in the impossible. Paul Davies, the well-known physicist and science

writer, makes an important comment on this matter:
Some scientists say, "Just throw energy at it, and it [life] will happen spontaneously." That is a little bit
like saying: "Put a stick of dynamite under the pile of bricks, and bang, you've got a house!" Of course
you won't have a house, you'll just have a mess. The difficulty in trying to explain the origin of life is in
accounting for how the elaborate organizational structure of these complex molecules came into exis-

tence spontaneously from a random input of energy. How did these very specific complex molecules as-
semble themselves? 12
Actually, Davies' example contains the correct solution to the

problem of the origins of life. Is it reasonable to first suppose that a
given house was formed by an explosion, and then theorize as to how it
was possible? Or is it more reasonable to believe that the house was the
result of a superior creation and organization? The answer is obvious.
Over the past 20 years, during which the complex details of life

have been understood, many scientists have rejected the myth of
chemical evolution and begun to give a new answer for the origins
of life—the fact of Creation.

Jeremy Rifkin

Adnan Oktar 475