EHRC Homepage | New Category | Your Questions

I could not do better in answer than to quote those who are closest to the issue...evolutionists themselves. John Horgan states:

"If I were a creationist, I would cease attacking the theory of evolution- which is so well supported by the fossil record-and focus instead on the origin of life. This is by far the weakest strut of the chassis of modern biology. The origin of life is a science writer's dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion." (Horgan J., "The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age," [1996], Little, Brown & Co: London, 1997, p.138)

Another prominent evolutionist, Maynard Smith states his concerns as follows:

"The problem of the origin of life, then, is to explain how entities with these properties could originate from non-living matter, without of course invoking natural selection as a cause. If we imagine the simplest conceivable organism whose hereditary mechanism depends on the processes of nucleic acid replication and protein synthesis as we know them from existing organisms, it would have to possess enough DNA to specify all the varieties of tRNA, the protein and RNA components of the ribosomes, the activating enzymes associated with the 20 amino acids, the various enzymes which replicate the DNA and make an RNA transcript of it, and more besides. ... It is impossible that an organism of this degree of complexity should arise by physico-chemical processes, without natural selection." (Maynard Smith J., "The Theory of Evolution," [1958], Cambridge University Press/Canto: Cambridge UK, Third Edition, 1993, reprint, pp.110-111)

______________________________________________________ Ó 2010 Arthur V. Chadwick, Ph.D.