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)
______________________________________________________