Truth and Science Ministries

In Search of the Truth


Creating Life In a Test-tube - DNA and Information - Early Atmosphere - Fossil Evidence - Fruit Fly Experiment - Geologic Column - Origin of Life - Radioactive Dating - Theories - Thermodynamics - Time

Creating Life in a Test-tube

Scientists have not been able to cause amino acids dissolved in water to join together to form proteins.  The energy-requiring chemical reactions that join amino acids are reversible and do not occur spontaneously in water.”  George B. Johnson, Peter H. Raven, Biology, Principles & Explorations, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1996, p. 235.

“Both right and left-handed amino acids take part equally well in ordinary chemical reactions, but in living organisms the shape is so important that only proteins made entirely of left-handed amino acids will connect properly, and they never happen in nature outside of living cells.”  Thomas F. Heinze, “How Life Began,” Chick Publications, p. 15, 2002.

“This is a very puzzling fact… All the proteins that have been investigated, obtained from animals and from plants from higher organisms and from simple organisms – bacteria, molds, even viruses – are found to have been made of (left-handed) amino acids.”  Linus Pauling (Nobel Laureate in chemistry), General Chemistry, (Third Edition), 1970, p. 774.

“Since science has not the vaguest idea how (proteins) originated, it would only be honest to admit this to students, the agencies funding research, and the public.”  Hubert P. Yockey, “Self Organization Origin of Life Scenarios and Information Theory,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, 91: 13-31, 1981. 

“The idea of such a ‘soup’ containing all desired organic molecules in concentrated form in the ocean has been a misleading concept against which objections were raised early.  S. J. Mojzsis, etc. The RNA World, ed. 2, 1999, p.7.

DNA and Information

“One cell division lasts from 20 to 80 minutes, and during this time the entire molecular library, equivalent to one thousand books, is copied correctly.”  Werner Gitt (Professor of Physics and Technology), In the Beginning Was Information, 1997, p. 90.

“But where the first RNA came from is a mystery; it’s hard to see how the chemicals on early Earth could have combined to form the complicated nucleotides that make up RNA.”  John R. Davenport, “Possible Progenitor of DNA Re-Created,” Science Now, Nov. 16, 2000, p.1.

“The problem is not as simple as might appear at first glance.  Attempts at engineering – with considerably more foresight and technical support than the prebiotic world could have enjoyed – an RNA molecule capable of catalyzing RNA replication have failed so far.”  C. De Duve, (De Duve is a Nobel Prize-winning biochemist.)  “The Beginning of Life on Earth,” American Scientist, 1995. 

“There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.”  Werner Gitt (Professor of Physics and Technology), In the Beginning Was Information, 1997, p. 107.

“If the DNA of one human cell were unraveled and held in a straight line, it would literally be almost one meter long and yet be so thin that it would be invisible to all but the most powerful microscopes.  Consider that this string of DNA must be packaged into a space smaller than the head of a pin and that this tiny string of human DNA contains enough information to fill almost 1,000 books, each containing 1,000 pages of text… For compactness and information-carrying ability, no human invention has even come close to matching the design of this remarkable molecule.”  John P. Marcus (Ph.D. Biochemistry), In Six Days, 2000, pp. 174-175. 

“DNA molecules contain the highest known packing density of information.  This exceedingly brilliant storage method reaches the limit of the physically possible.  Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information, 1997, p. 195. 

“If they eventually make a computer as small as a cell with a huge information storage capacity like DNA, and I scoff and claim: ‘You didn’t do that!  It just came about by accident,’ they will rightly consider me a fool.”  Thomas F. Heinze, How Life Began, 2002, p. 107. 

“Common sense says that the amazing complexity of life cannot arise out of random process.  Lee Spetner (Ph.D. in Physics from MIT, years of research in genetics at Johns Hopkins University), Not By Chance, 1997, p. 75. 

…Among all the mutations that have been studied, there aren’t any known, clear, examples of a mutation that has added information.”  Lee Spetner (Ph.D. in Physics from MIT, years of research in genetics at Johns Hopkins University), Not By Chance, 1997, p. 131.

“I have carefully studied molecular, biological, and chemical ideas of the origin of life and read all the books and papers I could find.  Never have I found an explanation that was satisfactory to me.  The basic problem is with the original template (be it DNA or RNA) that would have been necessary to initiate the first living system that could undergo biological evolution.  Even reduced to the barest essentials, this template must have been very complex indeed.  For this template and this template alone, it appears it is reasonable at present to suggest the possibility of a creator.”  Henry Margenau (Professor of Physics and Natural Philosophy at Yale.  He is the author of over 200 research articles and 14 books.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, 1992.

“All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere.  We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet.  It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.”  Harold Urey (Urey is a Nobel prize laureate.  He took part in the Stanley Miller experiment.), Christian Science Monitor, Jan. 4, 1962.

“Darwinian evolution only has chance mutations at its disposal.  Because no ‘advance thinking’ can possibly be allowed, there is no way that the nucleotides can arrange themselves in a ‘predefined code’, since this assumes prior knowledge.  Thus, the very existence of the DNA-coded language stalls evolution at the first hurdle.”  Andrew McIntosh (Ph.D. Mathematics), In Six Days, 2000, p. 160. 

“The likelihood of life having occurred through a chemical accident is, for all intents and purposes, zero.  This does not mean that faith in a miraculous accident will not continue.  But it does mean that those who believe it do so because they are philosophically committed to the notion that all that exists is matter and its motion.  In other words, they do so for reasons of philosophy and not science.”  Robert Gange (Ph.D. and is a research scientist with extensive research in the field of cryophysics and information systems.), Origins and Destiny, 1986, p. 77. 

“It was fashionable in the middle part of the twentieth century to attribute biological information and complexity to chance plus time.  However, as our understanding of the enormous biochemical complexity associated with the origin of life and the development of more complex forms has matured, appeals to chance have gradually lost credibility.”  Walter Bradley (Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering and is author of over 100 publications in material science.), “Design or Designoid”, Mere Creation: Science, Faith & Intelligent Design, 1998, p. 41. 

“But no one has demonstrated how RNA could have formed before living cells were around to make it.  According to Scripps Research Institute biochemist Gerald Joyce, RNA is not a plausible candidate for the first building block of life ‘because it is unlikely to have been produced in significant quantities on the primitive earth’.  Even if RNA could have been produced, it would not have survived long under the conditions thought to have existed on the early Earth.”  Jonathan Wells (Ph.D. Molecular and Cell Biology, Berkeley), Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth, 2000, p. 23. 

Early Atmosphere

“What we have is sort of a ‘Catch 22’ situation.  If we have oxygen we have no organic compounds, but if we don’t have oxygen we have none either.”Michael Denton (Denton is a molecular biologist.), Evolution: A Theory InCrisis,1985, p. 261.

“The only trend in the recent literature is the suggestion of far more oxygen in the early atmosphere than anyone imagined.”  Thaxton (Ph.D. Chemistry), Bradley (Ph.D. Materials Science), Olsen (Ph.D. Geochemistry), The Mystery of Life’s Origin, 1992, p. 80. 

“Evidence of free oxygen has been found in rocks supposedly 300 million years older than the first living cells.”  “It is suggested that from the time of the earliest dated rocks at 3.7 (billion years) ago, Earth had an oxygenic atmosphere.”  Harry Clemmey, Nick Badham, “Oxygen in the Precambrian Atmosphere: An Evaluation of the Geological Evidence”, Geology, Vol. 10, March 1982, p. 141.

“But many researchers now hold that the ancient Earth’s atmosphere, compared with the earlier view, had more oxygen and less hydrogen – as the atmosphere does today.  Amino acids don’t form as readily under that condition as they did in the 1953 experiment, and when they do form, they tend to break apart.”  Gorman, Jessica, “Cosmic Chemistry Gets Creative.”  Science News, 5-19-01, Vol. 159, Issue 20, p. 318. 

Fossil Evidence

 “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our ability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.”  Stephen Jay Gould (Deceased Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), ‘Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?’  Paleobiology, vol. 6(1), January 1980, p. 127.

"Undeniably, the fossil record has provided disappointingly few gradual series. The origins of many groups are still not documented at all."  (Futuyma, D., Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, 1983, p. 190-191)


"The main problem with such phyletic gradualism is that the fossil record provides so little evidence for it. Very rarely can we trace the gradual transformation of one entire species into another through a finely graded sequence of intermediary forms."  (Gould, S.J. Luria, S.E. & Singer, S., A View of Life, 1981, p. 641)


"Species that were once thought to have turned into others have been found to overlap in time with these alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 95) 


"Many fossils have been collected since 1859, tons of them, yet the impact they have had on our understanding of the relationships between living organisms is barely perceptible. ...In fact, I do not think it unfair to say that fossils, or at least the traditional interpretation of fossils, have clouded rather than clarified our attempts to reconstruct phylogeny."

(Fortey, P. L., "Neontological Analysis Versus Palaeontological Stores," 1982, p. 120-121)


"Few paleontologists have, I think ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. An examination of the work of those paleontologists who have been particularly concerned with the relationship between paleontology and evolutionary theory, for example that of G. G. Simpson and S. J. Gould, reveals a mindfulness of the fact that the record of evolution, like any other historical record, must be construed within a complex of particular and general preconceptions not the least of which is the hypothesis that evolution has occurred. ...The fossil record doesn't even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories and special creationist theories and even historical theories."  (Kitts, David B., "Search for the Holy Transformation," review of Evolution of Living Organisms, by Pierre-P. Grassé, Paleobiology, vol. 5, 1979, p. 353-354)  


"The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs..."

(Gould, Stephen J., The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 238-239)


"The majority of major groups appear suddenly in the rocks, with virtually no evidence of transition from their ancestors." (Futuyma, D., Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, 1983, p. 82)


"Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it's rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find."  (Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23)


"But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition."  (Woodroff, D.S., Science, vol. 208, 1980, p. 716)


"Stasis, or nonchange, of most fossil species during their lengthy geological lifespans was tacitly acknowledged by all paleontologists, but almost never studied explicitly because prevailing theory treated stasis as uninteresting nonevidence for nonevolution. ...The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, best left ignored as a manifestation of nothing (that is, nonevolution).

(Gould, Stephen J., "Cordelia's Dilemma," Natural History, 1993, p. 15) 


"The geological record has provided no evidence as to the origin of the fishes."

(Norman, J., A History of Fishes, 1963, p. 298) 


"A five million year old piece of bone that was thought to be the collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib...The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone." (Dr. Tim White, anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley, quoted in New Scientist, April 28, 1983     

Fruit Fly Experiment

Fruit flies refuse to become anything but fruit flies under any circumstances yet devised.”  Lane Lester, Ph.D. in genetics, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, 1989, p. 89.

Geologic Column 

“If there were a column of sediments deposited continuously since the formation of the earth, the entire history of the planet could be reconstructed.  Unfortunately, no such column exists.”  HBJ Earth Science, 1989, p. 326.

“The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks.”  J.E. O’Rourke, American Journal of Science, 1976, 276:51. 

“The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately.”  J.E. O’Rourke, American Journal of Science, Vol. 276, (January 1976), p. 53. 

Origin of Life

“If one believes in evolution, then one has to also account for the origin of life – the very first step.  Without this, the whole subject of evolution hangs on nothing.” Stephen Grocott (Ph.D. Organometallic Chemistry), In Six Days, 2000, p. 148.                                    

One philosopher of science put it this way:  “origin of life research consists in looking for a naturalistic alternative to the idea of the creation of life by a designer.”  Iris Fry, The Emergence of Life on Earth, 2000, p. 184.

“…life requires structures of incredible complexity, not just high energy levels.  The most basic processes of living things are accomplished by molecular engines as complex as man’s greatest inventions.”  Jeremy L. Walter (Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering), In Six Days, 2000, p. 17.

“The question ‘How did life originate?’ which interests us all, is inseparably linked to the question ‘Where did the information come from?’  Since the findings of James D. Watson and Francis H. C. Crick, it was increasingly realized by contemporary researchers that the information residing in the cells is of crucial importance for the existence of life.  Anybody who wants to make meaningful statements about the origin of life, would be forced to explain how the information originated.  All evolutionary views are fundamentally unable to answer this crucial question.”  Dr. Werner Gitt, (Gitt is the director and a professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology.)  In the Beginning was Information, 1997, p. 99. 

“Since science does not have the faintest idea how life on earth originated, … it would only be honest to confess this to other scientists, to grantors, and to the public at large.  Prominent scientists speaking ex cathedra, should refrain from polarizing the minds of students and young productive scientists with statements that are based solely on beliefs.”  Hubert Yockey (Ph.D. from Berkeley, Bio-Informaticist), Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1981, p. 13.

"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere.  We believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet.  It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did."

(Urey, Harold C., quoted in Christian Science Monitor, January 4, 1962, p. 4)


"If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being?  I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation.  I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." (H.J. Lipson, F.R.S. Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK, "A physicist looks at evolution" Physics Bulletin, 1980, vol 31, p. 138)


"The origin of life is still a mystery.  As long as it has not been demonstrated by experimental realization, I cannot conceive of any physical or chemical condition [allowing evolution]...I cannot be satisfied by the idea that fortuitous mutation...can explain the complex and rational organization of the brain, but also of lungs, heart, kidneys, and even joints and muscles.  How is it possible to escape the idea of some intelligent and organizing force?"

(d'Aubigne, Merle, "How Is It Possible to Escape the Idea of Some Intelligent and Organizing Force?" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 158) 


"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation, but they are driven by the nature of their profession to seek explanations for the origin of life that lie within the boundaries of natural law.  They ask themselves, "How did life arise out of inanimate matter?  And what is the probability of that happening?"  And to their chagrin they have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature's experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter.  Scientists do not know how that happened, and furthermore, they do not know the chance of its happening.  Perhaps the chance is very small, and the appearance of life on a planet is an event of miraculously low probability.  Perhaps life on the earth is unique in this Universe.  No scientific evidence precludes that possibility."

(Jastrow, Robert, The Enchanted Loom: Mind In the Universe, 1981, p. 19)


"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy."

(Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229)

Radioactive Dating

“It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be.  Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years).”  William D. Stansfield, Ph.D. (Instructor of Biology, California Polytechnic State U), The Science of Evolution, Macmillan 1997.

“In general, dates ‘in the correct ball park’ are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published, nor are discrepancies fully explained.”  Richard L. Mauger, Ph.D. (Associate Professor of Geology, East Carolina University), …Contributions to Geology, University of Wyoming, vol. 15 (1), 1977, p. 37. 

“Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first.”  J.E. O’Rourke, American Journal of Science, vol. 276, (January 1976), p. 54.

Alice in Through the Looking Glass:  Alice laughed.  ‘There’s no use trying,’ she said: ‘one can’t believe impossible things.’  ‘I dare say you haven’t had much practice,’ said the Queen.  ‘When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day.  Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast…’”

"When the blood of a seal, freshly killed at McMurdo Sound in the Antarctic was tested by carbon-14, it showed the seal had died 1,300 years ago." (From W. Dort Jr., Ph.D. -- Geology, Professor, University of Kansas, quoted in Antarctic Journal of the United States, 1971. 

"The hair on the Chekurovka mammoth was found to have a carbon-14 age of 26,000 years but the peaty soil in which is was preserved was found to have a carbon-14 dating of only 5,600 years." (Radiocarbon Journal, Vol. 8, 1966.)   


Karl Popper, the greatest philosopher of science in the last century, put it this way, “Science seeks true theories, but can never be certain which theories are true.”

 “Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations.  Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it.  It is thus ‘outside of empirical science’ but not necessarily false.  No one can think of ways in which to test it.”  Paul Ehrlich (Professor of Biology, Stanford University) and L. Charles Birch (Professor of Biology, University of Sydney), ‘Evolutionary history and population biology’.  Nature, vol. 214, 22 April 1967, p. 352.

 “It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection.  But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.”  Personal letter (written 10 April 1979) from Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, to Luther D. Sunderland; as quoted in Darwin’s Enigma by Luther D. Sunderland, Master Books, San Diego, USA, 1984, p. 89.

 “Biologists are simply naïve when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution.  It is not testable.  They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions.  These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants.”  Professor Whitten (Professor of Genetics, University Of Melbourne, Australia), 1980 Assembly Week address.

“The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory – is it then a science or a faith?  Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation – both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.”  L. Harrison Mathews, FRS, Introduction to Darwin’s The Origin of Species, J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1971, p. 11.

“All the many forms of life on earth today descended from a common ancestor, found in a population of primitive unicellular organisms.  What were those first cell like?  What events led up to their formation?  No traces of those events remain, and scientists can’t travel backward in time to witness what happened.”  Glencoe Biology, 1994, p. 324.

“Question is:  Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true?  I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence.  I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, ‘I do know one thing – it ought not to be taught in high school.”  Dr. Colin Patterson (Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London).  Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, 5 November 1981. 

“Durant concludes that the secular myths of evolution have had ‘a damaging effect on scientific research’, leading to ‘distortion, to needless controversy, and to the gross misuse of science”.  Dr. John Durant (University College Swansea, Wales), as quoted in ‘How evolution became a scientific myth’, New Scientist, 11 September 1980, p. 765.

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion." 

(More, Louis T., "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, Second Printing, p.160)


"I am convinced, moreover, that Darwinism, in whatever form, is not in fact a scientific theory, but a pseudo-metaphysical hypothesis decked out in scientific garb.  In reality the theory derives its support not from empirical data or logical deductions of a scientific kind but from the circumstance that it happens to be the only doctrine of biological origins that can be conceived with the constricted worldview to which a majority of scientists no doubt subscribe." 

(Wolfgang, Smith, "The Universe is Ultimately to be Explained in Terms of a Metacosmic Reality" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 113)


"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever.  In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact."  Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission, USA.


"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups.  This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science.  It is useless."  Professor Louis Bouroune, former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research, as quoted in The Advocate, March 8, 1984.


“The First Law teaches that a natural process cannot bring into existence something from nothing.  If the First Law is correct, which seems to be the case, and if the universe had a beginning, which seems to be scientifically accepted, then one conclusion is that something unnatural created the universe…  The thought that the universe may have originated supernaturally is unsettling to many people.  Yet, taken at face value, this conclusion is consistent with the total sum of evidence before us.”  Robert Gauge (Gauge is a Ph.D. research scientist with extensive research in the field of cryophysics and information systems.), Origins and Destiny, 1986, p. 18.

“The First Law has been the object of considerable thought since it was first introduced to the world by William Kelvin and Rudolph Clausius.  It forbids a natural process from bringing something from nothing.”  Dr. Robert Gauge, Origins and Destiny, 1986, p. 17. 

“…there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics.  Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems… It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.”  Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, Vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40.

“Although the earth has an energy source from the sun, energy alone is not sufficient to support abiogenesis.  Dynamite can be a source of energy, but unless the energy from its explosion is directed in an intelligent manner, its energy will be more destructive than constructive.  For abiogenesis to occur, energy flow must be joined to a mechanism which will direct it to generate sufficient information content into inert matter.”  Dean L. Overman (Overman is a senior partner in an international law firm, an Officer of Harvard University, and served as Special Assistant to Vice President Nelson Rockefeller.), A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization, 1997, p. 69.

“A source of energy alone is not sufficient, however, to explain the origin or maintenance of living systems.  The additional crucial factor is a means of converting this energy into the necessary useful work to build and maintain complex living systems…”  Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley and Roger Olsen (Thaxton is a Ph.D. chemist, Bradley has a Ph.D. in materials science, and Olsen has a Ph.D. in geochemistry) The Mystery of Life’s Origin, 1992, p. 124.

“The presumed ‘evolution’ of chemical elements in the primeval oceanic ‘biotic soup’ into single, and then multiple celled organisms, propelled by the sun’s powerful rays, also sidesteps the crucial factor of information.  Without some inbuilt informational mechanism to translate heat energy into a system-building function, the effect of heat on chemicals in the supposed primeval sea would have been to destroy them.”  Douglas F. Kelly (Kelly is a professor of Systematic Theology), Creation and Change, 1997, p. 70.

“Merely specifying a source of useful energy does not of itself offer an explanation for how the ordering process happens.  To do that, one needs to identify the exact mechanisms that will couple the reservoir of available energy to biologically relevant processes.”  Paul Davies,  (Davies is a theoretical physicist and a supporter of evolution.)  The 5thMiracle: The Search for the Origin and Meaning of Life, 1999, p. 54.


“Time is the hero of the plot.  The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years… Given so much time the ‘impossible’ becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain.  One has only to wait: time itself performs miracles.”  Dr. George Wald, Harvard biology professor, “The Origin of Life,” in The Physics and Chemistry of Life, 1955, p. 12. 

“Time, however, does not increase the chance that the penny would turn into a nickel, a dime, a quarter, and a silver dollar which would then sprout wings and fly off together into the sunset doing aerobatic stunts in a tight formation.  Time does increase the probability of something happening if it can happen, but the statement ‘time itself performs miracles’ is false.”  Thomas F. Heinze, “How Life Began,” Chick Publications, 2002, p. 22.