The question of life's origin lies outside of empirical science ~ it can not be observed, tested or repeated. Biogenesis (Omne vivium ex vivo ~ 'all life from life') is a law of science which states that life comes only from previous life, and life produces life like itself. Abiogenesis (spontaneous generation) is a belief, and in fact has no scientific backing (is against the law). Evolutionists believe that life accidentally and spontaneously generated from non-living matter. This is based solely on FAITH.

EvoWiki, the evolutionary affiliate of wikipedia and talk org., defines Biogenesis as thus: "The Law of Biogenesis says that living things can not be formed from non-living things. The law applies to the creation of species, which occurs by the slow process of speciation (of course they believe all species evolved thru common descent (macroevolution) all the way back to the very first spontaneously generated life, as opposed to the creation of the first original kinds which then produced variants of the same kinds) rather than by spontaneous generation. The law applies to almost all situations (almost all situations? No life has ever been observed to arise from non-living matter ~ naturally nor via laboratory), but there must (emphasize must/and now they leave the realm of science and enter that of faith) have been at least exception in the distant past an abiogenesis event."

Tis sad and a thing of wonderment how so many folks have been duped into believing that evolution and science are one and the same, and that creation and faith are one and the same and therefore incompatible with science. I beg to differ, and propose that the opposite is more close to the truth.

Laws denote a Law-Giver. But who be the Giver ~ the Creator God, or random chance? Either natural laws just accidentally came into effect and remain sustained by random chance, or by the willful act of the Almighty. To me, the most scientific and logical explanation is the latter.

If the non-guided chance arrival of matter out of nothingness and the spontaneous generation of life from non-living chemicals is to be accepted as scientific fact' then it should be established by the scientific method ~ which of course has not happened. The existence of matter and life are two pillars upon which the whole evolutionary scheme must rest. Yet evolutionists have no sound scientifically viable explanation for their existence. Indeed, upon such shaky foundations stands the tottering edifice of evolution; and it's amazing that its imminent collapse is still pending. Add to this the fact that the edifice is made up of a complete bankruptcy of fossil evidence depicting change from one kind of creature into another, and the loss of a mechanism that can withstand the scientific method in support of such feat, and one can only wonder at its prominence among the minds of people as being an established scientific fact. Part of the reason for this, I believe, is as Sir Arthur Keith said, "We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable."

The most scientific and logical explanation for the origin of life/creation is "In The Beginning God created...." Omne vivium ex vivo!

Learn more about this author, Stan Derekson.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

---

Add your voice

Know something about Life's origin?
We want to hear your view. Write now!