So far we have only talked about the components that a living cell is composed of, not the complicated workings and environment of a living cell itself. How complicated is a living cell? More complicated than anything man has ever imagined to build technologically. We have seen how impossible it is for the components of a living cell to come about by chance. For these components to then come together to form a living cell, the probability becomes beyond any possible reasonable measure. One Yale biophysicist, Harold Morowitz, has calculated the odds of the spontaneous generation of a bacterium at 1 in 10^{100,000,000,000}.^334/128 Because of this figure he stated that the origin of life coming about through random processes is not possible given the age of the universe as evolutionists define it (15 to 20 billions years).^351/105 Wickramasinghe and Chemist John Keosian in different words said the same thing.^{352/26, 3/1/303}

Despite these evidences, these scientists continue to believe in evolution. Why? Because of the scientific evidence? No, there is no evidence as stated by themselves. Despite this, they continue to believe in evolution because of their philosophic base which is that there is no God or Creator; therefore, however impossible the odds or evidence, there is no other possible explanation but that it happened by chance. This is not science, this is science fiction. Evolution is not based on any evidence of science, but on myth. We have returned to the dark-ages. This is not reason, but escape from reason. Note the statement of one of their scientists Harold Urey,

"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."^333/1/325 [emphasis added]

The Apostle Paul was correct when he wrote in the Bible,

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they know God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools." (Romans 1:20-22)

If scientists who choose to not believe in God from this standpoint were honest, they would simply say based on the evidence, "We simply do not know how life began. What we do know is that the tangible scientific evidence before us clearly indicates that evolution is not how it came about." This then would be science, but this is not what they do. Despite the evidence, they hold onto a theory they know the evidence clearly does not support. As a result they move from true science to Science-fiction and instead of promoting true science and true knowledge actually hinder science and true knowledge. They are no longer scientists but only philosophers and dreamers. They have by their own admission moved from the discipline of science to faith based on myth with no tangible scientific evidence to back it up.

Despite the tremendous complexity and complete scientific evidence against the spontaneous generation of life, evolutionists continue to insist that some how life did come out of the randomness of dead matter. They don’t know how, but they have faith that given time they will find the answer.^334/207 Sir Fred Hoyle has pointed out that if this were possible, they would be able to find the solution in half a day through experimentation. All experiments, however, through electrical sparks and all other added factors have only produced "a tarry sludge.".^334/208 The reason why evolutionary scientists hold onto the theory of spontaneous generation so tenaciously is because of their undying belief that all that exists is matter and its motion. It is based on their philosophy of life, not due to the scientific evidence at hand.^55/77

Evolutionists reject the Creationist’s point of view because they claim it is outside the realm of investigative science, yet they hold onto the view of evolution despite all evidence to the contrary. Therefore their view is more a position of faith, as they define faith, than the Creationist’s. However, the faith evolutionists have in evolution is not the same kind of faith that Creationist have in Creation. Evolutionists faith in Evolution is a blind faith meaning without proof or verification. The Creationist’s faith in Creation, however, is based on proof and verification. Christian Creationists base their view on the investigated facts of science and Jesus’ stated proof to us of the absolute reliability of the historical record of the Judeo-Christian Bible: His Resurrection from the dead.  Jesus said:

"For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote of Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?" (John 5:46-47)

John wrote After Jesus' physical resurrection from the dead:

The Evolutionist’s position is what is known in Philosophy as an existential leap of faith. This means they do not know how it all began and despite the lack of evidence for evolution, they take a leap of faith that it is true anyway. A leap of faith is anti-scientific and anti-rational. It is anti-rational because it is not based on reason or evidence of science, but on blind choice completely contrary to reason. It is not a hypothesis developed into a theory because of the evidence, but despite the evidence to the contrary. The Evolutionists position is a rejection of science, a rejection of scientific fact and a rejection of all rational processes. This can be demonstrated by the following statement by an evolutionary biochemist at Harvard named George Wald:

"One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are-as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation."^334/120 [emphasis added]

This is not a scientist. A scientist is someone who hypothesis what may be true based on the current data and then goes out and investigates and collects more data to see if his hypothesis holds out or not. If the data collected appears to support his hypothesis and the scientific community agrees that it does based on the evidence, it then becomes a theory. If it does not, then the hypothesis is rejected and another one is created based on the current evidence at hand. This is not what George Wald has done. He has stated that all evidence shows that spontaneous generation of life is not how we got here, but despite this evidence, he states, "Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation." It is a leap of faith he has chosen to take based on his world view, not on the collected data he has at hand. When George Wald did this, he stopped being a scientist, he stopped operating in the realm of science. If he continues to hold his position despite the evidence to the contrary and so teaches others, not only does he cease operating as a scientist, but also becomes a hindrance to finding out what is true.

If George Wald is not a scientist, what is he? He is an existentialist, operating out of a leap of faith. This means he chooses to believe what he believes without evidence and despite the evidence to the contrary.

Because of the lack of evidence in support of evolution, all kinds of new theories have appeared to explain our being here: Life was brought here from another planet from outer space is one of the more popular ones. All this does is side step the issue at hand which is how life came about in the first place, but does not answer it and again does more to support creation than evolution. There are many others. Concerning all these different theories, Klaus Dose, Director of the Institute for Biochemistry at the Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany, stated the following in Interdisciplinary Science Reviews (1988):

"More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in a stalemate or in a confession of ignorance."

Despite these facts all secular universities across the country will not accept any scientists who hold any other view other than evolution, they will not allow published in any of their magazines any articles which give views or theories contrary to evolution, and anyone who proposes theories contrary to evolution based on scientific research and evidence are called non-scientists.^353/3-5

God speaking through Isaiah said,

"For a fool speaks nonsense, and his heart inclines toward wickedness, to practice ungodliness and to speak error against Yehovah [God], to keep the hungry person unsatisfied and to withhold drink from the thirsty. As for a rogue, his weapons are evil; he devises wicked schemes to destroy the afflicted with slander, even though the needy one speaks what is right." (Isaiah 32:6-7)

The Apostle Paul wrote,

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths." (2 Timothy 4:3-4)

1. Henry M. Morris and Gary E. Parker. What is Creation Science? Green Forest, AR: Master Books, Inc., 1987.
2. Parker, Gary E. Creation Facts of Life Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1994.
3. Sunderland, Luther D.. Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 3d ed. Santee, CA: Master Book Publishers, 1984.
4. Lubenow, Marvin L. Bones of Contention. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, © 1992 by Marven L. Lubenow.
5. Gish, Duane T. Evolution: the Fossils Still Say No! El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1995.
6. Camp, Ashby L. The Myth of Natural Origins. Tempe, AZ: Ktisis Publishing, © 1994 by Ashby L. Camp.