February 10, 2010


Primordial soup (David Warren, 2/06/10, Ottawa Citizen)

That is one leg upon which our contemporary Darwinism stands: appropriated genuine science. The other is in what has long been known colloquially as the "Primordial Soup." J.B.S. Haldane proposed this in 1929: that the whole evolutionary process was kick-started by ultraviolet radiation, providing the energy to turn methane, ammonia and water into the first organic compounds.

This murk was desperately needed to cover the scandal of origins.

Darwin had titled his famous work The Origin of Species yet could himself see that he had explained no such thing. He had only told just-so stories about how one sort of pre-existing creature might evolve into another under environmental pressures. Few have ever disputed "common descent," but many have asked: What sort of "accident" hatched the first reproducing creature?

The sort of environmental flukes on which the Darwinian depends for his salvation are all very well if you have infinite time. But as we began to realize, about the time Primordial Soup was first served, the universe wasn't nearly old enough -- by a factor approaching infinity -- for any meandering and purposeless scheme to achieve the sort of results we see all around us.

The alternative, of course, is that the universe was in some sense "programmed," that biological and ultimately human life was implicit in the Big Bang. This is called the "anthropic cosmological principle," and it fits with every observable fact of nature. It is resisted by atheists, however, because it is highly suggestive of Creation by God, and is described with great clarity in for example the Book of Isaiah. (See 45:18, for starters.)

In a series of laughable experiments through the 1960s and '70s, Darwinian biologists mixed various recipes for this hypothetical soup, then zapped them with energy this way and that, without any success whatever. Frankenstein's monster simply would not stir from their puddle.

This soup nonsense is still presented in biology textbooks, as if it were true. But in an important paper in the journal BioEssays this week, William Martin et al., of the Institute of Botany III in Düsseldorf, spilled the last drop of it onto the trash heap of history. They summarize effectively why it not only did not work, but could not work, under laboratory or any other conditions.

Posted by Orrin Judd at February 10, 2010 5:30 PM
blog comments powered by Disqus