Origin of Life

One of the main questions philosophy asks is, "How did we get here?" The question arises from the old chicken and egg dilemma. You can't have an egg without a chicken, and a chicken cannot exist without the egg it was hatched from. I posed this question to a friend of mine once, and he argued that the egg came first, because reptiles laid eggs, and according to evolution, birds are descended from reptiles. This, however, merely regresses the problem, which is some thing that occurs all too frequently in this discussion. For you merely push back the chain of causality; it now becomes, which came first, the reptile or the egg? People have never been able to give a clear explanation for the first thing that ever existed; the thing that from which all else is descended. The so called Big Bang theory makes little sense, as one quote reads, "At first there was nothing, and then it exploded."

Three Possible Solutions

Once upon a time, there was only one belief about the origin of life. All people were fairly content with it. It was the idea that a creator, usually God, had created all the world and all that was within it. So perfect was his design that the world was able to sustain itself without his ongoing assistance. All living things could reproduce, and even chemicals were restored by the various laws of chemistry. This argument even held up against the main problem for all theories regarding the origin of life, being "Where did the original thing come from?" The original thing in this instance was God, but because he was God, having no beginning was not a problem, because he was not part of this world, and was not susceptible to the laws which constrain us, such as time. The argument for the origin of life was blindly accepted, and rightly so, for it is almost flawless. The only thing that one can challenge it with is that the existence of God seems somewhat hard to swallow, for if God exists, and God is all good, then why did he create a world in which there is so much evil? Why are there floods and fires, earthquakes and tornados? If God exists, why doesn't he show himself? In a world that seemed so self-sufficient, there was no need for God.

And so evolution was born. Those who stuck to Creationism called it "The Lie." It was the most controversial piece of science ever thought up. Darwin is the name synonymous with evolution, though he was not the one who first theorised it, but rather Darwin was the one who devised the mechanism by which evolution operated, namely natural selection. On the surface, evolution seems to answer all the questions. The classic illustration is that of moths in the woods. Supposedly, in the woods where the bark was a light colour, the light coloured moths of the woods would settle on the branches, and were camouflaged against the bark. Birds did not easily see them to eat them. The dark coloured moths stood out, however, and were readily consumed. And then an environmental change occurred. A factory was built nearby, and the black soot was blown into the woods. The bark of the trees became darkened by it. The dark moths now blended in, and the white moths became the easy target of the birds. And so the population shifted, and evolution was facilitated, such that the moths in the area have moved from being light, with the occasional dark defect, to dark, with the occasional light defect. And so convinced by this little anecdote people were, that they abandoned the creationist theory of the origin of life. However, time has uncovered some very serious flaws with the evolutionist's argument. So strong are these criticisms that top evolutionists are quoted as saying, "evolution makes for good discussion, but no one should really take it seriously." The purpose of this article is not to go into great detail over these difficulties, but I should give a quick overview of some of the more serious ones. Firstly, one can easily see how a moth might evolve to become darker or lighter. But how would a creature evolve to possess arms and legs; both of these limbs can only work when all the parts of them are in place. A hand is no good without fingers, or merely one finger. An arm is of little use without a hand. More importantly, a hand is no good unless the owner of it can coordinate the movement of the muscles within it. So many examples can be given where parts of the body only work in concert with each other. The evolutionist cannot explain how each necessary component evolved to cooperate in the critical way that they do. Long winded explanations suggest that an eye, for example, started out as a lump of light sensitive cells, which slowly began to form a lens around them, and so on.

It seems to me that people are desperate to embrace anything that does not rely on the 'airy fairy' existence of God, even if it suffers serious faults. Some will say that the alien race exist outside of our universe, and so are not constrained by such laws as time, which demands a beginning and an end to all things. But this will merely open up the possibility of God as creator once again. I believe that evolution can be disregarded in the answer to this perplexing question. What remains is two equally valid possibilities; that we were created either by space beings, or by God. Since we seemingly have more evidence for the existence of space beings, many will follow that path. However, the wise individual will truly investigate both possibilities, as philosophy also argues the existence of God. As my philosophy lecturer once said, "When it comes to the philosophical argument regarding the existence of God, all that opposes His existence has been satisfactorily resolved in favour of God's existence, bar one argument, that being the presence of evil in this world." The devout follower of God will even clear that one up for you. And so I believe that people in this age will rather accept an alien creator than accept God, for if they acknowledge that God exists, the implications are too much for many of us to handle. If God exists, then we are no longer the sole owner of our own bodies. We are constrained by the moral 'rule book' called the Bible. But worst of all, there is a hell, and the possibility that we might end up there. The wise individual, however, will see that the truth is independent of our own beliefs, and should be accepted. The Bible is not a rule book, but more of a 'guide to better living' with advice from one who knows all. The message is always positive; eternal life at no cost, because God loves that which He created.