Chemical Evolution

It is commonly believed (because it is often taught in our schools and colleges) that laboratory experiments have proved conclusively that living organisms evolved from nonliving chemicals. Many people believe that life has been created in the laboratory by scientists who study chemical evolution.

The famous experiment conducted by Stanly Miller in 1953 is often quoted as proof of this. Yet the results of such experiments do not show that life can be created from nonliving chemicals. These experiments, designed as they are by intelligent humans, show that under certain conditions, certain organic compounds can be formed from inorganic compounds.

In fact, what the intelligent scientists are actually trying to show by these experiments is, “If I can just synthesize life in the laboratory, then I will have proven that no intelligence was necessary to form life in the beginning.” Their experiments are simply trying to prove the opposite — than an intelligence is required to create life.

Miller experiment
Miller experiment

If we look carefully at Miller’s experiment, we will see that what he did fails to address the evolution of life. He took a mixture of gases (ammonia, hydrogen, methane, and water vapor) and he passed an electric current through them. He did this in order to reproduce the effect of lighting passing through a mixture of gases that he thought might have composed the earth’s atmosphere millions of years ago. As a result, he produced a mixture of amino acids. Because amino acids are the building blocks of proteins and proteins are considered to be the building blocks of living systems, Miller’s experiment was published as proof that life had evolved by chance on the earth millions of years of years ago. However, there are several objections and problems to such a conclusion.

  1. There is no proof that the earth ever had an atmosphere composed of the gases used by Miller in his experiment.
  2. The next problem is that in Miller’s experiment he was careful to make sure there was no oxygen present. If oxygen was present, then the amino acids would not form. However, if oxygen was absent from the earth, then there would be no ozone layer, and if there was no ozone layer the ultraviolet radiation would penetrate the atmosphere and would destroy the amino acids as soon as they were formed. So the dilemma facing the evolutionist can be summed up this way: amino acids would not form in an atmosphere with oxygen and amino acids would be destroyed in an atmosphere without oxygen.
  3. The next problem concerns the so-called handedness of the amino acids. Because of the way that carbon atoms join up with other atoms, amino acids exist in two forms–the right-handed form and the left-handed form. Just as your right hand and left hand are identical in all respects except for their handedness. In all living systems only left-handed amino acids are found. Yet Miller’s experiment produced a mixture of right-handed amino acids in identical proportions. As only the left-handed ones are used in living systems, this mixture is useless for the evolution of living systems.
  4. Another major problem for the chemical evolutionist is the origin of the information that is found in living systems. There are various claims about the amount of information that is found in the human genome, but can be conservatively estimated as being equivalent to a few thousand books, each several hundred pages long. Where did this information come from? Chance does not generate information. This observation caused the late Professor Sir Fred Hoyle and his colleague, Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe of Cardiff University, to conclude that the evolution is asking us to believe that a huge wind can pass through a garbage pile and assemble a jumbo jet airplane. This is just impossible! 

The problems outlined above show that, far from creating life in the laboratory, the chemical evolutionists have not shown that living systems arose by chance from nonliving chemicals. Furthermore, the vast amount of information contained in the nucleus of a living cells shows that living systems could not have evolved from nonliving chemicals. The only explanation for the existence of living systems is that they must have been created by God. The vast amount of information contained in each strand of DNA clearly supports the fact that an intelligent God created living systems.

DNA Strands
3D render of a DNA spirals

If you find this hard to believe, then ask yourself, “Could all the information in a computer have just arisen by chance?” Clearly this would be impossible! Even if you put all of the components of a computer out on a carpet and waited millions of years, they still would not from themselves into a meaningful order or into a useable computer. It just wouldn’t happen. In order for a computer to became a useful machine an intelligent human has to assemble it, program in the information, attach a battery or electrical system and then operate it. Without an intelligent creator, a computer would never be created. And yet we are asked to believe that evolution, given millions of years, could produce life, order, information and reproductive capabilities in thousands of different species. In order to believe this we are asked to disbelieve the necessity of an intelligent designer. I choose to believe in God, who created all living systems and gave order to not only the earth, but the universe and space itself.

The Bible says, “In the beginning God created the heaven (space) and the earth.” For many scientists and scholars, that is the only logical explanation as to how life began.

If you want to learn more of the Bible’s teachings or of topics regarding science and the Bible, contact us at

Share via:

Similar Posts