Evolution is today’s secular religion. Evolutionists have their own creation story (abiogenesis), holy books (On the Origin of Species, The God Delusion), priesthood (Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins), seminaries (universities), and houses of worship (atheist “mega-church” movement).

The charge is often made that the debate over evolution is over. Evolution has been proven to be a fact beyond dispute.

The problem with evolution is that evolutionists (especially those of the atheistic type) can’t account for matter, organized information, and non-material entities like love, compassion, and morality, that make us uniquely human.

It’s one thing to argue that there is a 95% similarity between human and chimpanzee DNA, thus “proving” a common ancestor,1 but it’s another thing to come up with a scientific study that shows how matter and life arose spontaneously out of nothing.

A recent report has exposed the fundamental problem of atheistic evolutionary origins:

“Researchers at Cornell University published a study last week in which they claim that clay helped life spontaneously arise from non-life millions of years ago.

“On Thursday [Nov. 7, 2013], scientists affiliated with Cornell University released a statement detailing new research findings regarding the initial development of life—also known as abiogenesis. In the statement, the researchers suggest clay was a key ingredient when—according to the university—life spontaneously emerged from non-life in earth’s early years.”

The most obvious question to ask is, “Where did the clay come from?” Also, note the words “abiogenesis” (the origin [genesis] of life [bio] from non-life [a]) and “spontaneously,” as in “spontaneous generation.”

In 2010, Stephen W. Hawking, with Leonard Mlodino, argued that the laws of physics allow for the universe to have created itself . . . from nothing. In their book, The Grand Design, Hawking states:

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.”

A “law”?  “Create itself”? “Spontaneous creation”? This is science? Where are the experiments to back up the claims Hawking attributes to physics? The first thing a biology student learns is spontaneous generation does NOT happen.

Hawking is theorizing. But because he is a noted scientist whose speculations fit what atheists want and need to believe in order to make their theoretical worldview work, many people are willing to believe him without evidence. “Stephen Hawking said it; I believe him; that settles it.”

Hawking’s speculations have become secular scripture: “Darwinism kicked God out of biology,” Dawkins wrote, “but physics remained more uncertain. Hawking is now administering the coup de grace.”2

No experiments were offered to prove any of what Hawking was hocking and what Dawkins was claiming. The high priests of the church of No-God Now have spoken, and that’s enough for the faithful.

When scientists can prove scientifically that the clay and organic life arose spontaneously and evolved one imperceptible step at a time over billions of years, then they might prove themselves to be real scientists. In the meantime, they are just highly educated wizards without a magic wand.

1. Given the sheer enormity of the information encoded in DNA, that five percent results in about 150 million DNA base pairs that are different. If we follow the older 98.8% similarity figure, even that 1.2% difference is significant, as this pro-evolutionary website shows: “If human and chimp DNA is 98.8 percent the same, why are we so different? Numbers tell part of the story. Each human cell contains roughly three billion base pairs, or bits of information. Just 1.2 percent of that equals about 35 million differences. Some of these have a big impact, others don’t. And even two identical stretches of DNA can work differently — they can be ‘turned on’ in different amounts, in different places or at different times.” [↩]
2. Quoted in “Another Ungodly Squabble,” The Economist (September 5, 2010). [↩]