What are the different theories on the origin of life?
Asking the question about different theories on the origin of life is similar to asking the question about the possible ways other entities like a house, a car, or a factory could have come into existence. There are only three possible ways that such things could have come into existence. They are as follows:
Arguments that life spores were transported to our planet, the earth, still requires answering the same question. Which possible theory was the correct mechanism to explain the generation of life at the remote location where the spores originated?
Random, natural unguided forces or processes
Designed and created by a designer
Self generation or ability to create, inherent or designed into matter
We all know that a car or a factory is designed and created by a designer. Nobody would question that. What we have learned is that a car is both far less complex than a single living cell and cannot reproduce itself like some living cells can. Yet some of us are willing to consider that such living cells came about by a random unguided process from inorganic matter.
A very modern complex automated factory is more similar to the complexity and function of a living cell. Although it is considerably less complex, much larger and unable to reproduce itself, at least it can produce whatever it was designed to produce. Yet nobody would believe that such a factory could come into existence by a random unguided process. Why do we believe that life could have come into existence by a random unguided process?
Even if we have the absurd belief that an extremely complex living cell could have came into existence through random processes, how much more absurd is it to believe that a cell would come into existence that could reproduce itself. None of us believe that a complex factory could come into existence by a random process. How much more absurd is it that a factory that could reproduce itself could have come into existence by random chance? Man with his great intelligence has not considered designing a factory that could reproduce itself even on a macroscopic scale. How much more intelligence is required to create life with extremely complex, "machine like" cells that can reproduce themselves on a microscopic level.
Some evolutionists speculate that matter has inherent or creative power built into it. If random chance cannot produce non-reproductive life from matter (nobody has shown that it can) how can the much, much more complex inherent creative ability of matter be credited to random chance?
Astrophysicist, Sir Fred Hoyle and his colleague Chandra Wickramasinghe argued chance processes could not have formed the biochemical machinery of the cell, especially the enzymes. In their book, "Evolution from Space," they estimated the probability of forming a single enzyme of protein at random, in the rich ocean of amino acids, was no more than 10 to the 20th power. They then calculated the likelihood of forming by chance all of the more than 2000 enzymes used in the life forms on earth. This probability was calculated at one in 10 to the 40,000th power.
A vivid analogy from Hoyle became a well-known cliché. "Belief in chemical evolution of the first cell from lifeless chemicals is equivalent to believing that a tornado could sweep through a junkyard and form a Boeing 747."
Even with all the correct chemicals present, life cannot be created. If we chopped some existing form of life in a blender, life cannot be generated from all those correct chemicals. Even if we have a real living configuration, we cannot recreate life. Dead or frozen bodies cannot be brought back to life after an extended lifeless time.
We need to accept the explanation that God created the universe and all life and direct our beliefs and actions to be consistent with the acknowledgment of the creator and Jesus' revelation that He is the way, the truth, and the life.
Learn More About the Origin of Life!
Like this information? Help us by sharing it with others using the social media buttons below.