Ask yourself this:

Did life EVOLVE as a result of natural laws randomly acting upon inanimate
matter?   Or was it CREATED by a supernatural act of intelligence?

Undecided?   Then consider the following:

  • MACHINES ARE SUPERNATURAL in the sense that their origin cannot be
    accounted for by natural processes.   Nature does not produce cars, airplanes,
    computers, etc.   Their construction does not occur naturally, by itself.   An agent
    that SUPERcedes NATURAListic forces must be invoked.

  • MACHINES REQUIRE INTELLIGENCE: Their origin must be a result of applied
    human intelligence.   Someone has to design the machine and then direct its
    construction.   Otherwise, the raw material that makeup the machine will just sit
    there.   Inanimate matter is not self-directing; it has no mind of its own.

    Therefore, it's reasonable to conclude that:

  • LIFE IS ALSO SUPERNATURAL: The living cell, for example, with its urge to
    survive and reproduce, is more complex than any machine.   Therefore, if machines
    are supernatural, so is life.

  • LIFE REQUIRES INTELLIGENCE: Life is more complex than any machine.
    Therefore if machines require intelligence, so does life.

       In spite of such reasoning, many will still argue that life can begin without
    the need of a guiding intelligence, supernatural or otherwise.   They maintain that
    mindless, natural forces CAN produce the building blocks of life such as amino acids
    and proteins.   They argue that, given enough time, even a living cell can come about
    naturally.   And to substantiate their claims, many have conducted experiments
    aimed at proving that life can begin by itself.

       We are going to look at two classic experiments conducted in the late 1950's,
    early 60's by two scientists: Stanley Miller and Sidney Fox.   Their aim was to prove
    that life could evolve.   However, as you will learn, their results showed quite the

  • What did Stanley Miller do?

    He wanted to demonstrate that organic matter can arise spontaneously from
    inorganic matter without the need of a supernatural intelligence.   Ultimately, that
    would prove that you don't need a creator in order to bring life into existence.

       So he put together the now famous apparatus you see below in Fig. 7-1.   Dr. Miller,
    himself, describes how it's put together, in his book: * The Origins of Life on the
    by Stanley L. Miller and Leslie E. Orgel (emphasis is mine)

    * Stanley Miller, p.83:

    "The apparatus used in the original experiments is shown in fig.7-1.   Water was first added to the small flask and the air was pumped out.
    Then a mixture of AMMONIA, METHANE and HYDROGEN was added.   Then water in the 500 ml flask was boiled to bring the vapor into the region of the spark and to circulate the gases in the 5 liter flask.   An electric spark was generated across the spark gap."

    Dr. Miller was trying to simulate conditions that he believed existed on the earth millions of years ago.   He theorized that these would have been the conditions under which life would have had to begin, all by itself, without the help of God or any other outside intelligence.

    Chapter Seven
    Fig. 7-1.   Apparatus for the electric discharge synthesis of amino acids.

    But when the experiment was over, something went wrong!

    Instead of proving that no outside intelligence was needed to produce the building
    blocks of life, Dr. Miller ended up demonstrating the exact opposite.

    Here's what happened . . .

    As hard as Dr. Miller tried, he just couldn't stop interjecting intelligence into his
    experiment.   And the more his own "outside intelligence" he introduced, the more
    he was actually showing life can't begin spontaneously.
       For example, in simulating the earth's early atmosphere, he added a mixture of
    ammonia, methane and hydrogen into the apparatus.   How did he know the earth's
    atmosphere contained these gases?   And why didn't he add oxygen to the mix?

       * Stanley Miller, p.33: "WE BELIEVE that there must have been a period when the
    earth's atmosphere was reducing, because the synthesis of compounds of biological interest
    TAKES PLACE ONLY under reducing conditions."
      (Reducing means NO OXYGEN)

       In other words, as evolutionist Chris McGrowan states in his book, *In the
    Beginning. . .
    * Chris McGowan, p.48: "Evolutionists recognize that life COULD NOT BE
    FORMED TODAY, simply because it would be IMMEDIATELY DESTROYED, not only
    by OXIDATION but by engulfment by other organisms."

       Therefore, in trying to obtain the desired results, Dr. Miller intelligently avoided
    the use of oxygen
    and in doing so, introduced intelligence into his experiment.   His
    own intelligence told him that if he added oxygen it would OXIDIZE and destroy the
    very organic substance he was trying to produce.   Whereas, by comparison, the
    mindless, random and undirected process of evolution that he was trying to validate
    wouldn't know any better.   In fact, not only would the conditions initially require a
    lack of oxygen, but the same mindless process would have had to ADD oxygen later
    on when life needed it.

    Note - Another equally problematic condition occurs with absence of oxygen in a
    primitive atmosphere.   Without oxygen the earth cannot produce ozone which
    provides a protective layer against ultraviolet (UV) radiation.   The excessive UV
    radiation would be just as detrimental to the origin of life as the presence of
    oxygen.   So when it comes to oxygen, spontaneous generation "can't live with it,
    and can't live without it."

       AVOIDING OXYGEN is not the only "sign of intelligence" he introduced.   Refer
    to the second illustration of his apparatus on the following [below] page where we see the
    device in action.   The spark being discharged in the spherical glass is meant to
    simulate lightning (assumed to have existed).   The lightning is the catalyst for a
    chemical reaction between the water and the gases.   The result of the reaction was
    the formation of a gooey product that was accumulated in the TRAP at the bottom.
    The goo contained amino acids; regarded by many as the building blocks of life.

    * Stanley Miller, p.83: "The products of the
    discharge were condensed by the condenser and
    SMALL FLASK.   The nonvolatile
    products REMAINED THERE, but the volatile
    [gaseous] products re-circulated past the spark."

       There is an intelligent reason why Dr.
    Miller designed a trap into his system
    that would isolate the organic (amino
    acids) products, and prevent them from
    circulating past the spark.   The same spark
    that help produce the products would
    destroy them if they were to pass through
    the spark chamber.


       In a book entitled *The Origins of Prebiological Systems edited by Sidney W. Fox,
    Dr. Carl Sagan says on p.196; "We use energy sources to make organic molecules.   It is found
    that the same energy sources CAN DESTROY these organic molecules . . ."

       Therefore, Miller intelligently kept the organic products from the spark.   And in
    doing so, introduced more intelligence into the experiment.   What's more, in doing
    so, Dr. Miller dictated that two key scenarios must occur at the same time:

       Number one: you need an atmosphere that conveniently has no oxygen at that
    "critical" time in earth's history (only to produce it later on).

       Number two: the organic product must somehow, on its own accord, conveniently
    "hide" from the same lightning that produced it.   Referring to how circumstances
    such as these could occur in nature, Dr. Carl Sagan in the book entitled: The
    Origins of Prebiological Systems
    , p.196, admits that: "In reconstructing the origin of
    life, we have to imagine REASONABLE SCENARIOS which SOMEHOW AVOID this

       In reference to the Miller experiment; D. Hull, "Thermodynamics and Kinetics of
    Spontaneous Generation," Nature, 186(1960), states: "They have merely used the
    well-known principle of increasing the yield of a reaction by SELECTIVELY REMOVING
    the product from the reaction mixture.   The mere fact that a chemist can carry out an organic
    synthesis in the laboratory DOES NOT PROVE that the same synthesis will occur in the
    atmosphere or open sea WITHOUT THE CHEMIST."

    Now let's suppose that one day you turn on the T.V. and there's this scientist holding a
          large beaker with something hairy trying to crawl out of it.   Let's further imagine him
          announcing the following: "Ladies and gentlemen, after spending 50 billion dollars
    and 50 years of intense research we have finally proven that life can begin spontaneously
    without any outside help."

       Do you see the absurd contradiction nestled within such a statement?   Yet, this is exactly
    what most evolutionists would love to announce.   Ironically, the statement sums up their
    inherent dilemma.   Every effort put forth to disprove that intelligent intervention is
    necessary is, in itself, proving the opposite.   That's why in that last quote we read, Mr. Hull
    says: ". . . The mere fact that a chemist can carry out an organic synthesis in the laboratory
    DOES NOT PROVE that the same synthesis will occur in the atmosphere or open sea
      The chemist, in essence, is playing the role of God, which is
    the very person the chemist is trying to show was not needed in the first place.   In fact:

    The more intelligence it requires to "unravel" the origin of life, the more
    intelligence it took to "ravel" it up in the first place!

    Life is just too complex to have occurred spontaneously.   The mere fact that it requires
    so much effort in the lab proves that.   Even in the perfectly controlled environment of a
    laboratory, they still can't produce self-replicating life.   So what makes anyone think that
    it can occur in a mindlessly random and undirected environment?

       As for Stanley Miller's synthesis of amino acids, even with all the intelligence he
    interjected he still didn't produce, exclusively, the kind of amino acids that form the
    building blocks of life.   You see, amino acids come in two, mirror- imaged, forms.   There are
    right-handed (known as D- for Dextro) and left-handed amino acids (a.k.a L- for Levo).   All
    living organisms have proteins made up of only the L-form (left-handed) amino acids.   And
    when Miller ran his experiment he produced BOTH KINDS!
       In his book, Origins, Biochemist Robert Shapiro, to his credit, honestly describes the
    yields from the Miller experiments and says on p.104: "Alanine, and all amino acids other
    than glycine, APPEAR IN TWO MIRROR-IMAGE forms, with ONLY THE L-FORM
    relevant to biology."

       Now, you may be wondering, so what?   Can't the L's separate themselves and gather
    together to form biological protein?   No!   H. Blum, in his book, Time's Arrow and Evolution,
    p.159, points out: "Amino acids synthesized in the laboratory are a mixture of the right-
    and left-handed forms, and thermodynamically THE TWO FORMS ARE

       Stanley Miller, aware of this "slight" problem, offers one theory in his book, The Origins
    of Life on the Earth
    , p.173: "we know that if life arose only once, it must have been either
    D [right-handed] or L.   We can explain the absence of all D organisms on the earth if we
    SUPPOSE that, BY CHANCE, the first organism was all L."

    Of course, considering the HUGE statistical hurdle that random chance would have to jump
    in order to make his first scenario possible, Miller offers a second possibility on the same
    page.   He goes on to say that perhaps: "Both D and L organisms evolved on several
    occasions.   In that case an all L organism must have developed a sufficient advantage to
    eliminate all competitors."
      (In other words, maybe D organisms fought it out with the L's
    and the L's won.)   So, in essence, Dr. Miller not only showed that the origin of life required
    intelligent intervention, but considering his results (or lack of), his experiment would
    suggest that:

    The intervening intelligence was supernatural
    and beyond our natural capabilities.

    Stanley Miller was not the only one who has ended up demonstrating the opposite of what
    he intended.   There have been many others since.   One such scientist is Sidney Fox, who
    endeavored to take Miller's attempt a step further.   He tried to show that, once amino acids
    were formed spontaneously, they would, by themselves, form into more complex substances.

       So he pondered which set of primitive conditions would possibly produce results and
    found one "recipe" that seemed to work.   The key steps are listed below.   (Notice "the signs
    of intelligence" as you read what he did):

       STEP 1 - Dr. Fox intelligently took some L-form amino acids (and not from Stanley
    Miller's experiment since those were mixed, remember) and dry-heated them.

       STEP 2 - When heating them he intelligently avoided adding water to his amino acids.
    Why?   Evolutionist Michael Ruse, in a Nature, 186 (1960), article entitled, Thermodynamics
    and Kinetics of Spontaneous Generation
    , p.162, explains that: "If, as supposed, amino acids
    and the like are first created in some primeval ocean, then with all the water around, the
    LAST THING that the monomers
    [amino acids] will do is give up a water molecule.   It is
    much more likely that polymers
    [proteins] will TAKE UP WATER, thus breaking up into
    individual monomers
    [amino acids]!"
      (i.e. Fox knew he would get nowhere if he added water,
    due to what's known as the law of mass action).

       * Evolutionist Chris McGowan, p.50 of the source previously sighted, explains that:
    "The only problem is how to GET RID OF THE WATER which forms during the
    polymerization, because this interferes with the reaction.   S.W. Fox showed that DRY
    mixtures of amino acids will polymerize within a few hours if heated to about 130C, and he
    called the products ‘proteinoids’."

       STEP 3 - After they polymerized, Dr. Fox intelligently added water to cool down these
    proteinoids before the very heat that polymerized them, ended up destroying them (pretty
    smart move, huh?)   The results were microspheres.

    If you have never heard of proteinoids or microspheres, don't fret.   Most people have never
    heard of them either.   The fact that very few people know what they are demonstrates how
    non-consequential the results of Fox's experiment was.   Did Fox synthesize protein, the next
    step toward life?   Is that what proteinoids are?   Sidney Fox, himself in The Evolutionary
    significance of Phase-Separated Microsystems
    , p.13, admits that: "Proteinoid is, however
    not identical to contemporary protein."

       And as for microspheres, which when first seen were thought to be the precursor of the
    living cell, Fox himself in The Theory of macromolecular and cellular Origins, an article in
    Nature 205(1965) p.336 states that microspheres: ". . . can be redissolved by warming the
    microscope slides."
      Obviously, such a weak substance could hardly survive long enough to a
    viable precursor to the cell.

       So, in spite of all the intelligence introduced by Fox, there was still no sign of life nor
    even its true building blocks.   Thus, Fox, like Miller, had actually shown that not only is
    intelligence required, but that the intelligence must be supernatural, beyond natural
    intelligence as we know it.   You may be wondering if Miller or Fox have ever admitted that
    intelligent intervention is, after all, necessary.   Sadly, the answer is no.

       In fact, years later, Sidney W. Fox, in The American Biology Teacher, 36(1974), p.172,
    stated the following (emphasis is mine): "In my view, the most fundamental argument for
    not including creationist overviews in biology textbooks is that the science alone is sufficient
    to explain in outline what is and has been going on, plus the subtle specificities in the vast
    array of the biological realm.   NO ADDITIONAL AGENT need be invoked to explain an
    evolutionary sequence THAT IS PROVING TO BE SELF-GENERATING at every stage
    that has been studied."

       Dr. Fox has been known to argue that his experiments show a pre- deterministic ability
    among chemicals.   He therefore uses the term "self-generating."   Yet, as you read the
    description of one of his typical pan-polymerization experiments, look for signs of
    intelligence (or as he puts it: the "ADDITIONAL AGENT").   (Recipe condensed from
    Journal of the American Chemical Society, 82 (1960) p.3745)

    Recipe for pan-polymerization by Sidney W. Fox

    1. Take ten grams of L-glutamic acid, HEAT at 175º-180º until molten (~30 min).
    2. ADD 10 gms. of DL-aspartic acid and 5gms. of the 16 basic/neutral amino acids.
    3. MAINTAIN solution at 170º±2º UNDER an atmosphere of nitrogen for a few hours.
    4. RUB vigorously with 75ml. of water until yellow-brown and granular.
    5. LET STAND overnight, SEPARATE solid by filtration.
    6. WASH solid with 50 ml. of ethanol and as substance S dialytically WASH
        in moving Multidialyzers in water for 4 days, CHANGE water 3x per day.

    Evolutionist Robert Shapiro, in his book entitled, Origins, makes reference to experiments
    like Stanley Miller's and says on p.300: "In these cases, the experimenter HAD A
    PRECONCEIVED GOAL.   He or she wished to demonstrate the efficient synthesis of amino
    acids, a polynucleotide, or other biochemical entity important in life today under conditions
    considered plausible for the early earth.   THE INGREDIENTS AND CONDITIONS WERE

    Let's quickly review what Miller and Fox have taught us from their experiments:

    1 - They showed us that the origin of life required an intervening intelligence.
    2 - Based on their results, they showed that the required intelligence must
          have superceded our natural intelligence and thus would have been supernatural.

       Now I realize that using the term "supernatural" does not sit well with many people.
    Many would say that the term is used as an excuse whenever a naturalistic explanation can't
    be obtained.   Many would argue that, since living things are composed of the same elements
    as non-living things, there must be a naturalistic explanation yet to be found.   But if life is
    simply a combination of natural elements put together in the proper proportions then why
    does anything die?

       In fact, instead of trying to create life from the bottom up, starting with amino acids, why
    not simply start with a freshly dead body?   All the chemicals of life that anyone would need
    are already there.   Why not simply take a cadaver and add that one missing ingredient
    necessary to bring it back to life?   It shouldn't be hard to find it when, supposedly, it occurs
    naturally like everything else.   Or does it?   Could it be that the ingredient in question is not
    present in nature, but originated from a supernatural act instead?

       Science has spent years studying the origin of life.   For many of those years science has
    known that our physical bodies contain some of the same elements found in dirt.   And it's
    fascinating that the Bible, a book self-proclaiming to be supernatural, says that at the time
    of man's creation:

    "the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground..." Genesis 2:7 a

       What took science many years to discover, was casually mentioned in the Book of
    Genesis all along.   What's more, modern biochemistry with its advanced technology is slowly
    realizing that elements in the right combinations are not enough to bring forth life.   There
    is still something missing.   And just as the Bible reveals our commonality with dust, it goes
    one step further to tell us that life requires a supernatural intervention as well:

    "the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils
    the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
      Gen. 2:7

    The Bible not only explains that the origin of life required a supernatural act, but
         it goes on to say that we were created with a specific purpose.   It states that: "God
         created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and
    female created he them."
      Genesis 1:27
       We and our Creator share the same range of emotions along with the same capacity
    for thought and self-awareness.   These common attributes form the basis for a Creator-to-
    creature relationship.   And it is God's desire to have an on-going relationship with His
    creation.   That's why He says: "...I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their
    God, and they shall be my people. ... And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my
    sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty."
      2 Corinthians 6:16-18

       However, mankind, as a whole, does not share the same desire.   Instead, in rebellion, it
    collectively shakes its fist at God and, "Therefore they say unto God, Depart from us; for
    we desire not the knowledge of thy ways.   What is the Almighty, that we should serve
    him? and what profit should we have, if we pray unto him?"
    Job 21:14-15

       But the grand irony behind man's rejection of God is that without the knowledge of
    God's way, mankind can't survive.   We were not created to run our own lives independent
    of God.   Without God we find ourselves living a life without purpose.   But, even worse, we
    find ourselves overtaken by the depravity of our own sin nature.   When God looks down
    upon our sinful ways He says: "There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that
    understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.   They are all gone out of the way,
    they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. ...
    For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;"
    Rom. 3:10-12, 23

       Friend, would you keep a rebellious pet around the house, one that has no intention
    of obeying you, but instead fights you every step of the way?   What use, then, has God
    for those who insist on rebelling and refuse to repent?   To Him they have "...become
      That's why Jesus Christ said: "The Son of man shall send forth his angels,
    and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do
    iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing
    of teeth."
      Mat. 13:41-42

       There is only one way to escape God's judgment of your sins and thus save your soul
    from Hell.   It's not by good deeds, church membership, baptism, or self- righteousness (Eph.
    2:8,9; Titus 3:5)   The Bible says: "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we
    were yet sinners, Christ died for us.   Much more then, being now justified by his blood,
    we shall be saved from wrath through him."
      (Rom. 5:8-9)   Salvation comes about ONLY by
    repenting and placing all your trust in the fact that Christ died for your sins and thus
    satisfied God's judgment upon you.   That's why the Bible says:

    "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus [i.e. REPENT], and shalt believe
    in thine heart
    [TRUST] that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. ...
    For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."
      Rom. 10:9, 13

    Do You Know the
    Greatest Book in the

    Study the Bible in Your Own Home!

    Discover important facts about the most
    popular book in the world with easy to
    understand lessons from the:

    Christian Home Bible Course

    Absolutely Free!

    Just mail your:
    Name ___________________________________

    Address _________________________________

    City ____________ State _______ Zip _________


    3303 23rd Av. SW.
    Fargo, ND 58103

    [Christian Helps Ministry (USA)]