In preparing for yet another multimedia seminar on evolution, I stumbled upon a book in the San Jose public library which amazed me. The following six quotes are from Franklin Harold’s, The Way of the Cell published by Oxford University Press in 2001, and they illustrate the actual bankruptcy behind what so many assume has been proven. While he is an ardent evolutionist, I appreciate Franklin’s candor and brute honesty about the paucity of scientific evidence to support their evolutionary tale about the origin of life and the assumed prebiotic soup from which it sprang.
“Life arose here on earth from inanimate matter, by some kind of evolutionary process, about four billion years ago. This is not a statement of demonstrable fact, but an assumption almost universally shared by specialists as well as scientists in general. It is not supported by any direct evidence.” p. 236.
“It is important to acknowledge the degree to which this field of inquiry is founded on surmise. The reasons for the general consensus are, first, the lack of a more palatable alternative; and second, that absent the presumption of a terrestrial and natural genesis there would be no basis for scientific inquiry into the origin of life.” p. 237.
“It bears repeating that we know very little for certain, and that it is seldom possible to formulate hypotheses that can be falsified by experiment; the opinions of scholars are, therefore, colored by personal beliefs about what should have happened, and even by what is meant by life.” p. 239.
“A historical theory must account for historical events, and in truth there is not (and perhaps cannot be) convincing evidence that there was ever a rich broth of organic substances, or that it played the role assigned to it by the theory.” p. 244.
“Creation myths lie at the heart of all human cultures, and science is no exception; until we know where we came from, we do not know who we are. The origin of life is also a stubborn problem, with no solution in sight. Biology textbooks often include a chapter on how life may have arisen from non-life, and while responsible authors do not fail to underscore the difficulties and uncertainties, readers still come away with the impression that the answer is almost within their grasp.” pp. 235-236.
“What is life? How we answer that question must eventually impinge on the practice of medicine and law, influence what we teach our children, nudge the direction of economics and public policy, and color our attitude to man, God, and all ultimate concerns.” p. 253.
While I object to his implication that the biblical story of creation is just another myth, I am grateful that he acknowledges the evolutionist’s story of origins is myth. In view of the cascading significance of what we believe about our origin, it is tragic that so many people have falsely concluded that the weight of scientific evidence backs the evolutionist’s tale about how life began. Accordingly, they are led to the erroneous conclusion that the story of a prebiotic soup is actual history. Unfortunately, this unwarranted belief has shaped values which in turn have influenced behavior. Tragic indeed.