Years ago when I was researching the scientific basis for or lack thereof supporting evolution, I stumbled upon Franklin Harold’s, The Way of the Cell published by Oxford University Press in 2001. While Franklin is an ardent evolutionist, I appreciate his candor and brute honesty.
The following six quotes from his book contrast common perception with the paucity of scientific evidence for a naturalistic explanation of life’s origin.
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.
Two decades later, the known barriers against supporting a naturalistic evolutionary account of life’s origin have only intensified. The descriptive term of a vanishingly small probability is appropriate, if not being an understatement of the situation.
As Franklin accurately pointed out, ideas have consequences. Beliefs about our origin will shape our values, behaviors and then our society.
How tragic it would be for someone to cast all of one’s weight upon an unsubstantiated tale regarding life’s origin. Tragic indeed.
Nature and time do not create the complexity, functionality and efficiency we observe. Scientists, having observed that our universe is perfectly suited and organized for human life, have asked, "Why is this?"
From galaxies to the earth, from physics to bio-chemistry what exists calls for a Source beyond the natural realm. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. There is a God who is there. He has spoken. We can know where we came from and who we are. How tragic to live without that solid footing.
Two related articles:
- The Naturalistic Imagination - 2026-07-16
- Mysterious 2:8 – Or is it? - 2026-07-08
- I Appreciate An Evolutionist’s Honesty - 2026-07-01