It is not unusual in the news feeds I read to periodically come across an article about how some scientist or researcher has identified what they tout as proof that there is some naturalistic explanation for the origin and evolution of life on earth. As it turns out, ALL of these headlines are nothing more than click bait, and as you read the articles you will soon see that they are filled with nothing but musings and speculations.
For instance:
ScienceAlert.com had a headline that read: Scientists Identify Chemical Reaction That May Have Triggered Life on Earth. (Notice that even in the headline it says “may” have triggered.) The article starts out like this:
There was a critical point early in Earth’s history when chemical reactions among the mix of organic molecules began to be powered from within, forming something we might start to think of as biological.
Just what this first metabolic reaction might have looked like remains an area of speculation. It had to have been simple enough to emerge from the assorted components likely to be present already, yet still efficient enough to serve as a catalyst for changes in its environment.
Notice the unsupported assumption that abiogenesis (life naturally emerging out of non-life) is “assumed” to be true – without any scientific backing whatsoever. The article then goes on to say that a team of researchers have identified a protein that “may” have played a crucial role in getting life started. They go on to speculate how certain things might be “plausible,” “could have happened,” or “might have happened” if certain other things happened (of course we have no idea what those other things might be).
Here’s another article. This one was in SciTechDaily.com. The headline on this one reads: New DNA Research Changes Origin of Human Species. It starts out:
A new model for human evolution asserts that modern Homo sapiens stemmed from multiple genetically diverse populations across Africa rather than a single ancestral population. This conclusion was reached after researchers analyzed genetic data from present-day African populations, including 44 newly sequenced genomes from the Nama group of southern Africa. The research suggests that the earliest detectable split in early human populations occurred between 120,000 to 135,000 years ago, after long periods of genetic intermixing, and that subsequent migrations created a weakly structured genetic stem. Contrary to some previous models, this research implies that contributions from archaic hominins were unlikely to have significantly affected Homo sapiens’ evolution.
First, notice that this is a new “model” (that would be a computer model). You know what computer models are based on, right? They are based on the programming that the programmers input. They start out with a theory, then input the particular data that fits their purpose. It is not based on actual science (observation and experimentation). You will see in this explanation that the research “suggests” a particular outcome. And it “implies” a result that was “unlikely” to be caused from something else. The article goes on to say that still there is “uncertainty” about something that is “widely understood.” Huh?
Here’s one more: This article was published in thebrighterside.news. Here are some excerpts from this article:
Scientists have long been trying to understand how the first building blocks of life on Earth formed. A new study, published in the journal Life, suggests that solar particles colliding with gases in Earth’s early atmosphere may have played a significant role in the formation of amino acids and carboxylic acids, the basic building blocks of proteins and organic life.
The most well-known hypothesis on the origins of life suggests that life might have begun in a “warm little pond,” a soup of chemicals that mixed together in concentrated amounts to form organic molecules. …
As a result (of the previous belief being shown unreliable), some scientists have suggested alternative energy sources, such as shockwaves from incoming meteors or solar ultraviolet radiation. The recent study by Vladimir Airapetian, a stellar astrophysicist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, suggests that energetic particles from our Sun may have played a significant role in the formation of amino acids and carboxylic acids.
To come to this conclusion, certain scientists have shown that “solar particles were more efficient in producing amino acids and carboxylic acids than lightening (as long as certain other factors were present). That may be true, but there is still no actual science showing life actually did result from abiogenesis or that it even could. They merely begin with the assumption that life had to have a natural origin, and have tried to speculate about how it might have happened. So the point of the article is that certain scientists believe this study may have implications for the search for extraterrestrial life. With that, NASA scientists may use this information to create new kinds of experiments to search it out.
While these periodicals claim to deal with science, and the researchers they cover claim to be doing science, what they are really probing is naturalistic philosophy or naturalistic religion. They may be using some scientific experimentation in the process of some of their inquiries, but they have already determined the outcome they want to see, and are only doing experiments that might possibly produce what they are looking for.
And that’s the way too much “science” is done these days. These efforts are not really science at all. They are attempts to prove naturalistic religious beliefs – which are simply not true.
People who believe this way often tend to equate naturalistic philosophy with science. They are not the same! Naturalistic philosophy is a faith based religious belief that is actually incompatible with actual science. The Christian faith has a mush more realistic view of science than that.