Matthew 24:14

Did scientists CREATE LIFE in 4 test tubes?
Scientists claim to be standing on the threshold of playing GOD — claiming CREATIVE powers!
Many say, "It's only a matter of time!"
Read, in this informative article, just what scientists have REALLY created — by THEIR own admission.

EVOLUTIONISTS no longer speak of the "theory" of evolution. Many now insist it to be FACT. That, in the light of the many articles in these pages of The PLAIN TRUTH showing the huge, gaping flaws in the evolutionary theory, seems shocking.

But there is the element of faith, of an almost fanatical insistence on the virtues of their theories, though PROVED incorrect. It is inescapably evident in the writings of many evolutionists.

As our past articles have proved, many evolutionists accept, with NO PROOF, creation without a Creator. They accept it as an "article of faith," according to one world-famous Nobel-prize-winning scientist. And what a faith it is! Dogma, absolutism, a near-fanatical clinging to shattered theories in spite of evidence to the contrary. And perhaps most significant of all, a religious-like reliance on prophecies for the future.

Science Promises . . .

Scientists have made dumbfounding claims for the future.

"Creating" life is the heart and core of their promises. It includes promises of creating special viruses to attack and consume cancers. Control of sex and number of children. Even control of height, weight, color and texture of hair and eyes, and — you guessed it — ultimate creation of human beings and IMMORTALITY!

Strangely, thousands upon thousands fully believe this new religion; possessing equal faith with its leaders that their messianic promises will come true.

But there is another analogy evident in the new dogmatism of evolution. It comes complete with the same cloudy terms, vague words — and IGNORANCE in its followers.

How much does the average layman KNOW about evolutionary claims? How much about the physical sciences? The life sciences? Does the average housewife — reading the latest sensational article in the newspaper by the trusted "science writer" (all newspapers seem to have one; he often needs no special credentials, but usually has been a specialist in this or that science) about genes, viruses, and the "test tube life" scientists speculate on — even recognize the language used? Usually not.

Like laymen from time immemorial who either listened to their religious service in a completely foreign tongue, or else listened to words they didn't understand in their own tongue, so modern laymen are usually very much in the dark about evolutionary pronouncements.

But they have faith in scientists. And many scientists have faith in evolution. And like some theologians who say you CANNOT PROVE there is a God, so evolutionists insist you must accept ON FAITH that life spontaneously appeared on earth without a Life-giver; that order and design are here, automatically, without a Designer; that laws — rigid, powerful, forceful laws — are possible without a Lawgiver; that the whole thing continues to operate without a Sustainer, and that a creation just HAPPENED to OCCUR, without a great Creator!

You have to admire faith like that. Like admiration and dutiful respect for the quaint religious rites, including strange, hidden incantations, gibberish and mutterings, among Amazonian Indians; like accepting the beliefs of the religion of Tibetan mountain people. You can at least be tolerant of it, vaguely amused by it, even made curious — but would you ACCEPT it without PROOF?

Now let's ask some questions evolution can't answer.

The Gap between Life and the Nonliving

But how did LIFE begin? What is the difference between life and death? What is life, and what is NOT living? Even THIS clear-cut understanding is being made increasingly foggier by some recent evolutionary claims. From the time you attended your first funeral, or saw death at dose hand, you were horribly convinced of the vast, inseparable differences between life and death. By looking at an inanimate rock and a beautiful flower, you could appreciate the vast difference between inanimate matter, and a living, metabolic as the ultimate unit in biology . . . the concept of a cell as the unit of life has been thrown out of the window together with the atom" (The Origin of Life, Preface, p. XVI, A. I. Oparin).

But why discard it?

So that modern science could wipe out the border line between life and nonlife. In order to take away any meaning from the question "What is life?"

True, the cell is made up of vast numbers of sub-cellular particles. And just how complex THEY are, we'll soon see. But all these particles by themselves do NOT spell life.

Some scientists realize this problem. As a result, a controversy rages on the question of what is life — even among scientists who accept evolution.

For example, notice what one scientist, Hans Gaffron, admitted at a panel on the origin of life.

"Matter can practically always be defined in terms of physics, chemistry and biochemistry. This certainly is not enough to define life.

"We might ask: If we ingest food, at what moment does the food become living: Of course it never does. One could follow a particle of assimilated food, no matter how complex, and wherever one finds it in the living organism, it is dead. It is the PROCESS in which it takes part that defines it, and NOT THE MATTER of which it is composed . . . so the essence of life is found in the PROCESS OF LIVING and not in any constituents of living cells" (Issues in Evolution, Vol. III, Sol Tax, editor, p. 72).

The Importance of the Cell

This scientist had grasped the central and most important point in all the talk about experiments to "create" life.

It is the SPECIAL ORGANIZATION; the incredible organization; the mind-defying organization of the cell that spells the fundamental unit of life.

To explain how life originated, you must explain how AN ENTIRE CELL — with its mind-defying reactions and inter-reactions — SUDDENLY came to be.

As another biologist admits:

"The cell can be defined as the SMALLEST organized unit of any living form which is capable of prolonged independent existence and replacement of its own substance in a suitable environment" (Cell Biology, John Paul, p. 8).

A living system — a one-celled animal being the simplest — is an EXTREMELY COMPLEX organization of nonliving materials. Life is a dynamic process of unimagined complexity.

Of course, all materials, living and nonliving are formed of certain basic units called atoms — and these are formed of yet smaller units. Atoms are then combined into molecules.

Living systems are mixtures of very large and complex molecules that function with other molecules in a coordinated manner. These very large and most intricate molecules are proteins — still NOT LIVING by themselves.

But then vast multitudes of protein molecules and other elements are organized into living material called cells. The life is in the PROCESS; not the material.

Organizing for Life

Suddenly, these nonliving particles — and we'll soon see their complexity — are caught up in a PROCESS we call life. But life is a process which organizes material and gives it self-contained motivation.

Of course, this physical life in the cell is not guided by some "élan vital" or metaphysical "vital force" as some scientists who rejected God, but saw that natural selection couldn't account for life, believed.

In order to answer the question, what is life? You must explain how intricate materials could SUDDENLY be organized in a process we call life.

As one evolutionist admitted:

"It is apparent that all living organisms are composed of the same basic materials and units found in the nonliving world. That life is a manifestation of much greater complexity than any nonliving system is underscored when we stop to realize that even the simplest cell is composed of thousands of different kinds of molecules operating together in a coordinated fashion" (Evolution, Jay M. Savage, pp. 6, 7).

It's the process we call life that has been endowed with the ability to take Nonliving materials and to convert them into its cellular system.

The cell is composed of a vast amount of compounds — which in themselves practically defy description. Multiple processes work together in a meticulous organization that makes a factory look crude by comparison!

All the while the cell must move. It must operate, function — live.

One author admits:

"From the original intake of raw materials from the environment to the duplication of the last molecule in the mature cell, these tiny machines must lead from one to the other, the last dependent on the first and the first on the last.

"A failure of even one could conceivably bring the whole chain to a halt, resulting in the death of the organism. For one of the essential facts about life is that it must KEEP GOING to stay alive." (Understanding Evolution, Herbert Ross, p. 33)