There Is a Scientific Law That Proves We Are Not the Result of Chemical Chance

Spontaneous generation is the old belief that life automatically arises from nonliving matter. It was a reasonable thing to conclude before there were microscopes to see the unseen tiny eggs that hatched into the insects and other organisms that seemed to spontaneously emerge from manure and mud.
 

SPONTANEOUS GENERATION IS DISPROVEN
In introductory biology textbooks, the disproof of spontaneous generation is featured as part of the proud history of the march of science. Experiments by Redi, Spallanzani, and Pasteur demonstrated that if the starting materials in a flask were sealed and cooked, no life appeared. If the same starting material was not cooked and left open, life emerged.
 
This resulted in the law of biogenesis: life can only come from preexisting life.
​

⌕ Click to enlarge

​But this law did not fit the materialistic philosophy that everything can be explained in terms of matter and energy. Moreover, evolution requires a starting life form that can be materialistically explained.

⌕ Click to enlarge

This is how the story is commonly explained:
 
 "In the beginning, there was little besides the strong and the weak forces, gravitation, and electromagnetism . . . hydrogen and helium, with a little lithium here and there; but from the lights in the heavens, you might have guessed that these were enough . . . Life was inevitable . . . warm, wet zones . . . were trying to make life . . . From atoms and empty space . . . From the dust of stars . . . the phenomenon we call life is but the most likely outcome of some very common elements, if stirred together and kept warm enough and wet enough for long enough . . . We are the dust of the universe trying to understand itself . . . volcanically heated water . . . to act as primitive catalytic centers . . . nudging atoms of carbon forcefully and with statistical inevitability in the direction of biochemistry . . . life . . . would appear to have been pulled from a curiously simple bag of tricks . . . Life from nonlife. You could probably start the process in your own kitchen." Ghosts of Vesuvius--Pelligrino
 
This, yet not one experiment in any laboratory, let alone a kitchen, has ever demonstrated life can come from nonlife. 


DEAD THINGS ARE NOT ALIVE
Dead organisms contain the same atoms, molecules, and even complex structures as in living organisms, yet they are dead.
 
Therefore, assembling chemicals in a lab that are identical to those in living organisms could, it would seem, only result in a dead mixture. 

⌕ Click to enlarge

DEFYING LOGIC
The sheer scope of the life-from-nonlife problem seems beyond human capability. A "simple" bacterium contains 50 billion atoms in precise ratios and specific functionally complex arrangements, all interrelated in precise machine-like ways.
 
It is an axiom that complex functional machinery cannot spontaneously arise. Therefore, it's logically invalid to claim that the complex functional machinery found in organisms can arise spontaneously.
 
 
THE LANGUAGE INVENTED
Speculative precursors to life are given evocative bio-seductive names like proteinoids, protocells, bions, protobionts, eobionts, microspheres, and biomorphs.
 
Real words related to real living things are used to describe origin of life laboratory products, such as "membranes," "organelles," "reproduction," and "vesicles,"
 
For example, this "protobiont," illustrated to look like a cell precursor, has never been found or produced in a laboratory.

⌕ Click to enlarge

Microspheres

⌕ Click to enlarge

​
CHANGING DEFINITIONS
The failure to produce life in a laboratory starting with atoms has resulted in changing the definition of what life is. But that's redefining life so it fits the theory, rather than building theory upon observed definitions and facts.
 
 
LIFE'S COMPONENTS ARE FRAGILE
The materials and forces that are supposed to have caused the formation of the biochemicals of life—water, heat, lightning bolts, and so on—are actually most effective at disassembling, not creating them. For example, enzymes are chains of amino acids configured in elaborate three-dimensional forms and are essential to virtually every life process. They would have had to form for life to emerge, but they are destroyed at temperatures above only 118°F. This is not to mention the killer impact of ultraviolet light, cosmic rays, acidity, concurrent noxious chemicals, oxidizing and chelating minerals, hydration, acidity, and alkalinity—all present in a volcanic setting.
 

USING INTELLIGENCE DOES NOT DENY IT
Even if someday scientists create life in the laboratory starting with atoms, spontaneous generation would not be proven. It would prove the necessity of intelligence, not random spontaneity. 

⌕ Click to enlarge

​MIND IS NOT RELIGION
If life cannot arise from nonlife, then the door opens to creative intelligence. Granted, this would collapse the metaphysical foundations of materialism.
 
However, it does not mean one must adopt a traditional religion that has attempted to explain the unknown with anthropomorphized gods. A mind capable of creating the incomprehensible complexity of us and our reality cannot be human or even human-like. It must be incomprehensible. 
 
Until proof emerges that life can spontaneously come from nonlife, conceding the necessity of an incomprehensible creator is not an unreasonable place to be.