11/2/15

From Ed Healy... The Prophetic Language of National Judgment





http://www.theabidingword.com/commentary/Language%20of%20Judgement%20in%20Isaiah-001.pdf


The above is a link for an assignment of given in the study of the book of Isaiah at Northeast School of Biblical Studies in Clifton Park, N.Y.  Click on the link or paste the web-address into your browser.

From Mark Copeland... "THE HOLY SPIRIT OF GOD" The Baptism Of The Holy Spirit


                        "THE HOLY SPIRIT OF GOD"

                     The Baptism Of The Holy Spirit

INTRODUCTION

1. In our previous lesson, we considered the promise of the Holy Spirit...
   a. By prophets in the Old Testament, beginning with Joel
   b. By John and Jesus as they spoke of the Holy Spirit
   c. By Peter in his sermon on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2
      1) Declaring that the outpouring of the Spirit was a fulfillment
         of the promise - Ac 2:16
      2) Offering the promise of the Spirit to those who repent and are
         baptized - Ac 2:38-39

2. As noted in the conclusion, this naturally raises a few questions...
   a. Does this mean the baptism of the Holy Spirit is for us today?
   b. What exactly is the baptism of the Holy Spirit?

3. It may be of interest to note...
   a. The Scriptures never speak of the "baptism" of the Holy Spirit
      1) In fact, the unity of the Spirit involves only "one baptism"
         - Ep 4:3-6
      2) The "one baptism" can only be that commanded by Christ:
         a) Of everyone in all the world - Mt 28:19; Mk 16:16
         b) For the remission of sins - Ac 2:38; 22:16
         c) A baptism in water - e.g., Ac 8:35-38; 10:47-48
         d) A washing of regeneration and renewing by the Spirit, in
            which we are born again of water and the Spirit - Tit 3:5;Jn 3:5
   b. When it comes to any "baptism" involving the Spirit, we find only
      these phrases:
      1) "He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit" - Mt 3:11; Mk 1:8;
         Lk 3:16
      2) "He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit" - Jn 1:33
      3) "You shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit" - Ac 1:5; 11:16
   -- This is the entirety of what the Bible says about "baptizing"
      involving the Spirit, with the possible exception of 1Co 12:13
      (see below)

4. Is this a distinction without a difference?  Perhaps, but it may
   avoid confusion to remember...
   a. The phrase, "baptism of the Holy Spirit," does not occur in the Bible!
   b. On the other hand, phrases connected to the promise of Jesus
      baptizing with the Spirit include:
      1) "I send the Promise of My Father upon you..." - Lk 24:49
      2) "I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh..." - Ac 2:17
      3) "I will pour out My Spirit" - Ac 2:18
      4) "He poured out this..." - Ac 2:33
      5) "the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out..." - Ac 10:45
      6) "...the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us abundantly" 
         - Tit 3:5,6
   -- Whatever the "baptism" of the Holy Spirit, it is intertwined with
      the "pouring out" (or sending) of the Spirit that occurred on the
      day of Pentecost

[The difficulty in defining the "baptism" of the Holy Spirit can be
illustrated by briefly surveying...]

I. COMMON VIEWS OF THE "BAPTISM"

   A. AN EVENT THAT OCCURRED BUT A FEW TIMES...
      1. On the day of Pentecost (Ac 2)
         a. And only upon the apostles
         b. For the purpose of equipping them for their work
      2. At the conversion of Cornelius and his household, the first
         Gentiles (Ac 10,11)
         a. Not for the purpose of saving them
         b. But to show Peter and the Jews that Gentiles could now be saved
      3. Some would add a third occurrence
         a. Involving Saul at some point (Ac 9)
         b. To equip him for his work as an apostle
      4. Others might include what happened in Samaria and Ephesus
         a. When the Samaritans received the Spirit by the laying on of
            hands (Ac 8)
         b. When the Ephesians received the Spirit by the laying on of
            hands (Ac 19)
      5. This view equates the "baptism" of the Spirit with the
         miraculous manifestations recorded in the passages cited,
         indicating an overwhelming measure of the Spirit
      -- Variations of this view are held by most people in churches of
         Christ today

   B. AN EVENT THAT OCCURS AT EVERY CONVERSION...
      1. When a person is saved, they are that moment "baptized" with
         the Holy Spirit
         a. Some put this at the point of faith
            1) Appealing to the case of  Cornelius and his family in Ac10
            2) Yet Peter's explanation reveals that the Spirit came upon
               them before they heard the words by which they could be 
               saved - Ac 11:14-15
            3) The purpose was to show Peter and the Jews that Gentiles
               could now be saved just as they were - cf. Ac 10:46-48; 
               11:16-17; 15:7-9
         b. Others place it at the point of water baptism
            1) Suggesting we are baptized in both water and Spirit 
               - cf. Jn 3:5
            2) Referring also to the washing of regeneration and renewal
               by the Spirit - Tit 3:5
      2. The key passage used to support this idea is 1Co 12:13
         a. "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body"(NKJV)
            1) The KJV and NASB also read "by one Spirit"
            2) The ASV (and NRSV) reads "in one Spirit were we all
               baptized"
         b. The issue is whether Paul refers to water baptism or 
            "Spirit baptism"
            1) The KJV and NASB suggests water baptism of the Great commission
            2) The ASV and NRSV suggests some form of baptism involving
               the Spirit
         c. It may refer to one baptism involving two elements:  water
            and Spirit - cf. Jn 3:5
      3. This view holds that no miraculous manifestation need be
         present when baptized in the Spirit
      -- Variations of this view are held by many evangelicals (e.g.,
         George Beasley-Murray), and some in churches of Christ (e.g.,
         Robert Milligan, Moses Lard)

   C. AN EVENT THAT OCCURS AFTER CONVERSION...
      1. A "second work of grace" that must be sought diligently
         a. E.g., on Pentecost, believing the Spirit came upon the
            entire 120 (Ac 1,2)
         b. E.g., the Samaritans, upon whom Peter and John laid hands (Ac 8)
         c. E.g., the Ephesians, upon whom Paul laid hands (Ac 19)
         -- Of course, the case of Cornelius runs counter to this idea
            (Ac 10,11)
      2. Many understand that speaking in tongues is a sign of this
         "baptism" of the Spirit
      3. Some even say that it is necessary to be truly saved
      4. This view also equates the baptism of the Spirit with the
         miraculous signs that occurred
      -- Variations of this view are held by Wesleyans, Methodists, and
         Pentecostals

[As we seek to understand what is the "baptism" of the Spirit, it is
helpful to view it in the context of...]

II. JESUS' MINISTRY INVOLVING THE SPIRIT

   A. WHICH BEGAN ON THE DAY OF PENTECOST...
      1. Jesus poured out the Spirit on "all flesh" - cf. Ac 2:17,33
         a. This outpouring would affect all mankind
         b. Not just believers, though they would certainly benefit more
      2. His ministry with the Spirit would have both temporary and
         age-lasting effects
         a. The Spirit's work in revelation and confirmation of the Word
            was temporary
         b. The Spirit's work in regeneration and sanctification is
            age-lasting

   B. WHEN JESUS POURED OUT THE SPIRIT...
      1. It was like water going over a fall
         a. As the water hits the bottom, there is a great splash
         b. Then the water proceeds downstream
      2. The initial results of the Spirit's outpouring made a 
         powerful impact
         a. As with the apostles on the day of Pentecost - Ac 2:1-4
         b. As with the household of Cornelius - Ac 10:44-46
         c. The powerful impact produced what is commonly called the
            "baptism" of the Spirit
            1) For they were "filled" with the Spirit
            2) For the Spirit "fell" upon them
            -- Thus overwhelmed or "immersed", they were "baptized" with
               the Spirit
      3. With the "water" (Spirit) poured out, it continued to cascade
         like a mighty stream
         a. Close to the source, there were visible evidences of the
            pouring out
            1) As with the Samaritans, upon whom the Spirit was to
               "fall" - Ac 8:14-18
            2) As with the Ephesians, upon whom the Holy came 
               - Ac 19:1-6
            -- In these two cases, the effects of the Spirit came
               through the laying on of the apostles' hands, though the
               effect was similar to what occurred in Ac 2,10
         b. Downstream, the evidence of the outpouring may be less
            visible, but it is still present
            1) E.g., the Spirit's role in our regeneration - Tit 3:5-6
            2) E.g., the Spirit's role in our spiritual growth - Ga 5:
               22-23
         
   C. EFFECTS OF THE SPIRIT BEING POURED OUT...
      1. The Spirit became the Lord's "winnowing fan" - Mt 3:11-12
         a. Used to separate the wheat from the chaff
         b. For some, He serves only to convict of sin, judgment, and
            righteousness - Jn 16:7-11
         c. For others, He is able to sanctify in service to God 
            - Jn 16:13
         -- In this way, the Spirit was truly poured out on "all flesh"
            - Ac 2:17
      2. The Spirit became available to those who obey God - Ac 5:32
         a. Those who repent and are baptized receive the gift of the
            Spirit - Ac 2:38-39
         b. As they are baptized into one body, they are made to drink
            of the Spirit - 1Co 12:13; cf. Jn 7:37-39
         c. They enjoy the indwelling of the Spirit 
            - 1Co 6:19-20; Ro 8:9-11
      3. Those who received the Spirit were empowered as the Spirit
         willed - 1Co 12:11-13
         a. For servants of God used in the revelation and confirmation
            of His truth...
            1) The Spirit empowered the apostles, to equip them for
               their work as witnesses and apostles of the Lord 
               - Ac 1:8; 2:1-14; cf. Jn 15:25,26
            2) The Spirit imparted spiritual gifts to aid them in this
               task - He 2:4; Mk 16:17-20
            3) Spiritual gifts were also imparted by the laying on of
               the apostles' hands - Ac 8:14-17; 19:1-6; Ro 1:11
            -- Such miraculous effects of the Spirit were temporary,
               ending once God's revelation was complete - cf. 1Co 13:
               8-13
         b. For all servants of God, the Spirit works in their
            regeneration and sanctification...
            1) Sanctifying them through the washing of regeneration - Ti
               3:5-7; cf. 1Co 6:11
               a) As they respond to the gospel and are baptized
               b) Experiencing not just forgiveness, but renewal 
                  by the Spirit
            2) Serving as God's agent by which He strengthens and
               blesses them - Ep 3:16,20
               a) In the ongoing work of sanctification, walking in
                  holiness - Ro 8:11-13; 15:13
               b) Empowering Christians to whatever degree they require
                  to do His will - cf. Php 2:11-12; 4:13
            -- This sanctifying work of the Spirit continues today, and
               will until Christ returns when the work of sanctification
               is complete - cf. 1Th 5:23

CONCLUSION

1. The miraculous reception of the Spirit is likely what was alluded 
   to when...
   a. John said, "He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit" - Mt 3:11;
      Mk 1:8; Lk 3:16
   b. Jesus said, "You shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit" 
      - Ac 1:5; 11:16 
   -- As visibly manifested in the case of the apostles and of the
      household of Cornelius (perhaps including those who received the 
      Spirit through the laying on of the apostles' hands)

2. Yet the miraculous reception of the Spirit was not normative, even in
   Bible times...
   a. Which may be why we do not read of the "baptism of the Spirit"
   b. Which may be why Paul said there was "one baptism", not two 
      - cf. Ep 4:5
   -- The "one baptism" is that commanded by Christ for everyone - cf.
      Mt 28:19; Mk 16:15-16

3. But when a person submits to the "one baptism" commanded by Christ...
   a. They benefit from the effects of the pouring out of the Spirit
      on Pentecost - Ac 2:38-39
   b. They experience the washing of regeneration and renewing by the
      Spirit - Tit 3:5-6
   c. They are born again of water and the Spirit - Jn 3:5
   d. They are baptized into one body, and made to drink into one Spirit
      - 1Co 12:13; Jn 7:37-39
   e. They enjoy the benefits of the Spirit's indwelling 
      - 1Co 6:19; Ro 8:9-13
   -- These blessings of the Spirit's outpouring may not be as visible
      as the miraculous reception, but they are just as real!

If you desire to benefit from the promise of the Spirit and the
outpouring of the Spirit, then make sure that you have submitted to the
"one baptism" alluded to by Paul when he wrote:

   "But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward
   man appeared,  not by works of righteousness which we have done,
   but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of
   regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,"

   "whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our
   Savior, that having been justified by His grace we should become
   heirs according to the hope of eternal life." - Tit 3:4-7

In other words, heed the words of the apostle Peter proclaimed on the
day of Pentecost:

   Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be
   baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins;
   and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

   "For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who
   are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call." - Ac 2:38-39

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011

eXTReMe Tracker 

The Law of Biogenesis [Part I] by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.



http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1018

The Law of Biogenesis [Part I]

INTRODUCTION

It is highly unlikely that a high school or college biology student will learn about the gaping chasms that exist in evolutionary theory: chasms over which scientists have no crossing bridges designed or constructed. The existence of these chasms causes the entire theory of evolution to collapse, and that is precisely the reason these chasms are not broadcasted in school curricula: chasms such as the origin of matter as well as the laws which govern it [see Miller, 2007 for a discussion on the origin of matter]. At least two of these chasms exist due to the existence of the irrefutable, highly respected Law of Biogenesis, or Biogenic Law (Simmons, 2007). This law states that in nature, life comes only from life and that of its own kind.
The Earth is filled with non-living matter. The Earth also abounds with living creatures. The difference between the two is hardly insignificant. Human beings cannot create life, though many attempts have been made (e.g., Wong, et al., 2000; Miller and Levine, 1991, pp. 343-344; Hartgerink, et al., 2001; for refutations, see Houts, 2007; Thompson and Harrub, 2003). There is no evidence that anyone has ever been able to bring about life from non-life in nature (i.e., excluding supernatural occurrences during the miraculous periods of human history  [e.g., Peter in Acts 9:32-41; Elisha in 2 Kings 4:17-37; and Elijah in 1 Kings 17:17-24]). The jump from non-life to life is no trivial matter.
So, how did life originate? Entire worldviews are built upon the answer to that question. There are ultimately only two possibilities. Years ago, evolutionist George Wald, professor at Harvard University and Nobel Prize winner in physiology and medicine, recognized as much, stating that “the reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position” (1954, p. 46). There are only two options for the origin of life. It was created; or it created itself. The late, eminent evolutionist, Robert Jastrow, founding director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said, “either life was created on the earth by the will of a being outside the grasp of scientific understanding, or it evolved on our planet spontaneously, through chemical reactions occurring in nonliving matter lying on the surface of the planet” (1977, pp. 62-63, emp. in orig.).
The biblical creationist asserts that life originally came directly from God. Concerning human beings, Genesis 2:7 says, “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” [Note: This view, incidentally, is in contradiction to the theistic evolutionist’s attempt to harmonize the Bible’s story of origins with evolutionary theory, which portrays God as giving life to the original cell on Earth. Then, that cell, in accordance with evolutionary theory, evolved and passed on life from creature to creature until humans came on the scene. God, in this portrait, never “breathed” life into man’s “nostrils” at all, but rather, into the “nostrils” of a noseless cell.] The atheist asserts that life created itself, a belief known as biopoiesis. The Encyclopaedia Britannica defines “biopoiesis,” also called spontaneous generation, abiogenesis, and autogenesis (McGraw-Hill Dictionary…, 2003), as “a process by which living organisms are thought to develop from nonliving matter, and the basisof a theory on the origin of life on Earth” (2011, emp. added). In essence, once upon a time, there was a dead rock that oozed non-living, primeval, prebiotic, organic soup (Lahav, 1999; Miller and Levine, 1991; Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, 1978). One day, lightning struck, and that soup came to life.
The atheistic evolutionist must hold to a belief in abiogenesis in order for his position to appear tenable. It is a fundamental premise of the theory of evolution. If biopoiesis did not occur, atheistic evolution cannot occur. This fact was recognized as far back as 1960, when G.A. Kerkut published The Implications of Evolution. Therein he listed seven non-provable assumptions upon which evolution is based. “The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e., spontaneous generation occurred” (p. 6). In spite of the admission that evolution is based on non-provable assumptions, many today in the evolutionary community boldly assert that their theory is a scientific fact. However, the unbiased observer must ask: what does the scientific evidence actually have to say about the origin of life?

THE HISTORY OF THE LAW OF BIOGENESIS

Francesco Redi (1626-1697)

Francesco Redi
Understanding life at the microscopic level due to the state of technology in this day and age might make the work of Italian scientist, Francesco Redi, seem trivial to many. However, before achieving the microscopic viewing capabilities we have today, some things we take for granted were not so intuitive. Long ago, the Greeks believed that abiogenesis was common (Balme, 1962). This belief continued to be the dominant position for millennia. Even as late as 300 years ago, it was standard belief in the scientific community that life commonly and spontaneously arose from non-life. For instance, it was believed that when a piece of meat rotted, it “spontaneously” gave rise to maggots, which then turned into flies (Miller and Levine, 1991, p. 339). However, some scientists began to challenge this idea.
Redi hypothesized that the maggots actually arose from eggs that were laid by flies on the meat. The eggs, he claimed, were too small to be seen by the human eye. In 1688, he conducted experiments to test his hypothesis. Redi placed meat in jars, some of which were left open to the air, and some of which were covered with netting or were tightly sealed. Maggots were found to grow only on the meat that flies could reach. Thus, it was determined that life did not spontaneously generate on the rotted meat (Miller and Levine, 1991, p. 340).

Lazzaro Spallanzani (1729-1799)

Lazzaro Spallanzani
An 18th-century English scientist, John Needham, attacked the findings of Redi. He claimed that his own scientific experiments verified that microorganisms did in fact spontaneously generate in some gravy, after it was allegedly thoroughly boiled in a bottle. Thus, in 1768, Lazzaro Spallanzani conducted his own simple scientific experimentation to test Needham’s findings. He prepared gravy in the same manner that Needham had, divided it into two bottles, and boiled it thoroughly, killing all microorganisms. One of the bottles was corked, and the other was left open to the air. Spallanzani argued that if microorganisms were spontaneously generating from the gravy, the gravy from both bottles should be teeming with microorganisms after a few days. However, only the gravy in the open bottle was found to have microorganisms after the allotted time. Once again, it was determined that life does not spontaneously generate. Life comes only from other life (Miller and Levine, 1991, pp. 339-340).

Louis Pasteur (1822-1895)

Louis Pasteur
For many, the work of Spallanzani and Redi was still not enough to drive the proverbial nail into the coffin of spontaneous generation. Some argued that air was needed for the spontaneous generation of life to occur, and Spallanzani’s corked bottle did not allow air to reach the gravy. A standard, evolution-based high school biology textbook states: “It was not until 1864, and the elegant experiment of French scientist Louis Pasteur, that the hypothesis of spontaneous generation was finally disproved” (Miller and Levine, 1991, p. 341, emp. added). Pasteur placed a “nutrient broth,” similar to Needham’s gravy, in a flask with a long, s-curved neck. The flask was unsealed—left open to the air. However, the curvature of the flask’s neck served as an entrapment mechanism for dust particles and airborne microorganisms, keeping them from reaching the broth. The flask was observed over the time span of an entire year, and microorganisms could never be found. Next, he broke off the s-curved neck of the flask, allowing dust and microorganisms to reach the broth. After only one day, the broth was cloudy from dust and teeming with microorganisms. According to the aforementioned biology textbook, “Pasteur, like Redi and Spallanzani before him, had shown that life comes only from life” (Miller and Levine, 1991, p. 341, emp. added).

Rudolf Virchow (1821-1902)

Rudolf Virchow
German scientist, Rudolf Virchow, further expanded scientific understanding of the Law of Biogenesis. Virchow is the scientist who “recognized that all cells come from cells by binary fusion” (“Definition: Rudolf Virchow,” 2006). In 1858, he made the discovery for which he is well-known—“omnis cellula e cellula”—“every cell originates from another existing cell like it” (“Definition: Rudolf Virchow”). TheEncyclopaedia Britannica says, concerning Virchow, “His aphorism ‘omnis cellula e cellula’…ranks with Pasteur’s ‘omne vivum e vivo’ (every living thing arises from a preexisting living thing) among the most revolutionary generalizations of biology” (Ackerknect, 1973, 23:35, emp. added). So, in nature, life comes from life of its own kind.

The Result: The Law of Biogenesis

Sadly, many simply refuse to accept the evidence. This refusal to accept the impossibility of abiogenesis has resulted in many scientists scrambling to conduct research that could be used as scientific support for abiogenesis. And subsequently, media personnel, along with many in the scientific community, are quick to jump to rash conclusions about the finds of research. When a researcher’s work can conceivably be twisted to support the idea of spontaneous generation, it seems that the evolutionist will strive to do so—against all reason to the contrary. A stream of research has surfaced over the years to try to prove that abiogenesis could have happened (cf. Haeckel, 1876; Miller, 1953; Wong, et al., 2000; Hartgerink, et al., 2001; Sommer, et al., 2008; Gibson, et al., 2010), all to no avail. [NOTE: See the Apologetics Press Web site for a discussion and refutation of these references.] In their desperation, some evolutionists have begun to acknowledge the unlikelihood of abiogenesis and have even begun to theorize the baseless idea that aliens seeded life on Earth billions of years ago (cf. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, 1981; Gribbin, 1981; Stein and Miller, 2008).
Regardless of such speculation and conjecture, the evidence that science has found is clear. In nature, life comes only from life of its own kind. Period. All scientific evidence confirms this well-established principle of science. There are no known exceptions. Thus, biogenesis is a law. Abiogenesis is impossible. Prominent marine biologist and evolutionist, Martin Moe, admitted: “A century of sensational discoveries in the biological sciences has taught us that life arises only from life” (1981, p. 36, emp. added). Evolutionist George G. Simpson, perhaps the most influential paleontologist of the 20th century, stated, “[T]here is no serious doubt that biogenesis is the rule, that life comes only from other life, that a cell, the unit of life, isalways and exclusively the product or offspring of another cell” (Simpson and Beck, 1965, p. 144, emp. added). In their textbook, Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity, Moore and Slusher wrote: “Historically the point of view that life comes only from life has been so well established through the facts revealed by experiment that it is called the Law of Biogenesis” (1974, p. 74, emp. in orig., ital. added).
What does the scientific evidence indicate about the origin of life? Life creates life. The evolutionists themselves begrudgingly admit this, and yet refuse to accept its implications. If atheistic evolution is true, abiogenesis must be true. Belief in abiogenesis is a stubborn refusal to accept the scientific evidence, choosing in turn to give credence to evolutionary superstition, myths, and fables.

EVOLUTIONISTS' CANDID ADMISSIONS CONCERNING ABIOGENESIS

“It’s impossible”

In light of the extensive amount of scientific evidence against abiogenesis, many scientists have made candid admissions about it. Evolutionist John Horgan conceded that if he was a creationist, he would focus on the origin of life to prove his position, because it
is by far the weakest strut of the chassis of modern biology. The origin of life is a science writer’s dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion (1996, p. 138).
Hosts of high school, evolution-based biology textbooks commonly make comments concerning Pasteur’s experiments like, “the hypothesis of spontaneous generation was finally disproved” (Miller and Levine, 1991, p. 341, emp. added), although they continue to propagate evolutionary dogma and the spontaneous generation of life, sometimes on the very next page of the book (Miller and Levine, 1991, p. 342). Evolutionist and Nobel Laureate, George Wald, of Harvard University wrote: “As for spontaneous generation, it continued to find acceptance until finally disposed of by the work of Louis Pasteur” (1962, p. 187, emp. added). He further stated: “One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are, as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation” (1954, p. 47, emp. added). So, “spontaneous generation is impossible, but I’m going to believe it anyway”?
Hoyle and Wickramasinghe discussed the origin of life, saying:
Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make the random concept absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends, are in every respect deliberate…. It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect in a valid way the higher intelligences…even to the extreme idealized limit of God (1981, pp. 141,144, emp. added).
Evolutionist J.D. Bernal, one of the leading scientists among x-ray crystallographers and the man who coined the term, “biopoesis” (Bernal, 1951), stated: “It is possible to demonstrate effectively…how lifecould not have arisen; the improbabilities are too great, the chances of the emergence of life too small.Regrettably from this point of view, life is here on earth…and the arguments have to be bent around to support its existence” (Bernal, 1967, p. 120, emp. added). In other words, “Life could not have spontaneously generated, but I refuse to accept the only alternative. The arguments must be bent to explain everything without the need of that alternative.” Such a rationale (if it can be deemed rationale at all) is hardly scientific.
Not only do evolutionists recognize that arriving at life from non-life is impossible, but many even concede that the problem is far worse than that. They conjecture (rather wildly) about what the conditions on Earth must have been like to produce life. However, they realize that arriving at those conditions would have been equally as impossible as the actual jump from non-life to life. John Keosian, biology professor at Rutgers University, said, “Even conceptually, it is difficult to see how a system satisfying the minimum criteria for a living thing can arise by chance and,simultaneously, include a mechanism containing the suitable information for its own replication” (Keosian, 1964, pp. 69-70, emp. added). Writing in New Scientist, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe lamented concerning the “prebiotic” soup allegedly necessary before abiogenesis could occur:
Precious little in the way of biochemical evolution could have happened on the Earth. It is easy to show that the two thousand or so enzymes that span the whole of life could not have evolved on Earth. If one counts the number of trial assemblies of amino acids that are needed to give rise to the enzymes, the probability of their discovery by random shufflings turns out to be less than 1 in 1040,000 (1991, 91:415, emp. added).
John Horgan wrote in Scientific American:
DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of catalytic proteins, or enzymes. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins. But as researchers continue to examine the RNA-world concept closely, more problems emerge. How did RNA arise initially? RNA and its components are difficult to synthesize in a laboratory under the best of conditions, much less under plausible prebiotic ones (1991, 264:119, emp. added).
A decade later, Horgan was still at a loss concerning the origin of DNA, RNA, and enzymes. Again writing for Scientific American,he wrote, “DNA can make neither proteins nor copies of itself without the help of catalytic proteins called enzymes. This fact turned the origin of life into a classic chicken-or-egg puzzle: Which came first, proteins or DNA?” (2011). That’s quite a problem. How likely is it that DNA and its necessary proteins happened to evolve at exactly the same moment? Again, Horgan pressed the fact that the RNA-world hypothesis is not the answer. “The RNA world is so dissatisfying that some frustrated scientists are resorting to much more far out—literally—speculation” (2011, emp. added). In concluding his article, he stated: “Creationists are no doubt thrilled that origin-of-life research has reached such an impasse…” (2011). He is right about one thing. Creationists are thrilled at such findings. However, the thrill is not from origin-of-life research reaching an “impasse.” Rather, it is from the removal of an impasse in front of true origin-of-life research!
Evolutionists themselves realize that abiogenesis is impossible. The McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms defines “abiogenesis” as, “the obsolete concept that plant and animal life arise from nonliving organic matter,” although the contributors would hardly be deemed creationists (2003, p. 3, emp. added). It bears repeating: the notion of spontaneous generation is an obsolete concept!

“We Don’t Have a Clue”

Given the impossibility of abiogenesis, one might logically ask the evolutionist, “How, then, did life arise?” Over seven decades ago, J.W.N. Sullivan admitted what remains true to this day:
The beginning of the evolutionary process raises a question which is yet unanswerable. What was the origin of life on this planet? Until fairly recent times there was a pretty general belief in the occurrence of “spontaneous generation”…. But careful experiments, notably those of Pasteur, showed that this conclusion was due to imperfect observation, and it became an accepted doctrine that life never arises except from life. So far as the actual evidencegoes, this is still the only possible conclusion (1933, p. 94, emp. added).
The student of evolution might very well reply, “Well, that was over seventy years ago. We know how it all happened now.” Moving into the sixties, the question was still unanswered. Chemists D.E. Green and R.F. Goldberger asked:
How, then did the precursor cell arise? The only unequivocal rejoinder to this question is that we do not know….  There is one step [in evolution—JM] that far outweighs the others in enormity: the step from macromolecules to cells. All the other steps can be accounted for on theoretical grounds—if not correctly, at least elegantly. The macromolecule-to-cell transition is a jump offantastic dimensions, which lies beyond the range of testable hypothesis. In this area all is conjecture. The available facts do not provide a basis for postulating that cells arose on this planet. This is not to say that some para-physical forces were not at work. We simply wish to point out that there is no scientific evidence (1967, p. 403, 406-407, emp. added).
In the late 1970s, Jastrow said, regarding the evolution of life:
According to this story, every tree, every blade of grass, and every creature in the sea and on the land evolved out of one parent strand of molecular matter drifting lazily in a warm pool. What concrete evidence supports that remarkable theory of the origin of life? There is none.... At present, science has no satisfactory answer to the question of the origin of life on the earth (1977, p. 60, 62-63, emp. added).
One might suppose, “Surely, by the 1980s an answer had been reached!” Evolutionist Douglas Hofstadter said, “There are various theories on the origin of life. They all run aground on this most central of all central questions: ‘How did the Genetic Code, along with the mechanisms for its translation (ribosomes and RNA molecules) originate?’ For the moment, we will have to content ourselves with a sense of wonder and awe rather than with an answer” (1980, p. 548, emp. added). Evolutionist Andrew Scott, writing in New Scientist, observed:
Take some matter, heat while stirring, and wait. That is the modern version of Genesis. The “fundamental” forces of gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces are presumed to have done the rest…. But how much of this neat tale is firmly established, and how much remains hopeful speculation? In truth, the mechanism of almost every major step, from chemical precursors up to the first recognizable cells, is the subject of either controversy orcomplete bewilderment.
We are grappling with a classic “chicken and egg” dilemma. Nucleic acids are required to make proteins, whereas proteins are needed to make nucleic acids and also to allow them to direct the process of protein manufacture itself.
The emergence of the gene-protein link, an absolutely vital stage on the way up from lifeless atoms to ourselves, is still shrouded in almost complete mystery…. We still know very littleabout how our genesis came about, and to provide a more satisfactory account than we have at present remains one of science’s great challenges (1985, 106:30-33, emp. added).
In the late 1980s, Klaus Dose pointed out:
More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of theimmensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance (1988, 13[4]:348, emp. added).
The arrival of the 1990s did little to help evolutionists find an answer for the origin of life. Evolutionist John Maddox, writing in Nature, said, “[I]t is disappointing that the origin of the genetic code is still as obscureas the origin of life itself” (1994, 367:111, emp. added).
And today, scientists are still at a loss as to how life could have arisen spontaneously. In the lecture series, Origins of Life, Robert Hazen made several notable admissions:
  • “This course is unusual because at this point in time, there is so much that we don’t know about life on Earth.”
  • “The origin of life is a subject of immense complexity, and I have to tell you right up front, we don’t know how life began.”
  • “It’s as if we are trying to assemble a huge jigsaw puzzle. We have a few pieces clumped together here and there, but most of the puzzle pieces are missing.”
  • “How can I tell you about the origin of life when we are so woefully ignorant of that history?”
Incredibly, he further conceded:
This course focuses exclusively on the scientific approach to the question of life’s origins. In this lecture series, I make an assumption that life emerged from basic raw materials through a sequence of events that was completely consistent with the natural laws of chemistry and physics. Even with this scientific approach, there is a possibility that we’ll never know—in fact, that we can’t ever know. It is possible that life emerged by an almost infinitely improbable sequence of difficult chemical reactions. If life is the result of an infinitely improbable succession of chemical steps, then any scientific attempt to understand life’s origin is doomed to failure; such a succession could not be duplicated in a program of lab experiments. If the origin of life was an infinitely improbable accident, then there’s absolutely nothing you or I or anyone else could do to figure out how it happened. I must tell you, that’s a depressing thought to someone like me who has devoted a decade to understanding the origin of life (2005, emp. added).
Evolutionist Paul Davies, theoretical physicist, cosmologist, astrobiologist, and professor at Arizona State University, writing in New Scientist, said, “One of the great outstanding scientific mysteries is the origin of life. How did it happen?...The truth is, nobody has a clue” (2006, 192[2578]:35, emp. added). Richard Dawkins stated in an interview with Ben Stein regarding the origin of life, “Nobody knows how it got started. We know the kind of event that it must have been. We know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life. It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.” Stein asked, “Right. And how did that happen?” Dawkins replied, “I’ve told you. We don’t know.” Stein then said, “So, you have no idea how it started?” Dawkins replied, “No. Nor has anybody” (Stein and Miller, 2008, emp. added). John Horgan did not even try to veil his admission within an article. He titled one of his articles, “Pssst! Don’t Tell the Creationists, but Scientists Don’t Have a Clue How Life Began” (2011, emp. added). Such admissions are quite telling, albeit incorrect. What Davies, Horgan, and Dawkins mean is, no naturalist“has a clue.” Biblical supernaturalists, on the other hand, know exactly how life originated, and the answer harmonizes perfectly with the Law of Biogenesis—unlike evolution’s life-origins fairytale.

“It’s a miracle!”

So, according to atheistic evolutionists, the origin of life through spontaneous generation—a fundamental plank of evolutionary theory—is impossible. “Nobody has a clue” how life could have started. What conclusion is left? It must have been a miracle. No wonder many evolutionists have ironically started cautiously using religious terminology to describe the origin of life, in spite of the attacks they have made against the religiously minded community for doing so. Jastrow stated:
At present, science has no satisfactory answer to the question of the origin of life on the earth. Perhaps the appearance of life on the earth is a miracle. Scientists are reluctant to accept that view, but their choices are limited; either life was created on the earth by the will of a being outside the grasp of scientific understanding, or it evolved on our planet spontaneously, through chemical reactions occurring in nonliving matter lying on the surface of the planet. The first theory places the question of the origin of life beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. It is astatement of faith in the power of a Supreme Being not subject to the laws of science. The second theory is also an act of faith. The act of faith consists in assuming that the scientific view of the origin of life is correct, without having concrete evidence to support that belief(1977, pp. 62-63, emp. added).
“Faith”? “Miracle”? Evolutionist John Sullivan admitted, “The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith” (1933, p. 95, emp. added). Sir Francis Crick conceded, “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going” (1981, p. 88, emp. added). Noted physiologist and zoologist G.A. Kerkut said that spontaneous generation is “a matter of faith on the part of the biologist…. The evidence for what did happen is not available” (1960, p. 150, emp. added).
The very people who claim that Bible believers are beholden to ancient mythology and fables without evidence are beginning to admit that they, in fact, are the ones guilty as charged. In his classic text, The Immense Journey, the late evolutionary anthropologist, Loren Eiseley, said the following regarding the idea of spontaneous generation:
With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today, had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past (1957, pp. 201-202, emp. added).
Hoyle and Wickramasinghe concluded:
It is doubtful that anything like the conditions which were simulated in the laboratory existed at all on a primitive Earth, or occurred for long enough times and over sufficiently extended regions of the Earth’s surface to produce large enough local concentrations of the biochemicals required for the start of life. In accepting the “primeval soup theory” of the origin of life, scientists have replaced religious mysteries which shrouded this question with equally mysterious scientific dogmas. The implied scientific dogmas are just as inaccessible to the empirical approach (1978, p. 26, emp. added).
If the origin of life is “a matter of faith” in the sense that no human being was physically present to observe it, then how can we determine which view—spontaneous generation or special creation—is the truth? The atheistic evolutionist insists: “I don’t know how it happened, but I won’t accept God.” However, the Bible asserts that the evidence is available for us to arrive at truth, and it is the truth that will set us free (John 8:32). It is not a “leap into the dark” without evidence. God “did not leave Himself without witness” (Acts 14:17). Knowledge of God’s existence, and thus special creation, is not only attainable, but those who reject the evidence are “without excuse” (Romans 1:20). The created order “declares” the truth of the matter (Psalm 19:1).
Is it not true that the reasonable view on the origin of life will be the view that is in keeping with the evidence we do have? Why would science lie? It has no agenda or bias. Science should support the correct view—not contradict it. What does the evidence say? In nature, life comes only from life and that of its kind. Therefore, abiogenesis does not happen. Science has proven this truth time and time again. To continue to champion abiogenesis is to hold to a view that flies in the face of the evidence, taking a leap into the dark without evidence. The only plausible option—an option that does not contradict the scientific evidence—is supernatural creation.
     [to be continued]

REFERENCES

Ackerknect, E.H. (1973), “Rudolph Virchow,” Encyclopaedia Britannica, 23:35.
Balme, D.M. (1962), “Development of Biology in Aristotle and Theophrastus: Theory of Spontaneous Generation,” Phronesis: A Journal for Ancient Philosophy, 7[1-2]:91-104.
Bernal, J.D. (1951), The Physical Basis of Life (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul).
Bernal, J.D. (1967), The Origin of Life (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson), third impression.
“Biopoiesis” (2011), Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/66167/biopoiesis.
Crick, Francis (1981), Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature (New York: Simon and Schuster).
Davies, Paul (2006), New Scientist, 192[2578]:35, November 18.
“Definition: Rudolf Virchow” (2006), Webster’s Online Dictionary with Multilingual Thesaurus Translation, http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/Rudolf%20Virchow?cx=partner-pub-0939450753529744%3Av0qd01-tdlq&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=Rudolf%20Virchow&sa= Search#906.
Dose, Klaus (1988), “The Origin of Life: More Questions than Answers,” Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 13[4]:348.
Eiseley, Loren (1957), The Immense Journey (New York: Random House).
Gibson, D.G., et al. (2010), “Creation of a Bacterial Cell Controlled by a Chemically Synthesized Genome,”Science, May 20, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1190719.
Green, D.E. and R.F. Goldberger (1967), Molecular Insights into the Living Process (New York: Academic Press).
Gribbin, John (1981), “Of a Comet Born,” Science Digest, 89[3]:14, April.
Haeckel, Ernst (1876), The History of Creation, vol. 1 (New York: D. Appleton and Company).
Hartgerink, Jeffrey D., Elia Beniash, and Samuel I. Stupp (2001), “Self-Assembly and Mineralization of Peptide-Amphiphile Nanofibers,” Science, 294:1684-1688, November 23.
Hazen, Robert (2005), Origins of Life (Chantilly, VA: The Teaching Company).
Hofstadter, Douglas R. (1980), Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid (New York: Vintage Books).
Horgan, John (1991), “In the Beginning,” Scientific American, 264:119, February.
Horgan, John (1996), The End of Science (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley).
Horgan, John (2011), “Pssst! Don’t Tell the Creationists, but Scientists Don’t Have a Clue How Life Began,”Scientific American, http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-bu-2011-02-28.
Houts, Michael G. (2007), “Evolution is Religion—Not Science [Part I],” Reason & Revelation, 27[11]:81-87, November, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=595.
Hoyle, Fred and Chandra Wickramasinghe (1978), Lifecloud (New York: Harper & Row).
Hoyle, Fred and Chandra Wickramasinghe (1981), Evolution from Space (London: J.M. Dent & Sons).
Hoyle, Fred and Chandra Wickramasinghe (1991), “Where Microbes Boldly Went,” New Scientist, 91:415, August 13.
Jastrow, Robert (1977), Until the Sun Dies (New York: W.W. Norton).
Keosian, John (1964), The Origin of Life (New York: Reinhold).
Kerkut, Gerald A. (1960), The Implications of Evolution (London: Pergamon).
Lahav, Noam (1999), Biogenesis: Theories of Life’s Origins (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press).
Maddox, John (1994), “The Genesis Code by Numbers,” Nature, 367:111, January 13.
McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (2003), pub. M.D. Licker (New York: McGraw-Hill), sixth edition.
Miller, Jeff (2007), “God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective,” Reason & Revelation, 27[4]:25-31, April, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3293.
Miller, Kenneth R. and Joseph Levine (1991), Biology (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall).
Miller, Stanley L. (1953), “A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions,”Science, 117[3046]:528-529, May 15.
Moe, Martin (1981), “Genes on Ice,” Science Digest, 89[11]:36, December.
Moore, John N. and H.S. Slusher (1974), Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Scott, Andrew (1985), “Update on Genesis,” New Scientist, 106:30-33, May 2.
Simmons, K. (2007), “Cell Theory,” Cells and Cellular Processes Course Notes (Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada: University of Winnipeg), Fall, http://kentsimmons.uwinnipeg.ca/cm1504/celltheory.htm.
Simpson, George G. and William Beck (1965), Life: An Introduction to Biology (New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World), second edition.
Sommer, Andrei P., Dan Zhu, and Hans-Joerg Fecht (2008), “Genesis on Diamonds,” Crystal Growth & Design, 8[8]:2628-2629, DOI: 10.1021/cg8005037.
Stein, Ben and Kevin Miller (2008), Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Premise Media).
Sullivan, J.W.N. (1933), Limitations of Science (New York: Viking Press).
Thompson, Bert and Brad Harrub (2003), “Have Scientists Created Life?: Examining the Miller-Urey Experiment,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1108.
Wald, George (1954), “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, 191[2]:44-53, August.
Wald, George (1962), “Theories on the Origin of Life” in Frontiers of Modern Biology (Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin).
Wong, Gerard C.L., Jay Tang, Alison Lin, Youli Li, Paul Janmey, and Cyrus Safinya (2000), “Hierarchical Self-Assembly of F-Actin and Cationic Lipid Complexes: Stacked, Three-Layer Tubule Networks,” Science, 288:2035-2039, June 16.