Season 5 Podcast 134, A New Voice of Freedom, Argument for the Existence of God, “Spontaneous Creation.”

Season 5 Podcast 134, A New Voice of Freedom, Argument for the Existence of God, “Spontaneous Creation.” 

Science and religion are at odds over how the world should be classified and divided.  Science, tethered to temporal law, is based on the assumption that God does not exist, that there is no intelligent design. That introduces the problem of first cause. We have the problem of existence. We must wrestle with Descartes’s paradox, “Cogito, ergo sum.” ‘I think therefore I am.” It is an acknowledgement that intelligence came first.

Science must wrestle with a world that already exists, and from the inside explain why it exists. The great fallacy of theoretical science is to assume that everything must have an origin or first cause. To science, if it has a beginning, it must have an end. That is an irresolvable paradox. Existence denies it. 

The scientific view of the origin of things is a cosmic self-contradiction. Where did it all begin?  They give imposing scientific names for the origins of life—evolution, spontaneous creation, luck, accident, coincidence, fortuity, serendipity of circumstances, Anthropic Principle, accidental collocation of atoms, RNA.

For the origin of life scientists use the term ‘abiogenesis.’ From Wikipedia we learn,

Abiogenesis is the natural process by which life arises from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. The prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities on Earth was not a single event, but a process of increasing complexity involving the formation of a habitable planet, the prebiotic synthesis of organic molecules, molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes. The transition from non-life to life has never been observed experimentally, but many proposals have been made for different stages of the process. 

The problem with abiogenesis is the simple fact that something can never come from nothing. Life cannot come from non-life. It violates all scientific knowledge. As stated above, “The transition from non-life to life has never been observed experimentally.” It could be added, ‘And it never will.” Doctor Frankenstein did not create life. What is life? NASA defines life as

"a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian [i.e., biological] evolution."

Is NASA actually saying that life self-exists?  I believe it is.  If they are, they got it right. At least they came within a few lightyears of nailing it. But of course, science mucks it up. Wikipedia also reports:

Such a system is complex; the last universal common ancestor (LUCA), presumably a single-celled organism which lived some 4 billion years ago, already had hundreds of genes encoded in the DNA genetic code that is universal today. That in turn implies a suite of cellular machinery including messenger RNA, transfer RNA, and ribosomes to translate the code into proteins. Those proteins included enzymes to operate its anaerobic respiration via the Wood–Ljungdahl metabolic pathway, and a DNA polymerase to replicate its genetic material.

Thus, the false analogy that man is nothing more than a biological machine is born. Yet, how do they account for intelligence? How do they account for man? Where in that complex system was intelligence or life or consciousness introduced? 

Science is faced with another great paradox—matter and energy have no first cause. They self-exist. They cannot be created or destroyed. That is one of the single greatest discoveries of science, yet science doesn’t know what to do with it. Christianity does. The answer is God. God is the greatest intelligence of all. 

It follows that intelligence must, like matter and energy, self-exist. I