The Cell and the Origin of Life

I'm currently teaching through a unit on the Origin of Life in my biology class. While I don't agree with all the assumptions and presuppositions in the text book, I feel that the material is important for those students who will continue their science studies in college.

Growing up, I was taught about evolution, the Big Bang, etc, and believed that those were all true. Even after I became a Christ-follower, I still thought that naturalistic science, not God's word, could better explain the origin of life. At the least, I figured that modern science and the Bible had to be reconciled.

But over the years, my investigations have led me to see that evolution (or, more accurately, macro-evolution) is not a valid explanation of how we got to where we are. Talks of primordial soup and billions of years and vestigial organs can make up a good story. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking those ideas give any more empirical evidence that the Bible.

(And for the record, I don't think the Bible is a science textbook either. The Bible's purpose is not to prove anything except that God has had a plan of redemption since before He created the world.)

Look at this great video rendition of what happens in every cell in your body, every moment of the day. Look at the amazing complexity. Not sure how reasonable that this could come about through billions of years of slight modifications.

I encourage you to watch this with your children. Mine loved it. (You can also see the full video, complete with labels, here.)

Seeing things like this lead me to more intimate worship of our God. He designed each intricate part of us.

Even more, I am amazed that He would send His Son to pay the price for my sins.

The real story of the "origin of life" is that He made us (the origin of our physical life), and He died for us (the origin of our spiritual life).

Related Links:

**image courtesy of euthman via flickr


  1. With due respect, the evidences are not emperical. They have been demonstrated experimentally and based on the results of experiments, conclusions were made. Sir, please read my blog post on the origin of life:

  2. I'm not sure what you mean by your first 2 sentences. Empirical evidences CAN include experimental. But in your article, you don't offer any experiments that prove the story you present. It's a big step to go from UV splitting water into H2 and O2, all the way to RNA and DNA being formed. It's a lot of big steps, actually.

  3. Suppose there is a completely naturalistic and materialistic explanation for the origin of life. Abiogenesis is true. The Miller-Urey experiment is valid. The RNA-world hypothesis or some other related hypothesis is true. Natural selection DID happen.

    Could God, if He exists, not have controlled all of these materialistic processes? Is it false to believe that, yes, the scientists are right, but so is God?

    What do you teach to your students? Are you unbiased in your teaching? Do you present what science holds as the best current explanation for natural phenomena based on the current evidence? It's an important distinction to make. Many scientists dogmatically say that evolution is fact. Well, it never will be. It will only ever be the best explanation for the origin and diversity of life, given the evidence.

    1. "Could God" is different than "Did God."

      I do think that evolution happens, but only in some definitions of evolution. I don't see much evidence for tiny changes over time that lead to the variety of species we see. And there is even less empirical/experimental evidence for spontaneous origin of life.