INVESTIGATING GENESIS SERIES
©2002 by Gerard Wakefield http://www.creationism.org/wakefield/
(This article may be copied for educational purposes only.)
"Evolutionists' 'Primordial Soup' Theory Being Replaced"
For nearly a century, evolutionists have been claiming, with dogmatic certainty, that the first life on earth appeared in a "primordial soup" consisting of water loaded with chemicals necessary for the start of life. This "warm little pond" was believed to have been struck by an electrical discharge (most likely from lightning) which caused the chemicals to form complex protein molecules, which eventually brought forth life. From this first life, evolutionists postulate, all other life evolved.
In 1953, the promoters of this "primordial soup" theory thought they had found proof when Stanley L. Miller, a graduate student at the University of Chicago, constructed an apparatus that supposedly re-created those early conditions. He circulated steam through a mixture of ammonia, methane, and hydrogen, and then sent a high-energy electrical spark through the mixture, in imitation of the hypothesized lightning bolt. He continued to do this for the span of one week, after which time his mixture became red and murky. It was found to contain complex amino acids ó the essential building blocks of life. (1)
Numerous similar tests were carried out by other scientists after Millerís experiment. Prof. A. Lee McAlester of Yale writes of them:
Second, this scenario, as postulated by Haldane and Oparin and supposedly "proved" by Miller, cannot be proven by the fossil record. Prof. McAlester notes that we will never find evidence of this imagined "soup." The first simple organisms that hypothetically formed in this soup had to draw sustenance from the soup itself. "In other words," he notes, "they must have Ďeatení the organic soup from which they arose," thus causing the soup itself to disappear. (3) He then admits:
The experiment, reported in todayís [July 31, 1998] issue of the journal Science, shows that peptides, short protein chains, can form naturally under conditions that might plausibly have existed on the early earth.... (6)
Leading scientists in America have voiced their support for the two Germansí theory and correspondent experiments. Dr. Carl R. Woese, a microbiologist at the University of Illinois, referred to their findings as "another step in the grand march," while Dr. Norman Pace of the University of California at Berkeley, an expert on the origins of life, said, "I think the milieu of a geothermal environment is far superior to the sparking bottles of Stanley Miller." (8)
Regardless of whether Dr. Wächtershäuser is proven correct or not, one significant fact remains: Millerís "primordial soup" theory, for so long presented as practically undeniable fact, is falling apart. This is typical of the entire evolutionary scheme ó it is essentially a shadowy, unprovable theory that is portrayed in textbooks and media articles as incontrovertible truth, despite the enormous doubts harbored by scientists as to its veracity. The theory of evolution, rather than being monolithic, infallible truth, is really a jumble of conflicting and ever-changing sub-theories, as the Miller-Wächtershäuser controversy demonstrates. For decades, Millerís theory was presented as fact; now, itís being unraveled. For how many decades will Wächtershäuserís theory be portrayed as infallible truth before it, too, is rejected?
1. A. Lee McAlester, The History of Life (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1968), 7-8.
2. Ibid., 8.
3. Ibid., 9.
4. Ibid., 10.
5. Peter T. Kilborn, "Data Back Idea That Life Grew Out of Inferno," New York Times, 31 July 1998, A14.
6. Ibid., A1.
7. Ibid., A14.
8. Ibid., A1, A14.
Investigating Genesis - Main Page www.creationism.org