©Copyright 2018 GEOSCIENCE RESEARCH INSTITUTE
11060 Campus Street • Loma Linda, California 92350 • 909-558-4548
George T. Javor
Professor of Biochemistry Loma Linda University
The explosion of biological knowledge continues unabated as we enter the third millennium of the modern era. Highlighting the numerous milestones of achievement are the successful cloning of “Dolly” from the nucleus of a sheep udder cell and the accession of complete genomic nucleotide sequences from over twenty organisms. But our knowledge of life will never be complete until an answer is found to the question, “How did life originate on Earth”?
It is certain that not too many scientists spend sleepless nights over this question. Most concern themselves with detailed studies of particular biological systems, which usually demand their full attention. Whatever the origin of life is, more practical concerns have to do with understanding the “here and now”. In addition, there is very little funding for scientists to ponder the origin of life on a full-time basis.
In terms of philosophical interest, life’s origin ranks with the most profound questions ever raised. Wrapped within this problem are far- ranging implications about the nature of the Universe and our place in it, the meaning and purpose of life, and predictions about the future course of life on Earth. Our model of life’s origin also impacts our worldview and religious beliefs.
Thinking about life’s origin, we can walk on one of two mutually exclusive paths. Life on Earth could have been created by an extra- terrestrial Creator, or it could have come into existence by a fortunate interplay of nature’s forces. Information about the history of Earth would be helpful in deciding between the two options. If Earth and the other planets of the Solar System were indeed born out of a spinning cloud of gas over an extended period of time, as is asserted by many, then it would be easier to suppose that the natural development of life is a continuation of some mysterious ongoing process in the Universe. The opinion of the majority of scientists and philosophers certainly leans in this direction.
It is not difficult to appreciate why this is so. Scientists are trained to believe that science can explain and solve any problem. This intrinsic optimism is essential to motivate scientists to wrestle new knowledge from the Unknown. With regard to cosmic questions, if one supposes a universe without a Creator, the green light is on to discover the nature of the mindless mechanisms that were responsible for the existence of everything about us. Furthermore, if natural forces were able to ac- complish so much creative work, then it is incumbent on scientists to learn more about these forces and possibly harness them.
But here a problem arises. Scientists are at their best when they study repeatable phenomena. At present, no solar system is forming before our eyes. Even worse, we do not see natural forces producing living organisms from solely nonliving matter. Yet the millions of different life forms we see around us had to originate from somewhere! The scientist, working on the assumption that there has to be a natural explanation for the origin of life, becomes a detective. He is looking for clues to show how Mother Nature brought life to Earth. Experiments are done to test which primordial scenario could more likely bring life into existence.
Most scientists regard the postulate that our world is here as a result of a Creation event as resorting to “magic” instead of a logical explanation — an abandonment of science. It does not help matters that the story of Earth’s creation by a Creator comes from a manuscript that is over three-thousand years old. Since then much has been learned about living things, our world and the Universe. Is it not possible that if the ancients had our scientific knowledge, they would have reported the story of the creation of Earth differently?
We do not know the answer. What the ancient biblical record reports is that Earth and its biosphere were brought into existence in a creation event that took six days for the Creator to accomplish. To most scientists, this sounds incredible. However, a close look at what is occurring in the biosphere reveals many incredible facts.
This brief monograph was written to champion the views of a minority in the scientific community. This minority holds that it is possible to accept this ancient report of Earth’s creation at face value — and still be a true scientist. But the main purpose is to go a step further. It will be argued that a close examination of life can lead observers to the logical conclusion that life itself is an actual evidence for creation.
This subject is presented from a biochemical perspective, i.e., looking at living matter at the level of atoms and molecules. Although the use of technical terms could not be avoided, they were kept to a minimum. The intent was to communicate as clearly as possible the important molecular concepts undergirding life. It is this writer’s conviction that these may be understood without possessing a formal education in chemistry or biochemistry. The biochemical concepts presented here should be useful to all readers, regardless of their philosophical orientation, even if they cannot accept this writer’s conclusions.
The author would like to express appreciation for the insightful comments and helpful suggestions from the reviewers of this manuscript. Any remaining errors are this writer’s responsibility.