This PowerPoint/Keynote presentation is part of the
apologetics course entitled An Unshakeable Faith.
Copyright 2011
Way of Life Literature
P. O. Box 610368
Port Huron, MI 48061
866-295-4143
http://www.wayoflife.org
fbns@wayoflife.org
In Canada
Bethel Baptist Church, 4212 Campbell St. N., London,
Ontario N6P 1A6
519-652-2619
Before viewing the
slide presentations
on evolution, the
teacher should first
present the
introduction to the
evolution section
from the apologetics
course “An
Unshakeable Faith.”
Icons of Evolution
Fables in Textbooks and Museums
Icons of Evolution are
evidences that are
commonly offered for
evolution in textbooks and
natural history museums.
They should actually be
called MYTHS OF
EVOLUTION, because they
provide zero scientific
evidence for Darwinian
evolution. In fact, they refute
evolution!
This is why we evolution
cannot rightly be called a
“theory.”
“Evolution does not warrant
being called a theory or a
hypothesis.”
David Stone, Ph.D. physics
“A theory arises when a
hypothesis has stood up to
repeated tests under a wide
variety of conditions and
cannot be broken. Evolution
warrants neither term.
Evolution qualifies as a
philosophical, even a
religious idea, void of
scientific support, and
intended to replace biblical
truth with stories.”
David Stone, Ph.D. physics
“For the time will come when they will not
endure sound doctrine; but after their own
lusts shall they heap to themselves
teachers, having itching ears; and they
shall turn away their ears from the truth,
and shall be turned unto FABLES”
2 Timothy 4:3-4
The Miller Experiment and
the primordial soup
The Miller experiment
was designed to prove
that life could occur
naturally in a “primordial
soup.”
Stanley Miller was a
graduate student in the
laboratory of Harold Urey,
and their experiment was
an attempt to validate a
theory proposed by
Alexander Oparin and
J.B.S. Haldane, Marxists
who wanted to disprove
creationism.
They theorized that the
original atmosphere of
the earth allowed the
formation of organic
compounds that could
have been the “building
blocks” of life.
“As the gases circulated
in the chamber, electric
sparks, substituting for
lightning, supplied
energy to drive chemical
reactions.”
The experiment produced
traces of amino acids, the
building blocks of the
proteins that are made in
living cells.
“The Miller-Urey
experiment produced a
variety of organic
compounds, including
amino acids” (Modern
Biology, 1999).
For half a century the
Miller experiment has
been used as proof of
the evolution of life from
non-life.
New Scientist magazine
proclaimed “In the
beginning ... life
assembled itself” (Feb.
27, 1969).
1. The Miller experiment
is based on evolutionary
assumptions.
The Miller experiment is
meaningless apart from
evolutionary
assumptions.
It assumes a universe
and an earth and a
primordial soup in which
life could have
happened.
But science has not
proven that the universe
and earth could have
happened by
naturalistic causes.
Michael Denton, Ph.D.
biochemistry
“Considering the way the
pre-biotic soup is referred
to in so many discussions
of the origin of life as an
already established
reality, it comes as
something of a shock to
realize that there is
absolutely no positive
evidence for its
existence.”
2. Miller used the
wrong materials.
Since Miller conducted
his experiment,
scientists have
determined that the
atmosphere of the earth
could not have been
composed of the
elements used in the
experiment.
Canadian geologists
Erich Dimroth and
Michael Kimberly wrote
in 1979 that they saw
no evidence “that an
oxygen-free
atmosphere has existed
at any time.”
British geologists Harry
Clemmey and Nick
Badham wrote in 1982
that “from the time of
the earliest dated rocks
... earth had an
oxygenic atmosphere.”
“Geochemists soon
reached a nearconsensus that the
primitive atmosphere
was nothing like the one
Miller used” (Jonathan
Wells, Icons of
Evolution).
Michael Pitman, who
taught biology at
Cambridge
“Even the simple
organic compounds-the smallest bricks of
living material--would
have crumbled as soon
as they formed if
oxygen were present”
(Adam and Evolution).
3. Miller added
unnatural elements to
the experiment.
The conditions of the
experiment were not
realistic.
Under normal
conditions hydrogen
escapes into space, but
Miller provided no way
for it to escape.
Under normal conditions
any soluble organic
products that formed
would be quickly broken
down, but Miller
precluded this by building
a trap to prevent such an
occurrence.
Gary Parker, Ed.D
biology/geology
“The same spark that puts
amino acids together also
tears them apart, and it’s
much better at destroying.
Miller knew this, so he trapped
out the molecules he wanted.
But that would be cheating,
because you are supposed to
say that this is how life arose
without any intelligent design.”
4. Miller got the
wrong results.
Nothing living and selfreplicating was
produced. Not even a
protein was created.
The main product of the
Miller experiment was tar!
Simon Morris called the
product of such
experiments “muck, goo
and gunk.”
Graham Cairns-Smith
called them “grossly
contaminated gunks.”
The trace amounts of
amino acids that were
produced were both
“left-handed” and “righthanded,” whereas any
right-handed molecules
prevent the creation of
proteins.
Stephen Grocott, Ph.D.
organometallic chemistry
“Sterilize a frog and put it
in a sterile blender-buzzzzz. Seal up the
mixture in a sterile
container and leave it as
long as you want.”
Stephen Grocott
“You won’t get life, despite
the fact that you started
with the best possible
mixture of so-called
precursors to life. Repeat
the experiment a million
times--in the sun, in the
dark, with oxygen, without,
with clay, without, with UV,
without.”
Stephen Grocott
“It won’t make any
difference.
Thermodynamics clearly
states that the mixture will
decompose to simpler,
lower energy, less
information-containing
molecules.”
5. Even if some type of life
could be made in a test
tube it would only prove
that intelligence is
required to create life.
Michael Behe, Ph.D. in
Biochemistry
“Making the molecules of
life by chemical processes
outside of a cell is actually
rather easy. Not only can
amino acids and nucleotides
be made, but a chemist can
then take these and
produce proteins and
nucleic acids” (Darwin’s
Black Box).
Michael Behe
“Most readers will quickly
see the problem. There were
no chemists four billion years
ago. Neither were there any
chemical supply houses,
distillation flasks, nor any of
the other devices that the
modern chemist uses in his
or her laboratory, and which
are necessary to get good
results.”
6. The modern science of
genetics has falsified the
idea of life arising from
non-life.
“The simplest organism
capable of independent
life, the prokaryote
bacterial cell, is a
masterpiece of
miniaturized complexity
which makes a
spaceship seem rather
low tech” (Phillip
Johnson, Darwin on
Trial).
In Darwin’s day, the cell
was thought to be a simple
blob of protoplasm. Ernst
Haeckel called it “a simple
little lump of albuminous
combination of carbon.”
Therefore, it was not
difficult for Haeckel to
believe that life is
constantly forming in the
mud at the bottom of the
sea. He called this
“monera” and believed it
formed the base of the
“tree of life.”
In “The History of Creation”
(1868) he described the
appearance, eating habits,
and reproductive cycle of
monera.
“They consist entirely of
shapeless, simple
homogeneous matter ... a
shapeless, mobile, little
lump of mucus or slime ...
organisms without organs”
(Haeckel).
He even gave monera the
scientific name of
Protamoeba primitivia.
Today we know that the
simplest living cell is more
complicated than a modern
city.
The living cell is a living
body with organs. It has
blueprints, decoders, error
checkers, quality control
systems, power plants,
power storage units,
manufacturing plants,
chemical plants, assembly
lines, disposal units, trash
compactors.
The cell has a complex
communication system,
recycling centers,
detoxification plants,
transportation highways and
tracks and tunnels,
transportation vehicles, living
walls with many types of oneway and two-way guarded,
gated portals to the outside
world, an external matrix to
connect with other cells, and a
host of other things.
Michael Denton, Ph.D.
biochemistry
“Nearly every feature of
our own advanced
machines has its analogue
in the cell: artificial
languages and their
decoding systems,
memory banks for
information storage and
retrieval” (Evolution: A
Theory in Crisis).
“elegant control systems
regulating the automated
assembly of parts and
components” (Evolution: A
Theory in Crisis).
“error fail-safe and proofreading devices utilized for
quality control, assembly
processes involving the
principle of prefabrication and
modular construction” (p.
328).
The cell contains not only
the blueprint of the plant or
animal’s body and the
information describing its
every function but also the
ability to actually fashion
and operate it.
Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.
biology
Even a “simple” E. coli
bacteria has about
4,640,000 nucleotide base
pairs, which code for 4,288
genes, each of which
produces an enormously
complex protein machine”
(In Six Days, p. 25).
The information in the DNA
in one human cell is
equivalent to a library of
4,000 books, each
containing 500 pages.
Yet it is so amazingly
micro-engineered that all of
the DNA from every person
who has ever lived would
weigh less than an aspirin
tablet (Dr. Walt Brown, In
the Beginning).
The knowledge of these
things has forced many
scientists to the conclusion
that life could not have
arisen spontaneously.
Henry Zuill, Ph.D. in
biology
“Complexity of the cell is
now just too daunting to
flippantly assert
biochemical evolution to
explain it ... And if cells
could not originate
naturally, then nothing else
could” (In Six Days).
Francis Crick, codiscoverer of DNA’s
double helix structure
“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” (Life
Itself, 1981, p. 88).
Sir Fred Hoyle
“The notion that not only
the biopolymers but the
operating program of a
living cell could be arrived
at by chance in a
primordial soup here on
Earth is nonsense of a high
order” (New Scientist, Nov.
19, 1981).
7. Every evolutionary
origin of life theory has
the same fatal flaw.
Not one of the theories can
realistically bridge the vast
barrier from non-life to life,
from inert chemicals to
living self-replicating
systems.
This is true for RNA-first
“theory,” the peptide
“theory,” the deep sea vent
“theory,” the iron-sulfur
“theory,” the bubble
“theory,” the clay “theory,”
the autocatalysis “theory,”
and all the others.
The “theories” are more
ridiculous than realistic.
They amount to nothing
more than a batch of “justso” stories.
To propose a microsphere
or a water bubble or a
protobiont or a proteinoid
or some such thing as the
path toward life is
meaningless, because
none of these are living,
self-replicating things. In
such scenarios, you are
still left on the non-living
side of the chasm.
These are as mythical as
Haeckel’s Monera.
In reality, evolutionists
have failed entirely and
miserably in their attempts
to produce life in a test
tube or even to
demonstrate that such a
thing is within the realm of
possibility.
An excellent discussion of
the Miller experiment can
be found in “Of Pandas
and People.”
The Miller experiment and
every origin of life scenario
only point out the
bankruptcy of the doctrine
and disqualify it from being
a scientific theory or even
a hypothesis.
NOTE TO
TEACHERS
There are review
questions and
summaries to this
material in the book
An Unshakeable
Faith.
This presentation is
abbreviated from the
book “Seeing the
Non-Existent:
Evolution’s Myths and
Hoaxes.” This book
has about many more
icons of evolution.
This PowerPoint/Keynote presentation is part of the
apologetics course entitled An Unshakeable Faith.
Copyright 2011
Way of Life Literature
P. O. Box 610368
Port Huron, MI 48061
866-295-4143
http://www.wayoflife.org
fbns@wayoflife.org
In Canada
Bethel Baptist Church, 4212 Campbell St. N., London,
Ontario N6P 1A6
519-652-2619