|
[Editor’s note: In June 1990 The
John Ankerberg Show taped a series of interviews with men from several
branches of the sciences regarding the evidence for creation. For
technical reasons we were unable to air these interview. Nevertheless,
we have decided to release portions of these interviews in a series of
articles so you could read the arguments that were being made at that
time—more than a decade ago.
Considerable effort has been made to quote the
gentlemen correctly. We have attempted to find the correct spelling of
the scientific terms used. However, the reader should keep in mind
that this is a transcription of oral interviews. Mistakes in spelling
and in the technical language should be laid at the feet of the
editor.]
Dr. John Ankerberg: In the
origin of life experiments that the scientists have tried, what have
they concluded? Where do we stand at the present moment?
Dr. Kurt Wise1:
My answer to that would be that the evolutionary theory of
biogenesis*, the origin of life, can be potentially substantiated from
three areas: evidence; secondly, from experiment; thirdly, from
theory. In other words, can they show that it happened by evidence?
Can they show that it happened by experiment? Can they show that it
happened by theory? It’s in those three areas that they have failed,
every one of them. There is no evidence. There are no rocks that exist
from that period of time. Secondly, there is no successful experiment
which has even gone through two steps in a row along that necessary
path. The experiments to produce life have not been successful.
Thirdly, theoretically, there seem to be some significant barriers to
even imagining how life could come about. We have the Second Law of
Thermodynamics which seems to represent an insurmountable barrier. The
evolutionary theory of abiogenesis has failed on all three counts to
explain the origin of life.
Ankerberg: So what do the
scientists say now, then? Are they postulating anything further? What
are they going to try next?
Dr. Duane Gish2:
Let me answer to that. Some of these people are becoming very
discouraged. Many years ago, 35 years ago, I read some of their books,
some of their material. At that time they were very optimistic; they
felt it would be just a matter of time before these problems would be
solved, they would be seeing their way through to very significant
advances in this problem of biogenesis. Now I’m seeing that these same
authors, some of them at least, are becoming quite discouraged and
they are saying that these experiments either have turned out to be
totally irrelevant or they have led into a blind alley. And so I find
that they’re actually, at least some of them, are becoming quite
discouraged.
Ankerberg: Let’s turn to
the geologist for a moment. What is it that you have found in the
rocks concerning the reducing atmosphere that the scientists said that
they needed?
Dr. Steve Austin3:
Geologists have followed this abiogenesis theory for a number of
years. Initially, geologists were very optimistic that we would find
buried in those lowest rock layers of the earth—this bathtub ring, if
you will, from this reducing atmosphere—this very much different
atmosphere. And even as much as 20 years ago, geologists were claiming
that those rocks really did prove the absence of oxygen in this very
unusual condition.
Over the last 20 years though, geologists have more
carefully studied those lower rock layers of the earth called the
Precambrian strata and they have concluded generally that those oldest
rocks are very rich in oxygen. For example, one of the oldest
sedimentary rocks described and discovered by geologists on the earth
has banded iron formation, and the major element in this rock is not
iron, but is oxygen. And there are very many oxygen-rich rocks buried
in the earth.
In fact, geologists have recently discovered sulfate
deposits, sulfur and oxygen combined together and not sulfur combined
with a metal such as lead or zinc. And geologists have discovered
these oxidized iron deposits. Evidences of oxidation like soil
development and many things are causing the evolutionists to question
the whole reducing atmosphere scenario.
Ankerberg: Again, review
for our folks, why is it so devastating that you found oxygen? So
what? And what is the theory that the evolutionist wanted to find?
Austin: Well, oxygen is
very devastating to the origin of life experiments. For example, that
Stanley Miller experiment where he had methane, ammonia, hydrogen and
a spark in that chamber, if you introduced some oxygen in there with
that spark, it would combine with the hydrogen and you would have a
great explosion. You would not make the final product. In other words,
in the presence of oxygen, these organic molecules do not form.
Ankerberg: They’re simply
saying chemical evolution would be impossible if you had oxygen in
that atmosphere.
Austin: Yes. And many
evolutionists realize that and quote their books, Leslie Orgel,
Stanley Miller’s book on the origin of life. They fully grant that. So
that’s very important to them. The biochemists say you must have an
atmosphere devoid of oxygen for life to first appear. Yet, the
geologists, and we’re looking at the rocks, we’re saying that we don’t
see any evidence of that. Maybe life had to appear before there were
any rocks, or before there was any evidence of this atmosphere. There
is a great transition going on right now in geologist’s minds,
thinking about those Precambrian strata.
Wise: Steve, is there not
evidence for a lower amount of oxygen in the Precambrian atmosphere? I
mean, you’ve been talking about evidence for oxygen, but I think that
many would maintain that the oxygen levels were lower; you have
urananite and various other anoxic chemicals.
Austin: Many geologists
who study the sedimentary deposits deep in the earth are pretty much
agreeing that the atmospheric level of oxygen is pretty much the same
as today. Even those urananite deposits in South Africa, for example,
were thought to show a lower oxygen level have now been interpreted in
terms of pretty much standard modern atmosphere.
Wise: Also, this doesn’t
eliminate the possibility that there were places on the earth where
anoxic environments occurred. Is that not true?
Austin: That’s true. But
the general characteristic that we see in the strata, the lowest
strata layers, what are called the Archaean strata of the Precambrian,
show generally abundant oxygen. We don’t see the bathtub ring left
over from the reducing atmosphere. We don’t see sulfides of lead, of
zinc, we see sulfates of barium and calcium. And we don’t see
carbonates of iron, we see oxides of iron. Just looking at the strata
generally, we have to marvel at the general oxidized nature of the
geological strata.
Wise: So what we’re saying
is that there are very few places when you could have an anoxic
environment. Doesn’t mean that it is impossible, geologists can’t say
that, but what it does say is that trying to find a place where life
could have evolved is very difficult. There are a very limited number
of places where it could occur.
Gish: Even if you had a
few of these anoxic places, you would not have the other conditions
necessary for the origin of life. You would not have any energy there,
you see. You wouldn’t have these other processes at work.
Ankerberg: What happened
about the wind? I mean, you would have that oxygen some way
circulating. Are you talking about pockets inside the earth?
Wise: We have places on
the earth right now which are anoxic. There are anoxic conditions at
the bottom of some fresh water lakes that don’t turn over in the fall
and the spring. There are anoxic conditions in places in the bottom of
the ocean. And you get down so far in the soil, you also get into
anoxic conditions.
Ankerberg: Also in this
area, what is geology telling us today about the pre-biotic soup. If
there was this massive chemical lake out there or things that were
supposed to help us build the building blocks, do we find evidence of
those chemicals in the rocks any place on earth?
Austin: Those chemicals
would be hydrocarbons and they might be fossilized in the shaley
strata, especially of the earth, the clay-rich layers and if that was
the case we should have an abundant supply of those rocks, yet those
rocks are generally recognized by geologists to be missing. And if
there was this hydrocarbon-rich soup on the primordial earth, we would
think that oil companies would have found it, they would be drilling
into that as a source of energy, and yet it’s not there. Geologists
generally recognize that the rock strata layers from the earliest
geologic ages of the earth where life supposedly evolved, they are
missing. Here we have a case. No physical evidence for the abiogenesis
of life.
Wise: Put it another way,
the oldest rock on the earth that is not metamorphosed, that could
possibly preserve life or chemicals in their original form contains
organisms we believe to be cyanobacteria. That’s the oldest rock that
could preserve. It’s the oldest rock seems to have, at least as we now
understand the dating of things, seems to have life in it. If that’s
the oldest rock, we obviously don’t have any evidence, any geological
evidence of anything that occurred before the first cell.
Ankerberg: What conclusion
can you draw from the information we’ve talked about so far in this
discussion?
Wise: As a creationist,
the things that we’ve talked about convince me that there was a
Creator. And the reason for that is, if we look at the level of the
DNA and the RNA, the complexity, the information content seems to
demand an intelligent cause. And then when we place that DNA into the
context which it finds itself, in even the simplest of organisms, in
other words namely the context of replication, transcription,
translation, it again—that complexity and apparent information—demands
a designer. And then when you place that within the context of the
cell, the cell in turn has a complexity that seems to demand a
designer. And that’s why I believe the evidence in the origin of life
area indicates a Creator.
|