How did life originate? According to the laws of nature, life only comes from life.

Answer

The question of how life originated has fascinated humanity from the beginning. It is therefore not surprising that all kinds of wild stories have been sent into the world, and that there are many misconceptions (eg because things are wrongly linked).

First of all, there is no ‘law of nature’ that states that life can only occur from life. A living organism should be seen as an open system (ie a system that exchanges both matter and energy with its environment), but constructed from pure matter. All of our cells are themselves made up of molecules, which are as much “matter” as the molecules in a boulder or something. To put it simplistically, you can think of the difference between a rock and a living organism as a difference in the combination of matter, where in the case of the rock the combination is not able to behave as an open system, but where this is the case with a living organism. Now, the important thing is that you have to see this in the genesis of a living organism, and so as a starting point you have to imagine the simplest open system that, because of the properties of the matter of which it is built, is able to contain matter and energy to exchange with its environment (and is therefore able to reproduce). It is suspected that such first forms of open systems, and thus of living matter, must have been RNA molecules that could also behave chemically like proteins (because both components are needed for RNA to multiply) (there are no fossils of such molecules, but it is known that such molecules can behave as such).

Another point is that the theory of the big bang and the theory of evolution are often confused. The theory of evolution, which is therefore based on the initial ideas of Charles Darwin, says nothing about the origin of the universe, or the origin of the earth. Charles Darwin himself never made a statement about the origin of living matter from dead matter. But, with the enormous amount of new information that is now known, for example within genetics and molecular biology, people are more and more convinced that the theory of evolution can also be applied to the evolution from dead matter to simple living matter (so that RNA molecules), and so on to complex living matter (unicellular organisms without a nucleus and further to multicellular organisms).

It is also always very important to be very critical both with regard to information that is made available and with the way in which conclusions are drawn from it or attempts are made to link things together. At least this is the attitude that scientists should adopt. Thinking critically about the statement “Just a fabrication like this would prove that God made everything.” actually shows that it has no evidentiary value (regardless of the content of this statement). In this formulation it is stated that a certain observation (the origin of living matter) would be an inaccuracy (“fabrication”), but without the burden of proof being provided to substantiate this. Second, it argues that this inaccuracy in itself would then have evidential value to prove something else. This is both scientifically and logically incorrect, as a negative evidence only provides negative confirmation for that particular observation, and does not necessarily provide evidence for any other observation. For example: if I can prove that I don’t have blue eyes, that doesn’t prove that I have green eyes. It’s just proof that I don’t have blue eyes.

With regard to your statement that “Suppose a flower should arise, where is the bee that has to pollinate it? Then everything should be made right in one go, right? “, it can be argued that the emergence of flowers that must be pollinated does not necessarily require that pollinating organisms have also arisen. The origin of flying insects goes much further back in evolution than the origin of flower plants. Flowering plants only emerged during the Lower Cretaceous (about 145 million years ago), while flying insects were already present from the Devonian, and possibly even from the Silurian (about 440 million years ago). So, at the time when flower plants emerged, insects were already present that could provide pollination.

Objectively and critically, it is difficult to argue that if a particular observation has not yet been made (e.g., scientists have never seen the conversion of dead matter into a unicellular organism under experimental conditions), the only acceptable explanation other than is that a divine entity is responsible for it. If one is consistent in the critical approach to scientific findings (which is a good attitude, by the way!), then one should follow the same critical approach to this alternative explanation. In other words, what observations are there that show that the hypothesis that a divine entity is responsible for this is more supported than another hypothesis? Now take the example of the guts you quote: “all our guts that make us function the way we do.” This is perfectly explicable on the basis of evolution, and is based on a very logical reasoning: intestines that do not function would never allow an organism to ever reproduce. So any organisms that would have misordered guts at birth would never be able to pass this trait on to their offspring. The fact that deviations from this beautiful order occur early in human development (just search on Google for “intestinal congenital displacement”), rather confirms this hypothesis than the one that would require a divine entity to keep everything in order every time. to get a place.

Another important aspect of the scientific method is the assumption of assumptions without being proven themselves (so-called assumptions). To a certain level this is necessary in scientific research, but … these are assumptions that are not so speculative in themselves. Examples of scientific assumptions are: assuming that if we determine the weight of an object, the gravity of the earth does not change at that moment and that our scale measures correctly. However, one should not go much further than that, otherwise one risks basing observations and subsequent conclusions on unsubstantiated assumptions. No doubt this applies to the assumption that “would a God be a God if He could not be outside of our time and matter? If God made everything as it is (including the phenomenon of “time”), then He Himself will be outside of time.”