Life from Lifelessness
Updated: Sep 7, 2020
Another blog post from THE MAIN THING, the third in the "Squint" series.
I'm still feeling cranky about the scientists. (Last time I outlined my frustration in a blog post entitled Light from Darkness. You can click the underlined link to see that post.) As a group, scientists seem to feel they must remain stubbornly atheistic as they explore the natural world. No room for God in this vast, vast universe. But plenty of room for crackpot theories about abiogenesis, a fancy scientific word for the origin of life.
In my experience, you can't do much research in the field of abiogenesis before you come across the phrase primordial soup. This term is used to describe the conditions that might have existed when earth was a much younger and warmer planet. Back then, Mother Nature (not God, of course) would stir up a batch of (lifeless) organic molecule precursors, throw in a dash of lightning or super-heated volcanic magma, allow to simmer for an eon or two, and serve the resulting (living) organic polymers to grateful ninth-grade Biology students as an explanation as to how you get abundant life everywhere from no life anywhere.
It turns out this idea of primordial soup was introduced by godless Soviet communist Alexander Oparin in 1924. For his work with primordial soup and other abiogenesis concepts, Oparin was named Hero of Socialist Labor in 1969 and received the Lenin Prize in 1974. True story.
So ironic. Why do I say that? Well because on the one hand you've got primordial soup "cooked up" (haha, good one) by a devoted atheist to explain life from lifelessness. And on the other hand they took down Christ's lifeless body from the cross and placed it in a tomb. They double-checked to make sure He was really, really dead. Totally lifeless. And then He was alive again, as witnessed by many hundreds of people and painstakingly recorded in great detail by multiple New Testament writers. Life from lifelessness. But the miraculous power of God shown through Christ's resurrection is considered foolishness by most of the scientific community. Not surprisingly, I suppose. After all, the resurrection is not scientific.
The stone which the builders rejected, This became the very corner stone...
A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.