Directed Panspermia : Ultimate Nanotech

Why the riddles?

A person today can look back over more than a century of speculation and thousands of attempts to prove that life originated on its own. If one does that, it would be hard to disagree with Nobel laureate Francis Crick. Speaking about origin-of-life theories, Crick observed that there is “too much speculation running after too few facts.” (ironic isn't it? with his speculations concerning directed panspermia) It is thus understandable that some scientists who examine the facts conclude that life is much too complex to pop up even in an organized laboratory, let alone in an uncontrolled environment.

If advanced science cannot prove that life could arise by itself, why do some scientists continue to hold to such theories? A few decades ago, Professor J. D. Bernal offered some insight in the book The Origin of Life: “By applying the strict canons of scientific method to this subject [the spontaneous generation of life], it is possible to demonstrate effectively at several places in the story, how life could not have arisen; the improbabilities are too great, the chances of the emergence of life too small.” He added: “Regrettably from this point of view, life is here on Earth in all its multiplicity of forms and activities and the arguments have to be bent round to support its existence.” And the picture has not improved.

Consider the underlying import of such reasoning. It is as much as saying: ‘Scientifically it is correct to state that life cannot have begun by itself. But spontaneously arising life is the only possibility that we will consider. So it is necessary to bend the arguments to support the hypothesis that life arose spontaneously.’ Are you comfortable with such logic? Does not such reasoning call for a lot of ‘bending’ of the facts?

There are, however, knowledgeable, respected scientists who do not see a need to bend facts to fit a prevailing philosophy on the origin of life. Rather, they permit the facts to point to a reasonable conclusion. What facts and what conclusion?

Interviewed in a documentary film, Professor Maciej Giertych, a noted geneticist from the Institute of Dendrology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, answered:

“We have become aware of the massive information contained in the genes. There is no known way to science how that information can arise spontaneously. It requires an intelligence; it cannot arise from chance events. Just mixing letters does not produce words.” He added: “For example, the very complex DNA, RNA, protein replicating system in the cell must have been perfect from the very start. If not, life systems could not exist. The only logical explanation is that this vast quantity of information came from an intelligence.”

The more one learns about the wonders of life, the more logical it is to agree with that conclusion: The origin of life requires an intelligent source. What source? Millions of educated individuals conclude that life on earth must have been produced by a higher intelligence, a designer. After examining the matter fairly, they have accepted that even in our scientific age, it is reasonable to agree with the Biblical poet who long ago said about God: “For with you is the source of life.”—Psalm 36:9.

a reply to: whereislogic

Progress not perfection, Obviously it doesn't "Solve" but they are clues. To quote Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes

" when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"

a reply to: SLAYER69
What progress are you referring to in origin of life studies? In 2008, Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz stated that over the last 50 years, “no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction.” (How Life Began​—Evolution’s Three Geneses, by Alexandre Meinesz, translated by Daniel Simberloff, 2008, pp. 30-33, 45.)

And it's even worse regarding the requirement for the spontaneous appearance of life anywhere else from nothing but a molecular soup (the main storyline for life originating on its own, as I described this idea in my previous comment), a requirement for the directed panspermia storyline. Requiring alien or extraterrestrial lifeforms that are then conveniently assumed to have spontaneously appeared elsewhere in the universe, or originated on their own (even though it's left out of the storyline, most people into these kind of stories will assume as such, that's why some people talk about things like the Drake equation and how supposedly because the universe is so vast, there must be numerous different lifeforms out there).

The argument of induction regarding an intelligent Creator as a causal explanation for the phenomenon we call life (and its machinery, technology and information processing abilities as well as the regulating code in the genome itself) still stands unchallenged (in any kind of proper scientific manner).

“Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
...
Rule IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, 'till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions,

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.”

“As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.”
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

The Encyclopaedia Britannica on inductive reasoning:

"When a person uses a number of established facts to draw a general conclusion, he uses inductive reasoning. THIS IS THE KIND OF LOGIC NORMALLY USED IN THE SCIENCES. ..."

originally posted by: SLAYER69
a reply to: whereislogic

To quote Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes

" when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"

In the comment at the top of this page I quoted Professor J. D. Bernal regarding the following:

If advanced science cannot prove that life could arise by itself, why do some scientists continue to hold to such theories? A few decades ago, Professor J. D. Bernal offered some insight in the book The Origin of Life: “By applying the strict canons of scientific method to this subject [the spontaneous generation of life], it is possible to demonstrate effectively at several places in the story, how life could not have arisen [by itself]; the improbabilities are too great, the chances of the emergence of life too small.”

Of course he's talking about life arising by itself even though he doesn't spell it out there. So basically he's acknowledging there that 'By applying the strict canons of scientific method to this subject [the spontaneous generation of life], it is possible to demonstrate effectively at several places in the story, how impossible it is for life to have arisen by itself' (by chance, by accident, by biochemical predestination, by necessity dictated by the forces of nature exclusively, however you want to phrase it or whichever version of the naturalistic storyline you wanna look at).

You can get an effective demonstration of what Professor J.D. Bernal is talking about in this presentation for example:

You can skip the first 8 minutes.

When Charles Darwin advanced his theory of evolution he conceded that life may have been “originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one.”⁠ (The Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin, Mentor edition, 1958, p. 450.) But present-day evolutionary theory generally eliminates any mention of a Creator. Instead, the theory of the spontaneous generation of life, once repudiated, has been revived in a somewhat altered form.

Belief in a form of spontaneous generation can be traced back for centuries. In the 17th century C.E., even respected men of science, including Francis Bacon and William Harvey, accepted the theory. However, by the 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen spontaneously from nonliving matter.

Spare me the attempts of separating the topic of abiogenesis or the origin of life from evolutionary theory, or evolutionary philosophies/ideas and storylines, beliefs, imaginations and myths. Cause the connection is pretty obvious. For example, a current evolutionary position on life’s starting point is summarized in his book, The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins. He speculates that in the beginning, Earth had an atmosphere composed of carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia and water. Through energy supplied by sunlight, and perhaps by lightning and exploding volcanoes, these simple compounds were broken apart and then they re-formed into amino acids. A variety of these gradually accumulated in the sea and combined into proteinlike compounds. Ultimately, he says, the ocean became an “organic soup,” but still lifeless.

Then, according to Dawkins’ description, “a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident”​—a molecule that had the ability to reproduce itself. Though admitting that such an accident was exceedingly improbable, he maintains that it must nevertheless have happened. Similar molecules clustered together, and then, again by an exceedingly improbable accident, they wrapped a protective barrier of other protein molecules around themselves as a membrane. Thus, it is claimed, the first living cell generated itself. (The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins, 1976, p. 16.)

At this point a reader may begin to understand Dawkins’ comment in the preface to his book: “This book should be read almost as though it were science fiction.” (p. ix.) But readers on the subject will find that his approach is not unique. Most other books on evolution also skim over the staggering problem of explaining the emergence of life from nonliving matter. Thus Professor William Thorpe of the zoology department of Cambridge University told fellow scientists: “All the facile speculations and discussions published during the last ten to fifteen years explaining the mode of origin of life have been shown to be far too simple-minded and to bear very little weight. The problem in fact seems as far from solution as it ever was.” (The Neck of the Giraffe, by Francis Hitching, 1982, p. 68.)

The recent explosive increase of knowledge has only served to magnify the gulf between nonliving and living things. Even the oldest known single-celled organisms have been found to be incomprehensibly complex. “The problem for biology is to reach a simple beginning,” say astronomers Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe. “Fossil residues of ancient life-forms discovered in the rocks do not reveal a simple beginning. . . . so the evolutionary theory lacks a proper foundation.” (Evolution From Space, by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, 1981, p. 8.) And as information increases, the harder it becomes to explain how microscopic forms of life that are so incredibly complex could have arisen by chance.

The principal steps en route to the origin of life, as envisioned by evolutionary theory, are (1) the existence of the right primitive atmosphere and (2) a concentration in the oceans of an organic soup of “simple” molecules necessary for life. (3) From these come proteins and nucleotides (complex chemical compounds) that (4) combine and acquire a membrane, and thereafter (5) they develop a genetic code and start making copies of themselves. Are these steps in accord with the available facts?

In 1953 Stanley Miller passed an electric spark through an “atmosphere” of hydrogen, methane, ammonia and water vapor. This produced some of the many amino acids that exist and that are the building blocks of proteins. However, he got just 4 of the 20 amino acids needed for life to exist. More than 30 years later, scientists were still unable experimentally to produce all the 20 necessary amino acids under conditions that could be considered plausible.

Miller assumed that earth’s primitive atmosphere was similar to the one in his experimental flask. Why? Because, as he and a co-worker later said: “The synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing [no free oxygen in the atmosphere] conditions.” (The Origins of Life on the Earth, by Stanley L. Miller and Leslie E. Orgel, 1974, p. 33.) Yet other evolutionists theorize that oxygen was present. The dilemma this creates for evolution is expressed by Hitching: “With oxygen in the air, the first amino acid would never have got started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays.” (The Neck of the Giraffe, p. 65.)

How likely is it that the amino acids thought to have formed in the atmosphere would drift down and form an “organic soup” in the oceans? Not likely at all. The same energy that would split the simple compounds in the atmosphere would even more quickly decompose any complex amino acids that formed. Interestingly, in his experiment of passing an electric spark through an “atmosphere,” Miller saved the four amino acids he got only because he removed them from the area of the spark. Had he left them there, the spark would have decomposed them.

However, if it is assumed that amino acids somehow reached the oceans and were protected from the destructive ultraviolet radiation in the atmosphere, what then? Hitching explained: “Beneath the surface of the water there would not be enough energy to activate further chemical reactions; water in any case inhibits the growth of more complex molecules.”⁠

So once amino acids are in the water, they must get out of it if they are to form larger molecules and evolve toward becoming proteins useful for the formation of life. But once they get out of the water, they are in the destructive ultraviolet light again! “In other words,” Hitching says, “the theoretical chances of getting through even this first and relatively easy stage [getting amino acids] in the evolution of life are forbidding.”

Although it commonly is asserted that life spontaneously arose in the oceans, bodies of water simply are not conducive to the necessary chemistry. Chemist Richard Dickerson explains: “It is therefore hard to see how polymerization [linking together smaller molecules to form bigger ones] could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the primitive ocean, since the presence of water favors depolymerization [breaking up big molecules into simpler ones] rather than polymerization.” Scientific American, “Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life,” by Richard E. Dickerson, September 1978, p. 75.

Biochemist George Wald agrees with this view, stating: “Spontaneous dissolution is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis.” This means there would be no accumulation of organic soup! Wald believes this to be “the most stubborn problem that confronts us [evolutionists].” (Scientific American, “The Origin of Life,” by George Wald, August 1954, pp. 49, 50.

There is, however, another stubborn problem that confronts evolutionary theory. Remember, there are over 100 amino acids, but only 20 are needed for life’s proteins. Moreover, they come in two shapes: Some of the molecules are “right-handed” and others are “left-handed.” Should they be formed at random, as in a theoretical organic soup, it is most likely that half would be right-handed and half left-handed. And there is no known reason why either shape should be preferred in living things. Yet, of the 20 amino acids used in producing life’s proteins, all are left-handed!

How is it that, at random, only the specifically required kinds would be united in the soup? Physicist J. D. Bernal acknowledges: “It must be admitted that the explanation . . . still remains one of the most difficult parts of the structural aspects of life to explain.” He concluded: “We may never be able to explain it.”⁠ (The Origin of Life, by John D. Bernal, 1967, p. 144.)

What chance is there that the correct amino acids would come together to form a protein molecule? It could be likened to having a big, thoroughly mixed pile containing equal numbers of red beans and white beans. There are also over 100 different varieties of beans. Now, if you plunged a scoop into this pile, what do you think you would get? To get the beans that represent the basic components of a protein, you would have to scoop up only red ones​—no white ones at all! Also, your scoop must contain only 20 varieties of the red beans, and each one must be in a specific, preassigned place in the scoop. In the world of protein, a single mistake in any one of these requirements would cause the protein that is produced to fail to function properly. Would any amount of stirring and scooping in our hypothetical bean pile have given the right combination? No. Then how would it have been possible in the hypothetical organic soup?

Some proteins serve as structural materials and others as enzymes. The latter speed up needed chemical reactions in the cell. Without such help, the cell would die. Not just a few, but thousands of proteins serving as enzymes are needed for the cell’s activity. Regarding the chances of obtaining all of these at random, Fred Hoyle after coming up with one chance in 10^40,000, asserts: “An outrageously small probability, that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.” He adds: “If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated [spontaneously] on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court.”⁠ (Evolution From Space, p. 24.)

However, the chances actually are far fewer than this “outrageously small” figure indicates. There must be a membrane enclosing the cell. But this membrane is extremely complex, made up of protein, sugar and fat molecules. As evolutionist Leslie Orgel writes: “Modern cell membranes include channels and pumps which specifically control the influx and efflux of nutrients, waste products, metal ions and so on. These specialised channels involve highly specific proteins, molecules that could not have been present at the very beginning of the evolution of life.”⁠ (New Scientist, “Darwinism at the Very Beginning of Life,” by Leslie Orgel, April 15, 1982, p. 151.)

More difficult to obtain than these are nucleotides, the structural units of DNA, which bears the genetic code. Five histones are involved in DNA (histones are thought to be involved in governing the activity of genes). The chance of forming even the simplest of these histones is said to be one in 20^100​—another huge number “larger than the total of all the atoms in all the stars and galaxies visible in the largest astronomical telescopes.” (Evolution From Space, p. 27.)

Yet greater difficulties for evolutionary theory involve the origin of the complete genetic code​—a requirement for cell reproduction. The old puzzle of ‘the chicken or the egg’ rears its head relative to proteins and DNA. Hitching says: “Proteins depend on DNA for their formation. But DNA cannot form without pre-existing protein.”⁠ (The Neck of the Giraffe, p. 66.) This leaves the paradox Dickerson raises: “Which came first,” the protein or the DNA? He asserts: “The answer must be, ‘They developed in parallel.’”⁠ (Scientific American, September 1978, p. 73.) In effect, he is saying that ‘the chicken’ and ‘the egg’ must have evolved simultaneously, neither one coming from the other. Does this strike you as reasonable? A science writer sums it up: “The origin of the genetic code poses a massive chicken-and-egg problem that remains, at present, completely scrambled.”⁠ (The Sciences, “The Creationist Revival,” by Joel Gurin, April 1981, p. 17.) Researcher Hubert P. Yockey, who supports the teaching of evolution, goes further. He says: “It is impossible that the origin of life was ‘proteins first.’”

Chemist Dickerson also made this interesting comment: “The evolution of the genetic machinery is the step for which there are no laboratory models; hence one can speculate endlessly, unfettered by inconvenient facts.” (Scientific American, September 1978, p. 85.) Nothing noteworthy has changed since then as adequately explained in the James Tour video. But is it good scientific procedure to brush aside the avalanches of “inconvenient facts” so easily? Leslie Orgel calls the existence of the genetic code “the most baffling aspect of the problem of the origins of life.” ( New Scientist, April 15, 1982, p. 151.) And Francis Crick concluded: “In spite of the genetic code being almost universal, the mechanism necessary to embody it is far too complex to have arisen in one blow.” (Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, by Francis Crick, 1981, p. 71.)

Evolutionary theory attempts to eliminate the need for the impossible to be accomplished “in one blow” by espousing a step-by-step process by which natural selection could do its work gradually. However, without the genetic code to begin reproduction, there can be no material for natural selection to select.

When confronted with the astronomical odds against a living cell forming by chance, some evolutionists feel forced to back away. For example, the authors of Evolution From Space (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe) give up, saying: “These issues are too complex to set numbers to.” They add: “There is no way . . . in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup, as we ourselves hoped might be possible a year or two ago. The numbers we calculated above are essentially just as unfaceable for a universal soup as for a terrestrial one.” (pp. 30, 31.)

Hence, after acknowledging that intelligence must somehow have been involved in bringing life into existence, the authors continue: “Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.”⁠ (p. 130.)

Thus an observer might conclude that a “psychological” barrier is the only plausible explanation as to why most evolutionists cling to a chance origin for life and reject any “design or purpose or directedness,”⁠ as Dawkins expressed it. (The Selfish Gene, p. 14.) Indeed, even Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, after acknowledging the need for intelligence, say that they do not believe a personal Creator is responsible for the origin of life. (Evolution From Space, p. 31.) In their thinking, intelligence is mandatory, but a Creator is unacceptable. Do you find that contradictory?

If stories and speculations of a spontaneous beginning for life are to be accepted as “science” or “scientific” research or investigation (as they are presented in so-called “scientific” literature), they should be established by the scientific method. This has been described as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled.

In an attempt to apply the scientific method, it has not been possible to observe the spontaneous generation of life. There is no evidence that it is happening now, and of course no human observer was around when evolutionists say it was happening. No theory concerning it has been verified by observation. Laboratory experiments have failed to repeat it. Predictions based on the theory have not been fulfilled. With such an inability to apply the scientific method, is it honest to elevate such fancy storytelling to the level of “science” or earn one's living with it under that marketing banner?

On the other hand, there is ample evidence to support the conclusion that the spontaneous generation of life from nonliving matter is not possible. “One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task,” Professor Wald of Harvard University acknowledges, “to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible.” But what does this proponent of evolution actually believe? He answers: “Yet here we are​—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.”⁠ Does that sound like objective science? Or perhaps a bit circular? (Scientific American, August 1954, p. 46.)

British biologist Joseph Henry Woodger characterized such reasoning as “simple dogmatism​—asserting that what you want to believe did in fact happen.”⁠ (The Immense Journey, by Loren Eiseley, 1957, p. 200.) How have scientists come to accept in their own minds this apparent violation of the scientific method? The well-known evolutionist Loren Eiseley conceded: “After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.” (p. 199.)

Based on the evidence, the spontaneous generation of life theory appears better to fit the realm of science fiction than scientific fact. Many supporters apparently have forsaken the scientific method in such matters in order to believe what they want to believe. In spite of the overwhelming odds against life originating by chance, unyielding dogmatism prevails rather than the caution normally signaled by the scientific method.

Not all scientists, however, have closed the door on the alternative. For example, physicist H. S. Lipson, realizing the odds against a spontaneous origin for life, said: “The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” He further observed that after Darwin’s book, The Origin of Species, “evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it.”⁠ A sad but true commentary. (Physics Bulletin, “A Physicist Looks at Evolution,” by H. S. Lipson, 1980, Vol. 31, p. 138.)

Chandra Wickramasinghe, professor at University College, Cardiff, said: “From my earliest training as a scientist I was very strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be very painfully shed. I am quite uncomfortable in the situation, the state of mind I now find myself in. But there is no logical way out of it. . . . For life to have been a chemical accident on earth is like looking for a particular grain of sand on all the beaches in all the planets in the universe​—and finding it.” In other words, it is just not possible that life could have originated from a chemical accident. So Wickramasinghe concludes: “There is no other way in which we can understand the precise ordering of the chemicals of life except to invoke the creations on a cosmic scale.”⁠ (Daily Express, London, “There Must Be a God,” by Geoffrey Levy, August 14, 1981, p. 28.

Evolutionists past and present comment on the origin of life (and recap of my 3 comments):

“The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith.”​—Mathematician J. W. N. Sullivan⁠ (The Limitations of Science, 1933, p. 95.)

“The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop.”​—Biologist Edwin Conklin⁠ (Reader’s Digest, January 1963, p. 92.)

“One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible.”​—Biochemist George Wald⁠ (Scientific American, August 1954, p. 46.)

“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.”​—Biologist Francis Crick⁠ (Life Itself, p. 88.)

“If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated [spontaneously] on the Earth, this simple calculation [the mathematical odds against it] wipes the idea entirely out of court.”​—Astronomers Fred Hoyle and N. C. Wickramasinghe⁠ (Evolution From Space, p. 24.)

I think Fred Hoyle and N.C. Wickramasinghe are arguing for panspermia rather than directed panspermia (or at least promoting it and selling books about it, making money with it).

originally posted by: whereislogic
...
Miller assumed that earth’s primitive atmosphere was similar to the one in his experimental flask. Why? Because, as he and a co-worker later said: “The synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing [no free oxygen in the atmosphere] conditions.” (The Origins of Life on the Earth, by Stanley L. Miller and Leslie E. Orgel, 1974, p. 33.) Yet other evolutionists theorize that oxygen was present. The dilemma this creates for evolution is expressed by Hitching: “With oxygen in the air, the first amino acid would never have got started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays.” (The Neck of the Giraffe, p. 65.)

And you've got the exact same problem for the storyline of the spontaneous or 'accidental'* generation of life on any other planet or place in the univere. (*: see quotations from Richard Dawkins earlier) As mentioned earlier concerning (directed) panspermia:

Saying that life comes from outer space, notes science writer Boyce Rensberger, “merely changes the location of the mystery.” It does not explain the origin of life. It merely sidesteps the issue by relocating the origin to another solar system or galaxy. The real issue remains.

That includes the issue or problem for the story as described in my first quotation detailing the oxygen and cosmic rays dilemma. One of those things that demonstrate this particular storyline of life emerging on its own to be impossible (no matter where in the universe, still a reuirement for directed panspermia as explained earlier, even when it's conveniently left out of the storyline or sidestepped as described above). Taking us back to SLAYER69's quotation of Sherlock Holmes and my quotation of J.D. Bernal in response to his comment concerning what can be effectively demonstrated regarding this story about spontaneous or accidental generation of life/abiogenesis/life emerging from inanimate matter by itself, by chance, by accident (as for example described under the so-called "chemical evolution theory of life"; showing that this too is considered to be "evolution" by its proponents, see for example the quotation further below by Professor René Dubos and how he uses the term "evolutionary processes").

The word "by" indicates that it is followed by a proposed cause or causal factor. This proposed cause though just doesn't work as an explanation or conclusion that is both true and sufficient to explain the emergence of life or origin of life. It has been well demonstrated to be “impossible” (J.D. Bernal) that it happened by chance, “by accident” (Richard Dawkins). That's just not going to stop the marketing campaign for evolutionary philosophies (including the chemical evolution theory of life) or those wanting to make an easy living publishing pseudoscience as science or under the marketinglabel “science” though.

From its beginning, notes the book Milestones of History, the evolution theory “appealed to many people because it seemed more truly scientific than the theory of special creations.”

Moreover, the dogmatic statements of some evolutionists can be intimidating. For example, scientist H. S. Shelton asserts that the concept of special creation is “too foolish for serious consideration.” Biologist Richard Dawkins bluntly states: “If you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane.” Similarly, Professor René Dubos says: “Most enlightened persons now accept as a fact that everything in the cosmos​—from heavenly bodies to human beings—​has developed and continues to develop through evolutionary processes.”

From these statements it would seem that anyone with a measure of intelligence would readily accept evolution. After all, to do so would mean that one is “enlightened” rather than “stupid.” Yet, there are highly educated men and women who do not advocate the theory of evolution. “I found many scientists with private doubts,” writes Francis Hitching in his book The Neck of the Giraffe, “and a handful who went so far as to say that Darwinian evolutionary theory had turned out not to be a scientific theory at all.”

Chandra Wickramasinghe, a highly acclaimed British scientist, takes a similar position. “There’s no evidence for any of the basic tenets of Darwinian evolution,” he says. “It was a social force that took over the world in 1860, and I think it has been a disaster for science ever since.”

T. H. Janabi investigated the arguments put forth by evolutionists. “I found that the situation is quite different from that which we are led to believe,” he says. “The evidence is too scarce and too fragmented to support such a complex theory as that of the origin of life.”

Thus, those who object to the evolution theory should not simply be brushed aside as “ignorant, stupid or insane.” Regarding opinions that challenge evolution, even the staunch evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson had to admit: “It would certainly be a mistake merely to dismiss these views with a smile or to ridicule them. Their proponents were (and are) profound and able students.”