posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 08:45 AM
If scientists create a cup of prebiotic soup in a lab, what does it prove? It only proves that scientists are capable of creating prebiotic soup.
The theory that life as we know it today originated in a primordial soup would still need salt. The creation or invention of prebiotic soup would not
prove that life originated in something similar many eons ago. It wouldn't even come close. It wouldn't negate the existence of God. And,
especially, it wouldn't prove that men are gods.
Religion wouldn't take even the slightest hit because religion does not rest on proof. Religion rests on faith. If anything, science would sustain
the most devastating blow if men discovered how to create life from scratch. The question would no longer be, "is there a God and did He create
life?" It would be, was life as we know it created by other lifeforms other than ourselves? If we assume "Yes", how did the original lifeforms
come into existence? If we assume "No", then... In other words, science would find itself right back where it is now and asking the same basic
questions of where and how did life originate.
What if life did not originate in this universe? What if life originates elsewhere and that only a fertile universe would attract life? In other
words, how does life originate anywhere? Just because a primordial or prebiotic soup is created does not mean that life could only originate under
those conditions. It also does not mean that life originates in the place and moment it can be observed.
Some might argue that if something cannot be observed it does not exist. Those who would might want to think about that some more.
On the other hand, why would an all powerful God need to create anything? It's the all powerful God! He knows all that is, was, and will ever be.
So, what's the point? Creating things would be profoundly boring exercise. What would be the point of exercise for an all powerful God? It's not
like He would ever show signs of getting weak, slow, or flabby? There would be no need for laps around the track or shadowboxing. He certainly would
not ever have the need to read a book. He knows all of the punchlines, so a humorous God is out of the question. And for that matter, so is an angry
God. Some folks claim to perceive a benevolent God, but that's from their perspective, not God's.
Religion nor science makes sense when attempting to answer the question of the origin of life or the universe. Religion requires no proof but is
happy to adopt anything that strengthens its position in the minds of its followers. Science requires proof but is happy to believe just about
anything that makes most of the puzzles it has discovered fit together. A bit of faith goes a long way towards securing grants and funding for
research, that's for sure.
It would be best if both sides would just plainly admit that they do not know.