The Creation Wiki is made available by the NW Creation Network
Watch monthly live webcast - Like us on Facebook - Subscribe on YouTube

Pasteur proved life only comes from life (Talk.Origins)

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to: navigation, search
Response Article
This article (Pasteur proved life only comes from life (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.

Claim CB000

Pasteur and other scientists disproved the concept of spontaneous generation and established the "law of biogenesis" -- that life comes only from previous life.

Source: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 38.

CreationWiki responds:

TalkOrigins makes it seem as though Louis Pasteur's answer was much too specific to rule out abiogenesis, the idea that life can arise from non-life, dead stuff. (Talk.Origins quotes in blue)

The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.

The law of biogenesis states that all life comes from life. This law was formulated after repeated observations and experimentation. Talk.Origins claims, on the other hand, that this law doesn't apply in the distant past because conditions on earth were different. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the conditions on the early earth were conducive to producing life, and all attempts to reproduce those conditions in order to create life have failed. In order for the law to be proven false, Talk.Origins needs to produce positive evidence to show it's viability, otherwise all observations continue to support the law of biogenesis and it's applicability to all studies in regard to origins. If there is "no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules," then Talk.Origins must have proof that life can form from increasingly complex molecules. The burden of proof is on those who perpetuate their ideas.

This commentary on Pasteur's work shows how someone can turn a person's findings on its head to advocate their own position. Biblical creationism admits that Deity would have the ability to form life fully formed at will. Since Pasteur's work is limited to the natural world, the world of the adherent of naturalism, that is where it should remain. Statements about the ability of the supernatural cannot be derived from Louis Pasteur's investigations.

There is a resource online which has some of Louis Pasteur's own words on the topic [1]. It would be informative for a person to check out what Louis Pasteur himself concluded.

The author tries to narrow the scope of Pasteur's findings by using the words "fully formed", but the experiments Pasteur did and his findings were never said to be so specific and do highlight that fact that once a place is void of life, life just doesn't start on its own. It has never been observed to happen naturally. If the author is looking for any good examples of real "facts", then that should be one. To say again, life has never been observed to come into being from non-life in nature.

After Redi's and Louis Pasteur's work, amongst others, why should it still be believed that life can start on its own from non-life? Because of the reductionist (a theory that all complex systems can be completely understood in terms of their molecular components) naturalistic agenda of the majority of scientists today. The thinking appears to be this "Life exists, so it must have come about by purely natural means. More information on this can be found at reference [2].

It is funny that on some parts of his website, the author of Talk.Origins says that the formations of life is outside of evolution, so what is the point of him saying anything about it at all? This is just one point that shows that the author is neither unbiased or purely scientific, but simply trying to defend a belief in naturalism.


See also