Scientists throughout history have a less-than-stellar track record of accuracy, and cannot be counted on to definitively ascertain the origin of life, claims the author of a brand-new book defending the Christian faith.
In “The Magic Man in the Sky,” Carl Gallups, a supporter of the Bible’s creation account, says there’s a world of difference between someone declaring a momentary truth, and the actual “true truth.”
He recalls some ludicrous ideas once steadfastly believed and promoted by the most intelligent people of their day.
“At one point in history, the brilliant minds of the world declared that the earth was flat,” writes Gallups. “A number of great minds proclaimed that the world was held up at the four corners by giant elephants. This was declared as truth. Others thought the sun revolved around the earth. To believe anything different was considered unscientific, to the point of absurdity.
“For eons, men believed that if one sailed upon the seas long enough, one would reach the end of the world and then tumble over the edge. At one time, all of these concepts were declared as truth, and they were thought to be truth because the enlightened minds and the scientists of their time said so. As we now know, they were not true. In fact, they were not even close to the truth.”
He points out that true truth is always the truth.
Among the major points Gallups makes in “Magic Man” is the long-held belief of life originating from nothingness has never gone away.
“They proclaimed this theory as truth since they had observed the emergence of living organisms (maggots, for example) seemingly out of nowhere from nonliving material. Spontaneous generation was declared as one of the scientific answers concerning the origins of life. This position was solidified by Aristotle and held grip on the scientific world for almost two thousand years.”
He says it wasn’t until the 19th century when Louis Pasteur expanded upon the earlier works of others who had begun research into the matter that spontaneous generation was found to be a scientific impossibility.
“Aristotle’s theory turned out to be little more than sheer superstition. Germ theory and cell theory replaced the disproved spontaneous generation. Now, one would be considered superstitious and/or ignorant if he believed that something living could appear by magic from something that, up until that time, was nonliving. On the other hand, would he really be considered ignorant – today? With no apparent shame, modern-day scientists have dusted off the understanding of spontaneous generation.”
Gallups, a Baptist minister and radio talk-show host, says in the late 1800s, a new, shined-up, respun name was given to spontaneous generation. The revised expression was “abiogenesis.”
“Evolutionists could start over, without the negative press earned by the term’s predecessor,” says Gallups, noting that today, abiogenesis is the foundational cornerstone of origins theory.
“In denial of the need for an intelligent designer, abiogenesis, even after nearly 150 years, is the best that modern science has to offer in the way of explaining the origins and supposed evolution of millions of species of life. Abiogenesis, unbelievably, is still the modern scientific explanation of how life arose from previously nonliving matter. In reality, it is merely the unscientific, ancient, and superstitious idea of spontaneous generation. Even so, evolutionists and atheists, with immense pride, declare it to be – modern truth.”
He goes on to note today’s explanation of abiogenesis attempts to clean up “the untidy little fact of its unempirical nature.”
“Evolution scientists do this by declaring that spontaneous generation of life from nonlife occurred only once, and in only one organism, but eventually diversified (through evolution) from that one organism. In other words, the evolutionist insists that it is a settled truth that all of life, as we now comprehend it, all several million forms, arose from a singular common ancestor. They say this common ancestor arose spontaneously (a proven scientific impossibility) from nonliving matter. This is today’s truth. Something tells me this is not true truth.”
Gallups calls the battle between momentary truth and true truth “a consideration of eternal significance.”