Synthetic Life Folly

Operating from materialistic presuppositions, believers in descent-with-modifications evolution have attempted to create life in various ways. Although the obedient media of the secular science industry trumpets how they proved that life can happen by chance, such claims are false.

In a similar way, people are all atwitter about alleged synthetic life. Since their worldview requires life to begin as simple cells, scientists tried to make their own cells. They pattern their work from cells that already exist. It did not go well.

There is more fake news about scientists creating synthetic life. They tried, but it did not go well. Worse for secularists, they refuted themselves.
Modified from a photograph from PIXNIO
The goal was to make the cells as minimal as possible, so they assumed that certain genes were not essential. Then they found out that those were essential after all (reminiscent of the dreadful assumptions made in the "junk" DNA fiasco). Their final product could not exist in the wild, so to speak. Also, the synthetic cells would have to rely on existing cells for their own survivial. God is still the Creator, despite fake news to the contrary.
Headlines are again buzzing about an apparent creation of “a perfectly self-replicating synthetic cell.” This came from a collaboration between the J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Center for Bits and Atoms. . . .

But the answers to the current claims don’t seem to be much different in principle from what I wrote about a similar synthetic life claim 11 years ago. It took an enormous amount of intelligence to make this cell, and they borrowed a lot of information from already-existing cells.

To read the entire article, see "Yet another synthetic life claim?"

Comments