The primordial soup theory, as a means of explanation of the “way things came to be,” lacks sufficient evidence to be called a theory and as such, would be considered at best conjecture, (mostly bunk), or at worst fantasy (completely bunk).
Number one, the scientists involved with this project aren’t out to prove that we came from soup, they don’t really believe that either, but instead wish to use it as a disproving of the tenets of Christianity and an objection to the first ten words that most Americans that go to a church, or have had a Religion class in school, have read: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1 in most every Bible version)
The theory is riff with errors, both in assumption and in deferrence of evidence, much like the “theory” of global warming, and the ‘theory’ of evolution.
In the primordial soup argument, a whole bunch of chemicals melded together, then heated up, and formed the tenets for proteins, lipids, and other building blocks of life. However, the Second Law of Thermodynamics gets in the way here. Chemicals don’t form other states of solidification by heating, as the ‘theory’ claims, but instead form by ‘cooling’. Magma, for instance, the volatile core of the volcanic system on planet Earth, only forms igneous rock when it cools, but destroys most everything in its path when it initially comes to the surface of the Earth.
Scientific law versus scientific conjecture. Score one for scientific law.
Second, is the realm of logic. I can feel quizzical looks here, “What is being talked about here?” Logic presumes only that in order to reach a truth value, one or more circumstances must be a given. By this, I mean that there has to be something that made all the things that we see now, or in the case of modern man, things we might not have seen, but others once did.
It is fatally flawed, and anthropomorphic, to believe that a soup enacted itself. Anthropomorphism is a projection of human traits upon hopelessly inanimate objects, like a soup. Psychologically speaking, it is a sign of mental weakness. It is more painful for these scientists – more like alchemists – to acknowledge that God must’ve been part of the given in the scheme of Creation of life. Again, I go back to Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”
So the diagram of the sentence in logic terms would look somewhat like this:
God -> (heaven earth) (living things, including man)
Score one for logic.
Third, the primordial soup theory counts on an unlimited time period, usually expressed vainly in “millions” or in some places, “billions of years ago,” for its unprovability, much like the “missing link” theories with regard to evolution, or the “world’s heating up because we did it” blame game of Al Gore’s (global warming), or everything just compacted enough to explode everywhere, (the Big Bang).
Part of human understanding requires that certain ideas be quantified, and in the case of experimentation periods, unlimited is not something we, as humans, can aspire to. Unfortunately, these scientists proclaim that because you or I or someone we know did not witness it, it still could have happened – like the global warming tour of Al Gore. Everywhere he went, it snowed. He even went to Tucson, Arizona, a place not particularly known for its cold temperatures, and it snowed right after he left town.
Finally, there is the jingoist attitude of the ‘scientists’ purporting stuff like the “primordial soup” theory which is like a baseball game where someone’s losing, doesn’t like the result, so he tells all the rest of the players that he’s taking the bat and ball and glove, and going home. The basic tenet is that “You don’t believe what we say, so you’re not a real scientist.” Since when are scientists concerned about religion? When the religion is theirs – and when the majority of people know and learn that we, meaning mankind, and to a larger extent – the earth, the sun, and the solar system, did not evolve from a soup, or a rock, but we were created by a loving and omnipotent God.
I mean, are your relatives in the next can of Campbell’s that you open?
Those who believe the “primordial soup” theory would say… yes.
