Every scientific theory has assumptions, and the theory of evolution is no exception to this.  G. A. Kerkut, a British biologist, published a book in 1960 entitled, Implications of Evolution.  It is now a rare book, and finding a copy is a challenge.  According to Phillip Eichman¹, Kerkut lists the following seven assumptions of the theory of evolution:

1. Life arose from nonliving matter (i.e., spontaneous generation occurred).
2. Spontaneous generation only occurred once.
3. Viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are interrelated.
4. Multicellular animals (metazoa) evolved from unicellular or single-celled organisms (protozoa or protists).
5. Various invertebrate phyla are interrelated.
6. Vertebrate animals evolved from invertebrate animals.
7. Vertebrate animals evolved from fish to amphibians, from amphibians to reptiles, from reptiles to birds and mammals, etc.

Spontaneous generation is an ancient belief that was synthesized by Aristotle.  As far as broth spontaneously generating life, Lewis Pasteur disproved this in 1859 ².  However, spontaneous generation is critical for the theory of evolution.  Atheistic evolution demands that it must have happened, for there is no other alternative to sustain the theory.  Even though some prominent evolutionists admit to the extreme improbability of spontaneous generation, they comfort themselves in saying that there were 2 billion years available for this to occur.

The modern theory of spontaneous generation is based on the Miller-Urey experiment conducted in 1952³.  Eichman points out that this experiment rests upon four unproven assumptions⁴.  These are as follows:

1. The composition of the early Earth was different than it is today.
2. The proper kind and amount of energy was present.
3. More product was produced than was broken down by the harsh environment.
4. The same processes that produced simple, organic molecules in a closed experimental apparatus also functioned in the open, uncontrolled system found on the early earth.

Regarding these unproven assumptions, it is assumed that the atmosphere of the early Earth had very little if any oxygen and was made up of water, ammonia, methane, and hydrogen (i.e., the same chemicals that Miller and Urey used in the experiment).  It is clear that the presence of oxygen would have preempted the formation of any organic compounds³.  However, there are no reliable and objective means to determine if this model of the early atmosphere is correct.


The amount and type of energy is also assumed.  Please look carefully at the apparatus.  You will clearly see that Miller and Urey created a trap to collect the organic compounds and to protect them from the hostile atmosphere they hypothesized was present and that they had created in this experiment.  How could they be so certain that such a haven would be available for this purpose on the ancient earth?

Clearly the supposed environment and the spark chamber of their apparatus would surely have destroyed any organic material that would have remained there.  If the environment was that vicious, the organic material formed would have been just as quickly destroyed.

The last assumption regarding the Miller-Urey experiment is impossible to test.

We return now to the assumptions of evolution.  The interrelatedness of all life and the orderly evolution from unicellular organisms to vertebrate animals is also crucial for the theory of evolution.  However, the fossil record cannot adequately reveal invertebrate phyla, and so the orderly evolution prior to vertebrates is impossible to document.  In addition, the orderly evolution of vertebrate animals from fish to amphibians to reptiles to birds and to mammals is simply absent from the fossil record.  If Darwin's theory is true, then we should be able to see clear-cut evidence of this orderly evolution, and the fossil record should be full of transitional forms.  However, the so-called transitional forms that are appealed to by the proponents of evolution are highly debatable, and are miniscule in number.

Therefore, I must conclude that the assumptions of evolution are unreasonable.  The probability of spontaneous generation is so remote and so ridiculous that I cannot entertain it.  To believe that simple organic molecules assembled themselves into bio-organic molecules and then into life itself is simply not credible.  Bring out the spark chamber and demonstrate the creation of real life!  Face the reality of the real fossil record: It does not confirm Darwin's theory of evolution.

As you may recognize in the painting by Caso that he entitled "Escaping Criticism," the boy looks as if he is actually climbing out of the picture to run away.  It is characteristic of the trompe-l'oeil technique (French for "trick the eye") because it causes an optical illusion.  In this same way the atheistic theory of evolution creates an optical illusion.  It seems so real, but when you look at it closely, you realize that your eyes were tricked.