I mean if somebody tells me that life was created a certain amount of time ago, some billions and millions and millions and millions of years ago by the combination of chemicals, if they tell me this then I take it for granted that they know what it is that was created. If somebody says that life was created ten thousand million years ago then I take it for granted that they know what they are talking about when they use the word “life.”
They know what they mean when they say something was created. Now, when anybody says anything, if they don’t understand the words in the sentence that they’re using, if they don’t know the meaning of the words they’re using in their sentence, then what meaning does the sentence have? What value does it have? If a person therefore says, “Life was created ten thousand million years ago,” but they don’t have a definition for the word ‘life,’ then what is the value of their sentence? What is the value of it? It’s useless? It’s meaningless.
So the first problem that the materialist has in his attempt to explain the creation of life from chemicals is that he doesn’t know what life is. He can’t define life. So this is the point which unfortunately very few people bring up. There’s a lot of discussion about the mathematical improbabilities of life being created from the chance combination of chemicals. There’s a lot of discussion. Those who are not in agreement with the materialists usually base their arguments on this point: that mathematically it’s extremely improbable that life could be created from matter. It’s improbable that life could be created from matter in only those… that short a period of time or something.
But our point is a little different here. It’s very different. Our point is that there’s absolutely no evidence, number one, that the material scientists even know what life is, what to speak of their being able to claim that it’s been created by matter in the past or that they will create it in their laboratories in the future. And secondly, since there is no evidence whatsoever that life can be or ever has been created from the combination of chemicals, then it’s not correct to say, “It’s improbable that life would ever be so created from chemicals.” It’s not correct to say that. To say that something’s improbable means that it is possible. I can say that it’s improbable for something to happen only if it’s possible for that to happen. But since there’s no evidence, there’s no evidence whatsoever that life is created from chemicals, it’s wrong to say it’s improbable. It has to be said that it’s impossible. There is no evidence that life has ever been created from matter either in the laboratories of the scientists who have all the chemicals in the world at their disposal. They have all the chemicals available, why can’t they create life in their test tubes? Why can’t they create life? They have not created life. There is no evidence anywhere that life comes from matter. So if there’s no evidence that life can come from matter or that life comes from matter then there’s no question of it being improbable. It’s not even possible. There’s no evidence that it’s even possible. There’s no use splitting hairs over whether or not it’s improbable. That it happened in the past by accident.
Jagad Guru Chris Butler - founder of Science of Identity Foundation 
