Does Life's origin have NOTHING to do with evolution?

A popular science - oriented magazine claims that "microscopic life" (i.e. bacteria, algae, etc.) ... (not only) "paved the way for all later organisms" ... but (in their opinion) also ... "developed" (or made their own) "DNA and proteins" .... and then, after programming their own genetic codes, "They devised" (or Created) "ways of harnessing sunlight to produce" their own "food" ... and apparently also thought up and even made up or "invented sex" ... or so the story goes ...1

In other words, many atheists, and/or neo-atheists think and believe that little tiny bacteria -- that came about by a miracle -- are both our ancestors and our Makers: along with dead matter, Time and chance.2

These people would have us all believe that how Life came about has "nothing" to do with how they suppose or believe that it also -- over millions of years -- changed form and  "mutated" into all the life-forms that we see today: including humans.  

Such a belief not only assumes that one life-form came from another, but that the Creator / Originator simply stepped aside and let nature, amoebas, and random mistakes play the starring role in Creation: and that it all happened by mistakes that supposedly accumulated ...  over millions of years to become eyes, arms, legs, hearts, lungs, sex organs and thus how all (other) life forms came about. 

The "science priests" would have us all believe that we are simply the result of a series of accidents that made all sorts of complex internal organs and microscopic machines.  And in so doing, they have made time and nature into a religion and the first self-replicating bacteria into little tiny gods, and, in essence, believe that the One who got the process going simply stepped aside and let the amoebas take over.  

This is because they don't know, nor can they explain how Life could have started itself, nor where the information in our DNA -- that's used to make RNA,  more DNA, and proteins -- came from.  

In other words, they don't want the Creator to get any more credit for Creation than they think is absolutely necessary.  So they assert that once the first self-replicating organisms got going, the Creation of all other life-forms was the result of time, chance, and the accumulation of accidents -- by the miracle power of time, chance, and natural selection. 

Creationists reject such claims and point out that there is no logical reason to suppose that the Creator stepped aside.  For example, in a book called Signature in the Cell, Dr. Stephen Meyer points out that "natural selection" can only "select" what nature's mistakes can produce: and that this process is, or would be, blind to any partially developed structures that convey no immediate advantage -- meaning that it would NOT be able to "select," nor preserve partially developed things (in little tiny stages) until they became operational or useful.  One article on this subject states in this regard that:

"In the primitive environment in which amino acids were supposed to have formed protein chains, there would have been nothing to prevent the protein chains from dissociating back into their component amino acids. The protein chains would simply break up under the influence of chemical equilibrium and the law of mass action. This is why the formation of functional proteins from amino acids (the characters of the biological alphabet) is unlike the random typing of letters onto a page. The letters stay where they are put, the amino acids do not, and this fact refutes the idea that the chance formation of a functional protein is inevitable given enough time. It has (also) not been observed to happen experimentally. 3

So to assert, believe or put faith in nature's ability to blindly "select" partial adaptations BEFORE they become functional (in a step-by-step manner) is just that: a belief that is not based on science or observation.  And in this regard, not one new and useful structure has ever been witnessed to form by accident.  In fact, not even ONE protein has ever been observed to form all by itself: apart from being constructed by a pre-existing organism, or by using pre-existing bacterial machinery to to so. 

And since those who make such grandiose assertions were NOT there to witness it, nor how life came about, what they assert is simply their opinion, or religious belief  in nature's ability to create with no need for a Creator: except perhaps to start the initial process, and create a suitable environment for the amoebas to take over.  Such a belief may also be called neo-atheism, evolutionism, or the belief in a god who didn't really make us. 

1. The Rise of  Life on Earth, National Geographic, March 1998, p.60
2. Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA's structure: from: 
3. Chemistry Refutes Chance Origin of Life: Part III, by J. Covey, B.A., MT and A. Millen, M.D., M.P.H  

See also:
The Facts of Life 
Is Water the Solution

Life, DNA, and Proteins  
Which is more Scientific?
Did Life arise by Accident? 
What do the Scriptures say?
Response to comments above 
Is Evolution based on Science
How Life Began  by Thomas F. Heinze 
The Odds of Evolution by Chance -- excerpts from 
A Closer Look at the Evidence
by Richard and Tina Kleiss 
Your Tax Dollars at Work: against Logic, Science, and God 
The Origin of Information by Mark Eastman and Chuck Missler
 How the Laws of Mathematics Disprove the Theory of Evolution  
Why Abiogenesis is Impossible  by Dr. Jerry Bergman 
DNA Demands Creation By Design, by Carl Cantrell 
Are Dinosaur Bones Millions of years Old?
Could Life "Just Happen"?  by Ron Lyttle
The Origin of Life by Eric Blievernicht  
See also: 
Where we discover that Evolution is: 
Chemically,  Biologically and Mathematically Impossible