Where did it all begin?

When considering the origins of life and the universe there are two options.

Either it has always existed in one form or another, or it had a beginning. If the Universe has always existed, then considering it's origin is pointless. However, if the Universe and thus life had a beginning then we have two more options. Either the cause was simply a random series of natural events or there was an outside intelligence which contributed to or caused the origin of life. This in turn poses one final question. If there was indeed an external intelligence which contributed design to the origin of the Universe and life, then is there evidence of that design within life itself?

Has the Universe always existed? - Is the Universe infinitely Old?
There are several strong arguments why the Universe cannot be infinitely old, and thus had to have a beginning, here are two.

1. The Universe is expanding. If the Universe is expanding, then there must have been a point in time when the Universe was so small it did not in fact exist. N.A.S.A. states here that "Ever since the days of astronomer Edwin Hubble's ground-based telescope observations, we have known that the Universe is expanding, and that there must have been a "Big Bang" where the expansion all started."

2. The Universe is not in thermodynamic equilibrium. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a natural law of Physics, meaning nature cannot defy this law, just like Gravity. Sometimes called the Law of Entropy, in simple terms, it is an expression of the fact that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and density tend to even out. For Example a cup of hot coffee sitting on a cold coffee table. The heat from the coffee will transfer to the cup and in turn will cause the table to heat a little. Eventually the coffee, cup and table will be a uniform temperature. Since there is variance in the temperatures in the universe (not thermodynamic equilibrium) then the Universe cannot be infinitely old. If it is not infinitely old then the universe had a beginning.

In opposition to the naturalistic neo-Darwinist Theory of Evolution is the theory of Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design Theory aims to prove that the Universe and the life in it are simply too complex to have originated without some external Intelligence offering some Design.

Could life have originated on its own?
It was once believed that life could come from non-life. Spontaneous generation or abiogenesis is the hypothesis that non-living things are capable of producing life. However, several experiments have been conducted which disprove spontaneous generation. These include experiments by Francesco Redi, Lazzaro Spallanzani, and Louis Pasteur. The process of pasteurization which aims to achieve a "log reduction" in the number of viable organisms, reducing their number so they are unlikely to cause disease is named after Louis Pasteur. This process is close to the method he used to prove that life did not arise from non-life.

What about Chemical Evolution?
Chemical evolution or chemosynthesis is as a hypothesis to explain how life might possibly have developed from non-life. Various experiments have been made to show certain aspects of this process, the first ones were done by Stanley L. Miller in the 1950s. For that they are now called Miller experiments. However only very basic organic building blocks were obtained. Only 13 of the 22 amino acids required for life were formed. Even these limited results cannot be used as evidence that non living chemicals can produce life via evolution. Miller's experiment was very intelligently designed and controlled, it was not a random, natural event. The hypothesis of a 'primordial soup' suggests that chemosynthesis occurred in the oceans of prehistoric earth, which in turn led to the evolution of more complex life forms. This hypothesis can be discounted for several reasons.

• Amino acids do not concentrate in the ocean. They disperse.
• Amino acids would be grossly contaminated with other chemicals that would stop them forming proteins.
• And even pure amino acids (made by intelligent organic chemists) will not form proteins under natural conditions. Rather, the reverse happens—proteins break down into amino acids.
• Miller’s amino acids were an equal amount of ‘right-handed’ and ‘left-handed’ amino acids. Living things use exclusively left-handed ones.
• Even if pure left-handed amino acids could link up, it could not be in the right order. In living things, this is coded in the DNA and read by complex machinery—requiring already-existing proteins!
• DNA and its building blocks, called nucleotides, do not form spontaneously either.

Can a designed system be recognized as such?
The ability to recognize design is a common part of life. There are whole fields of study which rely on this fact including; forensics, archeology, cryptography, linguistics etc.

"Intelligent design is a theory for making sense of intelligent causes. As such, intelligent design formalizes and makes precise something we do all the time. All of us are all the time engaged in a form of rational activity that, without being tendentious, can be described as inferring design. Inferring design is a common and well-accepted human activity...There is no magic, no vitalism, no appeal to occult forces. Inferring design is common, rational and objectifiable."
- William Dembski

All good scientific theories must be testable, 'theories' that cannot be tested are merely speculation. When testing for design, three things need to be observed as true.
Contingency: Which measures “dependence.” If an object, event or structure is considered contingent, that means they are compatible with underlying natural laws, but not required by them.
afdfiuhwer;ouiy
The above random text is an example of contingency. The text is viewed with a computer screen, but a computer screen does not require the text to function.
Complexity: Which measures the "amount" of information included in an object, event or structure.
afdfiuhwer;ouiy
The same random text is also an example of complexity. The text is complex in the sense that the letters each form a recognizable pattern.
Specification: Which measures the "purpose" or "meaning" of the information.
afdfiuhwer;ouiy
A closer look at the same random text will also reveal an example of specification. The highlighted letters have produced a specified piece of information, the word “we”, but without the context of other words, it is meaningless non complex information. The individual letters still have a complex pattern, but no complex meaning.
This text here is an example.
The above text satisfies all three criteria for design. It is contingent, it is complex, and it has a specific meaning. It constitutes specified complexity.

What is Irreducible Complexity?
Irreducible Complexity is the theory that some systems and objects cannot be any more simple and still function. A mouse-trap in an example of an Irreducibly Complex system. Having a base, spring, hammer, catch, and trigger a mouse trap missing 1 of these 5 pieces does not catch 1/5 less mice but rather does not function at all. A system which is Irreducibly Complex could not have evolved piece by piece, as redundant parts of the system would not have been kept under neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory. Rather, Irreducible Complexity constitutes specified complexity and as such is evidence for design.

Is there Irreducible Complexity in nature?
There are many examples of irreducibly complex systems in natural or biological systems. The eye, the blood clotting mechanism and the bacterial flagellum are all irreducibly complex. The flagellum has parts referred to as the propeller (or filament), rotor, drive shaft (or rod), bushing, universal joint (or hook), etc. These are obviously names from mechanical devices, but they are not used simply because they are convenient analogies. These components are precise biological versions of their human-designed mechanical versions. In fact they are more efficient and precise than anything we could design. Nor could these cells be simply formed from existing “parts” from other cells. Each cell has a unique structure, precisely intended for particular functions, even those that have a few parts common to other cell types. Some neo-Darwinists challenge the Irreducible Complexity of the flagellum saying that "The final evolution of the flagellum might then have involved only the novel recombination of sophisticated parts that initially evolved for other purposes." However, nly about 10 of the 40 components can be explained by co-option, but the other 30 are brand new. Also, suggesting the flagellum could have evolved into the right sequence is like claiming that if the components of an electric motor already exist in an electrical shop, given enough time, they could assemble by themselves into a working motor. However, the right organization is just as important as the right components.

The Universe is NOT infinitely old.
Thus the Universe had a beginning.
Random Events could NOT have produced life from non life.
Thus there must have been external intelligence involved.
Within nature there IS evidence of contingent systems of specified complexity. Thus life was designed.

Where did it all begin?
With an Intelligent Design, in the mind of an intelligent Creator.