“As the accidental evolutionist theory has been expanding over the last 100 years, it has been merged with ‘big bang’ and ‘primordial soup’ theories. Combined these ancillary theories, the accidental evolution theory now states that following the big bang, life spontaneously arose from chemicals. What is curious is that these chemicals somehow supposedly developed the desire to survive. Have we ever observed any lifeless chemicals develop a desire to survive? Have we ever seen chemicals doing anything but predictably reacting to each other?

In other words, the accidental evolution theory says that out of lifeless chemicals single-celled living creatures have arisen, miraculously displaying a desire to survive. A desire to survive means having a need to improve survival factors and eliminate threats to survival. The need to improve survival means there is an intention to survive, and a value is put onto survival. Eliminating the threats to survival means survival is valued enough to put an effort into changing, adapting to, or destroying potential encroachments and dangers that could shorten life. These factors compound the problem presented: how could lifeless chemicals develop the ability to even recognize life, let alone value life enough to take persistent action to sustain it.”

“Accidental evolution would require not only living chemicals somehow distinguishing themselves from dead chemicals, but also chemicals desiring to lengthen the lives of their descendent chemical combinations. What mechanism gave such living chemicals the impetus to increase the chances of their descendants’ survival? The implication of this is that not only will a batch of chemicals struggle to survive and avoid death, but that they will also adapt in ways that won’t necessarily help them survive any better, but will help their descendants. What gave these chemicals the ability to calculate structural changes to improve the chances of survival for future species?

Accidental evolutionists seem to insist that through a desire to survive and adapt to environmental challenges, and passed on such a developed mechanism to offspring. While it may seem speculatively reasonable to consider this, there is still a gaping hole: where did such a mechanism—of adapting and passing genetic improvements to future generations—arise from? What incentive do lifeless chemicals have to code this ability into the genetic structure?

The only answer accidental evolutionists seem to give us to these questions is that this all must have been a random accident. It should not have happened, but accidentally did, they claim. This is seemingly the accidental evolutionists’ only answer to all the real puzzles of existence: it was an accident that should not have happened.

The assumption that accidental evolutionists seem to make is that each event, from the initial combination of chemicals to each genetic variation, took millions if not billions of years to occur. With this much time at their disposal, all sorts of accidental variations could supposedly happen. They claim that from all the variations that did take place, the ones which extended or improved life were retained because those variations survived. The other accidental variations didn’t work, so those species must have died off. The other variations felt to the wayside as the weaker creatures got killed off. This part of the theory is called ‘survival of the fittest’. Improved variations were supposedly selected through ‘natural selection’.”

“Why would a lifeless or previously lifeless bag of chemicals decide it was important that future generations even exist, let alone improve their chances of survival? While we might quickly assume that living organisms would want to produce offspring with grater chances of survival, there is no rational reason for this desire. Why would a selfishly motivated newly living organism care about a future generation? First accidental evolutionists make a huge leap assuming that life somehow spontaneously generated from chemicals. Then they make a huge leap that these newly living chemicals somehow preferred survival and pain as opposed to a painless existence of nonlife. Then they make another huge leap by assuming that these newly living chemicals could and would want to dilute their strength to produce offspring that require only trouble and work to maintain. They against all odds, evolution theory proponents take the leap in assuming that these newly living chemicals somehow created an ‘unselfish gene’ that somehow passed on improvements for the future survival of future generations who do nothing for that newly living chemical itself. All of this was done by newly living chemicals that not much different in substance from their dead chemical cousins? The only answer accidental evolutionists seem to give us to these questions is that this all must have been a series of random accidents.”

— C.W. Adams (2008), The Science of Truth (Ѻ)