Written by Paul J. Bucknell on December, 19, 2020
The Chicken, Egg, and Goo: A Brief Examination of Evolution’s Fatal Flaw
In the Beginning
I’m sure you heard of the question, “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” The question persists because, while raising curiosity on the world’s origin, each answer retains the possibility of being right; it’s inconclusive. Modern thinking, however, has contributed another item to the question.
The modern version goes, “Which came first, the chicken, egg, or goo?” The question has gone from a puzzling question to an extremely confusing one. Goo, primeval soupy slop, can’t be right, can it? Evolutionists, however, contend goo is the right answer.
The debate between the chicken and egg is difficult, and in some minds, irresolvable. The question, however, is valid. By introducing the other component of goo, however, they create an invalid question. Perhaps, it’s because we know what eggs and chickens are and do but do not know how goo is related to the other items, or at least in the scheme of growth and replication.
Goo is a non-being, a non-living entity, just like a mess in one huge pile. Goo or goop cannot replicate itself, in part or whole—except when we think of dividing it into parts or portions. Did you ever play with mud pies? It’s something like that. The implied replication is imaginary and nothing like that of an egg or chicken. Goo has no DNA code guiding its predictable, consistent growth and development, which preserves its identity and function. Goo has no kids.
Goo is not an entity with function or purpose, nor containing a biotic code carefully directing its operations but a completely unguided blob. Because it’s not a functioning unit, in part or whole; therefore, there is no entity to replicate. The decision between chicken and egg makes sense philosophically and practically. Children understand the boggling question, though perhaps cannot perceive its conclusion.
Which do you believe? The egg makes a lot of sense as we all fully know a fertilized egg can become a fully functional full-sized, egg-laying chicken. Or, if we started with a chicken (ready to lay a fertilized egg, or a chicken and a rooster), we could consider the development of the KFC and Chick-Fillet chain restaurants, using chicken meat as their major draw.
But who was there in the beginning? Who saw whether it was an egg or a chicken? Not one of us. Yes, perhaps we could accept God’s testimony recorded in Genesis 1 that He created fully mature birds, insects, and animals that could replicate themselves. While chicken and egg both lead to plausible insights into how things might have started, goo leads us awry.
Goo steps so far beyond the scheme of the two other items that it invalidates the riddle. Goo is not of like kind. It’s the so-called scientific community that attempts to convince us to believe—not observe—that goo existed in the beginning. True, we need to believe something, but today’s chickens and eggs provide an observatory deck where we can see their replication. Their presence indicates a beginning.
Goo, however, doesn’t serve as a plausible third answer even though the evolutionary community bores us with its attempts. (How many times have you heard them adamantly state that an object is millions of years old?) Though some scientists join in chiming this gooey irrational thinking, goo only leads to goop, a worsening tangle of nothingness. Yes, a mass has no entity of its own, lacking an overall function and design. It can be resized or have a chunk taken out here and there, but one ends up having the same non-entity—resulting in piles of goo. Goo, by definition and description, only shares a similar outward appearance and gooey touch but lacks a true essence and identity to multiply into another functioning entity. Goo, or goop, is merely a mess of mass. It’s a grouping of unrelated, dysfunctional components, quite incomparable to an egg or chicken.
Goo lacks the complexity that we find in self-replicating life entities which God so unequivocally announced in Genesis 1. “God made the animals of the earth according to their kind, and the livestock according to their kind, and everything that crawls on the ground according to its kind” (Genesis 1:25,12).
Why does the scientific community, which is renowned as an educationally-informed institution, want us to believe, unlike the chicken or the egg, that goo can replicate itself into a newly improved identity when it, from the start, lacks any identity. One ought not to call its “growth” development but an embarrassing regrouping of substance. There is nothing to replicate except its existence—which we do not deny.
The chicken and egg question has come a long way, for we now can confirm their intricate and complicated coding, revealing their marvelous biological/chemical designs. Increased scientific knowledge ushers us along a journey of previously hidden sights. Entities, especially self-replicating units, are everywhere enmeshed with complicated designs, both in the individual units and in their integration with other parts or the whole. Cells interrelate and function with other cells, enabling organs to develop, thus providing greater completeness and functionality.
Goo, however, completely lacks design, at least a perfectly clump of unified goo. (We acknowledge microorganisms might hide within the goo itself, but they have their own identity and self-replicating patterns.) We should stop fooling ourselves that goo is smart and that macroevolution is a process by which the undesigned can thrust itself into the designed category.
Some evolutionary scientists are now acknowledging problems with slow evolution, calling for a catastrophic type of evolution—though they are careful not to call it creation. However, we still have no evidence—no observable examples of the exchange of life from non-life, organic from inorganic. Instead, all life boasts of a wise Designer who instills functionality, life, and replication into living entities. The Life-Giver gave life.
Science needs to separate itself from evolutionary concepts; the theory of evolution hinders the honesty that the institution of science calls for. After all, if children can understand the tension in the chicken or egg riddle, why cannot those, brandishing their academic credentials, acknowledge their insight, and dismiss their goo?
The wish of an unimaginably complicated entity from a non-entity is nothing less than what God did when He created the world. The discovery of life’s software (i.e., DNA coding) has undermined all claims to the slow evolving macro-development of living hardware (i.e., bodies, life forms).
Replication is necessarily associated with existence, the presence of a fully-functional entity. Goo lacks all this. Our world would return to rationality if it returned to the previous question tossed about through the centuries, “Which came first? The chicken or the egg?” and drop the goo clause altogether.
1. What is the original riddle that the author brings up? What is your answer, and why?
2. What does goo represent in the modern version of the question?
3. Name the various ways that goo differs from an egg or chicken.
4. How does an egg or chicken represent an entity?
5. How does goo lack this entity?
6. Define entity, replication, functionality, and growth.
7. Do you believe that if evolution does not work on the most simplistic, observational level now, we should reject this theory?
8. How has the discovery of DNA coding affirmed functionality and entity?
Related articles by Paul J. Bucknell
For instance, scientific papers and articles must tote their allegiance to evolutionary theory for approval. I suggest that this counters the persuasive ...
Evolution teaches that man is no different from animals, so there is no God telling us what to do. Professor Watson, one of the leading biologists and science ...
Evolution, which boasts in chance, suggests that design can come from it. The Book of Acts is all about design and purpose. When God plans ...
... living objects about us, is God’s imprint in the world about us. Evolution boasts in chance, but God’s hallmark is design and the designed demands a Designer!
Diseases, Viruses, Warnings, and Remedies. July, 08, 2019. Pain & Pleasure: Reveals the impossibility of pain and pleasure within an evolutionary framework …
They typically adopt the unproven theory of evolution to live their lives without God telling them what to do. Design implies the existence of God.
If God made a person in His own image, then there is a reason for it. God’s purpose for man is intricately connected to his creation and design. We find the same …
The Book of Ecclesiastes: Introduction and Purpose reveals the purpose and design of the Book of Ecclesiastes. The diagram on Ecclesiastes is included. Part of ...
The first ‘for’ described God’s purpose in designing such a salvation. It was to show off God’s glorious grace. How humbling that we are the people He chose to ...