big bang.
abiogenesis
nope.
edit: false. the first law allows energy to convert from one type to another as long as the total for a closed system remains fixed. the total energy of the universe appears to be zero. cosmologist stephen hawking writes in his , "a brief history of time, "in the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that the negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter." so the total energy of the universe is zero. specifically, within small measurement errors, the mean energy density of the universe is exactly what it should be
for a universe that appeared from an initial state of zero energy, within a small quantum uncertainty. a close balance between positive and negative energy is predicted by the modern extension of the big bang theory called the inflationary big bang, according to which the universe underwent a period of rapid, exponential inflation during a tiny fraction of its first second. the inflationary theory has recently undergone a number of stringent observational tests that would have been sufficient to prove it false. so far, it has successfully passed all these tests. in short, the existence of matter and energy in the universe did not require the violation of energy conservation at the assumed creation. in fact, the data strongly support the hypothesis that no such miracle occurred. if we regard such a miracle as predicted by the creator hypothesis, then that prediction is not confirmed.
physicist anthony aguire has independently examined the
universes that result when six cosmological parameters are simultaneously varied by orders of magnitude, and found he could construct cosmologies in which "stars, planets, and intelligent life can plausibly arise. physicist craig hogan has done another independent analysis that leads to similar conclusions. and, theoretical physicists at Kyoto University in Japan have shown that heavy elements needed for life will be present in even the earliest stars independent of what the exact parameters for star formation may have been. furthermore, in a recent paper, roni harnik, graham kribs, and gilad perez have constructed a universe without any weak nuclear interactions. they find that this universe undergoes big bang nucleosynthesis, matter domination, structure formation, and star formation. stars burn for billions of years, synthesizing elements up to iron and undergoing supernova explosions, dispersing heavy elements into the interstellar medium. chemistry and nuclear physics are essentially unchanged.
this shows that, rather than there being some overarching higher power that is guiding the laws of physics so that the big bang could happen or any other natural process we see in the universel, the universe we see could have been very much as it is today if several of the forces were varied and indeed, as the one study shows, one of those forces were left out of the equation entirely.
the process of abiogenesis is approximately along these lines: simple chemicals>polymers>replicating polymers>hypercycle>protobiont>bacteria. even this is oversimplified for the sake of brevity (especially in the hypercycle/protobiont stage). this is a process of simple chemical reactions that can be replicated in the lab under the right circumstances.
here's where it gets a little harder to understand. RNA ribozymes are self replicating along with several self replicating polymers these molecules, though not strictly speaking alive, actually are able to replicate themselves. of course, RNA and SR polymers are not DNA but:
"Perhaps lipid synthesis, in a precursor form of modern synthesis, could have made the system more independent, the RNA system could have, step by step, "invented" protein synthesis – as mentioned, the modern ribosomes still contain ribozymes (catalytic RNA) that catalyze the formation of peptide bonds which eventually result in proteins – and so on. Finally, complex metabolism could have been achieved and the transition to the modern DNA/(RNA)/protein world. The dualism DNA/protein of course is a source of complexity in itself, one that is lacking in an RNA-only organism.
What about the difficult issue of a genome which holds all genes together? It might have been that in the first primitive cells RNAs were ligated "by accident" step by step, one by one, into forming a genome precursor and that each such step conferred an advantage in natural selection over competitor cells, since genes would not have been lost anymore during cell division, and replication would have been synchronized. Over time, an entire small genome potentially could have organized itself in this manner, until mechanisms for internal expansion, like they are found in modern genomes, could have taken over, e.g. gene duplication and variation of the duplicated gene. Going further, an RNA genome could have been replaced, bit by bit, with a DNA genome."
this is a perfectly naturalistic description of how the simplest of chemicals could have, step by step, formed into DNA and given rise to life. if anyone doubts that DNA can then take care of itself and be "alive" i'd urge you to check out the article in business week i've linked below and have your eyes opened
a short excerpt follows:
Wimmer's experiment was conceptually simple, if technically difficult. His team began with the known genetic sequence of the polio virus, whose code Wimmer read more than two decades ago. Then, with funding from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the scientists synthesized bits of DNA and strung them together into a chain roughly 7,400 molecules long, making a DNA copy of the polio virus' genes. Next, they used a natural enzyme to copy the DNA into RNA--the genetic material used by the virus nature created. Finally, they stuck the RNA into a special sauce filled with chemicals and bits of cellular machinery, such as protein factories called ribosomes. Almost magically, the RNA copied itself and began to make the proteins and other components of the real virus. The result: complete viruses that are just as infectious as their natural counterparts.
end excerpt.
there just isn't any reason to include a god or gods in the process of how life arose on this planet. all of it can be explained completely naturalistically. we may not know exactly how it happened but we're close and there are a few good theories already.