Three Problems With Naturalistic Biology (Macro-Evolution)

Three basic problems with macro-evolution as the naturalistic explanation for the existence of the universe, and the life within it, are a.) the teleological dimension of life, b.) the nature of mutations, and c.) the impossibility of spontaneous generation. First, I will address the complexity of life. All forms of life, even down to single cells, contain a complexity that supercedes even the most advanced cities. The probability of a single cell arranging by chance is so astoundingly miniscule that I will accept the theory that an intelligent being created life forms before I will believe that the intricate network of even a single cell came into being purely by falling together-- by happenstance. Secondly, the fact that mutations as man has observed them in the animal kingdom are not favorable, but rather detrimental, disproves the evolutionary assumption that DNA mutations have created new, more advanced life forms over the years; and on that note, if one plant/animal underwent a DNA mutation, causing it to be unlike the rest of its species, according to the ways of natural selection, nature would outcast the "freak"-- not nuture it. If this "new life form" reproduced, the assumption is that it was nurtured in some capacity, both by its mother, and by its mate. However, in nature, we constantly observe that those who are different, even in the slightest, are cast out of the majority. And finally, the last weakness, the theory of spontaneous generation... Pure logic, common sense, and scientific experiment all confirm that "something" can't come from "nothing." Life can only stem from life. Matter that is not living cannot produce living matter. However, naturalists, in an effort to explain the beginning of the universe, resort to spontaneous generation in order to explain the origin of life without an objective being to create it.