Why? Do you deny the possibility that God is powerful enough to create a universe where natural processes would produce such organisms from inanimate matter?
Indeed, many Bible-affirming Christians cite Genesis 1 in that regard as the earth is described as bringing forth both plant and animal life:
1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, . . .
1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind . . .
My point is not that their Hebrew exegesis is flawless and has no other interpretation. I’m simply pointing out that lots of Christians find Genesis 1 entirely compatible with natural processes producing organisms from inanimate matter. Why couldn’t this be God’s plan for his creation? (Is it more God-honoring to claim that God created living things species-by-species in a series of creative acts on a given day of Creation week? Does the Hebrew text require that interpretation?)
That was my thought as well, specifically Friedrich Wöhler proving wrong the many Christians who had claimed that only living things can produce organic compounds, that they are unique to living organisms, and that it is arrogant and presumptuous for mere man to think that he will ever defy the ways of God’s creation and synthesize the chemicals of life in a laboratory. Yet, that is exactly what Wöhler did in making urea from ammonium cyanate. @thoughtful, I do understand your argument because it is a very old one.
I’ve never understood the aversion of many of my fellow Christians to chance. God created chance and the Bible even says that God uses chance for his own purposes. Surely a God capable of creating a universe is fully capable of being sovereign over chance:
The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD. – Proverbs 16:33 (NIV)
And for the most part those designed experiments tend to be much more fruitful than the undesigned experiments.