According to modern evolutionary theory, the recipe for life is a chance accumulation of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen; add a pinch of phosphorus and sulfur, simmer for millions of years, and repeat if necessary… but this is not how chemicals react.
Chemicals reacting with chemicals is a chemical reaction, and chemical reactions do not produce life. Life must create life.
In the chemical literature, there is not a single example of life resulting from a chemical reaction. If life from chemicals were possible, it would be called spontaneous generation, an idea that scientists once thought happened in nature. Centuries ago, scientists used to believe that bread crumbs turned into mice because if you left bread crumbs on a table and returned later, the crumbs were gone and only mice were present.
Proteins and DNA are complicated chemical molecules that are present within our body. Cells which make up the living body contain DNA, the blueprint for all life, and proteins regulating biochemical processes, leading scientists to conclude these components are the cause of life. While it is true that all living bodies have proteins and DNA, so do dead bodies. These chemicals are necessary for life to exist, but they do not “create” life by their presence; they only “maintain” the life that is already present.
However, this is not the only problem with the “life from chemicals” theory. Why do evolutionists vehemently proclaim the “life from chemicals” theory? Because if proteins and DNA only maintain life without creating it, then something else must have accomplished its origins. Evidence such as this points to an Omnipotent Creator, but they are not willing to make that concession.
Source: Impact #374 (icr.org) by Dr. Charles McCombs (Ph.D. organic chemist trained in the methods of scientific investigation, and a scientist who has 20 chemical patents)