majored in philosophy in college read the noted French existentialist
Jean-Paul Sartre. I (John Weldon) can still remember agonizing through
Being and Nothingness and some of his other works. As an ardent
promoter of atheism, Sartre was probably responsible for turning as
many college students to atheism as anyone. Nevertheless, this famous
atheist also made the following confession, just prior to his death,
during an interview with his wife, published in Harper’s magazine for
February, 1984 (p. 39):
As for me, I don’t see
myself as so much dust that has appeared in the world but as a being
that was expected, prefigured, called forth. In short, as a being
that could, it seems, come only from a creator; and this idea of a
creating hand that created me refers me back to God. Naturally this
is not a clear, exact idea that I set in motion every time I think
of myself. It contradicts many of my other ideas; but it is there,
floating vaguely. And when I think of myself I often think rather in
this way, for want of being able to think otherwise. (emphasis
next proceeded to declare that his atheism had provided his life with
strength and freedom and that he had no need of God whatever. For him,
God was entirely irrelevant and therefore he noted he had paid no
attention to God his entire life.
course, as the above quote tells us, could never escape the knowledge
of God, and neither can modern science. Romans 1:18-22 tells us that
all men intuitively know God exists through the evidence in creation.
This evidence is "clearly seen" "because God has made it plain to
them." Therefore, "men are without excuse" because they "suppress the
truth" they already know.
this situation more clearly revealed than in the creation/evolution
controversy. Most modern scientists are in general agreement that the
materialistic theory of evolution is an established fact of science
and cannot logically be questioned as a view of origins. However, what
one concludes about human origins is one of the most crucial points
for deciding a whole range of other issues, whether positively or
negatively—from the nature of man and the purpose of life to the
relevance of morality and religion to the future of humanity. Is man
only the product of the impersonal forces of matter, time and chance
with all this implies—or the purposeful creation of a good and loving
God with all this implies?
philosopher Mortimer Adler wrote in The Great Ideas (Vol. 1, p. 543),
"More consequences for thought and action follow from the affirmation
or denial of God than from answering any other basic question."
the theological impact of materialistic evolution is beyond question.
In our The Facts On Creation vs. Evolution we noted that Dr. Colin
Brown received his doctorate degree for research in nineteenth-century
theology. As far as the impact of evolution on Christianity, he
pointed out, "By far the most potent single factor to undermine
popular belief in the existence of God in modern times is the
evolutionary theory of Charles Darwin." According to Martin Lings,
"More cases of loss of religious faith are to be traced to the theory
of evolution… than to anything else."1
scientists generally are convinced as to the truth of a purely
materialistic chance origin of mankind. Many of these scientists (and
most atheists) have even rejoiced at the supposed "overthrowing" of
the biblical concept of creation.
by C. D. Darlington of Oxford University in Scientific American (May
1959, p. 66) noted, "We owe to The Origin of Species the overthrow of
the myth of creation, especially the dramatic character of the
Atheist for September 1978 also noted the following: "Evolution
destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was
supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin,
and in the rubble you find the sorry remains of the son of god…. If
Jesus was not the redeemer… and this is what evolution means, then
Christianity is nothing…."
evolutionist Sir Julian Huxley claimed that "Darwinism removed the
whole idea of God as the Creator of organisms from the sphere of
of course, continues to be set forth as an established fact by the
scientific community, but principally because of the materialistic,
naturalistic viewpoint that pervades the scientific world.
Grasse, the renowned French zoologist and past president of the French
Academy of Sciences, states in his Evolution of Living Organisms:
"Zoologists and botanists are nearly unanimous in considering
evolution as a fact and not a hypothesis. I agree with this position
and base it primarily on documents provided by paleontology, i.e., the
[fossil] history of the living world."3
Dobzhansky, who, according to another leading evolutionist, Stephen J.
Gould of Harvard, is "the greatest evolutionist of our century,"4
asserts in his award-winning text, Mankind Evolving, "The proofs of
evolution are now a matter of elementary biology…. In Lamark’s and
Darwin’s times evolution was a hypothesis; in our day it is proven."5
scientist George Gaylord Simpson, distinguished professor of
vertebrate paleontology at the Museum of Comparative Zoology at
Harvard, emphasizes in The Meaning of Evolution, "Ample proof has been
repeatedly presented and is available to anyone who really wants to
know the truth…. In the present study the factual truth of organic
evolution is taken as established…."6
a distinguished Cornell University astronomer and Pulitzer
prize-winning author, is perhaps best known as the host and co-writer
of the Cosmos television series, seen in 60 countries by approximately
three percent of all people on earth. The hardcover edition of Cosmos
was on the New York Times best-seller list for 70 weeks and became the
best-selling science book in the English language in the twentieth
century. In this book, Sagan simply states, "Evolution is a fact, not
But we have
shown in The Facts On Creation vs. Evolution and elsewhere, these
scientists are simply wrong.8
idea that all life has come from dead matter by pure chance is a bit
difficult to swallow, even for many scientists. And, as modern science
increasingly uncovers the indescribable complexity of the living world
and simultaneously fails to explain the nature of abiogenesis (the
idea that life can somehow originate from nonlife), the miraculous
nature of all theories of origins seems to be made more apparent. In a
sense, the term miracle is no longer properly restricted to only
although most scientists remain evolutionists by choice because they
are materialists, the theory of the origin of life by natural means is
increasingly challenged today even in scientific circles. Further, as
Dr. R. L. Wysong points out in his survey of the evidence, The
Creation Evolution Controversy, acceptance of organic evolution is
hardly a proven scientific fact. Rather, it is a materialistic
postulate requiring a great deal of faith:
Evolution requires plenty
of faith: A faith in L-proteins ["left handed" molecules] that defy
chance formation; a faith in the formation of DNA codes which, if
generated spontaneously, would spell only pandemonium; a faith in a
primitive environment that in reality would fiendishly devour any
chemical precursors to life; a faith in [origin of life] experiments
that prove nothing but the need for intelligence in the beginning; a
faith in a primitive ocean that would not thicken but would only
hopelessly dilute [life-generating] chemicals; a faith in natural
laws including the laws of thermodynamics and biogenesis that
actually deny the possibility for the spontaneous generation of
life; a faith in future scientific revelations that when realized
always seem to present more dilemmas… faith in probabilities that
treasonously tell two stories—one denying evolution, the other
confirming the creator; faith in transformations that remain fixed;
faith in mutations and natural selection that add to a double
negative for evolution; faith in fossils that embarrassingly show
fixity through time, [and the] regular absence of transitional
also a host of other problems equally intractable in nature, such as
the lack of a reducing atmosphere (the presence of free oxygen), which
further complicates the alleged process of abiogenesis. Biochemists
generally agree that the presence of free oxygen would, in the words
of R. T. Brinkman of the California Institute of Technology, "preclude
biological evolution as presently understood."10
Yet the evidence for an early oxidized atmosphere on earth is
increasingly so compelling that Henderson-Sellers, Benlow, and Meadows
concede that, despite the implications, it is "becoming the new
respectable, technical, scientific texts that, on the one hand, show
the doubtful or even impossible nature of evolution, or, on the other
hand, present strong scientific evidence for creation are now
increasing in number. Among many titles that could be listed are: A.
E. Wilder-Smith (who holds three earned doctorate degrees in science),
The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution, and The Scientific
Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory: Information Sources
& Structures; molecular biologist Michael Denton, M.D., Evolution: A
Theory in Crisis; Evan Shute, M.D., Flaws in the Theory of Evolution
and noted University of California Berkeley Law Professor Phillip
Johnson’s Darwin on Trial.
W. R. Bird
is a summa cum laude graduate of Vanderbilt University and the Yale
Law School who argued the major case on the origin issue before the
U.S. Supreme Court. He is a member of the most prestigious legal
organization, the American Law Institute, and has published articles
on the origin’s topic in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy
and the Yale Law Journal. He is also listed in the most selective
directory, Who’s Who in the World, plus listings in several others. In
The Origin of Species Revisited (2 vol., NY: Philosophical Library,
1993), he documents in exhausting detail how even evolutionary
scientists are increasingly questioning the validity of standard
evolutionary theory. In fact, this book was prepared utilizing the
research amassed for the 1981 Supreme Court case over the issue of
Attorneys for the defendant gathered thousands of pages of information
from hundreds of evolutionary scientists who, collectively, had
expressed reservations from most scientific fields, in most areas of
books like The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an
Intelligent Designer, leading scientists have further shown why the
scientific evidence for creation is actually more compelling than the
evidence for evolution.13
consider the following concluding statement in a critical review of
the above text by Arthur N. Shapiro, with the Center for Population
Biology at the University of California, Davis. Although a critic
writing in Creation/Evolution, a journal with certainly no love lost
for creationists or creationism, he nevertheless closes his review in
the following words:
I can see Science in the
year 2000 running a major feature article on the spread of theistic
science as a parallel scientific culture. I can see interviews with
the leading figures in history and philosophy of science about how
and why this happened. For the moment, the authors of The Creation
Hypothesis are realistically defensive. They know their way of
looking at the world will not be generally accepted and that they
will be restricted for a while to their own journals. They also know
that they will be under intense pressure to demonstrate
respectability by weeding out crackpots, kooks and purveyors of
young-earth snake oil. If they are successful, the day will come
when the editorial board of Science will convene in emergency
session to decide what to do about a paper which is of the highest
quality and utterly unexceptionable, of great and broad interest,
and which proceeds from the prior assumption of intelligent design.
For a preview of that crisis, you should read this book. Of course,
if you are smug enough to think "theistic science" is an oxymoron,
In reasonably objective
fashion the chapters… demonstrate how regularly we have prematurely
proclaimed victory on each and every front. A certain humility on
our part seems called for. At the least, we should be candid in
admitting that if we consider material solutions to these problems
inevitable, that is a matter of faith on our part. We can point with
great pride to tremendous advances in the past, but we of all people
should know the limitations of inductive generalization.14
critical reviewer who is a respected scientist to write in a secular
anti-creationist journal and yet take a book of this nature in serious
fashion is certainly encouraging and indicates that, at least for
open-minded scientists, the scientific case for creation cannot just
be summarily dismissed out of hand.
initial difficulties of evolutionary theory so clearly laid out in
many books, pale to insignificance when faced with the heroic
difficulty of finally evolving a man. The noted scientists Francis
Crick, L. M. Murkhin, and Carl Sagan have estimated that the
difficulty of evolving a man by chance processes alone is 1 in 102,000,000,000—which
Borel’s law says is no chance at all.15
Indeed, a chance so small is not even conceivable. This is a figure
with 2 billion zeroes after it and would require some ten thousand
books, of one hundred and fifty pages just to write it out. Many
eminent scientists have attempted to grapple with the huge difficulty
of the chance origin of human life and the magnitude of the problem of
explaining the complex information content in living things—with, in
our view, little success.16
argue that, despite its inherent complexities, the discussion of
probability theory in reference to evolution is fascinating to
contemplate for both layman and scientist.17
Of course, scientists who are committed evolutionists believe that
despite the tremendous odds against evolution, the large amount of
time involved (supposedly billions of years, an assumption that itself
is scientifically questionable) somehow makes the impossible possible.
Unfortunately, the argument that time alone solves the difficulty of
probability considerations, is not only intellectually unconvincing,
it is, in the end, preposterous. For example, Borel’s "Single Law of
Chance" declares that when the odds are beyond 10200
(on a cosmic scale) an event will never occur, no matter how much time
is involved. Indeed, how could Nature do "in time" (i.e., create life)
what it clearly had not done "with time" for all eternity? In other
words, if matter is eternal, then how could it eternally exist without
producing life and then at some point in time do what it had not done
for all eternity?
In the end,
time is merely the miracle or the "god of the gaps" that supposedly
resolves the difficulty of life evolving solely by chance.
Nevertheless, "Isn’t time not only the creator, but more efficiently
the enemy of the freak event? Will time not surely destroy the order
fortuitously created…? How then can time be actually cited as the very
cause of the almost infinite complexity of life?"18
(For a good discussion of the impossibilities here see James F.
Coppedge, Evolution: Possible or Impossible [Zondervan, 1973] and R.
C. Sproul, Not a Chance [Baker 1994].)
the weight of factual information underlying such discussions of
probability which mitigate against evolution may be why Dr. Francis
Crick, Nobel Prize winner, biochemist, and co-discoverer of the
structure of the DNA molecule, once wrote: "An honest man, armed with
all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some
sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a
miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been
satisfied to get it going."19
Further, Sir Fred Hoyle, founder of the Cambridge Institute of
Theoretical Astronomy and the originator of the Steady State theory of
the origin of the universe, also seems to have problems with
evolutionary theory. Citing Hoyle, Nature magazine commented, "The
chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is
comparable with the chance that ‘a tornado sweeping through a
junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the material therein.’"20
his research partner Chandra Wickramasinghe press the point in their
Evolution From Space. They argue that the chance of life evolving
randomly is too improbable. Thus, they speculate life had to have
arisen from other intelligent life somewhere in space. After outlining
the reasons why it is unlikely life could have originated by chance,
they supply probability calculations to support the idea that life
must have been assembled by some other form of intelligence:
Any theory with a
probability of being correct that is larger than one part in
1040,000 must be judged superior to random shuffling. The theory
that life was assembled by an intelligence has, we believe, a
probability vastly higher than one part in 1040,000 of being the
correct explanation of the many curious facts discussed in preceding
chapters. Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why
it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are
psychological rather than scientific.21
chapter, "The Evolutionary Records Leak Like a Sieve," Hoyle and
Wickramasinghe even credit the Natural Theology of Paley who cogently
argued for creation by intelligent design: "The speculations of The
Origin of Species turned out to be wrong, as we have seen in this
chapter. It is ironic that the scientific facts throw Darwin out, but
leave William Paley, a figure of fun to the scientific world for more
than a century, still in the tournament with a chance of being the
On April 25
and 26, 1962, a scientific symposium was held at the Wistar Institute
of Anatomy and Biology in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in which some of
the most distinguished evolutionary scientists were present.
beginning of this Symposium which was titled, "Mathematical Challenges
to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution," the Chairman, Sir
Peter Medawar of the National Institute for Medical Research in
London, England, stated the reasons why they had gathered:
…the immediate cause of
this conference is a pretty widespread sense of dissatisfaction
about what has come to be thought of as the accepted evolutionary
theory in the English-speaking world, the so-called neo-Darwinian
Theory.… These objections to current neo-Darwinian theory are very
widely held among biologists generally; and we must on no account, I
think, make light of them. The very fact that we are having this
conference is evidence that we are not making light of them.23
symposium paper, "Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a
Scientific Theory," Dr. Murray Eden, Professor of Electrical
Engineering at MIT, emphasized the following: "It is our contention
that if ‘random’ [chance] is given a serious and crucial
interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness
postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory
of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural
laws, physical, chemical and biological."24
"Algorithms and the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution," Marcel P.
Schutzenberger of the University of Paris, France, calculated the
probability of evolution based on mutation and natural selection. Like
many other noted scientists, he concluded that it was "not
conceivable" because the probability of a chance process accomplishing
this is zero: "…there is no chance (<10-1000)
to see this mechanism appear spontaneously and, if it did, even less
for it to remain…. Thus, to conclude, we believe there is a
considerable gap in the Neo-Darwinian Theory of evolution, and we
believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged
within the current conception of biology."25
scientists have called just one chance in 1015
(one chance in a quadrillion) "a virtual impossibility."26
So, how can scientists rationally believe in something that has only
one chance in 101,000?
After all, how small is one chance in 101,000?
It’s infinitesimally small—one chance in 1012
is only one chance in one trillion. On a practical level, if a horse
at a horse race had only one chance in a trillion (let alone one
chance in 101,000)
of placing first, second or third, how much money would anyone place
on a bet? So should anyone gamble convictions about God, reality and
heaven and hell on the basis of one chance in 101,000?
ask, who can rationally believe in something whose odds are one chance
let alone the much more accurate figure of one chance in 102,000,000,000,
the "chance" that the esteemed Dr. Carl Sagan estimates is needed to
evolve a man? Also, please note that in exponential notation, every
time we add one number to the exponent, we multiply the number itself
by a factor of ten. Thus, one chance in 10171
is ten times smaller than one chance in 10172.
One chance in 10171
is one million times smaller than one chance in 10177.
And one chance in 10183
is one trillion times smaller than one chance in 10171.
So where do you think we end up with odds like one chance in 102,000,000,000?
This kind of
probability "progression into absurdity," is the very reason Borel
devised his Single Law of Chance—to show that beyond a certain point,
some things will never happen. For example, what are the odds that
elephants will ever evolve into helicopters? There are none, no matter
how much time we allow for the event to occur.
So what kind
of logic deduces that the infinitely more complex things in nature
resulted from chance when all the facts and evidence we possess
concerning every single man-made object in existence around the world
says these much simpler objects had to result from intelligence, plan
and design? If the "simple" objects demand intelligence, how do the
infinitely more complex objects arise solely by chance?
So, isn’t it
also true that scientists require faith to believe in evolution? But
can this even be considered faith? Faith in what? Doesn’t faith
require some actual object or entity?
If, for the
purposes of argument, there are only two possible answers to the
question of origins, then the disproving of one option logically
proves the other. If A or B are the only logically considered
explanations of an event, and A is disproved, only B can be considered
the actual explanation. If the chances of evolution occurring are, for
example, one in 101,000,
then the chance of creation occurring would be just its opposite—the
odds being 99.9 (followed by 998 more 9s). The eminent evolutionist
George Wald of Harvard University has stated that a 99.995 percent
probability is "almost inevitable."27
Then what of 99.99999999999999 percent (plus 985 more 9’s)—the
"chance" that creation has occurred?
Darwin, who believed his own theory was "grievously hypothetical,"28
confessed the same, giving emotional content to his doubts when he
said, e.g., "…the eye to this day gives me a cold shudder."29
To think the eye had evolved by natural selection, Darwin said,
"…seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."30
But he thought the same about something so simple as a peacock’s
feather, which he claimed, "makes me sick."31
Of course, anyone who has knowledge of the intricacies of something
like the human eye immediately realizes the problem Darwin sensed. How
could an organ of such infinite magnificence have ever originated by
random chance? Today, many modern biologists are even more acutely
aware of the problems evolutionary theory faces when confronting
something like the complexity of the human eye.
It is easy to sympathize
with Darwin. Such feelings have probably occurred to most biologists
at times, for to common sense it does indeed appear absurd to
propose that chance could have thrown together devices of such
complexity and ingenuity that they appear to represent the very
epitome of perfection….
Aside from any
quantitative considerations, it seems intuitively impossible that
such self-evident brilliance in the execution of design could ever
have been the result of chance. For, even if we allow that chance
might have occasionally hit on a relatively ingenious adaptive end,
it seems inconceivable that it could have reached so many ends of
such surpassing "perfection."32
Matthews, the eminent biologist, wrote the following in his
introduction to Darwin’s The Origin of Species. He noted that biology
was in the position of being founded on an unproved theory that nearly
placed it in the category of a "religious" faith:
In accepting evolution as
a fact, how many biologists pause to reflect that science is built
upon theories that have been proved by experiment to be correct, or
remember that the theory of animal evolution has never been thus
The fact of evolution is
the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar
position of being a science founded on an unproved theory—is it then
a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus
exactly parallel to belief in special creation—both are concepts
which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has
been capable of proof.33
scientists have postulated they may be able to find some evidence for
life originating from non-life on some other planet. The reason for
this is that it would give them circumstantial evidence that life
could originate by evolutionary processes someplace else. (They have
not found this evidence on Earth.) For example, I. S. Shklovskii and
Carl Sagan in their book, Intelligent Life in the Universe, have
written: "…the discovery of life on one other planet—e.g., Mars—can,
in the words of the American Physicist Philip Morrison, of the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, ‘transform the origin of life
from a miracle to a statistic.’"34
Nobelist Francis Crick, (like Hoyle cited earlier) thoroughly aware of
the awesome complexity of cellular life, and the extreme difficulty of
explaining how such life could evolve in the short time scientists now
realize was available on earth for evolution to take place, has
advanced a theory he calls directed panspermia. His theory, outlined
in the book Life Itself, advances the idea that an extraterrestrial
civilization sent primitive life-forms to earth in a spaceship.
Because there was enormous time required for interstellar travel, they
sent primitive life capable of surviving the voyage and the conditions
they would meet upon arriving on earth.
"solution" to the problem of origins only seems to push the issue back
a notch. How did the advanced life that sent primitive life to our
earth ever originate by chance processes? In fact, research indicates
this scenario cannot resolve the problem. For example, in the October
1969 issue of Nature magazine, Dr. Frank Salisbury of Utah State
University, then on leave at the Division of Biomedical and
Environmental Research at the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, examined
the chance of one of the most basic chemical reactions for the
continuation of life taking place. This reaction involves the
formation of a specific DNA molecule. (It is important to realize that
Dr. Salisbury was assuming that life already existed. His calculations
do not refer to the chance of the origin of life from dead matter—as
we have seen, something infinitely more improbable—but to the
continuance of life already existing.)
calculated the chance of this molecule evolving on 1020
hospitable planets (i.e., having favorable atmospheric and biologic
conditions). These one hundred, thousand, million, billion planets
constitute at least 1,000 times more hospitable planets than the
number many scientists have estimated could exist. Dr. Salisbury
allows 4 billion years for the chance coming into existence of this
molecule on all these planets. But remember he is not speaking here of
life as we know it—developed, intelligent living beings, or even of
one single cell for that matter. He is only calculating the chance of
this one appropriate DNA molecule.
that the chances of just this one tiny DNA molecule coming into
existence over four billion years, with conditions just right, on just
one of these extremely large number of hospitable planets, including
the earth, as one chance in 10415.35
But this figure is also exceedingly beyond Borel’s law, which says
that beyond a certain point, improbable events never happen,
regardless of the time span involved. (Indeed, 1050
planets would pack the known universe with planets [so that no space
exists between them] and yet the chances that life could evolve from
dead matter on any one of them are still beyond possibility.)36
problems associated with human life evolving from microscopic forms
are at least as difficult as those of primitive life evolving from
dead matter. Again, most scientists assume that the great amounts of
time involved will cause highly improbable events to become virtually
inevitable and thus solve the problem. But even noted scientist A. I.
Oparin concedes that, "No serious quantitative arguments, however, are
given in support of such conclusions."37
All this may
explain why many scientists who have examined this theory critically
consider the "directed panspermia" hypothesis untenable, and do not
feel it is a solution to the problems we face. In Chance and
Necessity, the outstanding French biochemist and Nobel Prize winner
Jacques Monod makes his case all life evolves by random means, yet he
also says this:
When one ponders on the
tremendous journey of evolution over the past 3 billion years or so,
the progenous wealth of structures it has engendered, and the
extraordinarily effective teleonomic performances of living beings,
from bacteria to man, one may well find oneself beginning to doubt
again whether all this could conceivably be the product of an
enormous lottery presided over by natural selection, blindly picking
the rare winners from among numbers drawn at utter random….
[Nevertheless, although] the miracle stands "explained"; it does not
strike us as any less miraculous. As Francois Mauriac wrote, "What
this professor says is far more incredible than what we poor
Christians believe. This is true, just as it is true that there is
no achieving a satisfactory mental image of certain abstractions in
Monod believes that life arose by chance, he freely admits the chances
of this happening before it occurred were virtually zero.39
We can only be reminded of the statement by another Nobel Prize
winning biologist, George Wald of Harvard University: "One only has to
concede the magnitude of the task to concede the possibility of the
spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we
are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation."40
Of course, Dr. Wald also thinks that time solves all problems: "Time
is, in fact, the hero of the plot…. One only has to wait: time itself
performs the miracles."41
Nevertheless, what this boils down to is a personal choice—faith if
you will—to believe in what one freely admits is "impossible"—rather
than to believe in creation by intelligent design. In considering all
this, one is perhaps reminded of the quip of Mark Twain in his Life on
the Mississippi, "There is something fascinating about science. One
gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling
investment of fact."
Nevertheless, Hoyle’s research partner, Chandra Wickramasinghe, has
appropriately noted that it is not only creationism which relies on
the supernatural. Evolution must also, since the probabilities of
random formation of life are conceded to be so minuscule as to
necessitate a miracle making belief in spontaneous generation
"tantamount to a theological argument."42
[Most of the
material for this article was excerpted from John Ankerberg and John
Weldon, "Rational Inquiry and the Force of Scientific Data: Are New
Horizons Emerging?" Taken from The Creation Hypothesis edited by J. P.
by J. P. Moreland. Used by permission of InterVarsity Press, P. O. Box
1400, Downers Grove, IL 60515, pp. 272-277, 291-292. Additional
material from our The Facts on Creation vs. Evolution (Eugene, OR:
Harvest House Publishers, 1993).]
1 See John Ankerberg,
John Weldon, The Facts On Creation vs. Evolution (Eugene, OR:
Harvest House, 1993), p. 35 citing Colin Brown, Philosophy and the
Christian Faith (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1971), p. 147 and Houston
Smith, The Christian Century, July 7-14, 1982, p. 755 citing Lings
in Studies in Comparative Religion, Winter, 1970; cf., Francis
Schaeffer, He Is There and He Is Not Silent (Tyndale) and Mortimer
Adler, The Difference of Man and the Difference it Makes for
2 In Sol Tax, ed.,
Evolution After Darwin, Vol. 3 (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1960), p. 45.
3 Pierre-Paul Grasse,
Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidences for a New Theory of
Transformation (NY: Academic Press, 1977), p. 3, emphasis added.
4 Cited in W. R. Bird,
The Origin of Species Revisited: The Theories of Evolution and of
Abrupt Appearance, Vol. 1 (NY: Philosophical Library, Inc., 1989),
5 Theodosius Dobzhansky,
Mankind Evolving: The Evolution of the Human Species (NY: Bantam,
1970), pp. 5-6, emphasis added.
6 George Gaylord Simpson,
The Meaning of Evolution (NY: Bantam, 1971), pp. 4-5, emphasis
7 Carl Sagan, Cosmos (NY:
Random House, 1980), p. 27, emphasis added.
8 William J. Ouweneel,
"The Scientific Character of the Evolution Doctrine," Creation
Research Society Quarterly, September 1971, pp. 109–115.
9 R. L. Wysong, The
Creation-Evolution Controversy: Implications, Methodology and Survey
of Evidence (East Lansing, MI: Inquiry Press, 1976), p. 419.
10 "Theoretical Blow to
the Origin of Life," New Scientist, 19, February 1970, p. 344; cf.,
W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, 2 vol. (NY
Philosophical Library, 1993), I, pp. 328-329.
Benlow, and Meadows, "The Early Atmosphere of the Terrestrial
Planets," 21, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society,
pp. 74, 81 (1980) from Bird, I, p. 329.
12 Aguillard, et. al., v.
Edwards, et. al., civil action No. 81-4787, Section H, U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Brief of the State in
Opposition to ACLU Motion for Summary Judgment, c., 1984, W. R.
13 See J. P. Moreland,
ed., The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent
Designer (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994).
14 Arthur N. Shapiro,
Review in Creation/Evolution, Vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 36–37.
15 Carl Sagan, F.H.C.
Crick, and L. M. Mukhin in Carl Sagan, ed., Communication with
Extraterrestrial Intelligence (CETI) (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,
1973) pp. 45-46; cf., Emile Borel, Probabilities and Life (New York:
Dover, 1962), chapters one and three.
16 e.g., cf., Michael
Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, MD: Adler & Adler,
1986), pp. 308-344. Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, "Where
Microbes Boldly Went," New Scientist, Vol. 13 (August 1991) pp.
17 cf., James Coppedge,
Evolution: Possible or Impossible? Molecular Biology and the Laws of
Chance in Nontechnical Language (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1973).
18 In Wysong, p. 141.
19 Francis Crick, Life
Itself: Its Origin and Nature (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981), p.
88; Crick proceeds to state his belief that it was possible for
evolution to occur, given the right conditions. Cf., Chuck Missler,
"Beyond Coincidence," Briefing Package (for information call
20 Insert, "Hoyle on
Evolution," Nature, Vol. 294, 12 November 1981, p. 105.
21 Fred Hoyle and Chandra
Wickramasinghe, Evolution From Space (London: J. M. Dent & Sons,
1981), p. 130.
22 Ibid., pp. 96-97.
23 Paul S. Moorhead and
Martin M. Kaplan, Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian
Interpretation of Evolution (The Wistar Institute Symposium
Monograph Number 5) (Philadelphia, PA: The Wistar Institute Press,
1967), p. xi, third emphasis in original.
24 Murray Eden,
"Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinism Evolution as a Scientific Theory" in
ibid., p. 109.
25 Marcel P.
Schutzenberger, "Algorithms and the Neo-Darwinian Theory of
Evolution" in Moorhead and Kaplan, eds., p. 75; cf., Bird, I, pp.
79-80; for reasons why natural selection would not modify randomness
and decrease these probabilities, see Bird, I, pp. 158-165.
26 J. Allen Hynek, and
Jacque Vallee, The Edge of Reality, (Chicago: Henry Regenery, 1975),
27 George Wald, "The
Origin of Life," in The Physics and Chemistry of Life (NY: Simon and
Schuster, 1955), p. 12.
28 Charles Darwin, 29
November 1859, More Letters (1903), 1:126 from David L. Hull, Darwin
and His Critics: The Reception of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by
the Scientific Community (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1973), p. 9.
29 Francis Darwin, ed.,
The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin (1887, ed.) Vol. 2, 67 from
Bird, I, p. 73.
30 J. W. Burrow, ed., in
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection
(Baltimore, MD: Penguin, 1974), p. 217.
31 Francis Darwin, ed.,
Vol. 2, p. 296.
32 Denton, Evolution: A
Theory in Crisis, p. 326-327.
33 L. Harrison Matthews,
Introduction in Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (London: J. M.
Dent & Sons, 1976), pp. x, xi. (See page 33.)
34 I. S. Shklovskii and
Carl Sagan, Intelligent Life in the Universe (San Francisco:
Holden-Day, 1966), p. 358.
35 Frank B. Salisbury,
"Natural Selection and the Complexity of the Gene," Nature, Vol.
224, 25 October 1969, pp. 342-343.
36 James Coppedge,
Director, Center for Probability Research in Biology, Northridge,
California, personal conversation, cf. Coppedge, Evolution: Possible
or Impossible, passim.
37 A. I. Oparin, Life:
Its Nature, Origin and Development (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1961),
p. 31 from Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy, p. 139.
38 Jacques Monod, Chance
and Necessity: An Essay on the Natural Philosophy of Modern Biology
(New York: Vintage, 1971), 138-139. Pierre-Paul Grasse comments,
"Directed by all-powerful selection, chance becomes a sort of
providence, which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but
which is secretly worshipped" (Grasse, p. 107).
39 Monod, ibid., pp.
40 George Wald, "The
Origin of Life," p. 9.
41 Ibid. p. 12.
42 Cited in Norman L.
Geisler, Creator in the Classroom—"Scopes 2": The 1981 Arkansas
Creation-Evolution Trial (Mieford, MI: Mott Media, 1982), p. 151.