The purpose of this series of articles is to bring
home the folly of belief in naturalistic evolution. The point is
belabored intentionally because evolutionists frequently argue that
probability considerations do not disprove evolution.
Unfortunately, in the long run, the unjustified
materialistic assumptions of modern scientific naturalism can only prove
a serious embarrassment to modern science. Evolutionary science today is
in the unenviable position of the emperor with no clothes on. No one has
the daring to tell the poor man he is naked until a little child
exclaims what is obvious to everyone. Modern science, in its
naturalistic speculation, is naked today, with only a few
"children"—non-evolutionary and creationist scientists—willing
to shout the obvious.
The Greatest Magic in the World: Everything We See
From Nothing at All
We can illustrate the embarrassment of modern science
by considering its attempt to explain the origin of the material
universe from either 1) literally nothing or 2) virtually nothing.
Equally embarrassing is its attempt to explain life from nonlife.
In fact, two of the most unbelievable scenarios of the
modern evolutionary story are that 1) nothing created the
material universe and 2) lifeless matter created all living diversity in
its endless life forms.
Both of these scenarios are so implausible that,
rationally, they must be considered nonsense. In fact, both assumptions
are flat out impossible.
The Probability of Life
The laws of probability govern all kinds
of daily activities from calculating insurance rates to large purchase
orders. The science of probability is one of the trustworthiest
disciplines there is. And it has a logical bearing on the issue of
origins: "The laws of probability are proven trustworthy. The whole
of science and every day practical living is based on the reliability of
the probable happening and the improbable not. One need do no more than
be consistent with this accepted standard of reality when considering
what to believe in relation to the origin of life."1
When one reads through the literature on evolution
that discusses the probability of the evolution of life, one finds all
sorts of euphemisms for the word impossible including "terribly
low;" "not conceivable;" "infinitesimally
small;" "highly implausible" and "unimaginably
It would appear that these terms are used because
there is no other choice. To really believe in what is impossible is
absurd. Evolutionary scientists do not want to be seen as believers of
We have no qualms about using the word
"impossible" if it fits. And when considering naturalistic
evolution, no other word is even adequate.
We later cite Nobelist Dr. George Wald who concluded
that the spontaneous generation of a living organism was impossible. He
went on to say that, even so, he chose to believe that spontaneous
generation occurred because after all, here we are. He argued that time
was the hero of the plot.
In many ways, time is the hero of the plot for
the evolutionist. It’s even a "deity" of sorts. The
evolutionist says that time and chance created life whereas the theist
says that God created life. The problem is that time and chance cannot
produce miracles. Contrary to Dr. Wald’s assertion, time cannot make
the impossible inevitable. Even infinite time cannot change an apple
into a helicopter or a frog into a prince. To think so is to believe
either in absurdities or fairy tales. As Dr. Gish illustrates in his Evolution:
The Fossils Still Say No (1995 p. 5):
Frog + time (instantaneous) > Prince = nursery
Frog + time (300 million years) >
Prince = science
Further, the fact that we exist does not prove
evolution occurred, unless one assumes that life only originates
by naturalistic evolution. At this point, many evolutionists criticize
creation scientists for making the same kinds of assumptions they make.
Creationists argue the fact of the impossibility of evolution proves
creation. Evolutionists argue that the fact of life proves evolution.
But is evolution really proven? Is it even probable?
Is it even possible?
Remember what we have to do is to evolve life. We only
have chance and dead matter or lifeless chemicals to start the process.
These must make the leap to a small prebiotic molecule (e.g., an amino
acid, sugar, nucleic acid base). This molecule must then make an
incredible leap to a larger molecule (e.g., a polymer of amino acids).
Then there is an even greater leap to the first primitive cell and then
the unheard of leap to the first form of complex life such as a
eucaryote cell having an organized nucleus bound by a membrane. Then
evolution has to produce every living thing.
W. R. Bird, author of a definitive
critique of evolution, The Origin of Species Revisited
points out that for the evolution of life, "Such small
probabilities are treated as impossibility under statistical rules, in
the context of the possible number of events in the entire universe
during its entire age."2
Even some evolutionists will admit the
impossibility of evolution. For example, Ambrose of the University of
London writes concerning the emergence of new species, "the
probability is so small in terms of the known age of the universe that
it is effectively zero."3
Creationists and non-evolutionists that
have studied probability considerations have long argued that, for all
practical purposes, they show evolution to be impossible. What
evolutionists don’t want to admit is that, even when you adjust for
their criticisms of probability calculations, the effect is still to
make evolution an impossibility.4 Let’s consider some examples of
scientists and researchers who have stated this.
According to Walter James ReMine in his
impressive anti-evolutionary text, The Biotic Message, "The
origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability
in the same way that a perpetual motion machine is impossible in
probability…. A practical person must conclude that life didn’t
happen by chance."5
In "Was Evolution Really
Possible?" Moshe Trop, Ph.D., with the Department of Life Sciences,
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel, concludes his discussion by
noting that "All calculations made of the probability [that life
could evolve by chance, lead to the conclusion that] there could have
been no possibility of the random appearance of life…."6
(to be continued)
1. Dr. Monty Kester, "Is Organic Evolution
Reasonable?" in Science at the Crossroads: Observation or
Speculation?, Proceedings of the 1983 National Creation Conference,
Minneapolis, Minnesota, Bible Science Association 1985, p. 107.
2. W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species
Revisited: The Theories of Evolution and Abrupt Appearance, Vol. 1
(New York: Philosophical Library, 1991), p. 80.
3. E. Ambrose, The Nature and Origin of
the Biological World (1982), p.142 [This is assuming natural
selection did not increase the probability, which would not happen, as
Bird discusses in Section 3.3(a).] In Ibid., p. 79.
4. Cf., Bird, Vol. 1 pp. 306-08ff.
5. Walter James ReMine, The Biotic
Message, p. 257, cited in Wayne Frair, Book Review, Creation
Research Society Quarterly, Dec. 1994, p. 163.
6. Moshe Trop, "Was Evolution Really
Possible?" Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1975,
p. 187, emphasis added.