In his article, "The Queen of Science Examines the King
of Fools," David J. Rodabaugh, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Mathematics
at the University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, shows that given all
the time evolutionists claim is necessary, the probability that a simple
living organism could be produced by mutations "is so small as to
constitute a scientific impossibility"— "the chance that it could
have happened anywhere in the universe…is less than 1 [chance] in 102,999,942."7
A figure like this is termed exponential notation, and is the figure one
with almost three million zeros after it. Figures like this are terminal
to evolution. (We will discuss exponential notation shortly.)
In another article, Dr. Rodabaugh takes the argument
to absurd levels to show that "It is impossible that evolution
occurred." Even giving evolution every conceivable chance and even
"assuming that evolution is 99.9999% certain, then ‘evolution
[still] has only a 1 in 10132
chance of being valid…. Therefore, even with the beginning assumption
that evolution is a virtual certainty, a conditional probability
analysis of the fossil record [alone] results in the conclusion that
evolution is a demonstrable absurdity.’" 8
According to the French expert on probability, Emile Borél, his
"single law of chance" (1 chance in 1050) beyond which things never
occur, "carries with it a certainty of another nature than mathematical
certainty… it is comparable even to the certainty with which we
attribute to the existence of the external world." 9 Here we see that
one chance in 10132 is no
Using probability and other calculations, James F.
Coppedge, author of Evolution: Possible or Impossible?, concludes
concerning the origin of chirality, or "left-handed" amino acids that,
"No natural explanation is in sight which can adequately explain the
mystery that proteins use only left-handed components. There is little
hope that it will be solved in this way in the future. Even if such a
result occurred by chance, life would still not exist. The proteins
would be helpless and nonliving without the entire complicated DNA-RNA
system to make copies for the future."
10 Indeed, "The odds against the necessary
group of proteins being all left-handed ‘is beyond all comprehension.’"
As the reader can see, when we employ probability
calculations relative to the origin of life, we end up with very large
numbers, unimaginably large numbers. In part, that’s the problem. These
numbers are so incomprehensible they almost become meaningless.
Nevertheless, if evolutionists can use an incomprehensible billions of
years of earth history to make evolution seem feasible, we can
also use incomprehensible numbers to show the absurdity of evolution,
even if these numbers do tend to bend the mind at dizzying speeds.
Comprehending Large Numbers
To help the reader understand large numbers, we have
prepared a chart of illustrations. Again, these very large numbers are
written using exponential notation. Thus, for ease of writing, rather
than write out all the zeros in a large number, the number of zeros is
placed above the number 10. For example, the figure one million, having
six zeros, is written exponentially as 106;
one billion, with nine zeros, is 109; one trillion, with twelve zeros,
is 1012, etc. The kinds of
numbers we are dealing with involve hundreds to billions of zeroes,
depending on what we are trying to calculate and the odds assigned to a
given event. (In the calculations below, the odds cited are often skewed
vastly in favor of evolution. This shows that even given odds
that were not present, evolution is still impossible.)
To begin, let’s show you what 1050
looks like written out:
It would require hundreds of millions of years just to
count a number this large.
If we say an event has one chance in 1050
of occurring, this is what we refer to. Again, this figure represents
Borél’s "single law of chance," the odds beyond which things never
occur. One chance in 1050 is an unimaginably small number—it’s one
chance in 100 trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion. One chance in a
billion is an almost infinitely greater chance for an event to occur. If
the one billion people in China each bought one lottery ticket, each
person’s chance of winning would be one in 109—one chance in a billion.
So how much money do you think an evolutionist would bet on the lottery
if the odds of winning were one chance in 1050?
A person could only be considered a fool if they bet
their entire life savings on even one chance in a thousand—1 in 103.
The irony is that evolutionists are gambling on an issue far more vital
to them than retirement money with for all practical purposes, literally
infinite odds against them. They are gambling on the nature of
ultimate reality, the odds that materialism is true and theism false. If
probability calculations relative to prophecy and other considerations
prove Christian theism true 12—and
heaven or hell hang in the balance—one might assume people would be very
cautious about the risks they take. Apparently not.
In the chart below, we can see how big exponential
numbers truly are. We ask the reader to now look over this chart. Ponder
its comparisons in order to get a "feel" for the kinds of numbers we are
dealing with. Only this will help us realize the kinds of odds against
evolution that we are discussing.
Comparison of Exponential Numbers
Comparisons of Time
• Seconds in one year—31.6 million.
• Seconds in 15 billion years—1018.
• A picosecond is one-trillionth of a second.
• In 15 billion years, there are 1030
Comparisons of Weight
• A whale weighs 2,000 tons or 6.4 X 106
• The earth weighs 5,882,000,000,000,000,000,000
tons or 1026 ounces or 1027
grams (one gram is 1/450 of a pound).
• Our Milky Way galaxy weighs 3 X 1044
Comparisons of Distance
• The distance to the nearest star—4.3 light years
or 40 trillion kilometers or 1022
(4 X 1021) microns (a micron
is 1/25,000 of an inch)
Comparisons of Size
• The circumference of the earth is 26,000 miles or
1.6 X 109
• The diameter of the "known" universe—an estimated
30 billion light years or 192,000,000,000,000,000 miles—is 1027
• The number of grains of sand that would fill one
beach is trillions and trillions. Yet 10100
grains of sand would fill the entire universe.
Comparisons of Measure
• Atoms are very small.
• One million hydrogen atoms can be lined up, one on
top of the other, on the edge of a piece of paper. 3,000 trillion
of them are needed just to cover the period at the end of this
sentence. A measly 1/4 teaspoon of water has 1024
molecules but the estimated number of atoms in the entire
universe is "only" 1079.
• The total number of electrons and protons in the
universe is 1080.
• The total number of smallest particles that would
fill the universe is 10120.
• It takes 2.5 X 1015
electrons, laid side by side, to make one inch. Counting all these
electrons at one per second would require 76 million years.
The above chart gives us an indication of really big
In the next article we will discuss the odds of two
very "simple" things evolving: 1) a molecule and 2) a cell. Remember
that thousands and millions of these are needed for life to evolve, and
not even the higher forms of life. To begin consider the following
information about molecules:
• A single drop of blood has 35,000,000
red blood cells.
• A single red blood cell has
280,000,000 hemoglobin molecules, each molecule having 10,000 atoms.
• A single man has 27,000,000,000,000
(27 X 1012) red blood cells.
Again, molecules are so small that 1/4 teaspoon of
water has 1024
of them. Molecules vary from the simple to the complex. A simple
molecule may consist of only a few bonded atoms, as in water (two atoms
hydrogen; one atom oxygen). A complex molecule of protein may have
50,000 amino acids or chains of simpler molecules.
(to be continued)
7. David J. Rodabaugh, "The Queen of Science Examines the King of
Fools," Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1975, p. 14,
8. David J. Rodabaugh, "Mathematicians Do It Again," Creation
Research Society Quarterly, Dec. 1975, pp. 173-75, emphasis added.
9. Cited in James Coppedge, Evolution Possible or Impossible?
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1973), p. 260.
10. James F. Coppedge, "Probability and Left-Handed Molecules,"
Creation Research Society Quarterly, Dec. 1971, p. 172.
11. Ibid., p. 171.
12. See John Ankerberg, John Weldon, Ready with an Answer
(Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1997), especially pp. 220-28.
13. Fred Hoyle, The Big Bang in Astronomy, p. 527, emphasis