|By: Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon; ©2002|
|Modern science’s assigning the origin of the universe and all life in it to pure, random chance does an incalculable disservice to science because it “reduces scientific investigation not only to chaos but to sheer absurdity.” The authors suggest that modern science’s sin against reason is, in fact, a sin against God.|
A number of reputable scientists have stated their belief that evolution is a myth. In the following material we are going to briefly amplify this idea by concentrating on the myth of chance and what faith in chance does to science. In Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science & Cosmology, theologian and apologist R. C. Sproul points out that mythology was not only practiced by pre-modern cultures. It occurs in every culture and has even intruded significantly into the realm of science, e.g., in the spontaneous generation theory of evolution, that all life arose from dead matter solely by chance. He shows that the concept of chance—something happening totally without cause—is impossible. Again, the Macmillan Dictionary for Students (1984) defines impossible as, “not capable of coming into being or occurring”; “not possible” and “not acceptable as truth.”
And yet modern science argues that the universe and all life in it arose solely by chance. In the words of Nobelist Jacques Monod, “...chance alone is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, [is] at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution....”
Sproul argues persuasively that, for science and philosophy to continue in fruitful fashion, the modern penchant for chance must be abandoned once and for all. If not, the stakes are not insignificant—the very possibility of doing science lies in the balance. Essentially, when logic and empirical data are neglected or neutralized in the doing of science, then “mythology is free to run wild.”
Modern science’s assigning the origin of the universe and all life in it to pure, random chance does an incalculable disservice to science because it:
Chance can explain nothing because chance itself is nothing: “chance has no power to do anything. It is cosmically, totally, consummately impotent.... It has no power because it has no being.” One of the most inviolate and oldest laws of science is Ex nihilo nihil fit— “Out of nothing, nothing comes.” When scientists ascribe absolute power to nothing, they are creating myths. Here, chance is the “magic wand to make not only rabbits but entire universes appear out of nothing.”
Consider again the Nobel-laureate and Harvard Professor Dr. George Wald when he stated concerning the evolution of life, “Given so much time, the ‘impossible’ becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One only has to wait: time itself performs the miracles.”
Time is indeed the hero of the plot in the modern evolutionary storybook. Professor Abdus Salam, winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics, comments that one reason the Big Bang occurred ten billion years ago was that “it takes about that long for intelligent beings to evolve....”
Sir John Eccles, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physiology/Medicine comments in a similar fashion, “You cannot make life out of hydrogen and helium, and that was the original stuff. You have to have the time for the creation of all the extraordinary elements that are necessary for living existence, and so you will have to have, shall we say, something like 10,000 million years from the Big Bang....”
Again, time is not the hero and cannot perform miracles. To argue otherwise violates the laws of science, logic and common sense. Regardless, how did the universe exist forever and then do in time (i.e., create life) what it had not done forever?
A. E. Wilder-Smith, holding three earned doctorates in science, put it this way:
Of course, as Wilder-Smith argues, it doesn’t explain anything. Further, to argue as modern science does that the universe “exploded into being” billions of years ago require the belief that the universe exploded from nonbeing into being. Since science has proven that matter cannot be eternal, this phrase must be taken literally. But to do so requires more faith in magic and is, in effect, a faith in self-creation, which, as Sproul shows, is something logically impossible. Thus:
Of course, there is much more going on here than poor science. In Romans 1:18-25 we are told that the unregenerate deliberately suppress the truth of God as Creator. Here the truth is suppressed by the rejection of the laws of science such as the law of causality, the law of noncontradiction and the law of biogenesis, that life arises only from life. That the rejection of scientific principles, laws and reasoning should be so forcefully employed in defense of what is inherently irrational and impossible (the creation of the universe from nothing), is surely a commentary on the condition of modern origins science.
However, because God has created us as rational creatures, it may even be argued that modern science’s sin against reason is a sin against God. Scientists should know better. And, generally, in their rational moments they do. They know the universe didn’t arise from literally nothing. The suppression of truth is to try and make it seem as if it did. That is the sin. Most scientists, it seems, prefer to disguise their belief in magic by making the idea of chance origins appear scientific and rational. Why? Because often they do not personally like the consequences of having to seriously consider the implications of a personal creator God who will hold them accountable in this life. Given the odds against evolution and for creation, this is an unwise position at best. The conclusions of Solomon still stand: