The Evolution of Life, Probability Considerations and Common Sense-Part 1

By: Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon; ©2002

The purpose of this article 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. The discussion will continue in the next few months.

Introduction

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 small.”

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 the absurd.

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 tale

but

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]

Notes

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.

Read Part 2