The concept of creation by chance is ludicrous
Given enough time anything is possible. Why can’t chance explain evolution and the origin of life?
Jacque Monod, Nobel prize-winner in biology, said, “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.” Thus, for evolution and the origin of life, chance is orthodoxy because the only alternative is intelligent design.
No other factor in this debate makes evolution look more ridiculous than when we consider the impossibility of chance empowering the origin of life. Astronomer and mathematician Sir Fred Hoyle said, “The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.” Interestingly, a 747 is made up of six million components. The human body is made up of trillions of cells. The information in just one cell is enough to fill 1000 books of 500 pages apiece.
The magnitude of the complexity of the human body was illustrated recently with the mapping of the human genome. This represented a major scientific milestone in history. Nevertheless, mapping the letter sequences of human genes is not the same as understanding the genes. Despite this wonderful achievement in science, molecular biologist Dr. Ian Macreadie “explained humbly that humanity is still only just ‘scratching the surface’ in such matters.”
To point out the burden placed on chance by evolution, Allen Cornell, in the journal, “Firm Foundation” calculated the likelihood that one million monkeys typing randomly would produce the phrase “Why not creation?” If the monkeys typed at the rate of 10 keys per second, all worked 24 hours a day, all have typewriters equipped with only 30 keys (26 capital letters, three punctuation marks, and a space key) and hit the keys entirely at random the monkeys would produce the phrase once every 41 billion years. He goes on to explain, “Since sections of three subunits on a DNA (or RNA) molecule can code for any of 20 amino acids, the chance of getting a particular chain of any 20 consecutive amino acids is less than the chance of the monkeys producing the specified phrase.”
Furthermore, he says, “[Evolutionists] have always been reluctant to apply mathematical statistics to determine probabilities of certain chance events.” Then he points out an often-overlooked point in this debate: “The burden on chance does not just occur at the point of the origin of life. It reoccurs at every point in the evolutionary concept that demands the emergence of an entire new protein molecule. The genetic material, and the proteins that it codes for the production of, is the point where evolutionists have to place unmerited faith in chance.” Not only this, but the necessity of chance in the evolution of the plant world is also often overlooked.
Why is it that evolutionists wallow in blissful unawareness of the magnitude of the problem that evolution has with statistics and probability? Because they have a commitment to the religion of evolution. Donald Chittick said, “There is no actual proof for evolution; it has never been demonstrated by laboratory experiment, and when all is said and done, it turns out to be a belief system. Repeated confession of belief in something for which there is no proof is a well-recognized and practiced religious device used to build the faith of the believer.”
Ken Ham explains, “To believe that matter came from nowhere for no reason; to believe that matter organized itself into complex information systems against everything we know and observe obviously requires faith. Not only faith, but blind faith!” Christianity requires faith too, but objective faith. We have the revealed Word of the creator of the universe. We can believe in Him and have a personal relationship with Him. What we see in the universe is explained clearly without having to bend and twist the creation model of origin. Evolution, on the other hand, has to bend and twist to accommodate science and new discoveries in our universe. Evolution is empowered by chance and not revelation. Evolutionists can’t have a relationship with matter.
John MacArthur sums it up best: “Blind devotion to chance is an act of defiance to reason and more importantly against revelation and more importantly against God.” R.C. Sproul calls chance, “the magic wand to make not only rabbits come out of the hat, but entire universes.” Simply put: Chance doesn’t stand a chance.
The impossibility of chance leaves only one alternative: supernatural creation.
Previous Article Table of Contents Next Article
Perhaps you could get my column in your local paper, too! Have your newspaper editor contact me. Also, feel free to email me with any of your questions, comments or disagreements.
Originally published in the Rockdale/Newton Citizen