| Back | Contents | Next |
It is universally acknowledged that, according to Big Bang and evolution theories, the existence of humans is an extremely improbable event. For decades, some workers in the hard sciences, such as mathematicians and mathematical physicists, have argued that Darwinism is not merely improbable, but mathematically impossible.
When Charles Darwin wrote his infamous On the Origin of Species in 1859, biochemistry as a distinct, named scientific discipline did not yet exist. In the intervening years, in large part due to the increasing availability of sophisticated automated instruments, our knowledge of biology has exploded. Even in the last decade or so, new discoveries have revealed that life is far more complex than previously recognized. What formerly seemed improbable now seems impossible within the purported age of the earth.
It has also become increasingly recognized that life has many complex systems that could only have evolved if many multiple helpful chance changes occurred together, because any missing part would have prevented that critical system from working. This is the problem of irreducible complexity, a reference to systems that are as simple as possible; one missing or malfunctioning part would destroy the system. A common, traditional, snap-type mousetrap is a good example of irreducible complexity. Take a good look at a mousetrap and see if you can figure out how the thing could possibly work if any of the parts were missing. If you look at it, you will likely count, including the base, about nine parts. Rates of change in organisms are highly variable and most chance changes are detrimental or neutral, not beneficial. But let us pick a number—say, one chance in a million per generation per part that there will be a mutation. So, what are the chances that some wood and metal contraption would “evolve” into a mousetrap? Remember, we need all nine parts; if only one is missing, it would not “live and reproduce.”60 The chance would be 1 in 1054, the number 1 followed by 54 zeros—that is, one chance in a million trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions. The human eye has over two million parts. Now what do you think the chances of a human eye evolving by chance might be? These small chances are why it is mostly rapidly multiplying microorganisms and pests that develop resistance to drugs or poisons. First, to get this resistance, they only need to change just one or two genes. Second, their fast multiplication gives them many tries to come up with resistant genetics. For example, if you want to toss coins until you get ten heads, you can get those ten heads much faster by dumping a couple of whole rolls of coins on the floor at once. The problem of irreducible complexity is fatal to Darwinism. The same must be said for the chances of habitable planets condensing from gas and dust around suitable stars by chance. However many habitable planets exist in the universe, they were all created by God’s precision manufacturing.61
If you like, you can experience the problem of irreducible complexity for yourself. You will want to build a simple something with nine parts, such as a stack of nine coins or child’s blocks. Take a pair of dice and throw them. If you get snake eyes (two), you have a beneficial change; add a part to your something. If it is any other number, you have a detrimental change; take one part away from your something if there are any parts there. Keep throwing dice and adding or removing parts until you are convinced or the sun gets cold.
In recognition of the problem of irreducible complexity, and of the high complexity of biology, especially mammalian, some scientists have put forth theories of intelligent design. They recognize that life is designed, and that there must be a designer. For the most part, proponents of intelligent design are shunned by mainstream science. Would that those who come to this realization find a saving relationship with the Designer! Alas, most do not. And how horrible it would be if their first real encounter with Scripture is via a book that twists Scripture to match what they have rejected!
The Big Bang theory also has many problems. There is currently no good generally accepted explanation for the source of the emergence of the Big Bang. There are many other problem areas as well.62 Whenever (if?) any of these areas are resolved, the Big Bang theory itself will need to be changed. Many scientists simply reject the Big Bang theory as being unproven.
Scientific knowledge is always a work in progress. Currently “received” theories of origin are in flux, like all of science. It would be not only strange, but tragic if some Christians retain these theories in support of their Framework Hypotheses at the expense of a simple and clear faith in God’s Word. There is danger that, as the theories are changed and updated, many Framework Hypotheses will be left in the dust, along with the Holy Bible’s subjective credibility.
60This is admittedly a simplistic illustrative model, but it would apply to multiple cases. In the case of the evolution of a new feature in an organism, until the feature is completely evolved and thus beneficial to the organism, it would not make it more fit but, due to non-beneficial energy and nutrient load, less fit. Thus, the variety of the organism with the developing new feature would go extinct in favor of varieties not burdened with it. Also, as illustrated, mutations would tend to degrade the feature over time, as well preventing its completion to beneficial state.
61It was formerly thought that exoplanets, planets of stars other than the sun, were rare. Now we know they are fairly common, though we know little about them as yet.
62There is no point in trying to discuss highly esoteric matters of General Relativity and quantum mechanics pertaining to a false theory in this book.
| Back | Contents | Next |