The Blog

Can all the incredible specified complexity in life be explained by chance? Not a chance! Darwinists and theists have calculated the probability that life could arise by chance from nonliving chemicals. The figures they calculate are astronomically small—virtually zero.

For example, Michael Behe has said that the probability of getting one protein molecule (which consist of 100 amino acids) by chance would be the same as a blindfolded man finding one marked grain of sand in the Sahara Desert three times in a row. And one protein molecule is not life.

To get life, you would need to get about 200 of those protein molecules together. That probability is virtually zero.

But we believe the probability is actually zero. Why? Because “chance” is not a cause. Chance is a word that we use to describe mathematical possibilities. It has no power of its own. Chance is nothing. And that is exactly what rocks dream about.

If someone flips a coin, what is the chance it will come to heads? Fifty percent, we say. Yes, but what causes it to come heads? Is it chance? No, the primary cause is an intelligent being who decided to flip the coin and apply some force in doing so.

There are also secondary causes, such as the physical forces of wind and gravity, which impact the result of the flip. If we knew all the variables, we could calculate how the flip would turn out beforehand. But since we do not know the variables, we use the word “chance” to cover our ignorance.

We should not allow Darwinists to cover their deliberate ignorance with the word “chance”.

If they do not know a natural mechanism by which the first life could have come into existence, then they should admit they do not know rather than suggesting a powerless word that really is not a cause at all. “Chance” is just another example of the bad science practiced by Darwinists.

What lessons can we learn from the bad science of the Darwinists?