The Blog

Darwinists dismiss the conclusion that intelligence was necessary for the first life by suggesting that more time will allow natural laws to do their work. Give it several billion years and eventually we will get life. Is this plausible?

Let us go back to Mount Rushmore for a minute. Darwinists assert that science is built upon observation and repetition. Okay, suppose we observe and repeat the experiment for the next ten years where we allow natural laws to work on rock. Will we ever get the carved out faces of the founding fathers? Never.

You might say, maybe natural laws would do it if we give them billions of years. No, they would not. Why? Because nature disorders do not organize things.

We previously examined the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The fact that nature brings things toward disorder is another aspect of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. More time will make things worse for the Darwinists, not better.

How so? Let’s suppose you throw red, white, and blue confetti out of an airplane 1,000 feet above your house. What is the chance it is going to form the American flag on your front lawn? Very low. Why? Because natural laws will randomize the confetti. You say, “Allow more time.” Okay, let’s take the plane up to 10,000 feet to give natural laws more time to work on confetti. Does this improve the probability that the flag will form on your lawn? No, more time actually makes the flag less likely because natural laws have longer to do what they do—disorder and randomize.

What is different about the origin of the first life? Darwinists might say that the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply continuously to living systems. After all, living things grow and can get ordered. Yes, they can grow and be ordered, but they still lose energy in the process of growth. The food that goes into a living system is not processed at 100 percent efficiency. So the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to living systems as well.

But that is not even the point. The point is, we are not talking about what something can do once it is alive; we are talking about getting a living thing in the first place.

How did life arise from nonliving chemicals, without intelligent intervention, when nonliving chemicals are susceptible to the Second Law? Darwinists have no answer, only blind faith.

Can all the incredible specified complexity in life be explained by chance?