THE MECHANICS OF CHANCE & THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF EVOLUTION

Christopher H. K. Persaud 

 

 

An Overview of the Possibility of Chance Events

The heading of this essay is more or less an oxymoronic one as “mechanics” refers to “the functional or technical details of a procedure or exercise”, and “chance” relates to “the unknown and unpredictable element in happenings seemingly without assignable cause.” (2018 Merriam-Webster Incorporated) Something occurring by chance then, cannot logically be associated with “mechanics” or functional parameters of any kind. Semantics aside, relating “the mechanics of chance” to evolutionary theory serves to bring to the fore, the sheer absurdity of a premise (Darwinian or biological evolution) that is anything but fact, but that nevertheless is taught as scientific truth around the world.

In the next three paragraphs, the author recalls in the first person, childhood memories about certain things in nature he held in awe and about his reaction after he heard about Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution for the first time.a procedure or exercise, and “chance” relates to the unknown and unpredictable element in happenings seemingly without assignable cause.  (2018 Merriam-Webster Incorporated)  Something occurring by chance then, cannot logically be associated with “mechanics” or functional parameters of any kind. The author asks the reader’s pardon for the use of the incongruous phrase.

Growing up, the realization of knowing we lived on a planet suspended in midair or nowhere, with many, many other celestial bodies surrounding it enraptured me. I knew nothing then about the Milky Way and the superabundance of other galaxies that contained in them, illimitable numbers of planets, stars and other such wonders, all unexplainably positioned in space, functioning in unbelievable coordination and cohesion and never falling out of place. The majestically lit sky at night enthused in my innermost self, feelings of wonder and incredulity. The blinding sun that hovered overhead during the day and the searing heat it emitted from an inconceivably distant location from the earth portentously reminded a growing boy of powerful forces and realities that existed in a world he did not yet clearly understand.

I pondered how I would close my eyes and everything around me would become dark, and then open them to a wondrous world of color, size and shape. I pinched my arm, felt pain, and strove to understand how such a reaction could be possible. I looked at the world around me and marveled at the complexity of living things, of all shapes and sizes, each in its own capacity fulfilling a role as a player in a grand scheme of things; a plan seemingly engineered by some kind of ultimate, overseeing authority.

I grew up in a Christian home, with my dear mother the spiritual mentor of our closely-knit family. My faith back then when I was a child was sufficient to assure me a supreme and merciful God was indeed in charge of the universe and all therein, and that He was the architect and creator of all that existed. As I grew older, I heard about the Theory of Evolution and its implications. What I heard was anathema to my religious convictions. The notion that the cosmos, and life itself, were the results of chance events and not occasioned by the grace of an extraordinary intellect was revolting to say the least. I abhorred the idea then. Today I acquiesce, beyond every doubt, the theory is utter foolhardiness and, contrary to what proponents of evolution posit, anything but scientific fact.

Evolutionary theory essentially hinges on supposedly favorable, constructive chance happenings, millions upon millions of them, over a period of billions of years. In the Merriam-Webster dictionary, a definition of chance that is an alternative to the previous one is “something that happens unpredictably without discernible human intention or observable cause.” (2018 Merriam-Webster Incorporated). The context in which evolutionists use the word is very similar to the forgoing, if not the same.

The unremitting references to the happenstance nature of the evolutionary process easily overwhelms the unwary reader who would peruse the many purported scientific texts available today about evolutionary theory and the origin and supposed development of life. The subjectivity is cause for deep agitation of mind. Although the theory more or less in its entirety pivots on chance events, many of them begging a profound measure of blind trust in order for one to consider them remotely plausible, the hypothesis’ most outlandish supposition revolves around the claim that at the outset, life emerged from non-life and living organisms proceeded from inanimate, non-living, inorganic material!

Evolutionists, because evolutionary theory rejects the notion of a designer and/or creator, must cling to one aspect or another of the spontaneous generation hypothesis. Out of necessity, supporters of the theory latch on to the concept that a long time ago microscopic life somehow must have emerged, unprompted and  unplanned, from non-living matter. A prevalent supposition is the earth’s atmosphere originally consisted of carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia and water. Through chance events, energy from a number of sources, including the sun, transformed the aforementioned basic compounds into amino acids. A large number of varied amino acids gradually accumulated in the sea and produced protein-like compounds. Eventually, the ocean became what evolutionists refer to as an extensive “organic soup.”

According to evolutionists, an extraordinary thing then happened within the “organic soup” – a particularly remarkable molecule came about by accident – a molecule that had the ability to reproduce itself. Subsequently, similar ‘super molecules’ came into being and massed themselves into a cluster. Another incredible thing then took place; haphazardly of course, as the aggregated super molecules somehow produced a protective barrier made up of other protein molecules and wrapped themselves with this barrier or membrane.

Voila! The first living cell came into being – a result of self-generation!

Scientific endeavor hypothesizes if an event with a one-in-a-thousand chance of happening does occur, then the occurrence merits further investigation in order to determine whether it is accidental or purposeful. The premise is that such an event is most likely the result of deliberate planning and implementation.

It is fitting to mention at this point that scientific scholarship generally acknowledges the odds of the organic evolution of humankind taking place are 102,000,000,000. This is a figure expressed in exponential notation and essentially means the number is too large for expression as a regular number with the zeros written out. Instead, the number of zeros, written exponentially, follows a base of 10. The number 102,000,000,000 carries two billion zeros after its base and would require about 2,000 standard sized books to show it in its entirety. Scientists, including many evolutionary theorists, consider one chance in 1015 of an event occurring a practical impossibility. The French expert Emile Borel, in his “single law of chance” theory, cites one chance in 1050 of something occurring as odds beyond which an event would never take place. The number 1050, with 50 zeros following a base of 10, represents 100 trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion and falls between a “quindecillion” and a “sexdecillion”. How can evolutionists, who maintain it is virtually impossible for an event to occur if there is one chance in 1015 of it happening, expect people to believe an event or events with one chance in 102,000,000,000 actually took place, and barefacedly tout such falsehood as scientific fact?

Notwithstanding the inanity of even remotely acknowledging the possibility of life deriving accidentally from non-life and evolving into the countless life forms existing today, such presumptions by evolutionists, as unempirical and unsubstantiated as they are, lie at the hub of their allegedly “scientific” deliberations about the origin and development of life.

Evolution and Chance – Various Conceptual Contradictions

“Chance” or “something that happens unpredictably without discernible human intention or observable cause,” generally is not associated with the following eight concepts or considerations, all of which scientists nevertheless assume were part of the theoretical evolutionary processes espoused by Charles Darwin and his supporters. Allowing for the unlikeliest of odds of life emerging accidentally from non-life, and one or two of the stated conditions arising through pure chance, the likelihood of all of the circumstances attending to a process over an extensive period is infinitesimal or better put, nonexistent.

The following considerations about order, continuity, multiplicity, uniformity, coordination, purpose & progress, and conscience all hinge on the plausibility, or the lack thereof, of life emerging from inorganic, non-living material and developing accidentally. To the evolutionist, the notion is a foregone conclusion; to the creationist or non-evolutionist, the assumption is a concrete impossibility.

It is expedient to note although the aforementioned issues appear separately below, they invariably apply simultaneously to a particular situation or subject, for example, a human being in everyday life. In addition, behavioral experts generally consider the faculty of a conscience to pertain only to higher forms of intelligent creatures, such as human beings.

A separate section toward the end of this discussion touches upon the issue of “chance and functionality” and “gradual functionalism.”

Chance & Order – For evolution to be true, remarkable order had to be evident in many ways, beginning with the conjectural self-assembly of basic compounds such as carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia and water to produce amino acids, and then protein compounds. The formation of the ‘super molecules” that supposedly gave rise to the first organic or living cell had to follow an intricate pattern or method if the molecules indeed  produced a structure, originally thought to be just a protoplasmic blob, as immaculately complex and ordered in construction as the living cell. Chance events just do not translate into such awesome order!

The physical order present in the abundance of living things existing today; from the simple one-celled organism to the multi-celled human being, the latter made up of about 100 trillion (100,000,000,000,000) brain, nerve and muscle cells, perplexes even the most fertile imagination. The breathtaking order evident in the physical arrangement of the human body, and multitudinous other creatures as well – internally with a plethora of amazing organs strategically placed, and externally with purposefully appended organs like the extremities, the skin and hair – is more than enough to make the most gifted of architects blush with wonderment and admiration.

Attempting to comprehend the astonishing order presumed by the evolutionary process is like imagining taking fragments from various trees usable in the production of paper, adding glue and ink, putting them in a container of some sort, shaking the container, dumping everything on the ground, and producing a perfectly written and published volume of the Encyclopedia Britannica. The evolution of life is many, many more times improbable than filling a bag with red, white, blue, black, yellow and green beads, then dipping a scoop in the bag and retrieving an even number of beads comprised of even numbers of all six colors…every time!

Chance & Continuity – Evolutionary theory presupposes, through the auspices of chance happenings, a continuity of events beginning with the formation of the first living cell a long, long time ago, and the eventual production of the multiple forms of life abounding today, via millions of extremely rare, favorable mutational changes aided and abetted by environmental conduciveness. The supposed evolutionary chain of events paints a picture of a remarkable upward trend that baffles even the most accommodating of observers.

After something tangible or corporeal materializes by chance without the involvement of a maker or initiator, it is highly improbable for there to be continuing happenstance events leading to progressive change or to positive modification of whatever has come into existence. Should there be a continuity of events assumed to relate in one way or another to whatever emerges accidentally, then such events essentially would be separate and distinct activities and almost never would lead to progressive change. The noted French mathematician and biologist Marcel-Paul Schutzenberger, a member of the French Academy of Sciences, spoke about the impossibility of life developing continuously through chance mutation and natural selection in his book, Algorithms and the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution. Schutzenberger said:

 …there is no chance (10-1000) to see this mechanism appear spontaneously and if it did, even less for it to remain….Thus, to conclude, we believe there is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution, and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged within the current conception of biology. (Algorithms and the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution, Marcel P. Schutzenberger – Moorehead and Kaplan, eds., 75; cf., Bird, I, 79-80)

Schutzenberger was an outspoken contributor at the famous Wistar Symposium of 1966.

Certain happenings may be accidental and yet lead to subsequent, or continuing beneficial or ordered events as opposed to organized ones. Invariably, however, in such cases there is an element of design or origination by a creative force, for example, where an apple seed falls to the ground and becomes a plant, then a tree that produces fruit. The following sequence of events might serve as another example – an individual stumbles and falls while walking, and by falling, avoids a stray bullet that whizzes by overhead, and then sees a lottery ticket lying on the ground that he or she picks up and later finds out is a winning ticket. The latter scenario is highly unlikely and decidedly far-fetched, though not remotely as fanciful as evolutionary musing. In each of the aforementioned examples, there is an unquestionable element of design and/or origination or preexistence (the seed and fertile earth in the first scenario and the individual, bullet and lottery ticket, among other things, in the second example). In addition, although certain aspects of fortuity are apparent in each story, there is a discernible measure of anticipation relative to the various activities e.g. there is the expectation the apple seed would germinate and grow into a fruit-bearing tree if it falls on fertile ground. Additionally, the multiple incidents comprising the story are separate, unrelated events or may be stand-alone occurrences, as in the example about the stumbling individual.

It would help further to consider a scenario whereby a continued chain of events, unplanned and unguided, leads to a remarkable outcome. The story is wholly imaginary, of course, and the probability of such a sequence of events taking place is entirely nonexistent.

Picture an individual in a dragline (a type of excavating machine) in a junkyard on a pitch-dark night, utilizing a powerful extractor magnet to lift automotive parts from abandoned vehicles. He or she can hardly see a thing. However, he or she picks up numerous, maybe hundreds of parts, one at a time, and ends up retrieving the perfect number of working parts necessary to assemble a working automobile, the latter a particular model of a particular make of vehicle, color-coded as would be a finished product. Would an evolutionist agree such a sequence of events is impossible? Yes, absolutely! Nevertheless, this selfsame evolutionist would insist a continued sequence of accidental events much more incredible than the forgoing, not only is possible, but also actually did take place, and over the course of many millions or billions of years of continuous, extremely rare beneficial mutational changes and environmental conduciveness, produced the myriad life forms in the world today.

Chance & Multiplicity – Someone tosses a lighted stick of dynamite into a huge garbage container filled with paper and the explosion produces the following awesome outcome – multiple hundreds of thousands of pieces of paper, or millions of pieces, all in the form of identical little squares, and nothing else, spew out from the garbage container!

What are the chances of an event such as the forgoing taking place and producing such results? Absolutely zero! Yet evolutionists try to tell a global audience that events decidedly more far-fetched than the aforementioned actually took place along an envisaged evolutionary route.

Evolutionism teaches that after the first living cells originated through happenstance events from dead or inorganic matter, certain types replicated themselves many times over to produce organisms more complex in nature and composition. Over the course of billions of years these organisms, supposedly aided and abetted by conducive environmental factors, genetic modifications and later by sexual and asexual reproductive processes, resulted in the multitudinous life forms existing today, each essentially similar in genetic and physical structure to numberless others in its particular specie classification.

Evolutionary theory, in essence, says the 7 billion people who populate the earth today are here by accident, as were the numerous billions who lived and died before the present age. Human beings accidentally became living organisms from non-living material. Evolutionists insist the billions of human beings who are identical genetically and anatomically; male and female in their separate stead, acquired the distinguishing attributes through haphazard circumstances! Evolutionism advocates the 7,000,000,000 souls who think, feel and function alike owe their existence to an aggregation of basic inorganic compounds that inexplicably came to life accidentally. Furthermore, evolutionists say the multiple billions of life forms, in addition to human beings who populate the earth; from myriad minute organisms such as the free-living bacterium “mycoplasma genitalium” (measuring 0.2 to 0.3 micrometers – a micrometer is one thousandth of a millimeter) to the gigantic blue whale, came about by chance. The fact that living organisms, including human beings, live, breathe, grow and propagate in environments conducive to such activities is attributable only to happenstance…not to anything or anyone else! So evolutionists say!

People face making a choice between two fundamental schools of thought i.e. did life just happen, as evolutionists claim; or is there a form of higher intelligence, one endowed with extraordinary knowledge and power, which is responsible for the origination of life and for humankind being here?

A book, written over a period of 1,600 years and authored by at least 40 men and women, and that has sold more copies than any other work in history, offers the following insight. The Holy Bible, in the Book of Genesis, says:

And God said, Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God saw everything that he had made, and, indeed, it was very good… (Genesis, Chapter 1:26, 27, 31)

Chance & Uniformity – For the purposes of this discussion, the author uses the term “uniformity” in any one or more of the following contexts.

(a) Consistent in conduct (method of operation) or opinion; uniform interpretation of rules or laws

(b) Always having the same form, manner, or degree; not varying or variable

(c) Of the same form with others; conforming to one rule or mode.

Evolutionists assume a startling measure of uniformity in the evolutionary process. The uniformity is breathtaking – from the construction and functioning of the living cell in a simple organism to the multiple trillions of such cells in a more complex creature’s body such as a human being’s, and the makeup and operation of such cells – there is evidence of a master designer and creator at work. Evolutionists readily acknowledge such homogeny and regularity indeed exist, but only because of happenstance events!

The human body, with its structural magnificence, is similar to the construction evidenced in the bodies of human beings everywhere, all seven billion of them who populate the earth today! Accidental? Hardly! Is it by chance a bird, like all other birds; has two wings and a beak? How can the existence of a human being who, along with just about every other higher animal, boasts four extremities and a head with two eyes, two ears, a pair of nostrils and a mouth, be attributed to spontaneous, inadvertent events occurring over many millions or billions of years? Is the striking uniformity evident in the internal organs such as the brain, lungs (always a pair), heart and bowels among others, in all animals including man, not testament to the handiwork of a supreme, creative power?

The unmistakable consistency in the ways the living cell operates, each cell within its own parameters and cells as a whole, in all creatures, great and small, defies the patently illogical “scientific”

assumption that such uniformity or relationships initially came about accidentally and that organisms progressed through coincidental events to become the living structures they are today. The parallel, unswerving manner in which the internal and external organs of similar creatures everywhere respond to various biological, physiological and other stimuli bespeaks the presence of a regularity or standardization wholly incompatible with the mechanics of chance.

The following simple anecdote exposes the futility of evolutionist musing in the context of “uniformity”. Someone places a huge collection of malfunctioning and/or broken watches of various makes or brands into some sort of processor, activates the latter, and produces numerous complete Rolex watches in perfect working order, each equipped with the brand’s reputable moisture, temperature and shock resistance features. It is reasonable to say even someone with a mentally challenged intellect would straightaway dismiss the possibility of the accidental occurrence of such constancy and equivalence. Yet evolutionists try to coerce people into believing events unquestionably more improbable than those mentioned above i.e. life originating fortuitously from non-life and developing through mutational changes in an overall uniform and consistent manner from a single-celled organism to the staggeringly complex life forms of today, not only is likely but actually happened.

Chance  &  Coordination  –  The  coordination  exhibited  by living creatures in the way they function physically within their own structural confines and in their relationships with other living beings, similar and dissimilar to themselves, is a characteristic born of intelligent design and implementation. A single cell, for instance, is an extraordinarily complex and awesome living organism and functions like a diminutive chemical plant. Made up of an enormous number of components, a cell, as it carries out its functions, exhibits a startling measure of coordination among its numerous parts. Every component has to be in place and perform its unique task or tasks in order for the cell to function properly as a whole.

The countless openings on the surface of the cell open and close to allow the inflow and outflow of various substances. Within the cell, the seemingly unceasing, strategically organized passageways that channel materials branch out in every conceivable direction away from the border of the cell, some en route to the nucleus, others to various junctions that store, interpret and relay information. The nucleus itself is a spherical housing wherein lie miles of orderly stored spiral chains of DNA molecules. The manner in which materials travel along the intricate passageways of the cell bespeaks an unimaginable measure of coordination. The interrelationships among the various components of the cell seem to adhere to meticulous orchestration and are particularly purposeful. Even the simplest parts of the cell’s functional mechanism (the protein molecules) share in awesome genetic exercises that encompass the coordination and harmonization of the cell’s innumerable structural components. Protein molecules are unbelievably intricate in form and construction, with each one comprising about three thousand atoms arranged incredibly in 3-D spatial conformation.

The human body, along with every other existing living organism, exhibits a structural exactitude, all not necessarily at the same level of complexity, which is conducive to unerring coordination among its innumerable parts as the latter perform their various functions. The multiple trillions of cells in the human body work in consort with each other in storing, relaying and deciphering information and in enabling mental and physical actions and reactions. Muscle and nerve cells, for instance, transmit messages to the brain, the latter containing its own muscle and nerve cells. The brain in turn communicates “answers” to relevant parts of the body as to how to react to stimuli e.g. an individual accidentally touching a heated object and quickly withdrawing his or her hand after realizing the object is hot. Needless to say, the messages to and from the brain travel at unbelievable, blinding speed and the coordination among cells and the various parts of the body is astonishing.

Could a structure such as the amazing cell, with all its awesome elements, come about through happenstance events? Could wonderfully designed organs, internal and external, like the heart, brain, eye, ear, lung and extremities originate and develop accidentally over many millions or billions of years like evolutionists claim they did? Could coordination in actions and reactions among structures like the various kinds of cells and/ or internal and external organs be coincidental? Evolutionists say “yes,” and it is lamentable many millions of people readily accept such drivel as incontrovertible truth.

Chance and Purpose & Progress – A decidedly problematic issue confronting evolutionists revolves around explaining how purpose and progress can exist in the lives of living things, especially in certain kinds of higher animals, if as evolutionists claim, life originated accidentally from dead matter and progressed through coincidental events to produce the myriad life forms in the world today.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary (2012 Merriam-Webster Incorporated) defines “purpose” as “something set up as an object or end to be attained.” The words “intention”, “resolution” and “determination” are a few synonyms. “Progress” is defined as “a  forward or onward movement (as to an objective or to a goal) or gradual  betterment; especially: the progressive development of mankind.”

In every aspect of life, there is purpose and/or progress. Beginning with the simple cell and its functioning as a complex chemical  factory to its relationship with other cells, trillions of various kinds, to the working of say, the human body as a whole with its numerous parts operating in conjunction to produce anticipated results, there is an objective towards progress or betterment or an end to be achieved.

Viewing the issue from another perspective, there is purpose and/ or progress in the way living beings think and behave. For instance, a human baby learns to turn on its back, learns to crawl, speak, walk and run. When he or she is old enough, the child attends school and participates in a learning process that spans a number of years. He or she then progresses to young adulthood, equipped for life’s  challenges. Various types of learning then take place, some empirically, including moral and spiritual instruction as the case may be. The individual sets goals and seeks to attain them. He or she experiences failure sometimes, but it is safe to say success attends his or her endeavors more often than disappointment. Although progress and triumph sometimes are elusive, purpose generally is persistently present in an individual’s life.

How do  evolutionists  explain  the  presence  of  purpose  and/ or progress or success in the lives of living things, particularly in the life of a human being? How does something (such as life) that originates by chance from inanimate materials, as evolutionists claim; something supposedly unassociated with planning, design, and implementation by a creating or guiding force, acquire the tendency itself to plan, set objectives and enjoy progress or growth and success?

Evolutionists do acknowledge indirectly there is “purpose and progress” in life. They have no choice, really! There had to be purpose and improvement along the so-called evolutionary chain if, as these spreaders of misinformation claim, life began with inorganic materials and developed progressively into a living cell and after many millions or billions of years resulted in today’s various life forms. Evolutionists cannot explain however, given the purported happenstance circumstances surrounding evolution, how the rudiments of purpose and progress became factors in the overall process.

Evolutionists attempt to explicate the progression from simple celled organisms to higher forms of life through the auspices of genetic mutation. Genetic mutations, as one knows, are  transcribing mistakes made by genes resident in cells. Such errors occur completely at random and are very rare i.e. about once in every ten million instances of cell division. In addition, scientific study confirms genetic mutations are usually harmful and serve to weaken or sicken the organisms in question. Such changes would hinder progress instead of enhancing it. Notwithstanding the extreme rarity of genetic mutations, especially beneficial ones, evolutionists paradoxically claim such modifications somehow account for the progress along the evolutionary chain.

Yet another problem for evolutionists is the daunting task of accounting for the male and female species of various kinds of  animals. The male and female species of any type of animal are unique in a variety of ways. Is it by chance the structure of a human male is anatomically different from the makeup of a human female?

Is it by chance a man’s genetic makeup differs from a woman’s genetic composition? Is it feasible to acknowledge the dissimilarities in sexual proclivity between a man and a woman could have come about accidentally? Further, could the complementary allure attending such inclinations, leading to sexual bonding and facilitating the reproduction of the species, be coincidental? People blindly fall prey to evolutionist misrepresentation of the facts and accept their presumptions as scientific and factual. Alternatively, these poor, inveigled souls may refer to the Holy Bible and read the following passages in Mark’s Gospel, “But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female…’”  (Mark, 10:6), and in the Book of Psalms, “For it was you who formed my inward parts; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; that, I know very well.” (Psalms 139:13,14). Now these words tell about purpose and design, about intention and progress, about a loving, omnipotent, omniscient God who alone can create life and who has a plan of redemption to draw to himself all the wayward members of his creation who would approach his Throne of Grace*.

*(God in his position as a loving, merciful, compassionate and forgiving Creator)

Chance & Conscience – As if the issues of purpose, progress and sexuality were not problematic enough, evolutionists must contend with a decidedly more unnerving undertaking – explaining how  a  “conscience”  or  the sentiment  of  moral  uprightness  could enter the persona of something emerging from inorganic matter, presumably without the involvement of a knowledgeable creator and/or originator. The Merriam-Webster dictionary (2012 Merriam-Webster Incorporated) defines the term “conscience” as (a) “the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one’s own conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good” and (b) “a faculty, power, or principle enjoining good acts.” How can a conscience or the faculty to engage in wholesome thought and good actions be present in any living being, the latter itself not initially brought into existence by a magnificent, creative entity possessing such a capacity to reason and perform?

The definitions given above unmistakably emphasize that the presence of a conscience in an individual revolves around behavioral tendencies toward morality and goodness. An individual possesses the capacity to discern between right and wrong and he or she normally endeavors to choose commendable courses of action under circumstances coincident with the various activities in his or her life.

Commonsensical thinking dictates where there exist fundamental principles to guide people in choosing between right and wrong or between good and evil, such standards must originate from preexisting, initiating sources. A cursory glance at the world in its present state confirms this assumption. Parents teach their children values that would help them make proper decisions and teachers inculcate in their young students etiquette that would help them learn successfully and relate well to others. Religious heads offer guidance to adherents of a faith as to spiritual and philosophical expectations, and community leaders advocate established behavioral ethics their constituents should follow in proper participation in civic affairs.

Even where one produces of an inanimate or non-living object, such as an automated machine, programmed in some way to perform certain actions that simulate good or evil, or beneficial or destructive decisions, the designer and/or manufacturer determines such “decision making” parameters. There must be a pre-existing source that enables the capability of the constructed machine to “choose” a particular course of action. It is no different with living organisms. Where the human being especially, is concerned, an inconceivably supreme intellect must have been involved in order to produce life from inorganic matter or from nothing and to infuse the capacity to tell the difference between right and wrong (a conscience) into an individual’s inner persona or subconscious mind.

Even though some people would choose to do wrong instead of right or evil instead of good, it does not invalidate the contention that the presence of a conscience in an individual must have originated through a super intelligent force or creator. Indeed, such reality strengthens the premise of a supernatural creator’s existence as it helps to bear out that humankind possesses the capacity to choose between alternative or contradictory courses of action when faced with different options. It is entirely reasonable to assume such predilections could only proceed from a higher, creative entity.

Functionality & Gradual Functionalism – Their Impossibility through Chance Events

Chance & Functionality – The possibility of any kind of  system, especially one wherein organization and complexity are evident, deriving its functionality through happenstance events or happenings is very difficult to fathom. Complex systems, inanimate or  living,  can  only  eventuate  from  purposeful  planning,  design and implementation. Watches, motor vehicles, computers and airplanes are examples of non-living things taken from what must be an inexhaustible list of intricate, functional systems that could only result from design and implementation. Living things, including plants, animals and human beings are representative of complex, living organisms and creatures that conceivably could only proceed from a superlative, creative genius.

In almost every instance, functionality derives from unique combinations of compatible components or subsystems that form a small percentage of a vast number of groupings or associations otherwise unsuitable for the function at hand. The manner in which human DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid – a chemical compound found in a cell’s chromosomes) functions in its role as part of a high-level genetic language or code that helps determine hereditary traits in a human being, provides an analogy of the forgoing assumption.

Scientists have determined the components of a human DNA rung (two chains of chemical strands coiled together to form a spiral) can be combined in 1087 different ways. The number 1087 refers to a measurement with a base of 10 followed by 87 zeros and that is so large, mathematicians show it exponentially. It is a number so great even an experienced mathematician would feel intimidated to have to utilize it in a calculation of any sort.

The generation of a DNA molecule results from the successful utilization of only one of the 1087 DNA component combinations. Even if a different combination of components were attempted every second, it would take longer than 4.5 billion years, the preposterous figure evolutionists say represents the age of the earth (preposterous because it is much, much too large a figure, in any event), for the lone correct combination to occur. Four and half billion years translate into 1018 seconds and as can be seen, such a count, although in itself a confoundingly large number, is much, much smaller than the 1087 figure appertaining to the possible DNA component combinations. Yet evolutionists presume the right combination of DNA components not only occurred as result of blind chance, but also happened billions of years ago. Such deliberation adds insult to injury by intimating it did not even require combination efforts remotely close to as many as 1087 (or even 1018) in order for the first DNA molecule, and subsequent ones, to come into existence.

Chance and Gradual Functionalism – Even more inconceivable than the inference by evolutionists that chance alone can produce functionality in complex systems, is the suggestion that gradual functionalism, which had to have occurred if evolutionism were true, is possible through the means of random, accidental events.

Dr. Michael Denton, in his critically acclaimed work, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, makes the following statement concerning the unlikelihood of gradual functional transformation taking place in complex living things.

The impossibility of gradual functional transformation is  virtually self-evident in the case of proteins: mere casual observation reveals that a protein is an interesting whole, the function of every amino acid being more or less (like letters in a sentence or cogwheels in a watch) essential to the function of the entire system. To change, for example, the shape and function of the active site (like changing the verb in a sentence or an important cogwheel in a watch) in isolation would be bound to disrupt all the complex intermolecular bonds throughout the molecule, destabilizing the whole system and rendering it useless.” (Michael Denton, Evolution:  A Theory in Crisis, 1986, p.321)

Studies in enzyme reactions disclose proteins react to only restricted levels of functional change through a succession of  separate amino acid replacements. Marked functional change, it follows, would require multiple simultaneous amino acid replacements, notwithstanding the near impossibility of their occurrence.  Pointed research indicates functional interconversion is impossible in relation to a family of closely related proteins where the various components harbor different amino acid arrangements in the central region of the molecule.

The general pattern of discontinuity observable in the behavior of proteins is evident in the case of other complex systems as well. The inference is chance alone cannot give rise to function, organization and complexity in any living system, living or non-living.

Returning to the issue as to whether functional proteins or functionality in an amino acid sequence may result from chance events, a few exclusive conditions must be present. Firstly, a protein has to be a stable or fixed structure and remain thus long enough to accommodate a particular 3D shape in order to interact in a specific manner with another selective component of the cell. Secondly, a protein ought to be able to fold into its correct shape. Thirdly, for a protein to have catalytic or reactive properties, it must possess an active site that comprises a select arrangement of atoms derived from the surface of the protein molecule.

Scientific scholarship about protein structure and protein functionality strongly implies the aforementioned requisite factors would place severe restrictions on the choice of amino acids utilized in the sequence of operations. Similarly, the process of satisfying the requirements of a protein being stable and disposed to folding into its proper shape would greatly compromise the availability of amino acids. In addition, scientists have determined should there be mutations that trigger changes in an amino acid sequence; such changes invariably would affect functionality adversely.

Studies pertaining to hemoglobin reveal the effects of mutations such as the aforementioned (M.F. Perutz and H. Lehmann, 1968, Molecular Pathology of Human Hemoglobin, Nature, 219:902 – 909) and confirm the possibility of harmful consequences instead of beneficial ones, especially in relation to amino acids located in the centre of the protein molecule. Stability and function of the molecule consequently would undergo strikingly detrimental changes.

The unmistakable message conveyed by the forgoing deliberations is functional proteins are extremely rare, more so because amino acid sequences that might comply with the criteria for proper functionality enumerated earlier are also exceedingly uncommon. Trustworthy scientific erudition suggests even a short amino acid sequence (about 10 amino acids long) that might adhere to the restrictive conditions germane to effective protein function occurs by chance only once in every 1013 count of average sized proteins. Unique sequences 20 amino acids long appear once in every 1026 tally of proteins and those 30 amino acids long, once in every 1039 set of proteins. Given the established reckoning of no more than 1040 possible proteins being existent on Earth since its beginning, functional proteins, if they appear in sequences any less than 10-40, which it manifestly seems they do, very likely could never have come about as a result of chance or have originated through a  happenstance evolutionary path.

Evolutionary Claims – Subjective, Instead of Scientifically Objective

The fact that evolutionists uninhibitedly field preposterous and unscientific claims about life originating by accident and progressing by chance under what would have been improbable circumstances, and against impossible odds, as intimated by the forgoing discussion on gradual functional transformation, tells a lot about a mindset given, wholly at times, to stark fantasy and blind belligerence.

The following statement by the hateful evolutionist Richard Dawkins, who, in the estimation of many, has shed every semblance of a constructive approach to scientific research and analysis in his bitter drive to promote evolution as a scientifically valid hypothesis, bears witness to the reckless evolutionist mindset. Dawkins is in the habit of making bold and bizarre pronouncements in favor of evolutionism while simultaneously deriding religious thought. He harbors a distinctive penchant for wanting to belittle the Christian faith, an ideology about which the author feels certain he understands very little.

Charles Darwin showed how it is possible for blind physical forces to mimic the effects of conscious design, and, by operating as a cumulative filter of chance variations, to lead eventually to  organized and adaptive  complexity, to mosquitoes and mammoths, to humans and therefore, indirectly, to books and computers. (Richard Dawkins, The Necessity of Darwinism, 1982, New Scientist, 94, (1301) 15th April, pp.130-132)

The sane, logical mind, after reading a pitifully subjective mouthing like the forgoing, an opinion voiced by an individual who promotes himself as a practical thinking representative of the noble profession of real science, easily would understand why  evolutionism is beset by so many problems today. The very use of the title of the article by Dawkins, The Necessity of Darwinism, betrays his real intent i.e., to help forge a universal lie at all costs and to sponsor scholarship far removed from the realm of real science.

October 2019

Christopher H.K. Persaud is a Christian apologetics writer and poet who has authored 11 full-length books to date, including a lone book of poetry. He has also written numerous essays and articles that appear on the Internet. Four of the author’s books have won a total of 9 international awards.

Visit the author’s web site at  www.christopherhkpersaud.com

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

  

  

  

Recent Comments



    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner