| Even if the chance that all the events coming together | | | | 000000000000000000000000000000000000000 (it's |
| perfectly to create life on Earth is virtually an | | | | actually a much larger denominator than that but those |
| impossible probability with staggering odds (which it is), | | | | are enough zeros for my point here), the "1" in the |
| we are told by evolutionists that it should not matter. | | | | numerator is viewed as a very real possibility. It is not. |
| As the physicist Stenger says, "Why not? Given all | | | | That's what all the zeros mean. This is not a probability |
| possibilities, why shouldn't it have happened? And why | | | | that argues what could happen but rather a probability |
| not all other possibilities as well? Our universe was | | | | that insists upon what will not happen. If the odds of |
| formed in one of the infinite number of ways it could | | | | something happening is 1 in 10, then the odds it won't is |
| have formed. The particular structure of our universe | | | | 9 in 10. Odds for, of 1 in 10000000000, means odds |
| came about by chance, freezing into form just like the | | | | against are 9999999999 in 10000000000. Extrapolate |
| six points of a snowflake." So the evolutionist loads the | | | | that to the larger number in the previous paragraph to |
| dice with infinite universes and infinite time and that | | | | see the virtual surety that the protein will not emerge |
| makes the impossibility of life coming to be by chance | | | | by chance. From a strictly probabilistic standpoint, the |
| not a long shot, but a virtual surety. Before we permit | | | | chance emergence and evolution of life is, by any |
| ourselves to get too excited about this "anything is | | | | reasonable definition of the word, impossible. Yet this |
| possible" argument, let's set the ground rules. If anything | | | | impossibility becomes surety to the materialist because |
| is possible-apples jumping off the ground and | | | | other possibilities (such as intelligent design), no matter |
| reattaching to trees, humans hatching out of chicken | | | | how probable they may be, are just too unpalatable. |
| eggs, the desert sand turning into ocean, life emerging | | | | But all this play on numbers and odds assumes that |
| from lifeless matter-then there can be no certainty | | | | the hypothetical phenomena of life emerging and |
| about anything. All science would end and we would | | | | evolving are a matter of chance. They are not. |
| fear putting one foot in front of the other because of | | | | Scientific laws make things happen in a particular way, |
| the possibility of the floor turning to quicksand or | | | | not chance. Things with mass fall to Earth, north poles |
| disappearing entirely. Yet that is not how things are, for | | | | attract south poles, negative charges attract positive |
| you, me or the most devout of materialistic | | | | charges and mass and energy are never destroyed, |
| evolutionists. The philosopher Descartes, wrestling with | | | | they just change places. An apple "could" jump to Pluto |
| a similar quandary concluded, "cogito ergo sum", I think, | | | | rather than fall to the ground and one could calculate |
| therefore I am. That is a good starting point for us as | | | | the odds for that. But it won't happen because there is |
| well. We are real and our thinking process is real. The | | | | a law of gravity and several others that declare it |
| way we sort real from unreal, resolve important | | | | won't. It's not really a matter of odds; it's a matter of |
| human issues and go about day-to-day life (thinking | | | | law. Now then, law governs every event that could |
| and being "I am") is by ignoring the virtually impossible | | | | lead to the emergence of life and to its evolution as |
| and banking on the probable, the reasonable and | | | | well, not chance. The laws of chemistry, physics and |
| certain. By what process does a scientist partition his | | | | biology declare and demand that order cannot emerge |
| mind such that he can one day busy himself about in | | | | from chaos, life cannot emerge from non-life (law of |
| the laboratory clanging together test tubes looking for | | | | biogenesis), and once order is present it cannot |
| high probabilities and certainty, go to sleep, wake up in | | | | compound and improve upon itself (gain complexity |
| the morning and then announce to a classroom or in | | | | and information) from chaos. Since life is highly ordered |
| an article that high improbabilities make certainty, i.e., life | | | | it could not therefore have emerged from a chaotic |
| emerged by chance? By so doing he accepts | | | | primordial soup. Neither could existent life have |
| unquestionably, as a philosophical premise, that which | | | | increased complexity (evolved) and transmutated from |
| he would never excuse in others, namely that unlikely | | | | random events such as mutations. The most obvious, |
| events are the ones we should bank on. Remember, | | | | well tested and sure of all laws in science and |
| this same materialist rejects extrasensory perception, | | | | experience demands that order come from order, |
| remote viewing, miracles, creation, foreknowledge, life | | | | information from information and mind from mind. |
| after death and the like not because they are | | | | Spontaneous generation and evolution fly directly in the |
| impossible, but because they appear improbable. | | | | face of these laws. Probabilities do not change that. |
| Double standard? Most certainly. The illogic emerges | | | | For further reading, or for more information about, Dr |
| from distorting the meaning of the math of probabilities. | | | | Wysong and the Wysong Corporation please visit or |
| For example, if the chance of a simple protein coming | | | | write to . |
| into existence by chance is 1 in | | | | |