Basic HTML Version
analogy with other rare and com–
pletely unrelated chemical reactions
(seleclive autocatalysis).
3) Even though the probability is
immeasurably sma/1, it sti/1 is not
zero. Therefore, it cou/d have hap–
pened.
Do you want to believe in
such an improbable event? Is such a
beljef rational? Would you be will–
ing to bet your life on it? Would you
send your child to school on a bus
which had one chance in
100 ,000 , 000 , 000 , 000 ,000 ,000 ,
000 , 000 , 000 , 000 , 000 , 000 , 000
(=
10") of arriving safely?
In spite of the counterarguments,
the following facts stand.
Fact one:
If all the stars in the
universe had ten earths, and if all
the earths had oceans of "amino–
acid soup," and if all the amino
acids Linked up in chains 100 acids
long every second for the entire his–
tory of the universe, even then the
chance occurrence of a given very
simple
protein would be inconceiv–
ably remote.
But what if a protein did form by
chance? Would that be life? ls that
all there is to life- a blob of protein?
ls a dead dog alive because he has
protein? No, protein is just one
small piece of an intricately com–
plex puzzle.
Fact two:
Natural selection- like a
sieve- can only "produce" as output
those organisms which already
existed as input. Most evolutionists
freely admit that an organism (like
you and me) is an extremely un–
likely collection of molecules (in–
cluding proteins). However, they
claim that natural selection is the
fundamental probability sieve
which makes unlikely collections of
molecules like you and me possible.
But natural selection deals with
the survival or extinction of an orga–
nism, not with its origin.
Certainly natural selection might
explain why an organism survives or
dies. But it cannot explain where the
organism carne from in the first
place. Natural selection may explain
the
survival
of the fittest, but it can–
not explain the
arriva/
of the fittest.
In order to see that this is the
case, we' ll use the evolutionist's
analogy of a sieve. Suppose you had
a mixture of sand, pebbles, rocks,
16
etc., and you pul it into a sieve. The
pebbles, rocks and coarser particles
would be trapped by the sieve, while
the fine sand would pass through.
Would anyone seriously suggest
that the sieve had produced the fine
sand? Would anyone say that the
sieve explained the origin of the fine
sand? Ridiculous! The fine sand was
there all along- in the mixture.
The same is true of the process of
natural selection. Given many forms
of life and given certain environ–
mental conditions, the animals and
plants which are more suited to the
Reasoning based on
probability alone cannot
prove that a protein
could not form at
random. But it does show
the incredible odds
against it happening!
environment-more fit to survive–
will survive. Those which are unfit
to survive will die out. But note that
natural selection does not explain
the origin of the initial mixture of
plants and animals.
A classic example of natural se–
lection is the increase in the number
of dark moths and the decrease in
the number of light moths in parts
of Br itain after the Industrial Revo–
lution. Did natural selection pro–
duce dark moths? Absolutely not. A
mixture of dark and light moths
existed all along. However, indus–
trialization produced soot and dirt
on trees, buildings, etc., so that the
dark moths had better camouflage
than the light o·nes- the dark ones
were more fit to survive. The sieve
of natural selection allowed the dark
moths to pass through while the
light ones were trapped.
Fact tfiree:
Mutations are strictly
limited and cannot produce genu–
inely new forros of life. Evolutionists
claim mutations can produce genu–
inely new forms of life for input in
the natural selection "sieve," but
this has never been demonstrated.
True, variation within a given spe–
cies can- and often does- occur.
Witness the fantastic variety of dogs
which have "evolved"-largely un–
der man's guidance-over many
centuries. Yet a dog is still a dog,
and no dog has ever been observed
to change into a badger or raccoon.
Scientists, in an attempt to pro–
duce "new and improved" species.
have irradiated many forms of life
with intense radiation designed to
"speed up" the mutation process.
This they have succeeded in doing–
but only in the rarest case has a
mutation been considered desirable,
and in
no
case has an alteration of
species occurred.
For instance, numerous mu ta–
tions of the Drosophila fruit fJ.y have
been induced. One remarkable
group of flies had four wings instead
of two. A beneficia! mutation?
Hardly.
It
turned out that the four–
winged flies could not fly at aU.
You might, as a matter of blind
faith , believe that mutations are re–
sponsible for changing one species
into another, but science has no evi–
dence whatsoever for such a belief.
Let's put it all together. Fact one
establishes that every organism is an
incredibly unlikely collection of
highly improbable
mol~cules.
Therefore the odds against any or–
ganism coming into existence by
pure chance are unbelievably fan–
tastic! Fact two means that natural
selection cannot make an organism
more probable, since natura l selec–
tion requires the preexistence of an
organism. And fact three leads to
the conclusion that mutations can–
not account for the arrival of new
kjnds of organisms.
Are the myriad life forros which
exist today the result of the un–
fathomably improbable. blind–
chance occurrence of highly com–
plex molecules, followed by even
more blind-chance combinations of
these molecules? No. Does natural
selection provide the answer? No.
Do mutations explain how evolu–
tion occurs? No.
The conclusion is inescapable.
Life was planned. Life was de–
signed. Life was created!
o
-
William Stenger
The
PLAIN TRUTH August 1978