Can all the incredible specified complexity in life be explained by chance? Not a chance! Atheists and theists alike have caculated the probability that life could arise by chance by non-living chemicals. The figures they caculate are astronomically small - virtually zero. Michael Behe has said that the probability of getting one protein molecule (which has 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 about 200 of those protein molecules together.
Even though the probability is virtually zero, we believe the probability is actually zero. Why? Because "chance" is not a cause. Chance is a word we use to describe mathematical possibilities. It has no power on its own. Chance is no thing. Its what rocks dream about.
If someone flips a fair coin, what's the chance it would come up heads? Fifty percent, we say. Yes, but what caused it to come up heads? Is it chance? No, the primary cause is an intelligent being who decided to flip the coin and apply so much force in doing so. Secondary causes, such as the physical forces of wind and gravity, also impact the result of the flip. If we knew all those variables, we could calculate how the flip would turn out beforehand. But since we don't know those variables, we use the word "chance" to cover our ignorance.
We shouldn't allow atheists to cover up their ignorance with the word "chance."
If they don't know a natural mechanism by which the first life could have come into existence, then they should admit they don't know rather than suggesting a powerless word that, of course, really isn't a cause at all. "Chance" is just another example of the bad science practiced by Darwinists.
No comments:
Post a Comment