5 REASONS CHEMICAL EVOLUTION IS FALSE: #5: Chemical Evolution is mathematically and physically impossible
Some people believe that—given a few billion years—almost anything could happen by chance, mathematically speaking.

Perhaps even atoms could be formed from nothingness, and from those atoms, amoebas could spontaneously generate themselves and come alive.

Then, those amoebas could, over time, morph into rhinos, hippos, and eventually you.

At least, that's what evolutionists insist happened (they call the spontaneous generation of life "Chemical Evolution").

And they're so convinced that life popped from nothingness that they're busy rooting around in outer space looking for aliens—on your dime, naturally.

Thirty or forty years ago, most would have rightfully considered anyone who seriously pondered on aliens to be certifiably insane. And today, science has demonstrated even more emphatically that we have no reason to believe differently.

However, because evolutionists are trying to sell the public on aliens (based upon their religious belief that nature somehow spontaneously generated us all)—we are compelled to address the issue of Chemical Evolution, so that their baseless claims that "God had nothing to do with our existence" can once again be put to logical rest.

The basic facts behind Borel's Law

Because of Chemical Evolution's inconceivable claims, some mathematicians set to work on calculating the probability that Chemical Evolution could have actually happened at all.

And the results were quite astonishing.

Experts tell us there are roughly 1080 particles (electrons and protons) in the entirety of our immense universe. That's 10 with 80 zeros behind it, or one hundred million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion.

In other words, 1080 is a lot of particles.

Imagine for a moment (as some experts have estimated) that each particle in the universe could perform 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 (1020) events per second.

Also assume for a moment that the universe is more than 15 billion years old (about 1018 seconds)—also a generous approximation.

If these numbers are reasonable, this means that in our universe there could have been, to date, no more than roughly 10118 chemical events (1080 x 1020 x 1018 = 10118)—in other words, 10118 "possible" interactions among all the protons and electrons in the immeasurable history of our universe.

I say "possible" because it's quite certain there were far less than that. Why?

Because 1080 assumes every single proton and electron in the universe has interacted with every single other proton and electron. Obviously, this is extremely overstated.

In fact, most areas of the universe are totally isolated from the others, separated by immense expanses of outer space. They will never interact with matter outside of their close proximity. Even on our earth, the vast majority of protons and electrons will never get close enough to interact with the vast majority of other protons and electrons on earth.

What I'm trying to say is...10118 is the total possible chemical interactions IF every proton and electron interacted with every other proton and electron. Therefore it is obvious that 10118 far exceeds the actual number of chemical events that have in fact occurred in the universe to date.

In view of this—and still being extremely generous—mathematicians have concluded that it is ridiculous to think an event with odds of less than 1 in 1050 will ever happen.

Why? Because chances are, there have been far LESS than 1050 chemical events in the combined history of our universe.

It would therefore be impossible for a chance occurrence to happen that required MORE events than 1050.

This conclusion is called Borel's Law of mathematical probability.

What Borel's Law really means

Borel's Law tells us that anything with a probability less than 1 in 1050 is "mathematically impossible."

But it's also crucial to understand that for every probability there is a counter probability.

For example, if you have a 1% chance of being involved in a fatal automobile accident, that means you also have a 99% chance of not being involved. In other words, odds are you won't be killed in an automobile accident.

One expert explained it thusly:
When trying to determine whether the desired results will happen, always consider that the fractions used in probabilities carry two stories with them. One tells you the chance of something happening, and the other tells you the chance that that same event will not happen; i.e., if the odds are one in ten (10%) that a certain event will occur, then likewise the odds are nine to ten (90%) that it will not...
Who could reasonably believe that a coin will turn up heads 100 times in succession, when the odds for it happening are: 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000...and the probability that it won't is: 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999 in 1,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000...
The probability that the event will not happen is what we must believe if we are concerned about being realistic.
(R. L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy, pp. 80-81. As quoted on ApologeticsPress.org by Dr. Bert Thompson and Dr. Brad Harrub.)
So—to use another example—if your chances of winning a lottery is less than 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (1050), then it's "beyond ridiculous" for even mathematicians to consider "winning the lottery" a realistic possibility. You can consider it a "mathematical fact" that you will not win the lottery (of course, most lotteries have far more realistic odds, such as 1 in 1,000,000).

The point is, there eventually comes a point in the science of Mathematical Probability where the hope for something occurring is so ridiculously negligible—and the hope for the opposite occurring is so overwhelmingly obvious—that rational mathematicians consider it to be essentially impossible.

Not even one simple protein could have been formed by chance—much less 2,000,000

Now that we have the above facts to work with, let's take a look at the probability it would take for nature to randomly create just one protein by chance.

It's been said there are approximately two million different proteins in the human body. Clearly, nature would have had to randomly create ALL of them for Chemical Evolution to be true. But let's keep it simple and look at the odds that just ONE could have been formed by chance.

Since proteins are made up of amino acids (amino acids are chemical compounds), and given that there are 20 amino acids in the human body, and assuming a given protein contains only 100 amino acids(the longest presently known is 26,926!)—the mathematical probability that a human protein could accidentally arise from random combinations of those 20 possible amino acids into a specific human protein is 1 chance in 20100, or well beyond 1 in 10100.

Carl Sagan estimated this probability to be approximately 1 in 10130 (Carl Sagan, Encyclopaedia Britannica).

So, since Borel's Law indicates that it's ridiculous to consider probabilities with odds of less than 1 in 1050, that what does that tell us about whether or not a protein could "create itself" accidentally?

Well, 1 in 10130 is trillions of times less likely than 1 in 1050—meaning, if 1 in 1050 is scientifically absurd, then seriously considering that just one protein could come about by chance is "absurd" multiplied one hundred million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times.

Thus, even the formation of one, simple protein is so far beyond "mathematical impossibility" that anyone who seriously believes it happened is uniformed, deceived, or incapable of grasping the truth.

And remember, there are approximately 2,000,000 currently discovered proteins in the human body!

Isn't it amazing the extent to which people will go to deny the obviousness of God?

And what does this say for Chemical Evolution?

Since, as we've just observed, it's "absolutely impossible" for even one protein to form by chance, then it is "beyond insane" to believe an organism—astronomically more complex than a mere protein—could spontaneously generate itself by chance.

Translation: The concept of Chemical Evolution is scientifically absurd.

Incidentally, this fact also poses serious problems for the theory of Macroevolution, which we plan to discuss later. That's because Macroevolution is far less likely to have happened than Chemical Evolution.

Why? Because Macroevolution must also account for the chance mutations of incredibly complex new body structures like the eye and brain (from nothing but random mutations), which alone are exceedingly more complex than an amoeba.

The probability that such occurred by chance is even further beyond sensible consideration.

But how could all these smart people be so wrong?

"How could all these smart modern evolutionists be so wrong," someone might ask.

The answer: "The same way scientists have been wrong about so many other factoids down through history;" including ("but not limited to") their belief that...
  • The earth is flat.
  • The earth can't possibly be suspended in space.
  • The earth is the center of the universe.
  • Germs don't exist.
  • Little germs surely can't kill people.
  • Rocks can't fall from the sky (meteors).
  • Having your blood drained is good for you.
  • Lobotomies don't really harm people who need them.
  • Alternating electric current will never be useful.
  • Matter popped into existence from nothingness, morphed into a simple living creature spontaneously, and finally macroevolved into you—all by chance.
(For more on this, please see Numerous bloopers have yet to teach scientists "lessons".)

What's the probability life could have evolved somewhere in the universe? Experts calculate the probabilities...

If you think 1 in 10130 is an "impossibly small" likelihood (and it is)—then believe me, it is nothing when compared to the improbability of the formation of an entire organism "by chance."

Carl Sagan very conservatively estimated that the chance of life evolving on any given single planet, like the earth, is 1 in 102,000,000,000.

(This is painfully conservative, since it can actually be shown that merely expecting 3% of a bacterium's DNA to arrange by accident is roughly one chance 1 in 1060,000! As you can see, Evolutionists are dealing with numbers "well outside the realm of reality.")

For you non-Mathematicians out there: 1 in 102,000,000,000 is 1 chance in 1,000,000,000,000...[2 billion zeros]. This number is so far beyond the sphere of human conception that it repeatedly exceeds the ridiculous.

To merely write this number would require, conservatively, almost 2 billion books (assuming each book contains 60 characters per line, 50 lines per page and 250 pages).

1 chance in 102,000,000,000 is so absurdly unlikely that it's trillions upon trillions of times less likely than science's definition of "mathematical impossibility."

Indeed, even if there were trillions of universes just like ours, they could not begin to collectively produce so much as a simple protein—much less an exceedingly more complex bacterium (without God, that is).

In other words, it is an absolute certainty of empirical science that Chemical Evolution did not happen.

And, since the odds Chemical Evolution happened are "exponentially less than no chance at all"—then the chance that "Special Creation" was responsible for original life is therefore "absolutely certain."

Fred Hoyle described the likelihood a living organism could spontaneously emerge from a primitive biotic soup to be about as likely as the chances "a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."

All these facts do not merely suggest God created life, they do not merely shout it—they bellow it across every canyon of every star and planet of every galaxy:


No wonder Kind David of Israel wrote: "The fool has said in his heart: 'There is no God.'"

Dr. W. R. Thompson, world-renowned entomologist, selected in 1959 to write the foreword to the centennial edition of the publication of Darwin's 'Origin of Species' from which the following quote is taken:
"This situation, where men rally to the defence of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigour, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science."
He later states, "The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity."

5 Reasons Chemical Evolution is False:
REASON #1—That "simple little organism" isn't so simple after all
REASON #2—Nature can't produce complex organic molecules
REASON #3—'Irreducible complexity' insurmountable problem
REASON #4—Thermodynamics is a deathblow to evolution
REASON #5—Chemical Evolution is mathematically and physically impossible

Additional recommended reading:

How evolutionists attempt to "explain away" Borel's Law

Print this article Email this article

How to be Saved

10 Tips

Christian Living

         Article Archives:   Feature Article Archives Video Archives Bible Mythbuster Archives
          Main Links:  
Home Make ReligiouslyIncorrect.org your Favorite Translate this page Join our Email List Contact Us
          Other Links:  
Submit Your Article Find Other Christians Near You
        © 2009 ReligiouslyIncorrect.org