Just how solid is the foundation of the theory of evolution? Is it based on improbabilities as its critics suggest and some supporters admit, or is it absolutely impossible? Is God's existence more logical?
Probabilities
Some who claim evolution is improbable point out the fact that various amino acids (which always occur 50:50 in nature in the levo and dextro forms) must have for some unknown reason, only congregated in the levo forms which are the only forms in living proteins. These would then have had to line up in liquid in a particular sequence for certain proteins, including genes, to be produced. This improbability has been estimated to be so high that it could not have been expected to happen by chance (also, even having amino acids in sequence would not cause them to form the necessary proteins without some type of external catalyst).
On the other hand, some supporters of evolution point out the belief that since there are vast numbers of stars, and probably several planets per star, there are enough possible random sequences to overwhelm the probability in favor of such improbable occurrences.
One version of this theory, embraced by some who believe aliens inhabit other planets, is known as the Drake Equation. Of course, those who make this argument must realize that the probability of any planet other than Earth having what it takes to support life is remote (the Drake Equation, which was developed based on assumptions in the 1960s, vastly overstates the number). But once again those supporters tend to point to evolution as at least a possibility.
Thus both sides tend to argue that the laws of probability support their position.
Life
If it is granted that the necessary chain of amino acids randomly exists, what will occur? Why nothing, because amino acids of themselves are not alive.
Instead of accepting this reality, evolutionists then claim that it was possible that there was some change in the atmospheric conditions of the Earth (or some other planet whose life somehow ended up on Earth) that allowed the non-living to somehow come alive. While true scientists do not doubt that there have been different atmospheric conditions on Earth throughout its history, there is no scientific proof that any atmospheric condition could cause non-living matter to become even a primitive live cell. Actually it is impossible as it violates the scientifically accepted law of bio-genesis (life only comes from life).
A Series of Impossibilities
But what if we allow that impossibility to have occurred? The primitive life would have to die because:
1) All living organisms need biological structures such as organelles and membranes. Without a membranous structure, the proteins would ultimately diffuse and destroy the living organism.
2) All living organisms need nourishment. Since randomness would not have created the biological structure known as a DNA-containing nucleus (or some primitive equivalent), the cell would die. Even if it had some type of nucleus, the nucleus would have to have come into existence with knowledge of what to eat and how to find food, another impossibility.
3) Even if the cell had all the above, it would die, because it would not have known that it needed a digestive system in order to utilize the food.
4) Even if evolutionists are granted all the improbabilities and impossibilities this article discusses, the primitive life would quickly die out as it would not know that it needed to reproduce, nor would it have any innate ability to do so.
It is in the Bible that we are told that when God made life He intended it to reproduce (Genesis 1:11,28,29). The idea of an 'intelligent design' is the only explanation that is scientifically accurate--for all other explanations result in something that must die out.
Charles Darwin
It may be of interest to note that Charles Darwin, the human credited for the so-called scientific development of the theory of evolution, wrote the following in his book The Origin of the Species: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down" (Darwin C. The Origin of Species. In Chapter 6, Difficulties on Theory).
Thus, even Charles Darwin's writings admit that evolution cannot be true. Cellular life was simply much more complex than he at that time must have realized. Thus, he was correct when he wrote about evolution, "my theory would absolutely break down", as it scientifically has (though many will not admit it).
From a Renowned Academic and Atheist
""What I think the DNA material has done is show that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinary diverse elements together," said Professor Antony Flew, 81, of the University of Reading, United Kingdom. "It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose". (Richard Ostling, "Leading Atheist Now Believes in God", Associated Press report, Dec 9, 2004)..."Flew is one of the most renowned atheists of the 20th century . . . ," says the atheist writer Richard Carrier. "So if he has changed his mind to any degree, whatever you may think of his reasons, the event itself is certainly newsworthy" ("Antony Flew Considers God . . . Sort of," December 2004, www.infidels.org). Professor Flew mentions that his mind began to change for the existence of God and against atheism over the last year. One line of evidence that became a clincher was the biological investigation of DNA. He says in the video "Has Science Discovered God?" that DNA evidence "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce [life], that intelligence must have been involved"...The Sunday Times of Britain also stated: "Darwin's theory of evolution does not explain the origin and development of life to Flew's satisfaction. 'I have been persuaded that it is simply out of the question that the first living matter evolved out of dead matter and then developed into an extraordinary complicated creature,' he said. The article went on to explain that Professor Flew is, in his words, "following the argument wherever it leads. The conclusion is—there must have been some intelligence" (DNA evidence prompts famous professor to renounce atheism. Good News, March-April 2005, p.17).
Of course, intelligence had to have been involved, which is why the Darwinian concept of evolution without a Creator is an impossibility.
Conclusion
Living matter could not have progressed to the point of eating, digesting, or reproducing without intelligence. And there has been no plausible explanation of why initial life itself could have any intelligence.
No randomly occurring series of improbable and impossible events could have ever done that. Thus, the foundation of evolution is beyond being highly improbable. The foundation of evolution is completely impossible. Only the acceptance of a Creator God is logical to explain life.
Bob Thiel, 2004/2005