Albert Einstein – equal parts genius and plagiarist – once remarked, in the context of putting down the entire field of quantum physics, that God does not play dice with the Universe. Pretty much all of the information that we have seen over the last 100 years indicates that he was quite wrong. God doesn’t just play dice with the Universe – but His dice are loaded.
Now, Einstein’s comments were made in the context of quantum physics, which is fundamentally incompatible with general relativity. This is so because the world of quantum physics – i.e. interactions below the molecular level – is ruled by probabilities and distributions, not certainties and outcomes. (Keep in mind that this is literally a level of understanding BELOW anything that you’ll find in a copy of Physics for Dummies. I have two degrees in mathematics and I barely understand the first thing about either relativity or quantum physics.)
But it turns out that this refutation of Einstein’s view might just as easily apply to the world of biology.
Now, the dominant paradigm in biology for decades has been that the origin of the complexity of modern life is explained by a bulletproof theory that we call “THE theory of evolution”. So biologists tell us, and so we are taught in our textbooks at the grade-school level and upward.
That this is utter and absolute nonsense does not appear to deter biologists in the least. They still proclaim that THE theory of evolution explains the natural world perfectly.
There are multiple problems with this claim – not least of which is the fact that “THE” theory of evolution is in fact a massive modern synthesis of multiple different ideas that can be lumped together into an extremely clumsy acronym.
The modern synthesis of evolutionary theory essentially consists of:
The Theory of Evolution by (Probably) Natural Selection, Biological Mutation, Genetic Drift, Sexual Selection, and Gene Flow (TE(p)NSBMGDSSaGF).
I take no credit whatsoever for this formulation. That comes straight from Our beloved and dreaded Supreme Dark Lord (PBUH) Vox Day. But I DO take credit for putting a mathematical spin on the Dark Lord’s explanation of the severe weaknesses in that synthesis.
However, I am far from the first to put biology, which is a notoriously squishy field when it comes to hard mathematics (with some honourable exceptions), to the mathematical test. This has been done before, and Dr. Stephen Meyer breaks down a lot of great and extremely fascinating science and mathematical research into the field of evolutionary biology here in this lecture:
The tl;dw version of the talk is this:
The mathematical probability that the entire span and complexity of life on Earth evolved out of random evolutionary processes is so small as to render the entire idea of neo-Darwinian evolution nonsensical.
Watch the whole lecture to understand why. I have no background in biology, epigenetics, population genetics, computer science (well, not real computer science), or biological simulation modeling. But I do understand at least relatively basic mathematics. And when you tell me that the probability of getting a meaningful protein with 150 amino acids in it, out of the entire population of possible proteins, is 10-77, that’s a number that I can sort of understand.
The simple takeaway from this lecture is that the idea that the world around us evolved at random from a single common ancestral life-form is not only ridiculous – it’s flatly INSANE.
And that’s simply when you look at the complexity of life as it is today. What happens when you start looking at the conditions that existed BEFORE life began?
Well, to answer that, you should definitely watch this lecture from the same conference by Dr. James Tour – in fact, Dr. Tour’s talk preceded Dr. Meyer’s talk, and it was an absolute barn-burner:
That talk is embedded within Monday’s Browser Smasher, and with good reason. His speaking style, passion, and clarity of thought are phenomenal and he really is great fun to watch.
And his basic argument, delivered with great passion and verve, is this:
Anyone who tells you that humans can create life from non-life, is LYING HIS ASS OFF.
Now, both of these men are Christians, and devout ones. They both have a clear solution to the entire problem of the origin of life. They believe – as I believe – that God created the Universe and everything within it, including the vast complexity and richness of life on Earth, in a manner that is revealed to us in the Bible:
1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
6 And God said, “Let there be an expanse[a] in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 And God made[b] the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. 8 And God called the expanse Heaven.[c] And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
9 And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth,[d] and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
11 And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants[e] yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons,[f] and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. 17 And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.
20 And God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds[g] fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” 21 So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.
24 And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. 25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.— Genesis 1:1-25, English Standard Version
I underlined the repeated phrase, “according to their kinds” and its variants for a very good reason. If you look at the theory of evolution by natural selection, it depends on two legs joined together by a causative force.
The problem is that this causative force does not appear to exist.
Evolution is a FACT. You can see it when you create a breed of domesticated wolves or foxes that have their traits of aggression and disobedience bred out of them. That is slow and gradual change through time across many generations – in other words, evolution.
Note, however, that if you create a new breed of dog, it’s still a dog. It is of the canine “kind”. That creature is not a cat, or a bird, or an insect. Even chihuahuas, which look like mutated rats and act like retarded ones, are not actually rats. And note that when you create new breeds out of existing types from a given kind, you have to BREAK genetic information to create a devolved version of the same original creature.
By way of example, a chihuahua (Canis lupus familiaris) is related to a wolf (Canis lupus). But no one in his right mind would argue that a chihuahua is as intelligent, tough, strong, fast, or lethal as a wolf.
Which one of those two pictures looks more scary to you?
Natural selection is a FACT. You can see this in a petri dish when you grow a bunch of bacteria and then dump a buttload (that’s an actual unit of measure, by the way – and if you go searching for that term, PLEASE keep SafeSearch ON) of antiseptic into the dish. You’ll kill off a huge amount of the bacteria. But you won’t kill ALL of it, usually. Some will survive. Whatever will survive, will reproduce and create new versions that are slightly resistant to that outside stimulus. If you keep reapplying that disinfectant, you’ll kill off lots of bacteria the second time, but not as many – and the number of bacteria that are killed off will eventually be resistant to that killing stimulus over time.
But evolution by natural selection is nothing more than a theory, and a very poorly backed one at that.
The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection (TENS) argues that a common ancestor once existed for fish and reptiles and mammals, and that life crawled out of the seas, developed legs (somehow), and became reptiles. That’s the dogma. The evidence categorically says otherwise.
Basically, evolutionists who advocate for TENS – and not all evolutionary biologists do so – are arguing from silence. They are saying that “absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence”. Logically, that is absolutely true.
But the vast preponderance of evidence stacks against their case. The mathematics are conclusively against their argument. And most importantly, the single most critical variable that makes their case hang together, actually works against them.
The fundamental variable that TENS depends upon is time. And the research conclusively shows us that no matter where we look, time is the enemy of Darwin’s great theory. Credit where it is due – Darwin did come up with a brilliant idea. But he didn’t have the level of understanding and data that we do today. His theory depended upon a static, infinite Universe as its starting assumption. We know that isn’t true. In a world that really respects the scientific method, a theory whose core assumption has been utterly destroyed, would be thrown out and we would start over again.
But we don’t live in such a world. We live in one ruled by pseudoscientific dogma and religious fervour that fetishise SCIENCE!!! and SCIENTISTS!!!!!
This, too, is deeply foolish. The reality is that God’s capacity for innovation and invention is far beyond anything that the human mind can truly comprehend – yet, perhaps miraculously, we are capable of observing it and marveling at our Creator’s incredible genius.
Would that we could all give credit to Him where and when it is due. For the reality is that God plays dice with the Universe – and He knows exactly what kinds of odds He wants to create, so that we, His children, can observe what He has done and give Him credit for the marvels that result.
When we fail to do so, when we take credit away from all that God has done, we fail to appreciate what we were given. And that is our great failing as a species.