April 8, 2009

A Compelling Argument against Darwinism

Background

For ages, men, even those without the knowledge of God, have regarded the universe and its creatures too intricate to deny the existence of a Creator.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: (Ro 1:20)

In due time, because of the deceitfulness of sin, driven by the desire to fulfill its cravings without conscience, they created a lie.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, …Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. (Ro 1:22,25)

Thus Charles Darwin introduced this lie and his followers have made it a major tenet of humanism, which they steadfastly claim not to be the religion that it actually is.

It seems useful to me to give the most compelling arguments against this lie.

DNA and Statistics

Biogeneticists tell us that the human genome has approximately 32,000 genetically significant base pairs out of a total of 3 million.1  Darwinists would like us to believe that a chance occurrence brought life into existence. What are the odds that any human being could come about by chance?  Since the code is binary, the odds are the same as if a random integer with 32,000 bits were rolled.  This amounts to astronomical 1 in 232,000 odds.  We do not think in binary however, so let’s convert this to the decimal system.  An exponent of 2 can be converted to an exponent of 10 by the formula:

 logx 2 Exponent base 10 = Exponent base 2 x ——— = Exponent base 2 x 0.30103 logx 10

Any choice of base for the logarithmic functions will produce the same result, as long as they are the same.  (I used the natural log)

Exponent base 10 = 32,000 x 0.30103 = 9633 (to four digits accuracy)

Thus the odds in decimal terms are 1 in 109633.  This astronomical number with 9633 decimal places cannot be entered on a calculator!

The Darwinist will retort that nature will roll these odds repeatedly, in order to hold on to their position.  This however is the common Gambler’s Logical Error.  He thinks, that because a run of rolls of dice did not produce a certain combination, that the odds that it will occur increase in subsequent rolls.  This is patently false; the odds remain the same on each roll regardless of the past history of rolls.

The Darwinist will further argue that we should do these calculations on one-celled creatures since they assert that life began with them.  Yet one-celled amoebas have total base pair counts from 290 billion to 670 billion.2  Wow!

Since DNA represents a binary code, it can be compared to a machine language program.  Based on this relation, a Darwinist should suggest that computer programmers create code with random number generators.  I am not going to give up my compiler!  Is their denial of the Creator any less incredible?

The Big Bang and Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity

Darwinists would cite the fossil record and modern measurements of prehistory.  Many counterarguments exist that would be impractical to address here.

Darwinist measures of time such as Carbon-14 dating and dating by uranium radioactive decay depend on presumptions about prehistoric boundary values that they were not there personally to measure.  If radioactive matter were released into the environment at the time of the Noah’s Flood, an upheaval likely greater than we imagine, pre-flood dates would date much earlier than otherwise.  Generally, the claimed periods of great past geological activity would certify higher environmental radiation levels during these times.

The most compelling argument, I’ve heard, was from a Jewish physicist.  Promoting his book on a television program, he expounded in highly mathematical and technical language how that science reconciled the Genesis creation account and the alleged billions of years of the universe’s existence.  I believed him, though I could barely follow his explanation.  Later reflection made sense of it to me, however.  First consider some aspects of Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity.  The theory predicts a time distortion near the speed of light, so that the closer you approach the speed of light the slower that time passes for you compared to stationary objects.  At the moment of the Big Bang and afterward, the inhabitants living out their lives on an earth traveling at near light speeds would experience their lives as the Bible says while the time elapsing on a stationary frame of reference would pass the millions and billions of years that science measures.  By this means, the Jewish physicist mathematically reconciled the 6000-10,000 year biblical history with the 15 billion years that scientists say has elapsed since the Big Bang.

Epilogue

Many believers cannot hold to the lie of evolution because of their faith in God, all the more if they have had an experience with Him.  The bully pulpit of Darwinist science, however, has forced some to throw away science because of conscience, and others to make unnecessary concessions to reconcile a nonexistent contradiction.  Although the offense to Judaism and Christianity, who are taught to fiercely oppose lies, is great, that many have been lost to eternity is the most grievous outcome to this deceitful intellectual ploy.

1My firm memory of 32,000 genetically significant base pairs has been downgraded by the Human Genome Project to 20,000 to 25,000.  The remainder of the total 3 million base pairs are attributed to auxiliary functions such as determining protein sequences and other things that are not insignificant genetically.  Perhaps the rest is data rather than code.  In any case, the statistical calculations remain astronomical.
2Genome News Network, February 12, 2001 – Article:  “Sizing up genomes:  Amoeba is king,”  www.genomenewsnetwork.org, article, archived article

Document History
April 8, 2009  Created.
February 23, 2011  Corrected a misspelling and updated artwork.