NOTICE: Opinions expressed in the Global Journal are those of the individual authors.
They do not necessarily reflect the views of the editors or of Patrick Henry College.

This Journal is courteously hosted by Patrick Henry College.

The Existence of God:

An Apologetic Refuting Scientific Mysticism.

Table of Contents

Lloyd Olson
Operations Research Analyst with the Javelin Project Office, PEO Tactical Missiles, Dept of Army
Ph.D. Student, Trinity Theological Seminary

The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.”—Carl Sagan[1]


When Carl Sagan placed his faith in the cosmos, he expressed the naturalistic position that the universe is a closed system.  Naturalists are a group of people who believe that all of our information and physical surroundings must be accounted for strictly within our scientific understandings of our universe in its space-time domain.  Consequently, with no other possible means of explaining intelligent design, naturalists are forced to conclude that the sum total of the information (on the DNA molecule for example) arose strictly and only by the naturalistic processes guided by pure chance.

In the past 200 years, atheistic scientists have put forth many hypotheses in an attempt to show how the processes of random naturalistic chance events can explain a Godless intelligent design.  This paper will show that naturalistic scientism is refuted by Mathematical Induction because it contradicts the regular observable verifiable predictable and accepted laws of science.


In an attempt to give credibility to their naturalistic philosophy, evolutionists have invoked the mystic factor of time.  Since the 1700's[2] and specifically since Darwin, scientific mystics have claimed that anything is possible given enough time.  Specifically, given enough time, even the intelligent life is capable of arising from pure chance naturalistic processes.

Creationists, on the other hand, claim that the intelligence observed in nature through the various codes, programs and languages conventions can only be derived from another even more intelligent source - God.  Throughout industry where ever there is a design we know who the designer was and how much effort was devoted to planning, developing, testing, tooling, fabricating, transporting and maintaining the design.  Our daily and worldwide experience is that intelligent systems require an intelligent architect for both its origination and organization.

What will unfold are not two different views about science.  The issues are not one form of science versus another form of science.  The crux of the matter will hinge on two different life views.  One life view is based on the truthfulness of God’s divine self-revelation as recorded in the scriptures.  One life view is based on the wisdom and abilities of human autonomy.  Both life views use the same science, but come up with completely different conclusions.

Kelly James Clark shows that “in matters of fundamental human concern, truth is not obvious.  Christian apologists often wave theistic arguments around as if the truth were obvious and the proofs simple.  But these sorts of fundamental truths are neither obvious nor simple.”[3]

Mathematical Induction.

A form of the traditional inductive logic is exhibited in the well-known Mathematical Induction.  The analogy of climbing a flight of steps is a good way to show how this rigorous inductive proof can be used.  For example, if I can show the following three postulates

P1: All the steps are equally spaced

p: I can get to the first step

P3: Given that I’m on any particular step I can get to the next step,

are true, then the conclusion

C:  Given enough time I can climb the entire flight of steps

is assumed to be true by mathematical induction.  Therefore, we aren’t required to prove that we can make each and every one of a potentially large number of steps.  This is truly a powerful logic tool.  Let’s see how hard naturalists have worked to use this tool.


Naturalism has always been a philosophy trying to explain our existence.  But (fortunately) it has never been considered to be a major or serious methodology to explain the origins of man, nature, and life until the dawning of 18th century.  Adding fuel to the Age of Enlightenment, in 1859, Charles Darwin[4] put forth his theory of evolutionary selection.  Naturalistic scientists world-wide championed this bold new hypothesis.  Darwin’s hypothesis was viewed as the necessary mechanism able to give credibility to a godless origination of life.  Darwin’s naturalistic mechanism claimed that the random natural variations are preserved through the naturalistic processes of evolutionary survival.  The organism in question was thought to be better able to survive and reproduce because of some enhancing attribute introduced by these random changes (in what we now know to be DNA).

On June 30, 1860, at the Oxford Union in England , this was the very topic in the “Great Debate” between the Anglican Archbishop of Oxford University, Samuel Wilberforce and Thomas Huxley, a well-known evolutionist and agnostic.  Bishop Wilberforce was a professor of Theology and Mathematics at Oxford University.  Wilberforce defended the creationist viewpoint by using the teleological argument for the existence of God arguing that the designs that we so commonly see in nature around us required a Designer.  Meanwhile, evolutionist Thomas Huxley boldly stated that given enough time all the possible combinations of intelligent design would occur by chance molecular movement.  Huxley employed the notable example of monkeys randomly striking keys at a typewriter.  If given enough time, these monkeys would eventually type the entire Bible!

Huxley used standard probability concepts to show that if time is infinite, then the probability of an even a rare event happening is equal to one.  He forcefully demonstrated that given an infinite amount of time that any combination of random events would suffice to generate the complexity seen in nature purely by chance without any need for God.

In recent history, when confronted with the problem of time, George Wald adopted this thinking making this appeal: “Time is in fact the hero of the plot. Given so much time the impossible becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain.  One has only to wait: Time itself performs the miracles.”[5]

Public and scholarly opinion was that Bishop Wilberforce lost the debate.  He lost because the evolutionary idea was still rather new and the flaws inherent in naturalistic mysticism were not easy to see - especially when it was combined with impressive sounding scientism.  Since then, verifiable experimental science has come to a fuller understanding of the nature of biology, chemistry, physics, and the amazing genetic code.

Naturalism received additional support from Gregor Mendel, an Austrian monk, who uncovered some laws of biology at roughly the same time as the great Wilberforce/Huxley debate.  By carefully analyzing his pea plant numbers, Mendel discovered the following three laws of genetic inheritance: the Law of Dominance, the Law of Segregation, and the Law of Independent Assortment.  His experiments provided conceivable verification for Darwin’s naturalistic mechanism.  The deliberately manipulated evolutionary changes in peas were generalized to the entire spectrum of life.

More recently, in 1953, Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey conducted an experiment[6] that provided naturalists with a rationale for the first step in the origins of life.  Miller took molecules, which were believed to represent the major components of the early Earth's atmosphere, and put them into a closed system.  Next, he ran a continuous electric current through the system to simulate lightning storms that evolutionists believed to be common on the early earth.  At the end of one week, Miller observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon was now in the form of organic compounds.  In fact, two percent of the carbon had formed some of the amino acids, which are used to make proteins.  Naturalists used this work to show that organic compounds essential to cellular life could easily be made under the evolving conditions that scientists believed to be present on the early earth. Recently, naturalist[7] have argued that the universe began to exist with an uncaused beginning due to the re-initializations at the moment of the Big Bang singularity.  The cosmological singularity idea is that in the first 10-47 fraction of a second after the Big Bang all of the universal constants were reset.  This means that all the known laws of modern science were undone and received another new set of values.  This also means that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics regarding entropy (the scientific word that means things wear down) was also reset.  This is significant since the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics shows that over time the amount of available energy for work is depleted—quite the opposite of evolution’s claims. William Lane Craig[8] summarized evolutionist logic in the following seven steps: 1. The Big Bang singularity is the earliest state of the universe. 2. The earliest state of the universe is inanimate. 3. No law governs the Big Bang singularity, and consequently there is no guarantee that it will emit a configuration of particles that will evolve into an animate universe. 4. Therefore, the earliest state of the universe is not guaranteed to evolve into an animate state of the universe. 5. If God creates a universe, He creates an animate universe. 6. Therefore, if God created the earliest state of the universe, then He would have ensured that this state is animate or evolves into animate states of the universe. 7. Therefore, God did not create the earliest state of the universe.

Science & Mathematical Induction.

The previous series of works appears to easily fit into the naturalists’ mathematical inductive claim for a Godless origination of life.  It seems as if naturalists have all the basic postulates demonstrated.  First, we now know that the DNA molecule is composed of sequences of four amino acids.  It is known that these amino acids can combine easily (with certain restrictions involving paired amino acids across the doubled DNA helix) in random sequences.  Although the DNA code hasn’t been deciphered yet, it appears that the complex code is quite regular.  This means that the differences can be explained in both the sequences and combinatorial lengths of the basic four amino acids.  The Big Bang singularity proves the same thing from a cosmic reference.  Thus, the P1 postulate is assumed to be true both cosmically and practically. Second, the Miller/Urey experiment showed the touted plausibility of naturalistic means generating the first combination of required amino acids from a primordial chemical mix.  Although only a small percentage of components were generated, they were generated within a relatively short period of time.  Therefore, it was assumed that given enough time, the experiment would indeed have completed the generation of life supporting compounds.  Thus, the p postulate was declared to be true. Third, Darwin’s work showed that natural selection was the naturalistic dynamo required to push an organism from any given step in the evolutionary process to the next level.  Although the intermediate transitional evidences are not seen today, it was assumed that there are credible reasons for the gaps seen in both the living world and the fossil records.  Thus, the P3 postulate was declared to be true. Finally, Huxley’s probability statement showed that all we need for a godless origin to become the present reality is enough time.  Since evolutionists have postulated the godless Big Bang to have “banged” some 15-20 billion years ago, naturalists were able to declare that in this given period that life really can traverse the entire gauntlet from non-life to our present intelligent life.  After all—here we are!  Mathematical Induction reigns!  But …

Odds, Time, and Evidences.

Stu Pullen[9] provides the odds of generating a random amino acid string.  He shows that if each of these amino acids has a 4/64 chance of being in the correct position, then the odds for creating a functional protein are (4/64)70 or 1 chance in 2 x 1084 tries or a probability of .5x10-85.  For all practical purposes, the odds are zero.  Counterbalancing this skinny chance is the fact that our universe is very large.

The astronomer Frank Drake[10], in 1961, proposed an equation for estimating the number of communicative civilizations in the galaxy (N):

N = Ns * Fp * Fe * Fl * Fi


                        N         = Number of detectable intelligent civilizations

Ns        = Number of stars

                        Fp        = Fraction of stars that have planetary systems

                        Fe        = Fraction of planetary systems that have earth-like planets

                        Fl         = Fraction of planets where life develops

                        Fi         = Fraction of life forms that develop intelligence

For the first portion of the equation (Ns), Michael Meyer says, “An average galaxy contains a hundred billion stars. We suspect there are perhaps a hundred billion galaxies in the universe. Although this is an educated guess (only 1 billion galaxies are known, for instance), even being off by several factors of ten still means that there is a vast supply of stars out there.”[11] But the Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI)[12] home page estimates that there are 3 x 109 stars which are in our solar system alone.  Current estimations from The SETI League discuss the likelihood of tens of billions (109) of candidate stars.  With each improvement in technology we keep seeing further and further.  There is no reason to believe that there aren’t trillions (1012) or more stars in the cosmos.  With each advance in technology the probability of life originating by the currently understood random processes looks better.

Fp is the fraction of stars that have planetary systems.  The SETI website uses 20% as an estimate for this part of the equation.  Fe is the fraction of planetary systems that have earth-like planets.  The SETI website suggests that our solar system be used as an example.  So, we count 4 (the Earth and acknowledge that maybe Mars and two of Jupiter’s moons could support life) out of some 39 planets and moons.  This means that Fe is about 10%.  Fl is the fraction of planets where life develops.  The SETI website doesn’t give a good estimate here but merely says that the range is from 0% to 100%.  Fi is the fraction of life forms that develop intelligence.  Again, the SETI website doesn’t give a good estimate here merely saying that the range is from 0% to 100%.

So, a sample calculation of N using Ns = 1012, and Fp = Fe = Fl = Fi = .01 yields 104 intelligent life form possibilities.  This number is even larger if one is only concerned with the chance evolution of any life forms (eliminating Fi from the equation).  Most naturalists on the Internet who use this formula set Fp = Fe = Fl = Fi = .1 or higher.  This yields 100 million (108) potential life forms possibilities.

The naturalist is even happier (more sure of being right) when one factors in time (T).  One billion years is 109.  When T is added to the formula for N above, the naturalist’s possible life forms soars to 2x1018.  But Creationists badly miss the point here.

Most creationists want to take the skinny probabilities in the range of what Stu Pullen suggests (.5x10-85—some smaller, some larger) and combine it with the probabilities related to the number of potential life forms in the cosmos (2x1018—some smaller, some larger).  The resulting combined probability is in the range of 10-67—more or less.  The creationist wants to point out that even though the probability has been improved by the billions of potential life forms - it is still very skinny!  For the creationist, this is more than ample justification to shout: “By the word of the LORD were the heavens made” (Psalm33:6).  But creationists badly miss the point.

The Evidential Apologist (Gary Habermas, Clark Pinnock, John Montgomery, Wolfhart Pannenberg, and others) “tends to focus chiefly on the legitimacy of accumulating various historical evidences for the truth of Christianity.”[13]  John Montgomery[14] also uses evidential legitimacy and further expounds this idea, in his lecture on Apologetics, when he says:

“We make this point because when a person considers the Christian faith and evidence is offered says that not enough information has been give for him to commit his life to Christ.  He wants evidence that provides certainty. “But our fundamental argument takes ordinary life reasoning based on probabilities and shows that Christianity and faith are based on probabilities also.  To demand 100% certainty is neither ordinary, worldly, nor religious.” He is right to a degree but he misses the point—badly!

What both the Evidentialists and Creationists miss is that the argument of legitimacy (just another way of saying probability) doesn’t apply to the topic of origins.  The argument of legitimacy is valid when we are within the empirical verifiable experiential world of science and reasoning.  Within the empirical verifiable experiential world of science we can invoke historical evidences and apply the same rationale that we use in ordinary daily life to decisions regarding the historic Christ, the historic Crucifixion, and the historic Resurrection.  Both Evidential Apologist and Creationist can rightfully apply the evidences to a decision of faith in Jesus Christ.

But when the Evidential Apologist and Creationist apply legitimacy to the topic of evolution they err because they are not operating on the same logical grounds.  The realm of origins is not historic.  No test of verifiability or historicity can be used to test our philosophies regarding the origination of humanity.

Neither Evidentialist or Creationist realize that they appear to be rather “religious” to either the evolutionist or to the average evolutionist-schooled layman.  No matter how:

grandiose the mathematics,

profound the discussion of the intricacies of cellular mutations,

verifiable certain scientific investigations regarding the age of the earth appear,

persuasive the delivery,

the evolutionist is merely amazed at how fortunate we are that the random mutations happened!

If the creationist is able to show that the cosmos really is only 6,000 years old, the evolutionist is amazed that it (the random processes that began with the primordial soup, improved by favorable random mutations through natural selection processes, & cumulating with the world we see today) happened on the first few possible chances!  After all—here we are! If we are able to persuasively demonstrate that the probabilities associated with the evolutionists case is extremely, even ridiculously skinny (let’s say as skinny as10-10000000—more or less), the evolutionist is grateful that it (the random processes that began with the primordial soup, improved by favorable random mutations through natural selection processes, & cumulating with the world we see today) happened against all odds!  After all—here we are! If we bring any argument based on this type of probability we are doomed to lose!  After all—here we are!  Evolutionists have used Mathematical Induction and proven their point rather convincingly.  When we bring up any probabilistic issue based on skinniness we stand on slippery philosophic grounds.  As was earlier mentioned, the crux of the matter is not really one form of science versus another form of science.  This issue is really two different and opposing life views.  One life view is theistic: based upon God and His Word.  One life view is atheistic: based upon Man and his word.  Kelly James Clark[15] explains that the Creationist needs to be aware of this fundamental life view opposition saying, “What people reason from determines the kinds of inferences that it is rationally permissible for them to accept.” Creationists must use a different type of probability argument other than something more or less “skinny.”  Any chance, no matter how small, is big enough for the evolutionist worldview.  The probability that the Creationist must use to counter the evolutionist’s life view can only be ZERO!  But ZERO takes a bit more effort and a radically different apologetic.

Intelligent Design.

Michael Behe’s[16] recent book, Darwin’s Black Box, examined the mechanisms within the cell.  The 19th century view of the cell being only simple protoplasm turns out to be just the opposite in the 20th century.  Technology has provided us with the tools necessary for us to look inside the cell where we discover “ultra-sophisticated molecular machines.”[17]

Behe quotes Darwin who declares that “if it could be demonstrated that any complex organism existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my [Darwin’s] theory would absolutely break down.”[18]  Behe then declares that any system that can be shown to be “irreducibly complex”  will destroy the hypothesis of naturalistic Darwinian evolution.  The phrase “irreducibly complex” simply means “a single system that is composed of several interacting parts, where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to cease functioning.”[19]


Behe presents several examples of irreducible complexity.  First, an overly simplistic example is that of a mousetrap that requires: a hammer, spring, catch, platform and holding bar.  If we were to remove any one of these items, then the mousetrap would not work.  All the components must be functioning at the same time in order to catch the mouse.


Second, Behe talks about the amazing irreducible complexities of cilium that is within our throats.  Our throats are lined with about two hundred of these cilia that work together to move potentially harmful matter towards the throat for elimination.  If this matter succeeded in reaching the lungs, bad things could happen.  Behe[20] describes this as follows:

A cilium consists of a bundle of fibers called an axoneme.  An axoneme contains a ring of nine doubled “microtubules” surrounding two central single microtubules. Each outer doublet consists of a ring of thirteen filaments fused to an assembly of ten filaments.  The filaments of the microtubules are composed of two proteins call alpha and beta tubulin.  The eleven microtubules forming an axoneme are held together by three types of connectors: outer doublets are joined to the central microtubules by radial spokes; adjacent outer doublets are joined to each other by linkers of a highly elastic protein called nexin; and the central microtubules are joined by a connecting bridge.  Finally, every doublet bears two arms, an inner arm and an outer arm, both containing a protein called dynein. …

Experiments have shown that ciliary motion results from the chemically powered ‘walking’ of the dynein arms on one microtubule up a second microtubule so that the two microtubules slide past each other.  The protein crosslinks between microtubules in a cilium prevent neighboring microtubules from sliding past each other by more than a short distance.  These crosslinks, therefore, convert the dynein-powered sliding motion to a bending motion of the entire axoneme.

Now, let us consider what this implies.  What components are needed for a cilium to work?  Ciliary motion certainly requires microtubules; otherwise, there would be no strands to slide.  Additionally we require a motor, or else the microtubules of the cilium would lie stiff and motionless.  Furthermore, we require linkers to tug on neighboring strands, converting the sliding motion into a bending motion, and preventing the structure from falling apart.  All of these parts are required to perform one function: ciliary motion. … Therefore, we can conclude that the cilium is irreducibly complex—an enormous monkey wrench thrown into its presumed gradual, Darwinian evolution.

However, the common layman has a hard time following Behe’s technical presentation of the movement of our throat’s cilium.  But nature has many understandable examples.  Geoff Chapman[21] provides us with such an example that is comparable to the mousetrap but from the real world realms of nature.

Bucket Orchid.

Finally, a Bucket Orchid (Coryanthes speciosa and Stanhopea grandiflora) has an intricate mechanism whereby it attracts and uses two species of bees (Euglossa meriana and Euglossa cordata) for pollination.  First, the bee is attracted by the smell of the nectar.  Because the surface of the leaf is slimy, when the bee lands to collect the nectar it slips and falls into the “bucket” portion of the orchid.  The liquid in the bucket prevents the bee from flying away.  The only way of “escape” for the bee is to crawl up a submerged step (aided by hairs suitably placed near the surface) leading up to a small tunnel in the side of the bucket.  As the bee goes through the hole the tunnel’s walls contract and grip the bee.  The plant uses a mechanism that glues two pollen sacs to the bee which is released only after an appropriate amount of time to let the glue dry.  The bee then flies away to another bucket orchid and repeats the process.  In the second iteration the above process is repeated except that a hook in the tunnel removes the pollen sacs from the bee.  The fertilization process is complete!

Now, let us consider what this implies.  What components are needed for the fertilization process to work?  At least eight separate and complex functions are required.  First, the bee must be attracted; the plant must have the right smells.  Second, the bee must fall into the bucket.  This requires three sub-tasks: 1) the nectar must be placed on the leaf in a way to put the bee into an awkward position, 2) that part of the leaf must be slippery so that the bee loses its “grip”, and 3) the bee must have temporary vertigo so as not to be able to fly away while it is falling.  Third, the plant must have provision to maintain the liquid in the bucket at just the right level.  If the liquid is too high, the bee will not be able to use the submerged hairs to help it into the tunnel.  If the liquid is too low, the bee will be able to stand on the submerged step and fly away.  Fourth, the plant has a very intricate tunnel.  The tunnel must be able to sense a bee.  The tunnel must be able to contract such that the bee is not crushed in the process.  The tunnel must have a timing mechanism so as to be able to release the bee after the right amount of drying time. Fifth, the plant must have the right devices to attach and remove pollen sacs.  Sixth, the plant must manufacture the right glue.  Many types of glue on the commercial market are not easily removed.  If the glue is too strong, the pollen will not come off.  If the glue is not strong enough, the pollen will fall off of the bee’s back.  The glue must be biochemically compatible with the bee.  When the pollen is ripped off of the bee, the bee’s (skin?) can’t be harmed.  And the bee can’t be poisoned in the process.  Seventh, the plant’s structure must be vastly upgraded to support the weight of a bucket full of liquid.  If the design is not sufficient, the plant will tip or sag.  Thus, the angle of the leaf will not cause the bee to fall and the sensitive liquid level will be off.  Last, and most amazing of all, the plant is absolutely dependent upon the bee.  The bee must want to go to the orchid.  The bee must forget past near death experiences (it nearly drowns in the liquid and gets nearly crushed) with the orchid.  The bee must have temporary vertigo as it falls off the leaf into the bucket.  Remember, falling in mid air is normally no problem for it bee—it can fly!  The intricate structure of the bee and bee-related things is an incredibly amazing work all by itself!

Each of the eight parts is a complex component exhibiting untold design characteristics.  Each of the eight parts is absolutely required.  The complexity of the bucket orchid is irreducible.  If any one of these eight components is missing or not properly functioning, then fertilization will not occur and the plant will become extinct in one cycle.  Therefore, we can conclude with Behe, that these examples throw an enormous monkey! wrench into the evolutionist smugness that absolutely decimates the presumed random, gradual, Darwinian evolution.

Just what is this impact of intelligent design and irreducible complexity on Sagan and other naturalists?  How do the probability arguments change?  How does the powerful Mathematical Inductive proof change?

Mathematical Inductive Emendation.

We need to revisit the prior probabilities used with the Mathematical Inductive Theory.  The first postulate says that all the steps (of the evolutionary process) are equally spaced.  This might be arguable but it is terribly hard to quantify.  So, for the sake of argument, let’s just simply assume that the jumps from one organism to the next are all more or less equally spaced. p Adjustments

The second postulate says that I can get to the first step.  Modern empirical verifiable testable science thoroughly discredits the Miller/Urey experiments. A problem seldom noted by textbooks is that the chemical reactions that produced the amino acids in the Miller/Urey experiments are reversible. That is, the same energy sources that cause the formation of the building blocks of life will also destroy those same building blocks unless they are removed from the environment where they were created.  In fact, the building blocks of life are destroyed even more efficiently than they are created.  This chemical reversal was foreseen by Miller and Urey.  They built into their mechanism a chemical trap specially designed to remove the newly formed chemicals before the next spark reversed (destroyed) the previous gains.  Of course, this luxury would not be available on the early earth.  If Huxley were to use this information with his monkey business with typewriters then those typewriters would have to include an automatic backspace after each monkey-stroke!  Thus, the monkeys could type for eternity and the result would be a blank page!

Despite the initial euphoria, the Miller-Urey experiment took us no further than repeating that very question in our quest to understand how life came about.  It was, and remains, a long way from giving us the answer to the origin of life and the means to create it from first principles.  We know that the chemicals were not produced by chance combination—they were put into the beakers by intelligent design.  We know that the chemicals didn't mix themselves - the scientists intelligently devised a way to mix them.  There is more; much more. Davies & Horgan deny the plausibility of random evolutionary process by showing that the nucleic acids DNA and RNA merely store instructions.  Proteins do most of the work.  We only achieve life-forming processes when DNA and RNA work together—“on their own they are helpless”[22] and that “proteins cannot form without DNA; but neither can DNA form without proteins.”[23]  The whole life-forming process[24] of one R-group protein requires a network of over 75 helper molecules all working in harmony supporting the information-replicating mechanisms.  Without existing replicators for the initial processes (assuming that they happen) that new molecules will not produce life of any kind.  We don’t get even one cycle.

In the complexities of the life supporting biochemistry mechanisms, proteins come in pairs.  For the proposed Miller-Urey type of evolutionary origination, the process would have to generate a matched pair of left-handed (L) amino acids and right-handed (D) sugars.  Recall, at every turn we need to have a method that will preserve the new molecules for the next steps or everything obeys the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and disintegrates.

Steve Reuland[25] says, “the bottom line is that the gene duplication explanation still leaves the details to the dice, and this pathway definitely hasn't been experimentally verified. All [they] have found are protein homologies, and then inferred a vague ancestral pathway of gene creation.  This explanation for the origin of real evolutionary novelty lacks a reliable mechanism and is little better than hand waving.”

Another way to look at Miller-Urey’s experiment is that their simple laboratory apparatus required a careful designer to eliminate chemical reversals just to make it to produce a small percent of the stuff that it tried to do.  Even with intelligent design, their experiment didn’t work on that primitive level; yet we are required to believe that an immensely more complicated world happened by the same unproven random chance processes.

The bottom line is easy to see.  Without a replicator available, the Miller-Urey processes dies in one cycle (however that might be defined).  Without a matched pair of proteins the Miller-Urey processes die in one cycle.  Without a complex system of information-duplicating mechanism existing at the time of the newly created proteins, the Miller-Urey processes die in one cycle.  Without a protective cocoon, womb, or laboratory beaker, the Miller-Urey processes dies in one cycle.  The bottom line is that the probability for proving the second postulate is ZERO.  We can never get to the first step!

P3 Adjustments

The third postulate says that given that I’m already standing on a particular step that I can get to the next step.  Intelligent design and irreducible complexity have some dramatic and deleterious ramifications for Darwinian evolution at this postulate.  Irreducibly complex systems cannot survive except in a fully functioning unified state.  Any concept of a gradual evolution involving transitional states is dramatically and effectively refuted.  The proposed evolutionist transitional intermediate state would become extinct in one cycle.

Even for systems that are not irreducibly complex, science has shown that there is not one example of an enhancing mutation.[26]  The only examples of mutations that we can provide show a decreased survivability: wings are shortened, natural defensive color patterns are disrupted, reproductive sterility results, etc.  Verifiable empirical science shows that the process of evolution is actually a process of devolution in accord with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.  The known genetic mutations lead us backwards away from life towards fatalities (or at its rare best leads to sterility).  The proposed evolutionist transitional forms end evolution in one step.

Similarly, random mutations in a complex system are usually damaging.  Consider the blueprints of a complex computer chip.  Random unplanned “mutations” to the complex computer chip will likely result in catastrophe.  These mindless improvements will cause the computer chip to fail.  The more complex a system, the more likely will random mutations lead to fatality.  In one step, the computer fails.

A half-developed transitional form would simply be excess baggage in the organism’s quest for survival.  A half-formed arm would not be welcomed to a wolf.  Without functioning fingers at the end of the arm, the wolf would be hampered in its survivability as it dragged the useless half-formed arm.  The half improvement would lead to death in one step.

It is comforting to see how other segments of true unbiased science condemn the evolutionary hypothesis.  Consider the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.  It is a Law that is constantly and repeatedly verified in every laboratory experiment.  It declares that available energy for work decreases with time.  The fancy scientific word is “entropy.”  Even the common lay person knows that things wear out, break down, need replacing, and fail.  Dust accumulates whether or not one dusts every week or every day.  Yet, unproven unverified biased evolution posits that life without outside help overcomes this proven Law and yields greater and greater complexity, more and more energy available for work.  The contrasts between unproven evolution and verifiable science are remarkable.

The bottom line is easy to see.  Without any mechanism to utilize a functioning intermediate transitional form, mutations lead to fatality, not survivability.  A mutation does not lead to a higher organism.  A mutation eliminates the organism in one cycle.  The bottom line is that the probability for proving the third postulate is ZERO.

Inductive Emendation A revised Mathematical Inductive proof can now be presented.  Since unbiased, empirical, verifiable modern science has re-investigated the earlier spurious science hoaxes the Truth/False conclusions for the Mathematical Inductive postulates are now adjusted to become:

P1: All the mutational steps of evolution are equally spaced (TRUE)

p: I can get to the first step of evolution (FALSE)

P3: Given a particular organism, evolution can yield an enhanced intermediate form (FALSE).

Therefore, since both p and P3 are FALSE, the final conclusion

C:  Given enough time, evolution can yield the existing complicated universe

is FALSE.  Logic has shown (negatively) evolution to be a false and very weak philosophic hoax.  Truly, this is a powerful logic tool.  But is it powerful enough?

Adjusted Probabilities

Stu Pullen’s earlier .5x10-85 probability of generating a random amino acid string can now be modified with the latest unbiased verifiable empirical scientific information.  This final probability is not just a classroom exercise in combinatorics.  The new probability is taken from the real-life laboratory within the setting of one cycle of repetition (however that may be defined for the various chemical or organisms in question).  Since replication and preservation are now factored into the analysis Pullen’s new probability is ZERO.

Using the latest scientific enhancements, we are now in the position to allow creationists to take the ZERO probabilities from Pullen’s formula and combine it with the probabilities related to the number of potential life forms in the cosmos (2x1018—some smaller, some larger).  The resulting combined probability is ZERO.  The creationist can now point out that: “By the word of the LORD were the heavens made” (Psalm33:6).  Now it is the evolutionists who badly miss the point!  It is now blatantly and palpably clear that it the evolutionists who depart from logic by employing fanatical religious faith and clinging to a theory not supported by science.

We can now derive another even stronger negative corollary.  The Mathematical Inductive Theory simply disproves the evolutionary hypothesis but it doesn’t state anything about the degree by which the obtuse hypothesis has been thrashed.  The outlandish hypothesis has absolutely no chance whatsoever in being right.  The ZERO is really strong.  It is not the infinite approximation of a really small number.  Even if we think that the number of stars in the universe is infinite, we could use L’Hospital’s rule as a tie-breaker.  As many times as we need to apply L’Hospital’s rule, ZERO is still ZERO.  Any finite number multiplied by ZERO is still ZERO.  Thus, there is absolutely no chance (none whatsoever!) that life arose by any (every?) random evolutionary processes.  Wald verbalized the reason for his religious fanaticism:

“When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: Creation or spontaneous generation. There is not third way.  Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: That life arose spontaneously by chance!”[27]

A.J. Ayer wrote, “I believe in science.  That is, I believe that a theory about the way the world works is not acceptable unless it is confirmed by the facts, and I believe that the only way to discover what the facts are is by empirical observation.”[28]

According to Wald,[29] it's not a matter of the evidence.  It’s a matter of philosophy!  Now some people don’t like this conclusion and cannot accept the alternative: namely, that all life on earth was created by a transcendent Creator.  So, with Wald, they are willing to “believe the impossible,” in order to cling to their belief that the universe is a closed system, a system that has no room for such a Creator.


It must now be noted that evolution’s deadness didn’t just arrive with this paper.  Additionally, it must also be noted that evolution was dead even before Darwin proposed it in 1851.  It was dead from the very first thought because there was & is no truth in it.

Negatively, the smoke has cleared and evolution is dead.  But Keith Miller[30] also shows that our “creation-evolution debate has sapped vital energy from the Christian community.”  Instead of putting our God-given efforts to work towards building up and edification of Christ’s Church, the intense argument has been destructive.  Most of the energy in the debating has been to focus on scientific facts and ignoring the theological implications.  But since Creation addresses primary issues for Christians, the debate must go on.

Positively, several things can be said.  First, the Christian apologist can now confidently invoke the existence of God.  For some 300 years now, the biased philosophy of scientific mysticism has shamed religion as an outdated, eccentric, and/or foolish option.  With the continuing advances in all the inter-related fields of science, evolution is now being shown to be dead and worthless at every new turn.  Armed with this verifiable empirical science, the Christian apologist can now show that it is evolution that is the outdated, eccentric, and/or foolish option.[31]

Second, Creation declares God's integrity.  His creation is a visible source of truth about Himself, its Creator.  The orderliness of nature reflects something of the orderliness of God.  The reliability of the laws of science reflects something of the reliability of God.  The integrity of creation reflects something of the integrity in God’s character.  Our faith is grounded in God Who takes great and careful steps in divine self-disclosure as He intervenes in our history.  Creation, although now corrupted by the introduction of sin, still reflects something about the glorious & majestic character of its Creator.

The Genesis account is a record of the God Who reveals Himself through human language.  What He says is reliable and trustworthy.  Christianity is based on the testimony of God’s historic intervention on our behalf.  Our history flows forward to the God’s ending of creation and backward into God’s beginning of creation.  The God revealed in creation, history, and nature is the same God Who has revealed Himself in scripture and in the Incarnation.

Third, Creation can also be seen as the bridge between God’s immanence and transcendence.  Grenz & Olson[32] projected the theologies of various important theologians unto the transcendence / immanence dipole.  They analyzed third centuries of theologians in an attempt to find a theology that maintains the “creative tension” between the twin truths of God’s divine transcendence and His divine immanence.  Yet we know that God is totally self-sufficient and distinct from this world.  He stands above the cosmos as the sovereign ruler.

With every advancement in human technology we see deeper, farther, more intensely, clearer into the facets of God’s great creation.  At every turn we become aware of God’s immeasurable supremacy, sovereignty, power and wisdom.  Across the ever increasing distances of the cosmos, God maintains His creative control.  Since God fills heaven and the earth (Jeremiah 23:24), and since God is infinite, the cosmos stands a good chance of being infinitely large.  Now we understand that when Job sought a day in court with God, he was mildly rebuffed and told (Job 38-41) to contemplate the created universe.  Should we not be as Job and be even more overwhelmed by God's greatness?  The enormity, magnanimity, majesty, and complexity of creation all demonstrate God’s transcendent design.

Yet we also know that God is immanent with us through His creation.  Colossians 1:17 shows that God is actively maintaining what we perceive as the “natural” and “law-governed” processes.  Nature is not wound up like an old time watch and left on its own.  God doesn’t take a Sabbath rest—else He would have to recreate the world every Monday.  Our own inability to ascend to heaven or to bring heaven to this earth is only met when God Himself comes to earth as a human and creating heaven within us.  Creation is the key that helps us maintain this theological tension.

Works Cited

[1] Carl Sagan, Cosmos (New York, NY: Random House, 1980), p 4.

[2] This view had a very early origin.  The Greek philosopher’s Anaximander and Anaximenes

            (5th century) held to a primitive evolutionist view.  So, much later, did Thomas Aquinas

            (13th century).  Many since Darwin have embraced essentially the same position.

[3] Kelly James Clark, in Steven Cowan, Five Views on Apologetics (Grand Rapids, Mich:

Zondervan, 2000), p83.

[4] Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation

of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, 1859.  See also: Richard Lewontin, The

Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change (Columbia University Press, 1974);  Douglas

Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology (Sunderland, Mass: Sinauer, 1986);  and John Gillespie,

The Causes of Molecular Evolution (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1991).

[5] George Wald, "The Origin of Life", Scientific American 191:48 (May 1954).

[6] A good description of the Miller-Urey experiments can be found at:    cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html.

[7] Quentin Smith, The Uncaused Beginning of the Universe, Philosophy Of Science 1988 55/1,

            pp 39-57; - Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books,

            1988); -Quentin Smith, Stephen Hawking's Cosmology and Theism. Analysis 1994, 54/4,

            pp. 236-243; Quentin Smith, A Formal Logic Proof of Atheism (2000); -Quentin Smith,

Atheism, Theism and Big Bang Cosmology. Australasian Journal Of Philosophy, March

1991, 69/1, pp. 48-66;  -Richard Dawkinds, The Blind Watchmaker, Norton, 1987; 

-Steven W. Hawkins & George F.R. Ellis, “The Cosmic Black-body radiation and the

Existence of Singularities in our Universe,Astrophysical Journal, 152. 1968, pp. 25-36;

and Steven W. Hawkins & Roger Penrose, “The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse

and Cosmology," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, series A, 314 (1970) pp.


[8] William Lane Craig, God and the Initial Cosmological Singularity: A Reply to Quentin

            Smith. Faith and Philosophy 9 (1992): 237-247.

[9] Stu Pullen, Darwin's Mistake: Chapter 5: The Evolution of New Genes from Random DNA

 [article on line] available:

[10] Frank Drake [article on line] available:

[11] Michael Meyer, Ex astra: Life from the Stars Organic chemistry amidst the stars, Ad Astra,

Volume 14, Number 2 March/April 2002.

[12] The Search For Extra Terrestrial Intelligence home page, available: [13] Gary Habermas, Evidential Apologetics, in Steven Cowan, Five Views on Apologetics             (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2000), p92.

[14] John Warwick Montgomery, Apologetics I: 916M. Cassette 8 of 16. Trinity College &

Theological Seminary.

[15] Kelly James Clark, in Steven Cowan, Five Views on Apologetics (Grand Rapids, Mich:

Zondervan, 2000), p83.

[16] Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York:

Free Press, 1996).

[17] Michael Behe, Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design, eds William

            Dembski & James Kushiner (Grand Rapids, Mich: Brazos Press, 2001), p93.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Michael Behe, Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design, eds William

            Dembski & James Kushiner (Grand Rapids, Mich: Brazos Press, 2001), pp 95,96.

[21] Geoff Chapman, “Orchids: a Witness to the Creator,” Creation ex nihilo, Vol. 19, No. 1,

            December 1996— February 1997, pp 44-45.

[22] Paul Davies, Is anybody out there? The New Scientist, 18 September 1999. [23] John Horgan, “In the Beginning,” Scientific American, vol. 264 (Feb 1991), pp. 119.

[24] Gary Parker, Creation, Facts of Life, 6th ed. (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1994), p8 in

Royal Truman, The Problem of Information for the Theory of Evolution: Has Dawkins

really solved it? [article on-line] available:;

Internet; accessed 10 June 2002.

[25] Steve Reuland, Darwin's Tree of Life, The Talk. Origins Archive, [article on-line], available:


[26] C. P. Martin, “A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution,” American Scientist, vol. 41 (January

            1953), p.100.

[27] George Wald, “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American 191:48 (May 1954).

[28] A.J. Ayer in Alister McGrath, Intellectuals Don’t Need God & Other Modern Myths:

            Building Bridges to Faith Through Apologetics (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 1993).

[29] Wald, “The Origin of Life.”

[30] Keith B. Miller, Theological Implications of an Evolving Creation, Perspectives on Science

            and Christian Faith, 45, 1993, pp.150-160.

[31] Dr. Edward Martin, associate editor of the Global Journal, has suggested that the

evolutionist, when finally convinced that evolution is wrong, may choose to become a

finitist rather than place his/her faith in Jesus Christ.  Finitists claims that there was a

quasi-divine being (call him God if you like) who created the world but then became

weak and/or died.  God is not now able to control anything, prevent evil from happening,

or secure our eternal destinies.

[32] Stanley Grenz & Roger Olson, 20th Century Theology: God & the World in a Transitional

 Age (Downers  Grove, Illinois: Intevarsity Press, 1992).

Table of Contents