By John Leonard
In spite of this fact, there are simple truths that are safe to assume.
For example, life cannot evolve until it exists. Before evolution ever became possible, two significant problems had to be solved.
First, this allegedly fine-tuned universe had to have been created from absolutely nothing.Â Second, the animation of inanimate matter had to occur.
Neither of these is an insignificant problem.
The universe could have been created by some very fortunate accident (good luck), unless it was created on purpose, by a supernatural God.
Science and mathematics can tell us how likely each alternative might be, but it cannot tell us the right answers. We must rely on logic and reason to decide what is most likely true.
Many scientists will almost surely argue that “science” (meaning existential physics, chemistry, and biology) has no relationship to luck, but that simply isn’t true.Â Science can tell us that the universe and life exist, but it can’t tell us what caused the universe to exist, or how it was created from nothing.
Science can confirm that the universe has not always existed, but it doesn’t really offer a decent explanation for why it exists today.Â Those are not scientific questions; they are philosophical ones. And they are both crucially important problems that are extremely difficult to solve without any need for divine intervention.Â In fact, the hypothesis in chemistry known as abiogenesis is the reason that we may safely assume that the origin of new species, without the specific act of a supernatural God, is very unlikely, and virtually impossible.
Biologist Richard Dawkins, famous for writing his book The God Delusion, concedes that abiogenesis is so remarkably improbable we may safely assume that it has only happened once, that inanimate matter became alive.
In an attempt to mitigate the “probability” problem of explaining existence without invoking God, Dawkins made some very interesting claims in his book, such as:
The key difference between the genuinely extravagant God hypothesis and the apparently extravagant multiverse hypothesis is one of statistical improbability. (1)
Once again, simple reasoning reveals the major error in Dawkins’s logic. A hypothesis that relies on a supernatural creator God solves the probability problems of the creation of the universe, the origin of life, and the current diversity of life.Â The statistical improbability of the multiverse hypothesis theoretically only solves one of the three statistical problems. If anything, the odds against life being spontaneously generated “by accident” even once are absurdly low.
Dawkins also wrote:
Physicists have calculated that, if the laws and constants of physics had been even slightly different, the universe would have developed in such a way that life would have been impossible. Different physicists put it in different ways, but the conclusion is always much the same. Martin Rees, in Just Six Numbers, lists six fundamental constants, which are believed to hold all around the universe. Each of these six numbers is finely tuned in the sense that, I it were slightly different, the universe would be comprehensively different and presumably unfriendly to life. (2)
The evolutionary biologist’s typical argument is, so what? The Big Bang and abiogenesis can both be remarkably improbable events, and it doesn’t matter because each of them only had to happen once, and they both have happened, which makes evolutionary biology possible. They will then usually claim that the evidence for macroevolution is so powerful and ubiquitous that it is literally irrefutable, and an absolute fact.
In another one of his books, Richard Dawkins wrote this:
Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eyewitnesses to the Holocaust. It is the plain truth that we are cousins of chimpanzees, somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins of bananas and turnips … continue the list as long as desired. (3)
If we are to assume that macroevolution has actually occurred and is true, then we must believe that through the biological mechanisms of sexual (or asexual) reproduction, isolation of a breeding population, and plenty of time, the diversity of life we can easily observe on Earth may be attributed to the accumulated random mutations of a given species over time. To be sure, the average evolutionary biologist might consider my simplified explanation to be egregiously incorrect, but the fact remains that either sexual or asexual reproduction is the only known method by which new organisms are produced. This is an important point to understand.Â This lecture about the origins of life by Dr. James Tour is more than an hour long, but well worth the time:
However, if you don’t have the time, I can briefly summarize the content this way — organic chemists are not close to explaining how life could have formed by accident or good luck. For the first cell to form, complex compounds such as lipids and enzymes would need to precede them in existence. Much more than the minimal raw ingredients for a cell were necessary to exist prior to the cell becoming able to form.
Remember that we’ve already assumed the Big Bang and abiogenesis could have been successful and lucky. LUCA would “naturally” begin the process of replication via asexual reproduction, which would produce no new variety within the genome. So from where did the new genetic information come? How did it get added to LUCA’s genome? The popular answer from the evolutionary biologist to that question is usually either bacteria or germs. An ERV (endogenous retrovirus).
Here is the fatal flaw in evolution theory: the natural product of abiogenesis could only have been a single-celled organism that reproduced asexually, which means it would have had to clone itself.Â But from where did the germs or bacteria come? The only logical answer to that question is alsoÂ the simplest: abiogenesis must have happened at least twice.
Which is mathematically impossible.