“The entire complex of New York City is less complicated than the makeup of the simplest microscopic cell.”
Against all odds, Julian Huxley the renowned British evolutionary biologist, eugenicist, and proponent of natural selection believed that although the chance was statistically zero for evolution to produce a horse, it happened.
“To sum up, natural selection converts randomness into direction and blind chance into apparent purpose. It operates with the aid of time to produce improvements in the machinery of living, and in the process generates results of a more than astronomical improbability which could have been achieved in no other way” (Sir Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, pp. 54, 55).(1)
Still today, all those who believe in evolution follow in his footsteps, doing so not because of the evidence, but in spite of it!
As stated by Joe Crews, “What would be involved in the accidental development of a single living cell? The fact is that the most elementary form of life is more complicated than any man-made thing on earth. The entire complex of New York City is less complicated than the makeup of the simplest microscopic cell. It is more than ridiculous to talk about its chance production. Scientists themselves assure us that the structure of a single cell is unbelievably intricate. The chance for a proper combination of molecules into amino acids, and then into proteins with the properties of life is entirely unrealistic. American Scientist magazine made this admission in January of 1955: (2)
“From the probability standpoint, the ordering of the present environment into a single amino acid molecule would be utterly improbable in all the time and space available for the origin of terrestrial life. “(3)
Of course, all the early evolutionists knew of this ridiculous improbability, but they expected to find evidence in the geological strata that supported their position. They fully expected (or at least sincerely hoped) that in just a few more years, archaeologists would find transitional fossils and intermediary species, and mountains of evidence for their theory. But the exact opposite has happened! The study of archaeology has proven that life on Earth appeared suddenly, in its full array of complexity, not gradually over many eons. (See prior post “The Data in the Strata.“) Consider the following written by Joe Crews in an article “How Evolution Flunked the Science Test.”
Now here is the perplexity for the evolutionists: The Cambrian is the last stratum of the descending levels that has any fossils in it. All the lower strata below the Cambrian have absolutely no fossil record of life other than some single-celled types such as bacteria and algae. Why not? The Cambrian layer is full of all the major kinds of animals found today except the vertebrates. In other words, there is nothing primitive about the structure of these most ancient fossils known to man. Essentially, they compare with the complexity of current living creatures. But the big question is: Where are their ancestors? Where are all the evolving creatures that should have led up to these highly developed fossils? According to the theory of evolution, the Precambrian strata should be filled with more primitive forms of these Cambrian fossils in the process of evolving upward.(4) (amazingfacts.org/media-library/book/e/33/t/how-evolution-flunked-the-science-test)
This is, of course, just one of the myriad reasons that evolution is impossible. (There are thousands.) See my prior blogs for scores of examples. Yet secular atheists cling to evolution like it is the last life boat on the Titanic.
Fred Hoyle, the brilliant British astronomer who formulated the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis, made some brash statements may have cost him the Nobel prize when he stated that everyone in the scientific community relies on someone else to reassure them that evolution was indeed possible(5). The professor points out that biologists have assured astronomers and they, in turn, have been assured by “others” that it could happen.”The ‘others’ are a group of persons who believe, quite openly, in mathematical miracles,” says Hoyle. “They advocate the belief that tucked away in nature, outside of normal physics, there is a law which performs miracles (provided the miracles are in the aid of biology) . . . The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.”(6)
Fred Hoyle also wrote: “Life cannot have had a random beginning … The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 1040,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.” (Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1981)(7)
For many decades those who believe in a divine Creation have been labeled “science-deniers”, when in reality the opposite is true. So, realizing that it may cost me my Nobel Prize as it did Fred Hoyle,
let me further amplify the statements by the brilliant and honest Mr Hoyle, and state that all those who belief in evolution do so for reasons completely outside the realm of science.
For a more extensive, yet wonderfully coherent and readable presentation of the above, please see http://www.amazingfacts.org/media-library/book/e/33/t/how-evolution-flunked-the-science-test.
(1) Sir Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, pp. 54, 55)
(3) Reproduction and the Origin of Life American Scientist Magazine, January 1955, p. 125.
(7) Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1981)
Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who approaches Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.