THINK ABOUT THIS: Here’s The Number That Explains Why Evolution Can’t Add Up
Let’s think about computer programming. Behind every computer application is a coding that determines how your laptop will perform a particular operation, be that refighting World War II in “Call of Duty” or using Turbo Tax to prepare your return.
Programming is essentially arrangements of sequences for the 1s and 0s that result in desired results on your laptop’s screen. Throw in a random 1 or 0, however, and you may disrupt things. Throw in enough random 1s and 0s and your laptop stops functioning.
Now think about DNA sequencing as the programming required to produce the proteins that are required for the formation and specified functioning of the cells of your body. And think of the evolutionary process of Natural Selection as a series of sequences, some of which do nothing to advance a particular organism and others that do.
The latter are retained, while the former are rejected. Do that often enough over a long period of time and, according to evolutionary theory, you eventually get an entirely new species.
But as the Discovery Institute’s Stephen Meyer explains in the following Prager U video, there is a huge math problem here that renders Natural Selection as unworkable. Meyer tells us that Cambridge University molecular biologist Douglas Axe expresses the problem as 10 to the 77th power.
Yes, that’s a huge number and it’s a huge problem for evolutionists. It also points to why a reasonable person will ask themselves if perhaps the evidence suggests we ought to consider the possibility that, rather than being the product of random chance, the presence of life is a result of somebody’s purposeful creation, otherwise known as “intelligent design.”
Check out the video and then make up your own mind:
Actually, there is a field of computer science that has shown that you can evolve fitter code through a process that mimics random mutation and natural selection. (It’s of limited utility today, since it’s impossible with the current state of technology to simulate the fathomless numbers of generations that have occurred in nature. But the theory appears sound.)
Scientists are constantly advancing and revising our understanding of evolution. But science can only deal with natural phenomena. It isn’t equipped to say anything, one way or the other, about a “supernatural,” unobservable phenomenon — let alone one that is utterly unique, or indeed, ineffable.
A person of mature faith is perfectly capable (thanks be to God) of treasuring both his faith and the undeniable achievements of science, in particular the science of evolution.
Stephen Myer discusses this kind of computer operation that is supposed to mimic random mutation and natural selection. The problem he points out is that the programs that purportedly do this already “know” the outcome that is to be achieved and the natural selection process means simply keeping what’s desired and “rolling the dice” again on the rest. Real evolution would not have a planned outcome; the process would not know what kind of protein is was supposed to code for, so there is no way of achieving a positive result other than pure chance, and the astonomical odds the video mentions.
I agree that it is possible to value science within the context of faith. In fact, it has often been argued that Christianity provided the perfect environment for science to develop. It is also true that, in the abstract, there is no reason to think that God could not use a perfectly natural process to develop organic life including humans (at least in their material aspect). The problem is that it’s increasingly clear that it cannot work in the real world. A million monkeys will simply not reproduce the works of Shakespeare in any timeline in this universe. It’s important from a scientific perspective to acknowledge that. Otherwise, science loses it’s focus on discovering truth, wherever it may lie.