http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3726
God and the Laws of Science: The Laws of Probability
PROBABILITY AND SCIENCE
A typical misconception about science is that it can tell us what will
definitely happen now or in the future given enough time, or what would
certainly
have happened in the past, given enough time. The truth is, science is
limited in that it does not grant absolute truth, but only yields
degrees of probability or likelihood. Science observes the Universe,
records evidence, and strives to draw conclusions about what has
happened in the past, is happening now, and what will
potentially
happen in the future, given the current state of scientific
knowledge—which is often times woefully incomplete, and even inaccurate.
The late, prominent evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson discussed the
nature of science and probability several years ago in the classic
textbook,
Life: An Introduction to Biology, stating:
We speak in terms of “acceptance,” “confidence,” and “probability,”
not “proof.” If by proof is meant the establishment of eternal and
absolute truth, open to no possible exception or modification, then
proof has no place in the natural sciences. Alternatively, proof in a
natural science, such as biology, must be defined as the attainment of a
high degree of confidence (Simpson and Beck, 1965, p. 16, emp. added).
In other words, science observes and attempts to answer for mankind
such things as: what could have happened in the past; what most likely
happened; what is probably happening now; what could happen in the
future; or what will likely happen in the future. Science does not
necessarily tell us what will
certainly always be or has always been the case. Rather, it tells us what has always been
observed
to be the case and what will almost certainly always be the case,
without exception, and which coincides with logic, intuition, and
mathematics. When enough evidence is gathered and all that evidence
points to some truth and therefore yields an extremely high level of
confidence in that truth (i.e., the probability of the same truth always
being the case is considered so high that it is beyond doubt), the
truth is made a law. Such a step is not taken lightly. Extensive
observation must be conducted before doing so. Therefore, the laws of
science are highly respected and considered to be essentially beyond
doubt. However, there is always the slightest potential that a law could
be broken in the future by some unknown event. Thus, probability is
intimately intertwined with science. Mark Kac, famous mathematician and
professor at Cornell and Rockefeller Universities, said, “Probability is
a cornerstone of
all the sciences, and its daughter, the science of statistics, enters into
all human activities” (as quoted in Smith, 1975, p. 111, emp. added).
Many evolutionists understand the significance of probability in
science and yet go too far in their use of the laws of probability,
presumptuously claiming that they can do more than they profess to do.
These assert that anything—no matter how far-fetched—will inevitably
happen, given enough time, as long as it does not have a probability of
zero. Supposedly, objects will pop into existence, and eventually, those
things will come to life and transform into humans. Many evolutionists
have long cited the principles of probability in an effort to support
such unscientific dogmas (e.g., Erwin, 2000). As far back as 1954,
George Wald, writing in
Scientific American concerning the origin of life on Earth, penned the words:
However improbable we regard this event, or any of the steps it involves, given enough time, it will almost certainly happen at least once. And for life as we know it, once may be enough. Time is the hero of the plot…. Given so much time, the “impossible” becomes possible, the possible becomes probable, and the probable becomes virtually certain. One has only to wait; time itself performs miracles (Wald, p. 48, emp. added).
There are at least four problems with such assertions about the laws of probability.
GIVEN ENOUGH TIME
First of all, we are not “given enough time” for macroevolution to have
occurred. We at Apologetics Press have documented this fact time and
time again (cf. Jackson, 1983; Thompson, 2001). Years ago, in his
article “The Young Earth,” Henry Morris listed 76 scientific dating
techniques, based on standard evolutionary assumptions, which all
indicate that the Earth is relatively young (Morris, 1974). Donald
DeYoung documented extensive, compelling evidence for a young Earth as
well, in the book
Thousands…Not Billions (2005). This fact alone dispels the preposterous contention that we are the descendants of ape-like creatures.
THE SINGLE LAW OF CHANCE
The second problem with the assertion of evolutionary inevitability is
implied by the work of the renowned French mathematician, Emile Borel,
for whom the lunar crater, Borel, is named (O’Connor and Robertson,
2008). In 1962, Borel discussed in depth the law of probability known as
the Single Law of Chance—a law that he said “is extremely simple and
intuitively evident, though rationally undemonstrable” (1962, p. 2).
This principle states that “events whose probability is extremely small
never occur” (1965, p. 57). He further stated that we “at least…must
act, in all circumstances, as if they were
impossible” (1962, p. 3, italics in orig.). The law, he said, applies to
the sort of event, which, though its impossibility may not be rationally demonstrable, is, however, so unlikely that no sensible person will hesitate to declare it actually impossible. If someone affirmed having observed such an event we would be sure that he is deceiving us or has himself been the victim of a fraud (1962, p. 3, italics in orig., emp. added).
To clarify the meaning of “extremely small” probabilities, he defined
different categories of events in which the probabilities are so small
that they are “practically negligible,” including events from the human,
terrestrial, and cosmic perspectives (1965, p. 57).
In his discussion on the probabilities of certain cosmic events, he
argues convincingly from mathematical calculations and intuition that
reasonable human beings consider probabilities of chance cosmic events
that fall below one in 10
45 to be negligible (1965, p. 59).
In other words, if the probability of a certain event happening in the
Universe is less than one in 10
45 (i.e., a one with 45 zeros
after it), human beings intuitively categorize that event as so unlikely
that we consider it to be an
impossible event.
Several years ago, evolutionist Harold Morowitz of Yale, and currently
professor of biology and natural philosophy at George Mason University,
estimated the probability of the formation of the smallest and simplest
living organism to be one in 10
340,000,000 (1970, p. 99). A
few years following Morowitz’s calculations, the late, renowned
evolutionist Carl Sagan made his own estimation of the chance that life
could evolve on any given single planet: one in 10
2,000,000,000
(1973, p. 46)! Note also that these calculations were made before the
last several decades have revealed with even more clarity the complexity
of life (cf. Deweese, 2010). These probability estimations for the
formation of life, made by the evolutionists themselves, are, of course,
so far beyond the limit articulated for cosmic events by the Single Law
of Chance that we must respond in shock, rather than humor, at the big
lie that has been perpetrated on the world at large by so many in the
scientific community in thrusting macroevolution on the masses. The
distinguished British astronomer, Sir Fred Hoyle once said regarding
evolution, “the chance that higher forms have emerged in this way is
comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard
might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein” (1981b,
294:105). He further stated:
At all events, anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with the Rubik
cube will concede the near-impossibility of a solution being obtained by
a blind person moving the cubic faces at random. Now imagine 1050 blind persons each with a scrambled Rubik cube, and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously
arriving at the solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by
random shuffling at just one of the many biopolymers on which life
depends. The notion that not only 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
(1981a, 92:527, emp. in orig.).
Borel’s Single Law of Chance certainly lays plain the impossibility and
incredibility of the evolutionary proposition. However, Borel tried to
distance himself from the implications of his findings and their
application to the spontaneous emergence of life by noting that the laws
of chance do “not
seem possible to apply” to some evolutionary events (1963, p. 125, emp. added). He further stated:
[I]t is generally held that living beings are the result of a slow
process of evolution, beginning with elementary organisms, and that this
process of evolution involves certain properties of living matter that
prevent us from asserting that the process was accomplished in
accordance with the laws of chance (1963, p. 125).
In other words, evolutionary processes are not considered a succession
of random, chance events. Instead, it seems that they are considered
intentional events that somehow occur without intention. However, since
non-living matter has no mind of its own, the progression of events that
would have to occur to lead to the optimal arrangement of that matter
allegedly to bring about life would have to be just that—a succession of
random, chance events. In making the assertion that the laws of chance
do not apply to evolution, he tacitly acknowledges the fact that the
evolutionary model would actually require multiple, successive random
events taking place gradually over time in order to bring even the
pre-living “organism” to a place in which life could allegedly burst
into existence. And as if to further drive the tombstone into the grave,
according to Borel, himself, “[i]t is repetition that creates
improbability” (1962, p. 3). Such almost endless successive random
events would actually create more of a problem for evolution. “[I]t is
their [the successive repetition of improbable events leading towards
significant complexity—JM] almost indefinite repetition that creates
improbability and rightly seems to us
impossible”
(1962, pp. 3-4, emp. added). After all of these successive evolutionary
events leading towards life, the final random, chance event in which all
the circumstances happen to be “just right” to bring about the jump
from non-life to life is so improbable,
according to the evolutionists themselves,
that the Single Law of Chance would consider the event impossible and
not worthy of human attention. [NOTE: We are not suggesting that it is
possible for life to be spontaneously created from non-life, no matter
what the circumstances or arrangements of matter may be. We are only
noting the implications of the evolutionists’ own arguments and their
application to the laws of science.]
KOLMOGOROV'S FIRST AXIOM
There is yet another problem with the assertion that macroevolution
will happen, given enough time, as long as it does not have a
probability of zero. Several of the events that are necessary in order
for the theory of evolution and the Big Bang Theory to be true, indeed,
have a probability of zero, according to the scientific evidence. The whole question is not really even one of improbability, but
impossibility.
How can one calculate the probability of something happening for which
there is zero evidence that such a thing can even occur? Chance applies
only to events or circumstances wherein possibility is present.
For instance, before the Big Bang was allegedly a small, condensed
sphere comprised of all of the matter in the Universe [see May, et al.,
2003]. Consider for a moment the spontaneous generation of that sphere
of matter. Its appearance and subsequent organization, being a random,
chance event, would fall under the guidelines of the Single Law of
Chance as well. Unfortunately for evolutionists, since all scientific
evidence indicates that matter cannot spontaneously generate (according
to the First Law of Thermodynamics; see Miller, 2007), the probability
of such an event would be much less than the “one in 10
45” barrier set by the Single Law of Chance, namely,
zero.
Also, what proof is available that leads to the idea that life could
spontaneously generate (i.e., abiogenesis)? What scientific evidence is
available that would lead to the idea that abiogenesis has a probability
of anything but
zero? Speculation abounds concerning
the sequence of events that could cause precisely the right conditions
for it to occur. However, there is zero scientific evidence to support
the idea that it could happen even if those improbable conditions were
ever in effect. In actuality, the scientific evidence is not “neutral”
on the matter, as though there is no evidence for or against
abiogenesis. Rather, the scientific evidence is not only unsupportive of
abiogenesis, but all experimental scientific results are contrary to
it! The experiments of renowned 19
th-century scientist Louis
Pasteur long ago killed the possibility of the spontaneous generation of
life, and recognition of the well-respected law of science known as the
Law of Biogenesis (i.e., life comes only from life and that of its
kind) drove the nails into its coffin (cf. Thompson, 1989).
These truths alone create impenetrable barriers for
evolutionists—non-traversable, gaping chasms that would have to be
crossed in order for the theory of evolution to be plausible. According
to the scientific evidence, there is a probability of zero that
abiogenesis can occur. According to the laws of probability,
specifically Kolmogorov’s first axiom, when the probability of an event
is zero, the event is called an “
impossible event”
(Gubner, 2006, p. 22, emp. added). Since several events that are
necessary in order for the theory of evolution and the Big Bang Theory
to be true have a probability of zero, according to the laws of
probability, these atheistic theories are
impossible.
PROBABILITY AND CAUSAL POWER
Further, even if there were
not a probability of zero
when it comes to macroevolution, it is important to note as was
discussed earlier that probabilities do not guarantee that an event will
or will not happen, regardless of how much time is allotted. Sproul,
Gerstner, and Lendsley correctly observed:
The fact is, however, we have a no-chance chance creation. We must
erase the “1” which appears above the line of the “1” followed by a
large number of zeroes. What are the real chances of a universe created
by chance? Not a chance. Chance is incapable of creating a single
molecule, let alone an entire universe. Why not? Chance is no thing.
It is not an entity. It has no being, no power, no force. It can effect
nothing for it has no causal power within it, it has no itness
to be within. Chance…is a word which describes mathematical
possibilities which, by a curious slip of the fallacy of ambiguity,
slips into discussion as if it were a real entity with real power,
indeed, supreme power, the power of creativity (1984, p. 118, emp. in
orig.).
We certainly agree. There is only one causal Power capable of creating
the Universe, and there is certainly nothing random about Him.
CONCLUSION
Recall what Borel said of events prohibited under the Single Law of Chance—that
sensible humans “must act, in all circumstances, as if they were
impossible”
(1962, p. 3, italics in orig.). Unfortunately, so many scientists today
do not act sensibly. They do not follow this simple and intuitive truth
when it comes to the matter of origins. Rather, they hold to the
impossible, pouring thousands of hours and billions of dollars into
researching it, writing on it, speaking on it, thrusting it into the
minds of people of all ages, and attacking anyone who contradicts them.
They, themselves, admit that the spontaneous generation of life from
non-life has never been observed and that the odds are shockingly
against it, and yet, since they start with the presumptuous assumption
that there is no God, they believe the existence of life is proof enough
that spontaneous generation occurred. But if the scientific evidence is
so strongly against it, how can it be considered scientific? Even if
there was a 0.0000…1% chance that macroevolution could happen, why would
a scientist stake his/her name and entire career on such astronomical,
outrageous odds when, if biased assumptions are dropped, there is a much
more plausible explanation for the origin of this Universe? Prominent
evolutionist, Richard Dawkins, himself admitted, “The more statistically
improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by
blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an
intelligent Designer” (1982, p. 130, emp. added). We certainly agree,
and sadly, the implication of that alternative is the very reason so
many people irrationally hold onto impossibilities—the intelligent
Designer has expectations to which this rebellious generation refuses to
submit.
Nevertheless, in the words of Emile Borel:
When we calculated the probability of reproducing by mere chance a work
of literature, in one or more volumes, we certainly observed that, if
this work was printed, it must originally have emanated from a human
brain. Now the complexity of that brain must therefore have been even richer than the particular work to which it gave birth (1963, p. 125, emp. added).
And if we might add another line to Borel’s statement: “And further,
the complexity of the Mind that gave birth to that brain must be truly
incomprehensible!”
REFERENCES
Borel, Emile (1962),
Probabilities and Life (New York: Dover).
Borel, Emile (1963),
Probability and Certainty (New York: Walker & Company).
Borel, Emile (1965),
Elements of the Theory of Probability (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall).
Dawkins, Richard (1982), “The Necessity of Darwinism,”
New Scientist, 94:130-132, April 15.
Deweese, Joe (2010), “Has Life Been Made From Scratch?” http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240389.
DeYoung, Donald (2005),
Thousands…Not Billions (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).
Erwin, Douglas (2000), “Macroevolution is More Than Repeated Rounds of Microevolution,”
Evolution and Development, 2[2]:78-84.
Gubner, J.A. (2006),
Probability and Random Processes for Electrical and Computer Engineers (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Hoyle, Fred (1981a), “The Big Bang in Astronomy,”
New Scientist, 92:521-527, November 19.
Hoyle, Fred (1981b), “Hoyle on Evolution,”
Nature, 294:105,148, November 12.
Jackson, Wayne (1983), “Our Earth—Young or Old?,” http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/yng-old.pdf.
May, Branyon, et al. (2003), “The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique,”
Reason & Revelation, 23[5]:32-34,36-47, May, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2635.
Miller, Jeff (2007), “God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective,”
Reason & Revelation, 27[4]:25-31, April, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3293.
Morowitz, Harold J. (1970),
Entropy for Biologists (New York: Academic Press).
Morris, H. (1974), “The Young Earth,”
Acts & Facts, 3[8], http://www.icr.org/article/young-earth.
O’Connor, John J. and Edmund F. Robertson (2008), “Felix Edouard Justin Emile Borel,”
The MacTutor History of Mathematics Archive, http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Mathematicians/Borel.html.
Sagan, Carl, ed. (1973),
Communications with Extra-terrestrial Intelligence (Boston, MA: MIT Press).
Simpson, George G. and William S. Beck (1965),
Life: An Introduction to Biology (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World).
Smith, Anthony (1975),
The Human Pedigree (Philadelphia, PA: J.B. Lippencott).
Sproul, R.C., John Gerstner, and Arthur Lendsley (1984),
Classical Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Thompson, Bert (1989), “The Bible and the Laws of Science: The Law of Biogenesis,”
Reason & Revelation, 9[6]:21-24, June, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/330.
Thompson, Bert (2001), “The Young Earth,” http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1991.
Wald, George (1954), “The Origin of Life,”
Scientific American, 191:45-53, August.
What
does it mean to say: “The Bible is inspired”? Answers to this question
are legion (cf. “Theories...,” 1864, 6:312-349). Some regard the Bible
as “inspired” in the same way that great authors in history have risen
above the average person in their literary pursuits, e.g., Homer,
Shakespeare, Dickens, or Eliot. Others would say that the writers of the
Bible were influenced by supernatural connections, but that their
written records of those connections suffer from the same flaws that
mere humans are prone to make. Many people fail to assess the Bible’s
own claims regarding its inspiration. Before the Bible can be determined
to be “inspired,” it is necessary to conceptualize the meaning and
nature of that inspiration. The Bible literally is filled with
descriptions of the essence of its own inspiration.