Look, I’m a scientist,

and a bit of a theoretical statistician. So for me, I want to look at odds and probabilities. That’s why I am skeptical of completely naturalistic explanations for life. Of course there is micro evolution. Animal breeders have known THAT for thousands of years. DUH!

But where is the evidence for macro evolution? It’s one thing to produce woolier sheep or a certain color of eyes through breeding selection. It is quite another to go from sheep to birds! I mean, just where does the information for the new structures come from? And why are there no intermediary steps in the fossil record? (See: Cambrian explosion)

RANDOMNESS? That hardly seems likely! We need to look at odds and probabilities, here.

“His experiments revealed that, for every one DNA sequence that generates a short functional protein fold of just 150 amino acids in length, there are 10(77) nonfunctional combinations—combinations that will not form a stable three-dimensional protein fold capable of performing a specific biological function.

—Stephen Meyer. The Return Of The God Hypothesis

And remember, just one protein fold won’t do it. Many are needed for an even rudimentary function. And all these protein folds have happen at once–I mean, what survival value is there in 1/3 of a mammalian eye?

See, material evolution scribes tend to blithely wave off such objections with a casual, “over millions of years.” But that just won’t do. There simply is not enough time (statistical space) in the 13 billion years of the universe for that to be even remotely likely.

No, as a scientist who is a bit wedded to statistics and probability, I honestly don’t have enough faith to go down that materialist road…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.