….well folks, here’s the other simplified part:
The Earth is about 5 Billion years old, right?
I’m not trying to pick a fight; if the young earthers are right and earth is only 5 days older than all of us, their point is already made.
But, let’s say it was as old as the evolutionists claim it is, ‘kay?
If I shook up a bunch of scrabble letters and threw them on the ground, what are the odds it would form the “Roses Are Red” poem? How about a Shakespearean Sonnet? What about the Lord of the Rings triology?
How likely is it that, just by chance, we are here by chance alone?
This film clip from Ben Stein’s “Expelled” puts it in a little perspective. <————— click anywhere on this line.
In short, yes, in an infinite universe, in theory, if you roll the dice, drop the letters, or jumble the proteins, you might get the simplest proteins, which eventually become everything else.
BUT:
1) The universe, and Earth, are NOT infinite. It had a definite beginning, known as the “Big Bang.” Lee Strobel’s “The Case for Faith” addresses this; there were a phenomenal number of things that could’ve gone wrong at the Universe’s origins, but didn’t.
2) in a real world situation, there simply hasn’t been enough time for all species on Earth to arise from those first simple proteins.
How may times would I have to shake the scrabble letters to make them spell out ‘Roses are red/ violets are blue’? Would I have to do it for an hour? A day? A year? A thousand years? How much longer, then, for simple proteins to first line up, and then for them make giraffes and dust mites, babies and centipedes?
Uh huh. I can hear the scientific equivalent of the Flat Earthers yelling already.
Hey, here’s a thought for all the science guys, those who claim ‘I believe in science,’ just like Jack Black’s sidekick in Nacho Libre:
Do you really understand every scientific principle? Have you ever seen an atom? Have you ever seen a creature evolve?
If you can’t test it, see it, touch it for yourself, do you know what you’re doing?
You’re taking it on faith, my friend.
I’m not saying you’re wrong to believe it. But I am saying that to believe in science, you have to have the same level of faith in what you’re taught in science that a believer has in God, and that a believer in science has to have the same level of trust in scientists and PBS that a Catholic has in the Pope and the Church.
Or, as GK Chesterton put it:
“When such a critic says, for instance, that faith kept the world in darkness until doubt led to enlightenment, he is himself taking things on faith, things that he has never been sufficiently enlightened to doubt. That exceedingly crude simplification of human history is what he has been taught, and he believes it because he has been taught. I do not blame him for that; I merely remark that he is an unconscious example of everything that he reviles.” GKC in the Illustrated London News, 2/13/1926
JDM
{ 0 comments… add one now }