Answers in Genesis — Life Is a Miracle

Creationists are always claiming that the universe was intentionally created for life. But they also say that life is nevertheless impossible, unless additional miraculous activity is involved.

The impossibility of life in our created universe is the theme of the latest post at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG) — the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the Australian entrepreneur who has become the ayatollah of Appalachia.

The title is Las Vegas, the Lottery, and the Origin of Life. It was written by Andrew Fabich. AIG provides some information about him here. They say he has a PhD in microbiology, and he has taught that subject at Liberty University. Here are some excerpts from what he posted, with bold font added by us:

The origin of life is so unlikely that every evolutionist ought to consider gambling at the casinos and playing the lottery on a regular basis because those odds are significantly better than a random chance process. Instead of 52 cards or 6 numbers in sequence, the origin of life requires over 100 genes to work.

Same old story. In the earliest days of this humble blog, we wrote a three-part series on the subject, starting here: The Inevitability of Evolution (Part I). Okay, let’s see how Fabich handles it. He says:

According to the evolutionary worldview, the universe is approximately 14 billion years old, and life first appeared on earth almost 3.5 billion years ago. The two current worldviews on the origin of life require either 10 billion years (since the earth is 4.5 billion years old) or instant divine command — there is no middle ground.

Well, a cult can propose any numbers it wants, but it’s true that between the correct view and any other, there’s no middle ground. Then Fabich drones on and on abut DNA, RNA, and genomes. There are better sources of information, so we’ll skip all that. Finally, he gets to the creationist argument:

The number of minimal genes that have been determined empirically ranges from 189 genes to 552 genes. … Rather than pick a number too high or a number too low, I will arbitrarily pick 250 genes for simplicity’s sake. According to evolution, the amount of time for the origin of life to happen is from the big bang to the first evidence of life. So the universe is 14 billion years old, and the first appearance of life happened 3.5 billion years ago.

Okay, what’s the problem? Let’s read on:

Figuring out how probable it is for 250 genes to come randomly together is like searching for a 250-piece puzzle that’s already together inside its box. Does anyone expect to open a puzzle box with all 250 pieces put together?

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! He assumes it all happened at once — ka-boomo! We’ve referred to that as the Theory of Spontaneous Assembly of Very Complex Molecules from Start to Finish from Utterly Isolated Atoms — commonly known as TSAVCMSFUIA. We explained the error in our 3-part series, to which we linked above, so we won’t repeat it here. Fabich continues:

As if these odds weren’t abysmal, evolutionists now suggest that life originated multiple times. Instead of admitting how extreme the odds are for the origin of life, evolutionists have only multiplied this unlikelihood even further beyond the known universe. Increasing the already unlikely odds for the origin of life strains common sense and is, in fact, entirely unreasonable.

Here’s the conclusion section of Fabich’s article:

Since the simplest explanation usually is best, the only way to explain the immensely astronomical odds for the origin of life must be an infinite source of life. Life must be miraculous because our existence is not sufficient proof of the origin of life. It is more than reasonable to dismiss the random origin of life even with all ~250 genes present because the odds for the origin of life oppose empirical science.

Actually, what he’s saying is because creationists insist that life must be a miracle, all natural explanations must therefore be dismissed.

Copyright © 2016. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

11 responses to “Answers in Genesis — Life Is a Miracle

  1. Mangle the entire concept of evolution and then assume a miracle is automatically plausible. Sounds like the status quo for the latest in creationist thinking.

  2. docbill1351

    Fabich is just another of a very short list of delusional creationists who managed to scrape by a PhD then embark on a career as a Liar for Jesus. It is inconceivable, INCONCEIVABLE I SAY, that he got through a PhD program at Okie U without several courses on genetics and evolution, so he knows that the “tornado in a junkyard” argument is false. Yet, he bears false witness because that’s what creationists do! He has also lied about Lenski’s work and has appeared in a number of YouTube videos where he brags about his credentials (conveniently omitting that he hasn’t published squat since he joined the Liberty U cult) then proceeds to trash other people’s work and science in general. He’s got a real bad case of brain envy.

    Like his comrades in crayola, Lisle, Annie Green Screen, and Prudom, he’s just a minor little troll in the creationist ecosystem and won’t amount to very much.

  3. If it takes a miracle for life to appear, then the world is not designed for life.

    Thus the design argument is claimed to be worthless. And what does that have to say about God as a designer?

  4. These dogmatic idiots are so stooopid. Or they would know that they have one example of a world that man has set foot on, and on that world life exist. So this put the lottery as one draw and one win that is a 100% certainty. When these dimwits step foot on another planet and have thoroughly explored it (fat chance) and found NO life then that will only bring the chances of life on planets to 50%!!!

  5. Fabich exclaims “Life must be miraculous because our existence is not sufficient proof of the origin of life.” Does anyone (including Fabich) have any idea what that sentence means? I certainly don’t and haven’t finished my first Scotch of the evening.

  6. Charles Deetz ;)

    The simplest explanation, got that.

    http://www.funnyordie.com/memes/photo/1180768

  7. When you consider how the odds are stacked against the existence of every particular person, I’d say every person on Earth has already won the lottery. The number of ways of arranging DNA is so astonishingly high that except for identical twins it is pretty much a certainty that no duplicates exist. Using this logic I must not exist?
    So invoking GOD is the simplest explanation? That’s akin to saying that NO EXPLANATION is the simplest explanation. Again, absurd. (I could also substitute GOD with Zeus, Odin, or Tezcatlipoca without changing the logic.)
    Life and the molecules of life are chemical reactions, and chemical reactions aren’t random. Using raw probability to determine the outcome of chemical reactions? Once again our stealth doc is being obtuse.

  8. @Troy
    Your observation is, IMHO, one of the examples of how so many of the arguments against evolution turn out to be arguments against reproduction.

  9. Aha!
    TomS and I are not the product of reproduction. Goddiddid!

  10. Fabich appears to be offering a version of the “junkyard tornado” argument. That spavined old nag is long since ready for the glue (or dogfood) factory, but creationists cling to it. Apparently they don’t believe that natural law can account for the assembly of a molecule of DNA; certainly they don’t believe natural selection can account for which such molecules manage to reproduce themselves. Apparently, for them, everything is either totally random or the product of a Designer, He Who Must Not Be Named as long as creationists want to be seen as serious researchers and not sectarian religious cranks.

  11. @Eric Lipps
    And as long as one does not say what the designer does, when or where, how or why …
    Then that “design” is essentially random chance.
    For it does not talk about what the difference is between the actual results and any of the possibilities open to the designer.
    When assigning the sky being blue to “design”, how is that any different from the sky being purple and brown polka dots? Or there not being any sky at all?