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.