Which is more scientifically probable, Evolution or Creation?

Looking at life from a purely scientific perspective, with no religious faith of any sort, it is interesting what facts there are.

In 1981, the US state or Arkansas passed a law entitled the "Balanced Treatment for Creation Science and Evolution Science Act," which mandated that "creation science" be given equal time in public schools with evolution. This law was successfully challenged in court by the ACLU a few months after it was signed by the governor. Many expert witnesses were called at the trial (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education); one of the people called by the defendant was Chandra Wickramasinghe, a Professor of Applied Mathematics at the University of Cardiff in Wales and an astrobiologist (currently at the University of Buckingham). Although Chandra Wickramasinghe does not endorse creation-science, he was called as an expert witness to rebut the claim that neo-Darwinian evolution was a proven fact. His statement shows that creation is more scientifically reasonable than evolution. Some of these are here presented.

“It is believed by neo-Darwinists that the full spectrum of life as we see it today as well as in the past is accounted for by the steady accumulation of copying errors and the consequent development of variety as a primitive living system is copied billions upon billions of times. It is stated according to the theory that the accumulation of copying errors, sorted out by the process of natural selection, the survival of the fittest, could account both for the rich diversity of life and for the steady upward progression from bacterium to Man.”

“We agree that successive copying would accumulate errors, but such errors on the average would lead to a steady degradation of information. It is ridiculous to suppose that the information provided by one single primitive bacterium can be upgraded by copying to produce a man, and all other living things that inhabit our planet. This conventional wisdom, as it is called, is similar to the proposition that the first page of Genesis copied billion upon billions of time would eventually accumulate enough copying errors and hence enough variety to produce not merely the entire Bible but all the holding of all the major libraries of the world. The two statements are equally ridiculous. The processes of mutation and natural selection can only produce very minor effects in life as a kind of fine tuning of the whole evolutionary process.”

“Yet perhaps the most significant single difficulty associated the neo-Darwinist view of life is that microorganisms are far too complicated. When bacteria were (formed), it is true to say that 99.99% of the biochemistry of higher life was already discovered. Some 2000 or so enzymes are known to be crucial over a fairly wide spectrum of life ranging from simple micro-organisms all the way up to Man. In each enzyme a number of key positions are occupied by almost invariant amino acids. Let us consider how these enzymes sequences could have been derived from a primordial soup containing equal proportions of the 20 biologically important amino acids. At a conservative estimate say 15 sites per enzyme must be fixed to be filled by particular amino acids for proper biological function. The number of trial assemblies needed to find this set is easily calculated to be about 10 to the power of 40,000 (10⁴⁰⁰⁰⁰) —a truly enormous, super astronomical number. And the probability of discovering this set by random shuffling is 1 in 10⁴⁰⁰⁰⁰. This latter number could be taken as a measure of the information content of life as reflected in the enzymes alone. The number of shufflings needed to find life exceeds by many powers of 10 the number of all the atoms in the entire observable Universe (which is only 10⁸⁰).”

In further statements he explained that in the absence of a joining enzyme, all the energy available on the earth at that time would have been enough only to achieve one single joining of two amino acid molecules.

In conclusion, he stated:

“If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court. The enormous information content of even the simplest living cell cannot in our view be generated by what are often called natural processes. For life to have originated on the earth it would be necessary that quite explicit instructions should have been provided for it’s assembly.”

It is interesting that this man does not even believe in creation or in the Christian God (he’s a Buddhist).

That God created the heavens and the earth is clear. Paul said,

For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities- his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God. Rom 1:20 NLT

If someone says he or she doesn’t believe in God, that is simply a choice not supported by any rational evidence. It requires more ‘faith’ than believing in God. This is why Pastor Bankie says that atheism is religion.