Life on Earth

	"Once  we  see that the probability of life  originating  at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it  absurd,"  British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle observed, "it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics, on which life depends, are in every respect deliberate."^1
	As  we  noticed in a previous study, the "Big Bang" is not all  it  is made  out to be.  This attempt to explain the origin of the  universe becomes  more of a little "pop" when confronted  with  the facts.   And even if evolutionists were able to prove  that  the universe  came into existence through a big bang or  through  any other  natural  means, they would still be nowhere.   They  would find their way out of one dead-end street simply to enter  another.  They would have to face the task of explaining the origin of life on the earth.  As Dr. Hoyle so aptly put it, this probability is so tiny that it is absurd.
	"It  is almost inevitable," Dr. Hoyle continued,  "that  our own measure of intelligence must reflect higher  intelligence  - even to the limit of God."
	Don't forget that Hoyle does not necessarily accept the  God of  the Bible.  He simply says that there must  be  some  higher intelligence on the level of God.
	By  the  way, those who think  that  the  evolution/creation debate is simply a philosophical discussion  between  scientists and  religious fanatics should consider that the search for  life in outer space has fueled much of our space exploration.  Evolutionists are using tax money to finance their desperate  scramble for  evidence  to  support their theories.  Just  recently  NASA announced  that the search for extraterrestrial life is behind  a planned $100 million project.  That's nothing.  The Apollo series alone cost about $20 BILLION.
	In  his typically colorful way, Hoyle has examined  what  he feels  to  be  the probability of life  evolving  from  inorganic elements.  These thoughts have been printed in various magazines.
	In  an article in the November 21, 1983, issue of TIME (p. 49) he discusses the possibility that  an "organic ooze" alone could produce the 2,000 enzymes essential to life.   He computed the odds at "1 out of 10 to the 40,000th"  Ten  to  the 40,000th power is 10 with 40,000 zeros after it.  He says this is "about  the same as the chance of throwing an  uninterrupted  sequence of 50,000 sixes with unbiased dice."
	In New Science magazine he compares the spontaneous development  of life with giving scrambled Rubik cubes  to  10 to the 50th  blind persons and expecting them to simultaneously solve  the  cubes.  Having  done  this, he suggests, there would be only one  of  the many  biopolymers on which life depends.  Anything  beyond  this, Dr. Hoyle proposes, is "nonsense of a high order."
	Until  the  latter half of the 1600s,  just  about  everyone believed  in spontaneous generation.  They believed  that  living organisms could come from non-living matter.  To prove this,  one Belgian  scientist wrapped wheat kernels and cheese in  a sweat-soaked shirt and stuffed the whole bundle into an open container.  Twenty days later he observed that, with the help of human sweat, the wheat had spontaneously generated into baby mice.
	It  wasn't until 1668 that the Italian  physician  Francesco Redi demonstrated  with a much  more  scientifically  conducted experiment that spontaneous  generation  was  a false  theory.  Still,  this  falsehood did not die  easily.   Another  Italian, Lazzaro Spallanzani, was forced to demonstrate once  again  that spontaneous generation was a myth.  Still, the lie persisted.
	Two  hundred years after Redi, the famous  French  scientist Louis Pasteur proved conclusively that  spontaneous  generation does  not  occur.  We voice our agreement with  this  conclusion every time we drink a glass of pasteurized milk.  For nearly  150 years  it has been an accepted fact of science  that  spontaneous generation does not occur.    That is, it almost does not  occur.  You  see, the rise of living forms from inorganic matter demands that spontaneous generation took place just one time in history, never  to happen again.   Some of the same scientists  who  would scoff  at  the experiment with the sweat and wheat still  see  no problem with believing in spontaneous generation.
	"The  important  point," states one-time  Harvard  professor George  Wald,  "is that since the origin of life belongs  in  the category  of  'at-least-once'  phenomena, time is  on  its  side.  However  improbable we regard this event, or any of the steps  it involves,  given enough time, it will almost certainly happen  at least once.  And for life as we know it, with its capability  for growth and reproduction, once may be enough.  Time is the hero of the  plot.   The time with which we have to deal here is  of the order of 2 billion years.  What we regard as impossible  on  the basis  of  human experience is meaningless here.  Given  so  much time,  the  impossible  becomes possible,  the possible  becomes probable,  and the probable becomes virtually certain.   One  has only to wait, time itself performs the miracles."^2
	Here  we have the faith of the evolutionists in a  nutshell. 

	It would be difficult to state the truth about evolution any more clearly than George Wald did in that last quote.  Notice his supposition that  the entire discussion hinges on  TIME.   Given enough  time,  he claims, the impossible  becomes  possible.  In other  words, time can violate all laws of science.  This is  the heart  of evolution.  This is the very motive behind  the  dating scales used by evolutionists.  There are no facts to support  the use  of millions and billions of years in the time tables.   The only  reason for these immense periods of time is that  they are required by the theory.
	As Wayne Jackson points out in his book, Creation, Evolution and  the Age of the Earth, 19th-century scientists estimated  the age  of the earth at somewhere between 3 million and 1.6  billion years.  Over the past century, the estimated age of the earth has doubled every 20 years. 
	Unfortunately  for  Wald and his colleagues, his  ideas  are totally false.  As Jackson points out, time is quantitative,  not qualitative.  In Jackson's words, "zero times zero for a  billion years will never equal anything but zero."  And even all the time in the world is not enough for what Wald proposes.
	Dr.  George G. Simpson, a strong evolutionist, has  admitted that, even with an effective breeding population of 100  million individuals and given a new generation every day, mutations might produce  favorable results in 274 billion years.  Keep  in mind that  the  evolutionists have been able to push the  age  of  the earth (in their minds) back to only about 5 billion years.^3
	Dr.  J.  Howard Trull makes  some  interesting  observations about the process proposed by evolutionists for the  origin  of life.   While this theory suggests a sea of concentrated  organic "soup,"  Dr. Trull points out that molecules tend to diffuse  and dissipate  in a liquid medium.  In addition, he notes, most  complex  organic  compounds are highly unstable and  break  down  as rapidly as polymerization and aggregation take place.  Dr.  Trull observes  that the first cells could not have been, as some suggest, virus-like, since viruses are parasites which cannot duplicate themselves  without utilizing the enzymes of  other  living cells.  As Dr. Trull concludes, "time never makes the  impossible become possible."^4
	Edward F. Blick also makes some interesting observations  in his  book Correlation of the Bible and Science.  For  one  thing, the earth's atmosphere either contained oxygen or it didn't.   If it  did, then the organic chemical elements would have been  oxidized  and destroyed.  Without oxygen in the  atmosphere,  unfiltered ultraviolet radiation would have destroyed any life formed.  By  the way, some evolutionists propose ultraviolet radiation  as one  of  the  factors contributing to the origin of  life,  even though these rays are fatal to the life forms they are imagining.  Blick  also considers some of the large amount of research which has  been done to calculate the probability of evolution  taking place.  For example, Dr. James F. Coppedge analyzed the  chances of protein molecules developing by random chance.  He  concluded that  the probability of the formation of what  is  theoretically the  smallest  living cell possible would be one chance  out  of 1 to the 29,345th.   It  would take about a half hour to  say  this  number speaking  rapidly and counting by billions.  To help put this  in perspective, Blick notes that the diameter of the known  universe in inches is 10 to the 28th.  Dr. Coppedge also computed that the time  required for the development of this smallest cell, given favorable conditions, would be 10 to the 119,831th years.  This is not to say that it would be possible for this cell to develop.  It means only that, if it could, it would take this long.
	"Physical  scientists, who know higher mathematics  and  are capable of analytical thinking," physicist  Howard  B.  Holroyd commented,  "should never have allowed the  thoroughly  mistaken mechanical theory of evolution to reach such a degree of apparent certainty in the thoughts of nearly everyone."^5
	"If  living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay  of atoms, natural forces and radiation," H.S. Lipson, professor  of physics  at  the University of Manchester, wonders, "how  has  it come  into  being?   There is another theory, now  quite  out  of favor, which is  based upon the ideas of Lamarck:  that  if  an organism needs an improvement it will develop it, and transmit it to  its  progeny.  I think we need to go further than  this  and admit  that the only acceptable explanation is creation.  I know this is an anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but  we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."^6
	Oh,  Dr. Lipson, the biblical account of the origin of  life is  not a theory.  When we look into the Bible we  do  not  find theories.   We find the truth...the truth which, if we only  open our eyes, will set us free.

Unless otherwise noted, "Scripture taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE(R), (C) Copyright The Lockman Foundation 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977. Used by permission."
1) Hoyle, Fred, and Wickramasinge, Chandra. 1981. Convergence to God in Evolution from Space. London: J.M. Denton & Sons. pp. 141,144. Quoted at <http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/origlifequotes.htm>.
2) Jackson, Wayne. 1989. Creation, Evolution and the Age of the Earth. Courier Publication: Stockton, CA: Courier Publication. pp.1,2.
3) Jackson, Wayne. 1989. Creation, Evolution and the Age of the Earth. Courier Publication: Stockton, CA: Courier Publication. p. 2.
4) Trull, Howard J. 1971. "Life-Comparative Anatomy." Spiritual Sword II/3 (April): pp.8,9.
5) Blick, Edward. 1976. Correlation of the Bible and Science. Hollywood, CA: Haven of Rest. p. 16.
6) Creation Science Foundation. 1984. The Quote Book. p.5.*

*Questions have been raised about some of the quotations used in the Quote Book.  To my knowledge, all of the references that are used here are not in question.  Please let me know if this is not the case.