Archive for the ‘Evolution’ Category

Natural logical choice of the human mind

November 21, 2012

The brain in wired in such a way that if we truly reason things out with some good dose intellectual processing – the natural (logical) choice is a tendency to disbelive in anything that disagrees with such a thought. It is no wonder that some of the greatest thinkers and philosophers in history did not believe in things that could not agree with logic and reason. Even the underlying assumptions behind any theory or idea must somewhat agree with the critera of logic & reason. Being so committed to their study and being faithful to themselves – It would be like committing intellectual heresy to take in something without first passing it through – thoroughly – the test of the scientific method and then conclude through the regime of logic and reason. But I‘m sure that in the choices that they make – they would have made some intellectual sacrifices and compromises to allow their minds to accept the things that they do not fully know or understand – in their line of thought – and would have to substantiate such a belief with proof that falls short of the scientific requirement. I believe that this is the clincher for the Athiests & Agnostics and other belief systems – they still cannot go on for sure and that is the most irritating thing about the human mind – it just would not let anyone break the barrier to truth. 

But the thing is , just because the mind cannot break a barrier to discover something deeper, it does not mean that the human thought should end there. But the real question is should we believe in stuff that lacks logical credibility?

Most Scientific discoveries could be nothing more than puerile nonsense

August 26, 2007

Einstien once was known to have remarked :

One thing I have learnt in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike – and yet it is the most precious thing we have”

If we think that science has answered all our questions we are dead wrong. If reality is a baby – the scientific sperm has not even met it’s egg yet. And yet we have secular fundamentalists – most notably the evolutionists – making fantastic and cocksure claims about their findings and then foiting it down society as gospel truth in complex pseudo-scientific lingo. I once had an argument with at least two of my blog’s commentors about the veracity of science vis-a-vis reality and they was so sure that the “scientific method” would suffice as a surefire check against any kind of scientific claim or proposition. These are the same guys who happen to believe in the theory of evolution as the gospel truth. But alas – very little could be proven of such claims that seems to even fly in the face of secular science’s much vaunted methodolgies. These guys need to get a grip of themselves. They must understand that believeing in science as an answer to the fundamental existential questions is nothing better than to believe that God created the universe in 6 days and also Created Adam – the first Human being. I mean the whole creationist story may seem like a cheap B-grade fairy tale, but the arrogance and evagelical zeal with which otherwise intelligent scientists and scientific theorists promote the various scientific theories and publish their findings as gospel truth is cheap b-grade porn. It’s obscene. It has no scientific basis to start with and yet we are supposed to believe in it as truth. To these guys I have nothing more than pity. I post this video from youtube where Ali-G trashes guys who think they know it all. If einstein was right – we know next to nothing

watch this – LOL

Why must God Show up?

June 19, 2007

I write this in response to Salahdin’s “Why God doesn’t show up”.  In the cartoon that was displayed it could possibly be an allusion to God’s non-existence. If that was the intended allusion that the cartoon tried to evoke – I don’t believe the position is neither objectively provable nor a intellectually sensible position to take.  One thing we have to understand is that the reality of the existence of God is far separated from the one espoused by religions. They are basically different interpretations for this core of “God”. You can say religions are the diverse dogmatic assumptions behind the notion of a non-material omnipotent transcendental reality. God is a related issue, but distinguished enough in itself to demand a separate regard.

As far as investigations into the nature of reality are concerned, religion as well as science (as it is regarded today) are dogmas. Just because science is widely accepted across belief systems and the fact that it works at a practical level of human affairs does not mean that it is a superior representation of truth. I have no axe to grind with science per se, just the interpretative philosophy (as represented by that of secular materialists) behind it to suit its own ends – that existence can happen by itself independent of any higher extraneous cause. The scientific method as a measure of objectivity and that objectivity as a standard of proof speaks not only of the severe limitations of the human condition but also the severe limitations such a method places on the advancement of human intellectual understanding and, hence, knowledge.  

 To quote Robert Anton Wilson, the agnostic, who said- “I consider dogmatic belief and dogmatic denial very childish forms of conceit in a world of infinitely whirling complexity.”

 He advocated a suspension of judgement not only on the issue of God but also at a general level. Simple denial of God based on objective sense experience is not enough to qualify the position of denial.  But one should not speculate on it without some sort of calculated assumptions right?.  In this article I use “SM” to mean “secular materialism” or “secular materialist” (to be applied as the context requires). In it I assert, albeit a tad dogmatically, that God should exist – by necessity. It may not be sufficiently objective for the purposes of science but neither is it sufficiently absurd that science can disregard even by its own standards. So in a crux, based on my arguments that follow, what I am asserting here is that 

1)     I fundamentally assume God exists (unless otherwise conclusively disproved by secular standards) because there exists a certain design in the way the universe is made to exist. I look around and see it every day in every place the “infinitely whirling complexities” that science has little answers for. The convenience of preconceived ideas as to what I define truth to be is only as true as a secularist assumes ideas in his own terms about the nature of reality.  

2)     Objectivity is not ideal as a standard to identify proof because, just like religions, it’s veracity is vitiated by it’s underlying assumptions. The scientific method notwithstanding, objectivity is not absolute if the fundamental assumptions are not proven. In other words there is no such thing as absolute objectivity and as such SM should not be regarded as such. 

3)     God does not manifest to human perception because I don’t see why he should and that even if he can and he doesn’t, that does is not proof that he does not exist in reason. 

4)     The question of why God doesn’t show up is moot because if He does show up He necessarily exists but if He exists he doesn’t need to show up to prove his existence. If he doesn’t exist, God necessarily cannot show up and if he cannot show up, he cannot be God – because an entity that cannot do something cannot be God. But that does not mean that God must do something to prove that he can do it or to justify his existence. God’s existence is a reality that is independent of belief by His creations and his manifestation is independent of human perception. So the showing up part is irrelevant because the real question is if He exists. 

5)     If the question of why God is not showing up is on the assumption of the theistic position (that he does indeed exist) is to show there is no objective arguments for God to exist then the question must contain a reasonably obvious inference – proving the absurdity of the reality of God’s existence – which it, by and large, did not. 

6)     Magical cereal formations and divine clouds above the Kabbah notwithstanding, the existence of supernatural events per se is no proof that God’s exists 

7)     In SM philosophy, there is no ideological equivalent of “God”. It has neither the intellectual or ideological platform to support the arguments for or against it nor does it have the sufficiency in the advancement in it’s knowledge base to tackle the conundrum of God. It can only object to the inconsistency of the idea behind “God” to it’s own notions of what constitutes fact and it’s own standard of proof.  The real problem here is that the SMs could well be mistakenly addressing an issue that was not a theists position on God in the first place.

8 )     If science wants to disprove the existence of God conclusively it has to assume or borrow the theistic ideological platform to address that because  :

a.      (as said earlier) the idea of God is alien to secular materialism i.e. it has no intellectual platform on the issue so it has to borrow the theistic position to address the question.

b.       The objective intellectual experience being squarely sandwiched between a priori deductions and a posteriori inductions – both of which  are required to form an absolute truth  – are fundamentally unsubstantiable. What I mean is that you either know the cause and speculate on the effect or know the effect and speculate of the cause. It is impossible to know both the fundamental cause and the fundamental effect to objectively realise absolute truth. In other words one cannot arrive at absolute truth via objective reasoning.

As such human knowledge as it is limited, is a floating crib that has no foundation in the vastness of knowledge.The superiority of SM could not be sufficiently established over other dogmatic belief systems. Period. 

Euclid once said that every proof relies on at least a few assumptions (or postulates) which themselves cannot be proven. Set the standards of proof too high and nothing at all can be proven. By the same token, set the standards too low, practically anything can be proven. At the heart of secular materialist (“SM”) belief (as with theism) are unprovable assumptions that require faith to believe in.  At the heart of those assumption is this assumption : “that which eludes scientific explanation has a scientific explanation yet to be discovered.” And God does not feature in those assumptions as a valid premise “yet to be discovered”. One thing we have to distinguish is reason and logic and SM.

Reason and logic does not represent SM’s philosophy but it forms a means to verify it’s postulates and justify belief in it’s claims. Thus the assumptions of science defines it’s principles not reason and logic which float above those assumptions.

Reason and logic define the reality of these materialist principles. So negation of God per se does not form the hallmark of SM. It’s just that the premises behind the hypothesis (that God exists) that does not conform to materialist definition of reality and as such it becomes anathema to science.  

Despite objective scientific findings that conclusively points to the existence of non-material entities, secular science refuses to even suspend judgement on the issue of God – it goes straight into the “God offensive”. SM has it’s own standards of proof, evidence and definitions for reality.  So for secularists, there is no definition or platform to allow a belief in God which it views as an irrational amorphous a posteriori abstraction that is beyond the scope of SM definitions because God cannot be observed or secondarily inferred from specific supernatural phenomena.

Thus there is no secular definition for the term “God” in secular materialist philosophy as theists understand it because it lies beyond the scope of SM objective intellectual experience. But SM sees the reality and the possibility of existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and eternal entity through it’s own terms. However it finds no basis to include the possibility, however remote, the existence of that reality.  In other words what I am essentially saying is :  

i)                   The evidence against God is at least in the objective sense – inconclusive. In such an instance, reason and logic requires a suspension of judgement in this case.

ii)                 The centrality of absolute adherence to the objective way (the so-called scientific method) towards ascertainment of truth cannot be assumed to be superior or the only way because objective establishment of hard facts requires solid data – and if Euclid was right, absolute fact is impossible. 

So what is Transcendental Reality? There can be no answer to it in SM philosophy because, essentially, it holds that there can be no reality transcending the objective experience or observation. Such a line of thought has no room for the acceptance of subjective or intuitive deduction as valid explanations of reality. As such they don’t see the point (of the reality of God’s existence) because they don’t have one to start with.

In SM theory, the idea of God as defined by theists, simply cannot be observed or at least reasonably inferred. Yes as you said God is “NOT empirically verifiable”. To rephrase that you were effectively saying “your proof does not fit my standards”. That’s all. Standards vary and you have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that SM’s standards are superior before I can be required to satisfy for my opinions to be intellectually acceptable.

As I have said earlier religion does not need to objectify it’s arguments to secular materialist definitions because it follows a different philosophy. If you consider empirical verifiability of hypotheses, there are indeed tons of observed, realities that secular science subscribes to, that does not fit SM’s empirical objectivity. I hold the standard of objectivity that goes into the theory of evolution to be in the same league as that of the theory of the existence of God both of which are basically a posteriori rationalisations of their respective claims to essential truths.  Thus to say that religion is a fantasy is thus a matter of secular, value-based opinion and I cannot reasonably regard it as superior to theistic constructs. 

How To identify God?

But seriously if I had the answer to that I’d be in some uncharted Himalayan highland happily meditating till death takes over me. But if you want God to show up like say in a clear night you see the stars in the sky clearly going out of their usual positions to make the words “I am God and to prove it, I will make the stars disappear in exactly 7 minutes”. And then say it does happen. Does that prove the existence of God? How do you know it is from God? Could be one of those angels teasing or maybe satan himself playing tricks? Can this event be empirically verifiable as something that is indeed coming from God?

There is no way you can make that assumption. Possibly even David Blane could create stellar formations. The fundamental mistake in your wanting God to prove himself by manifesting to within the limitations of human perception is that you ascribe some supernatural event as satisfactory “empirical” proof of God’s existence. That would be a great folly because theists do not understand God to be defined as supernatural per se. God is also seen through the reality of the existence of the devil – and devils are supernatural. And so too are angels and Jinns who exist in another realm of empirically unverifiable reality which science has no definitions for. And hence your mockery of which in the cartoon. You simply cannot identify with that. God is understood in a variety of contexts that really narrows and sharpens, rather than widens and blurs, as to what is God.  SM have to consider all contexts before making any judgement about God.

The secular materialistic understanding of God simplistically and conveniently misconstrues the multi-dimesionalities of theo-centric belief of God and it’s existence.  So if you want some cloud above the Kabbah or ceral formations to conclusively proof of God’s existence, I have to say that your standards are pretty low because it just proofs one thing. – and that is the existence supernatural things – at most. That’s all. One cannot make the mistake of simply drawing a definite line from supernatural events to the existence of God because that is not how God is understood by theists. And you cannot assert the position that any supernatural event that claims to Godhood has to be taken as that because secularists have no definition in their theories as to what should be considered as God to start with.  In mainstream  Islam and Judaism it gets even weirder because it essentially holds the reality of God to be beyond the grasp human comprehension. That is why I say secularists such as youselves have no idea what you are into really when you ask such questions. 

God : A belief of convenience?

Another thing is that I don’t think I believe in God because it gives me the answers I want. I believe in God because I am essentially left with the choice of two fantasies of secular materialism and theism. And that I admit this is an opinion. This is due to my realisation that science has failed to adequately answer the hard questions and refuses to establish the truth of God’s existence other than to vehemently deny it. If the size of the universe is a barometer, science, in my opinion, has answered next to nothing the questions arising about the nature of reality. So this makes the choice of theism and secularism arbitrary not clear in any one direction.  

The irrelevance of God’s material absence

My reason for claiming your question to be moot is because it necessarily assumes : “Proof that God exists underpins in him supernaturally showing up, otherwise he doesn’t exist” And your conclusion I infer as  :            – And God showing up means manifesting himself to human perception. –  Thus far God has not showed up and therefore he does not exist?   This logic is warped. 

Thomas Aquinas said to the question of God’s existence that God is neither self-evident nor beyond proof. I brought up the oblivious frog-in-the-well analogy to imply the fact that the lack of appeal of the concept of the existence of an omnipotent being to materialist reason and logic may not be sufficient to disprove god’s existence even though it may also be insufficient to prove it. The lack of a reason as to why God doesn’t show up does not automatically beg the question as to the proof of God’s non-existence.

Aquinas also said about dogmatic belief (faith) and denial :  

“If our opponent believes nothing of divine revelation, there is no longer any means of proving the articles of faith by reasoning, but only of answering his objections — if he has any — against faith”.  

In other words the question of God’s existence is beyond rational abstractions. And being an irrational concept you don’t see the point of God’s existence. It is beyond the ken of SM. And when you don’t see the point, you object based on your own standards belief. And when I object to your objections based my standards of belief, you may call it fantasy. So now, I am answering to your objections based on your understanding of reality.  

However, you will never find an answer based on your basic requirement for materialist proof. That is why I used the word Transcendental-reality in place of “God” in my earlier reply as God transcends materialist perception. And reality in theo-centric thought lies beyond human intellectual perception and as such I can only try and disprove your objections to it. You may find some faint questionable evidence here and there but one will never be able to grasp it. As secular-materialist reason and logic is contingent upon objective extrapolation of sense perception, it cannot “see” why god should or can exist. Having said that said, I must also add that the lack of proof as in the so-called scientific method should not necessarily point to a conclusion as to God’s non-existence. You have to do a better job at disproving it to debunk the idea of God as a necessary myth. So far the hypothesis of God’s existence cannot be scientifically disproved.

Is SM standards really superior?

Notwithstanding other unanswered ontological questions, can materialist logic find an answer to the question of god’s existence? The question of why God doesn’t show up underpins the question of his existence. If he exists then it does not matter at all if he shows up or not. If he doesn’t exist then the question of why he doesn’t show up is moot. Is it fair that for the purposes of proof to human understanding it necessitates a certain manifestation of God in the material world. But God is not obliged to do this as he is understood to be independent of this requirement. My simple take on this would be “Look around”. So the question that is within secular materialist range to know and too within that of the theists (non-materialists?) to prove is “can god exist?”

By virtue of the fact that the universe seemed to be “designed” can mean God does exist. But by virtue of the fact of existing scientific hypotheses proposing other ways in which the universe could have come into existence, he may well not exist. The proof behind the “can” and “cannot” of God’s existence is inconclusive. 

If one regards the theory of evolution as a valid explanation for the origin of all that exists, he is sadly mistaken because it can be scientifically be debunked as a glaringly unverifiable hypothesis. (see here for more info)

Must God “show up”?To the question of why God doesn’t show up I ask why must he? If it is within his capacity to be within our perceptual grasp, it is also within God to to be beyond it (i.e to “not show up”). Why should he? A secular materialist wants to see him?

The reason why God doesn’t show up does not mean he doesn’t exist. But I am not begging that that points conclusively that God does not “not exist” either (which is different from “God exists”). It is still inconclusive by SM requirements. Religious philosophy holds that belief is a prerequisite for perception. Sometimes, you have to believe in order to see. In other words it is far true that you can only see what you believe than vice versa.

If you were blind all your life with no sensory link to the material world whatsoever and were suddenly given sight, you will not be able to make out or even see what appears before your eyes. A complementary neuro-intellectual infrastructure (that has adapted to the environment) is a necessary requirement to complement the optical hardware in your body to complete the faculty of sight. While the functional eye receives the signal, it is the neural hardware and the software within that gives it a functional meaning and purpose. The eye provides a window for the intellect to “perceive”.  SO it is the brain that acually “sees” rather than the eyes which is only an instrument.

So the objective system of ascertainment of proof, technically speaking, is hardwired to effectively preclude the belief in the existence of a non-material all-powerful transcendental being. That is because the intellect extrapolates incoming sensory data by hard objective standards.

An analogy to explain this would be this :  It is grossly meaningless that you just have a computer without the software to run it. You need the software to complement the hardware to make the computer meaningful for the purposes for which it was intended. The hardware (eyes) and the software (the neural network) are mutually complementary. By themselves they are useless and need to be married to be functional and purposeful.

What I mean by this is that we all only see (“truth”) as far as we believe (“assumptions”). If you live by the basis of not subscribing by any assumptions you cannot possibly think.You cannot see because you believe in something else.

So just because I have an eye does not mean that everything that is real should fall within my sight to be regarded as existing in truth.  If you ask why God doesn’t show up – I ask you why must he? If he is indeed God and He wants his creatures to know Him then he should or else he does not exist? I can’t see the logic behind this. If you want something you need to know what exactly you mean by that. If you want to see that which I believe in, then you can only see it by my definitions because that’s what I believe in.  And I believe that if I can see “God” materially manifested as a burning bush I don’t think that is God in His true nature but a representation of God through which God communicates to me. Thats because I believe God in his true nature is unknowable. If you want God to show up you must be able to handle the truth of which and so far SM has no handle to hold to even start to grasp the reality of God

I can only base my arguments by the requirements of your standards which does not see beyond the confines of intellectual extrapolation of objective sense perception (i.e the materialist platform) with regards to even existential questions. Science as it advanced through the ages has proven that there exists things that are beyond human comprehension and at the moment the case for God can neither be objectively affirmed nor denied. It is thus your burden, as a secular materialist to disprove god’s existence as much as it mine, as a believer, to prove god’s existence. So far neither of us have done a good job.  

If the theory of evolution needs to be disproved objectively to negate its acceptance for scientific purposes, then so too the case of the existence of God. But the theory of Evolution even fails by science’s own standards of proof. At the most, you and I can only suspend judgement on the question of God – for neither position is superior to the other.

The origin of creation and the determination of the primary cause for existence is far too complex for simple answers.  It may be poetic if not absurd that the universe, created itself and managed to arrange itself in such a way as to create man (among others) in a lonely outpost in the middle of a unimaginably vast nowhere to ask existential questions about itself. An infinitesimally tiny bit of the universe is searching for its own identity and origin and getting no real answers. Hmmm…How could that be?


Theory Of Evolution Is an insult to human Intelligence Even by Secular Standards

June 4, 2007

Taken from “The Worst Thing That you thought”

 Even secular folks are questioning the plausibility of this theory…

The Perfect Freak : The Darwinian Human Ape

June 4, 2007

A protein Molecule

Protein Hi great Gramps!

Thanks gramps (above) – this is just a tribute to you because without you I would not have been formed – By the way I am also a product of millions of years of freak and anomalous molecular mutations which somehow or rather perfected me to the form that which I am now. So now am I a freak out of you or are you a freak preceding me?  This freaks me out alright but anyway the most important thing  is that the real ugly freaks (you know those green-purple monsters with eyes in their backsides and tentacles comin out of their noses that came out of chance mutation) died out due to natural selection. The perfected freaks like us humans and our later gramps, the monkeys (but of course now we respectfully call them the “great apes”) survived because the freak mutations somehow or rather turned out right despite the relatively short age of the earth (the mother of our greatest gramps) for such processes to miraculously happen despite being mathematically impossible. Wow, I’m a perfect freak who came from a long line of freaks and flukes like you who inturn were formed because of chance happenings within the universe! I wonder sometimes gramps, what chance event caused the big bang to happen?

This is only part of the evolution theory, which is a whole philosophical movement, that is conveniently and rather “unscientifically” used to fill the rather impossible intellectual gaps faced by secular-science and it’s proponents to complete an “objective” explanation of the origin of material existence of the universe. The theory of evolution is an ideological necessity arbitrarily constructed to justify a secular-materialist approach towards science and the search for truth. In other words, where secular-materialist science cannot complete the circle of knowledge, pseudo-scientific constructs like Evolution fill the gaps as neat and conveiently packaged explanations. If theistic creationism sounds like a some cheap B-grade fantasy flick so badly written that it makes “little red riding hood” look like rocket science then I have no pejorative offensive enough to describe the rationalisation behind the theory of evolution.

Why is this is a load of bull – well lets take a look just at the objective math of just one section of this philosophy of evolution alone (taken from this website by Harun Yahya’s “The Atlas Of Creation”)



The complex structure of the living cell was unknown in Darwin’s day and at the time, ascribing life to “coincidences and natural conditions” was thought by evolutionists to be convincing enough.

The technology of the 20th century has delved into the tiniest particles of life and has revealed that the cell is the most complex system mankind has ever confronted. Today we know that the cell contains power stations producing the energy to be used by the cell, factories manufacturing the enzymes and hormones essential for life, a databank where all the necessary information about all products to be produced is recorded, complex transportation systems and pipelines for carrying raw materials and products from one place to another, advanced laboratories and refineries for breaking down external raw materials into their useable parts, and specialised cell membrane proteins to control the incoming and outgoing materials. And these constitute only a small part of this incredibly complex system.

W. H. Thorpe, an evolutionist scientist, acknowledges that “The most elementary type of cell constitutes a ‘mechanism’ unimaginably more complex than any machine yet thought up, let alone constructed, by man.”105

A cell is so complex that even the high level of technology attained today cannot produce one. No effort to create an artificial cell has ever met with success. Indeed, all attempts to do so have been abandoned.

The theory of evolution claims that this system-which mankind, with all the intelligence, knowledge and technology at its disposal, cannot succeed in reproducing-came into existence “by chance” under the conditions of the primordial earth. To give another example, the probability of forming of a cell by chance is about the same as that of producing a perfect copy of a book following an explosion in a printing-house.

The English mathematician and astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle made a similar comparison in an interview published in Nature magazine on November 12, 1981. Although an evolutionist himself, Hoyle stated that the chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.106 This means that it is not possible for the cell to have come into being by coincidence, and therefore it must definitely have been “created”.

One of the basic reasons why the theory of evolution cannot explain how the cell came into existence is the “irreducible complexity” in it. A living cell maintains itself with the harmonious co-operation of many organelles. If only one of these organelles fails to function, the cell cannot remain alive. The cell does not have the chance to wait for unconscious mechanisms like natural selection or mutation to permit it to develop. Thus, the first cell on earth was necessarily a complete cell possessing all the required organelles and functions, and this definitely means that this cell had to have been created.

Proteins Challenge Chance


So much for the cell, but the theory of evolution fails even to account for the building-blocks of a cell. The formation, under natural conditions, of just one single protein out of the thousands of complex protein molecules making up the cell is impossible.

Proteins are giant molecules consisting of smaller units called “amino acids” that are arranged in a particular sequence in certain quantities and structures. These units constitute the building blocks of a living protein. The simplest protein is composed of 50 amino acids, but there are some that contain thousands.

The crucial point is this. The absence, addition, or replacement of a single amino acid in the structure of a protein causes the protein to become a useless molecular heap. Every amino acid has to be in the right place and in the right order. The theory of evolution, which claims that life emerged as a result of chance, is quite helpless in the face of this order, since it is too wondrous to be explained by coincidence. (Furthermore the theory cannot even substantiate the claim of the accidental formation of proteins, as will be discussed later.)

The fact that it is quite impossible for the functional structure of proteins to come about by chance can easily be observed even by simple probability calculations that anybody can understand.

For instance, an average-sized protein molecule composed of 288 amino acids, and contains twelve different types of amino acids can be arranged in 10300 different ways. (This is an astronomically huge number, consisting of 1 followed by 300 zeros.) Of all these possible sequences, only one forms the desired protein molecule. The rest of them are amino-acid chains that are either totally useless or else potentially harmful to living things.

In other words, the probability of the formation of only one protein molecule is “1 in 10300“. The probability of this “1” to occur is practically nil. (In practice, probabilities smaller than 1 over 1050 are thought of as “zero probability”).

Furthermore, a protein molecule of 288 amino acids is a rather modest one compared with some giant protein molecules consisting of thousands of amino acids. When we apply similar probability calculations to these giant protein molecules, we see that even the word “impossible” is insufficient to describe the true situation.

When we proceed one step further in the evolutionary scheme of life, we observe that one single protein means nothing by itself. One of the smallest bacteria ever discovered, Mycoplasma hominis H39, contains 600 “types” of proteins. In this case, we would have to repeat the probability calculations we have made above for one protein for each of these 600 different types of proteins. The result beggars even the concept of impossibility.

Some people reading these lines who have so far accepted the theory of evolution as a scientific explanation may suspect that these numbers are exaggerated and do not reflect the true facts. That is not the case: these are definite and concrete facts. No evolutionist can object to these numbers. They accept that the probability of the coincidental formation of a single protein is “as unlikely as the possibility of a monkey writing the history of humanity on a typewriter without making any mistakes”.107 However, instead of accepting the other explanation, which is creation, they go on defending this impossibility.

This situation is in fact acknowledged by many evolutionists. For example, Harold F. Blum, a prominent evolutionist scientist, states that “The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all probability.” 108

Evolutionists claim that molecular evolution took place over a very long period of time and that this made the impossible possible. Nevertheless, no matter how long the given period may be, it is not possible for amino acids to form proteins by chance. William Stokes, an American geologist, admits this fact in his book Essentials of Earth History, writing that the probability is so small “that it would not occur during billions of years on billions of planets, each covered by a blanket of concentrated watery solution of the necessary amino acids.”109

So what does all this mean? Perry Reeves, a professor of chemistry, answers the question:

When one examines the vast number of possible structures that could result from a simple random combination of amino acids in an evaporating primordial pond, it is mind-boggling to believe that life could have originated in this way. It is more plausible that a Great Builder with a master plan would be required for such a task.110

The chemical structure of even a single cythochrome-C protein (above left) is too complex to be accounted for in terms of chance—so much so, in fact, that the Turkish evolutionist biologist professor Ali Demirsoy admits that the chance formation of a single cythochrome-C sequence “as unlikely as the possibility of a monkey writing the history of humanity on a typewriter without making any mistakes.”

If the coincidental formation of even one of these proteins is impossible, it is billions of times “more impossible” for some one million of those proteins to come together properly by chance and make up a complete cell. What is more, by no means does a cell consist of a mere heap of proteins. In addition to the proteins, a cell also includes nucleic acids, carbohydrates, lipids, vitamins, and many other chemicals such as electrolytes arranged in a specific proportion, equilibrium, and design in terms of both structure and function. Each of these elements functions as a building block or co-molecule in various organelles.

Robert Shapiro, a professor of chemistry at New York University and a DNA expert, calculated the probability of the coincidental formation of the 2000 types of proteins found in a single bacterium (There are 200,000 different types of proteins in a human cell). The number that was found was 1 over 1040.000.111 (This is an incredible number obtained by putting 40,000 zeros after the 1)

A professor of applied mathematics and astronomy from University College Cardiff, Wales, Chandra Wickramasinghe, comments:

The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it… It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.112

Sir Fred Hoyle comments on these implausible numbers:

Indeed, such a theory (that life was assembled by an intelligence) is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.113

The reason Hoyle used the term “psychological” is the self-conditioning of evolutionists not to accept that life could have been created. The rejection of God’s existence is their main goal. For this reason alone, they go on defending irrational theories which they at the same time acknowledge to be impossible.

Left-handed Proteins

In nature, there are two different types of amino acids, called “left-handed” and “right-handed”. The difference between them is the mirror-symmetry between their three dimensional structures, which is similar to that of a person’s right and left hands.

Let us now examine in detail why the evolutionist scenario regarding the formation of proteins is impossible.

Even the correct sequence of the right amino acids is still not enough for the formation of a functional protein molecule. In addition to these requirements, each of the 20 different types of amino acids present in the composition of proteins must be left-handed. There are two different types of amino acids-as of all organic molecules-called “left-handed” and “right-handed”. The difference between them is the mirror-symmetry between their three dimensional structures, which is similar to that of a person’s right and left hands.

Amino acids of either of these two types can easily bond with one another. But one astonishing fact that has been revealed by research is that all the proteins in plants and animals on this planet, from the simplest organism to the most complex, are made up of left-handed amino acids. If even a single right-handed amino acid gets attached to the structure of a protein, the protein is rendered useless. In a series of experiments, surprisingly, bacteria that were exposed to right-handed amino acids immediately destroyed them. In some cases, they produced usable left-handed amino acids from the fractured components.

Let us for an instant suppose that life came about by chance as evolutionists claim it did. In this case, the right- and left-handed amino acids that were generated by chance should be present in roughly equal proportions in nature. Therefore, all living things should have both right- and left-handed amino acids in their constitution, because chemically it is possible for amino acids of both types to combine with each other. However, as we know, in the real world the proteins existing in all living organisms are made up only of left-handed amino acids.

The question of how proteins can pick out only the left-handed ones from among all amino acids, and how not even a single right-handed amino acid gets involved in the life process, is a problem that still baffles evolutionists. Such a specific and conscious selection constitutes one of the greatest impasses facing the theory of evolution.

Moreover, this characteristic of proteins makes the problem facing evolutionists with respect to “coincidence” even worse. In order for a “meaningful” protein to be generated, it is not enough for the amino acids to be present in a particular number and sequence, and to be combined together in the right three-dimensional design. Additionally, all these amino acids have to be left-handed: not even one of them can be right-handed. Yet there is no natural selection mechanism which can identify that a right-handed amino acid has been added to the sequence and recognise that it must therefore be removed from the chain. This situation once more eliminates for good the possibility of coincidence and chance.

The Brittanica Science Encyclopaedia, which is an outspoken defender of evolution, states that the amino acids of all the living organisms on earth, and the building blocks of complex polymers such as proteins, have the same left-handed asymmetry. It adds that this is tantamount to tossing a coin a million times and always getting heads. The same encyclopaedia states that it is impossible to understand why molecules become left-handed or right-handed, and that this choice is fascinatingly related to the origin of life on earth.114

If a coin always turns up heads when tossed a million times, is it more logical to attribute that to chance, or else to accept that there is conscious intervention going on? The answer should be obvious. However, obvious though it may be, evolutionists still take refuge in coincidence, simply because they do not want to accept the existence of “conscious intervention”.

A situation similar to the left-handedness of amino acids also exists with respect to nucleotides, the smallest units of the nucleic acids, DNA and RNA. In contrast to proteins, in which only left-handed amino acids are chosen, in the case of the nucleic acids, the preferred forms of their nucleotide components are always right-handed. This is another fact that can never be explained by coincidence.

In conclusion, it is proven beyond a shadow of doubt by the probabilities we have examined that the origin of life cannot be explained by chance. If we attempt to calculate the probability of an average-sized protein consisting of 400 amino acids being selected only from left-handed amino acids, we come up with a probability of 1 in 2400, or 10120. Just for a comparison, let us remember that the number of electrons in the universe is estimated at 1079, which although vast, is a much smaller number. The probability of these amino acids forming the required sequence and functional form would generate much larger numbers. If we add these probabilities to each other, and if we go on to work out the probabilities of even higher numbers and types of proteins, the calculations become inconceivable.

Correct Bond is Vital

The amino acid molecules that make up proteins must be linked to each other in a so-called “peptide bond”, which is only one of the many possible types of bonds found in nature. Otherwise, the resulting amino acid chains would be useless, and no proteins would be formed.

The difficulties the theory of evolution is unable to overcome with regard to the development of a single protein are not limited to those we have recounted so far. It is not enough for amino acids to be arranged in the correct numbers, sequences, and required three-dimensional structures. The formation of a protein also requires that amino acid molecules with more than one arm be linked to each other only in certain ways. Such a bond is called a “peptide bond”. Amino acids can make different bonds with each other; but proteins are made up of those-and only those-amino acids which are joined by “peptide” bonds.

A comparison will clarify this point. Suppose that all the parts of a car were complete and correctly assembled, with the sole exception that one of the wheels was fastened in place not with the usual nuts and bolts, but with a piece of wire, in such a way that its hub faced the ground. It would be impossible for such a car to move even the shortest distance, no matter how complex its technology or how powerful its engine. At first glance, everything would seem to be in the right place, but the faulty attachment of even one wheel would make the entire car useless. In the same way, in a protein molecule the joining of even one amino acid to another with a bond other than a peptide bond would make the entire molecule useless.

Research has shown that amino acids combining at random combine with a peptide bond only 50% of the time, and that the rest of the time different bonds that are not present in proteins emerge. To function properly, each amino acid making up a protein must be joined to others only with a peptide bond, in the same way that it likewise must be chosen only from among left-handed forms.

This probability of this happening is the same as the probability of each protein’s being left-handed. That is, when we consider a protein made up of 400 amino acids, the probability of all amino acids combining among themselves with only peptide bonds is 1 in 2399.

Zero Probability

As can be seen below, the probability of formation of a protein molecule made up of 500 amino acids is “1” over a number formed by placing 950 zeros next to 1, which is a number incomprehensible for the human mind. This is a probability only on paper. Practically speaking, there is zero chance of its actually happening. As we saw earlier, in mathematics, a probability smaller than 1 in 1050 is statistically considered to have a “0” probability of occurring.

A probability of “1 over 10950” is far beyond the limits of this definition.

While the improbability of the formation of a protein molecule made up of 500 amino acids reaches such an extent, we can further proceed to push the limits of the mind with higher levels of improbability. In the “haemoglobin” molecule, which is a vital protein, there are 574 amino acids, which is more than the amino acids making up the protein mentioned above. Now consider this: in only one out of the billions of red blood cells in your body, there are “280,000,000” (280 million) haemoglobin molecules.

The supposed age of the earth is not sufficient to allow the formation of even a single protein by a “trial and error” method, let alone that of a red blood cell. Even if we suppose that amino acids have combined and decomposed by a “trial and error” method without losing any time since the formation of the earth, in order to form a single protein molecule, the time that would be required for something with a probability of 10950 to happen would still hugely exceed the estimated age of the earth.

The conclusion to be drawn from all this is that evolution falls into a terrible abyss of improbability even when it comes to the formation of a single protein.

Is There a Trial and Error Mechanism in Nature?

Finally, we may conclude with a very important point in relation to the basic logic of probability calculations, of which we have already seen some examples. We indicated that the probability calculations made above reach astronomical levels, and that these astronomical odds have no chance of actually happening. However, there is a much more important and damaging fact facing evolutionists here. This is that under natural conditions, no period of trial and error can even start, despite the astronomical odds, because there is no trial-and-error mechanism in nature from which proteins could emerge.

The probability of an average protein molecule made up of 500 amino acids being arranged in the correct quantity and sequence in addition to the probability of all of the amino acids it contains being only left-handed and being combined with only peptide bonds is “1” over 10950. We can write this number which is formed by putting 950 zeros next to 1 as follows:10950 =

The Probability of a Protein Being Formed by Chance is Zero

There are 3 basic conditions for the formation of a useful protein:

First condition: that all the amino acids in the protein chain are of the right type and in the right sequence

Second condition: that all the amino acids in the chain are left-handed

Third condition: that all of these amino acids are united between them by forming a chemical bond called “peptide bond”.

In order for a protein to be formed by chance, all three basic conditions must exist simultaneously. The probability of the formation of a protein by chance is equal to the multiplication of the probabilities of the realisation of each of these conditions.

For instance, for an average molecule comprising of 500 amino acids:

1- The probability of the amino acids being in the right sequence:

There are 20 types of amino acids used in the composition of proteins. According to this:

– The probability of each amino acid being chosen correctly among these 20 types

= 1/20
– The probability of all of those 500 amino acids being left-handed at the same time = 1/20500= 1/10650
=1 chance in 10650

2- The probability of the amino acids being left-handed:

– The probability of only one amino acid being left-handed = 1/2

– The probability of all of those 500 amino acids being left-handed at the same time

= 1/2500 = 1/10150
  = 1 chance in 10150

3- The probability of the amino acids being combined with a “peptide bond”:

Amino acids can combine with each other with different kinds of chemical bonds. In order for a useful protein to be formed, all the amino acids in the chain must have been combined with a special chemical bond called a “peptide bond”. It is calculated that the probability of the amino acids being combined not with another chemical bond but by a peptide bond is 50%. In relation to this:

– The probability of two amino acids being combined with a “peptide bond”

= 1/2
– The probability of 500 amino acids all combining with peptide bonds = 1/2499 = 1/10150
= 1 chance in 10150

TOTAL PROBABILITY = 1/10650 X 1/10150 X 1/10150 = 1/10950
  = 1 chance in 10950


The calculations we give on page across to demonstrate the probability of the formation of a protein molecule with 500 amino acids are valid only for an ideal trial-and-error environment, which does not actually exist in real life. That is, the probability of obtaining a useful protein is “1” in 10950 only if we suppose that there exists an imaginary mechanism in which an invisible hand joins 500 amino acids at random and then, seeing that this is not the right combination, disentangles them one by one, and arranges them again in a different order, and so on. In each trial, the amino acids would have to be separated one by one, and be arranged in a new order. The synthesis should be stopped after the 500th amino acid has been added, and it must be ensured that not even one extra amino acid is involved. The trial should then be stopped to see whether or not a functional protein has yet been formed, and, in the event of failure, everything should be split up again and then tested for another sequence. Additionally, in each trial, not even one extraneous substance should be allowed to become involved. It is also imperative that the chain formed during the trial should not be separated and destroyed before reaching the 499th link. These conditions mean that the probabilities we have mentioned above can only operate in a controlled environment where there is a conscious mechanism directing the beginning, the end, and each intermediate stage of the process, and where only “the correct selection of the amino acids” is left uncontrolled. It is clearly impossible for such an environment to exist under natural conditions. Therefore the formation of a protein in the natural environment is logically and technically impossible. In fact, to talk of the probabilities of such an event is quite unscientific.

Since some people are unable to take a broad view of these matters, but approach them from a superficial viewpoint and assume protein formation to be a simple chemical reaction, they may make unrealistic deductions such as “amino acids combine by way of reaction and then form proteins”. However, accidental chemical reactions taking place in an inanimate structure can only lead to simple and primitive changes. The number of these is predetermined and limited. For a somewhat more complex chemical material, huge factories, chemical plants, and laboratories have to be involved. Medicines and many other chemical materials that we use in our daily life are made in just this way. Proteins have much more complex structures than these chemicals produced by industry. Therefore, it is impossible for proteins, each of which is a wonder of creation, in which every part takes its place in a fixed order, to originate as a result of haphazard chemical reactions.

Let us for a minute put aside all the impossibilities we have described so far, and suppose that a useful protein molecule still evolved spontaneously “by accident”. Even so, evolution again has no answers, because in order for this protein to survive, it would need to be isolated from its natural habitat and be protected under very special conditions. Otherwise, it would either disintegrate from exposure to natural conditions on earth, or else join with other acids, amino acids, or chemical compounds, thereby losing its particular properties and turning into a totally different and useless substance.