A Look at Evolution
Pt. 2

Science that contradicts evolution? Get serious!
Sadly, I’m dead serious. There are more science than the three examples I am going to use in this article (such as the amino acid/protein, DNA/RNA dilemma, irreducible complexity, delicate conditions for life to exist, the fossil record, and the oxygen dilemma in primordial earth), but I believe these three examples will suffice to get my point across. Mind you these three scientific facts are not theories, but proven principals and scientific laws. If anything should be trusted, it is these. 

First: The Law of Thermodynamics. The law of increasing entropy. In an isolated (closed) system (which evolution demands), order becomes chaos and disorder, usable energy becomes used energy, etc. To make it simpler, the dictionary definition is as follows:

en·tro·py
Thermodynamics.
a. (on a macroscopic scale) a function of thermodynamic variables, as temperature, pressure, or composition, that is a measure of the energy that is not available for work during a thermodynamic process. A closed system evolves toward a state of maximum entropy.
b. (in statistical mechanics) a measure of the randomness of the microscopic constituents of a thermodynamic system.

So not only is entropy a measure of decreasing amounts of usable energy, but it is a reverse measurement of randomness and chaos within such a closed system in such a way that the less amount of usable energy, the more randomness occurs.

The reason this is so detrimental to evolution is that evolution states that our universe, as a closed system, began with absolute randomness and with the most simplistic forms of life which slowly evolved into more and more complex and ordered life-forms. This is in diametric opposition to the second law of Thermodynamics. Evolution states the universe began with randomness, chaos and disorder and slowly, gradually evolved into more and more order and complexity. Thermodynamics says the universe is continually draining itself of usable energies and is heading toward more randomness, less order and more chaos. One of these opposing scientific principles must be pox. They cannot both be true. So which one are you going to accept? The Law, or the Theory?

The second example is closely related to the first one. It has to do with Chemical Thermodynamics, but it is much simpler to explain. 

A Thermodynamic barrier prohibits spontaneous formations of large macromolecules such as proteins, DNA, and RNA. To put this aggregious problem into perspective, for evolution to overcome this obstacle would be the same perspective as a newborn baby climbing the 3000 ft. cliff of El Capitan in Yosemite Valley.

The Third example I will use is Probability. The average protein has 400 amino acids of 20 different kinds arranged in a very delicate sequence. Only the right sequence will produce the right protein and if the right protein is not produced then the whole system is pox. A single cell may have more than 7000 proteins. For evolution to be ever so slightly plausible, billions of tons of macromolecules (protein being on of the smaller macromolecules) have to be present. The probability of having this happen by random, even if you had all of the amino acids needed available, the probabilities of it happening are for all intentional purposes, nil.

Do not take my word for it though, Take Sir Fred Hoyle and Dr. Chandra Wickramasinghe’s word. Fred and Chandra were two Atheists who were also staunch evolutionists. They wanted to know the probabilities of life occurring through evolution.  i.e. they wanted to know the chances for enough protein to come into existence by chance for evolution to work. Their chances came out as one over one followed by too many zeros to actually write it out on this page (1/100000000.......etc) The exact number was one out of one, followed by 40,000 zeros! In other words, Zero! But Fred and Chandra didn’t give up. For there are many planets out there, perhaps we just got the lucky draw. So again they went at it and looked at the same possibility except they broadened their perimeters to fit the whole universe. They gave extremely generous assumptions. If every star in the universe (70 sextillion counted so far) had a planet like earth (ideal for life), and the universe was 20 billion years old, what would the probability be then? Their conclusion did not change.

Fred made an analogy that puts this probability in perspective. For evolution to work, it would be of the same probability as a tornado hitting a junk yard and leaving behind a fully functioning, fully upholsted Boeing 747. Chandra and Fred are Theists now. 

Science cannot be pitted against science. One must be truth, one must be junk. You must decide which is which.


Jared Williams