The improbability of evolution.

From Samaritan Ministries:

This is the human genome in book form. If you were to print all of your DNA in only one cell of your body, it would fill all of these books in this bookcase. It’s estimated that the human body has 50 to 75 trillion of these bookcases.

10 thoughts on “The improbability of evolution.

  1. It’s actually more likely that Judas inherited Heaven than it is that spontaneous micro-evolution created life. The blind faith required to believe in “chance creation” blows my mind! The Christian faith is an informed faith.

    One of my favorite verses, best rendered in the KJV: “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith.”


  2. Thanks, Pilgrim. Overwhelming, undeniable evidence for an extremely intelligent, all-powerful Creator God. And the more man studies God’s creation, the more evidence for the Creator God becomes obvious. Man simply does not want to believe in Him. Reminds me of Romans 1.


  3. You expect fallen man to reject his Creator and dream up all kinds of theories to account for his existence, but what’s truly sad is when those within the church are espousing other theories (e.g. that God could have used evolution) instead of just taking God at His Word.

    And it seems these alternative views are gaining ground. I just wonder about these people who reject the perspicuity of Scripture in creation, how long it will be before they end up rejecting (if they haven’t already) the perspicuity of the Scriptures when it comes to God becoming flesh, dying a substitutionary death on our behalf, and raising from the dead.


  4. Pilgrim:

    Given that a foundational premise of Emergence “christianity” is the denial of objective truth, that we can’t really know what the Scriptures really teach (indeed they strongly suggest it’s “pride” to know, and “humble” to admit you don’t or can’t know), and therefore must pursue knowledge of God through mystical means, they thereby do in fact deny the perspicuity of Scripture. Having done so, it’s a mere small step to deny the basic teachings therein regarding Jesus and His work on the cross. A small sampling:

    “Too many theories of the atonement assume that by one single high priestly act of self-sacrifice Christ saved the world” (Harry Fosdick, “Dear Mr. Brown”, p.135)

    “The cross is almost a distraction and false advertising for God” (Brian McLaren, The Bleeding Purple Podcast, Jan.8,2006)

    “The church’s fixation on the death of Jesus as the universal saving act must end, and the place of the cross must be reimagined in Christian faith. Why? Because of the cult of suffering and the vindictive God behind it”. (Alan Jones, “Reimagining Christianity”, p. 132)


  5. I think this actually hurts your argument. If there was a grand creator, wouldnt it be more impressive if our genomes were simple and elegant? This giant clump of genomes looks like the result of millions of years of evolution and trial and error, exactly the opposite of what a (good) designer would have come up with.


  6. Happily for the rest of us MB’s ignorance is neither the measure of truth nor the sum of knowledge.

    Also if he were a bit more reflective than reflexive he might have noticed that his naked assertion commits the fallacy of question begging.

    He presents his argument (such as it is), by simply assuming that unintelligent “blind” processes are sufficient to explain the “appearance” of wasteful / useless overcomplexity, which again assumes that human beings and “science” (so-called) are always capable of differentiating wasteful / useless overcomplexity from functional features.

    At this point I could direct attention to some of the more blatant and embarrassing examples of “vestigial organs”, but that would be too easy, so instead I’ll refer our intrepid methodological materialist here for some book learnin’.

    Providing for the possibility that he’s merely parroting his hero Richard Dawkins, and therefore is just not quite bright enough to figure out the implications of the linked data on his own, the examples cited demonstrate conclusively that some pseudogenes which were formerly thought to have been wasteful / useless overly complex remnants representing the “inelegant” accretions of millions of years of blind natural selection in fact perform previously unsuspected functions.

    To the intellectually curious person this raises an obvious question; in light of this discovery is it not possible, even likely, that other similarly “inelegant”, wasteful / useless, overly complex structures similarly have as yet undiscovered functions?

    Sadly for MB his naked assertion is shown to rest and rely upon the ignorance of scientism, which is a bit less than a compelling argument.

    I’ll not even bother asking MB how many functional molecules he’s designed, “inelegant” or otherwise.

    In Christ,


  7. CD – if you believe in micro-evolution, why don’t you think that small changes can accumulate into big ones over many generations?


  8. Pete- if you say small changes can add up over time, you are making a huge assumption. You are leaving the realm of science and entering into the realm of religion. If you want to believe they add up and form completely different kinds, then you are more than welcome to believe that. It has NEVER been seen and therefore is NOT fact.


Tell us what you think:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.