The mathematical impossibility of Evolution





Most Popular

Social Share

by Dave Hunt

There are only two possible explanations for intelligent life beyond earth, if it exists.  It either evolved by chance (the only view allowed in public schools), or God created it.  The first possibility, in spite of its official status, can be quickly dismissed on mathematical grounds alone. 

Eminent British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle points out that “even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup from which life is made “, the chance of producing the basic enzymes of life by random processes without intelligent direction would be approximately one in 10 with 40,000 zeros after it.

Such a number is beyond comprehension, but a comparison can be made. The likelihood of reaching out and by chance plucking a particular atom out of the universe would be about 1 in 10 with 80 zeros after it.  If every atom in this universe became another universe, the chance of reaching out at random and plucking a particular atom out of all of those universes would then be 1 in 10 with 160 zeros after it.

Remember that 1 chance in 10 with 40,000 zeros after it (which is clearly impossible) only gets the basic enzymes.  As a consequence of the mathematics alone, Hoyle concludes that “Darwinian evolution is most unlikely to get even one polypeptide [sequence] right, let alone the thousands on which living cells depend for survival.”  But even if that happened, chance would have to go on to develop millions of kinds of cells, each with thousands of complex chemical processes in progress at the same time and in delicate balance with one another.  Furthermore, these cells (there are trillions in the human body) must be gathered into nerves, eyes, heart, kidneys, stomach, intestines, lungs, brain, fingernails, etc. all in the right place and each functioning in proper harmony with the rest of the body.  The odds that all of this could happen by chance aren’t even calculable!

The truth is that evolution is mathematically impossible, and this cold fact can easily be proven.  Then why does this theory persist?  It should have been abandoned long ago!  Hoyle accuses the evolutionists of self-interest, unfair pressure, and dishonesty in keeping their theory alive and in forbidding the only alternative, divine creation, from being heard:

This situation [mathematical impossibility] is well known to geneticists and yet nobody seems to blow the whistle decisively on the theory…  Most scientists still cling to Darwinism because of its grip on the educational system….You either have to believe the concepts, or you will be branded a heretic. (11)

“Heretic” is an appropriate term, because evolution, like psychotherapy, is a religion – a religion to which Hoyle himself remains strangely committed.  While he has defected from the Darwinian camp, Hoyle has simply switched his membership to another “denomination” of evolutionist which has the equally bizarre belief that life came in from outer space.  Of course this theory only raises a further question:  Where and how did that life originate?

Evolution of Creation:  Chance or God

Hoyle does admit that perhaps “God” is the One who sent life in from space, but who or what is “God”?  That question cannot be answered by science.  Unfortunately, the popularizers of science have convinced our generation that science will ultimately answer every question.  That is a delusion which the world’s greatest scientists have long denounced, but almost no one has been listening.  Sir Arthur Eddington wrote that “’ought’ [morality] takes us outside chemistry and physics.” (12)  Nobelist Erwin Schroedinger, who played a vital role in giving the world today’s new physics, reminds us:

[Science] is ghastly silent about all…that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us… [I]t knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good and bad, God and eternity…   Whence came I and whither go I?  That is the great unfathomable question, the same for every one of us.  Science has no answer to it. (13)

In Chance and Necessity, Nobelist molecular biologist Jacques Monod gives a dozen or more reasons why evolution could not possibly occur.  he explains, for example, that the essential characteristic of DNA is its perfect replication of itself;  that evolution could only occur through a mistake in that operation;  and that it is absurd to imagine developing even a single cell, much less the human brain, from a series of random and harmful mistakes in the DNA mechanism.  Yet after giving reason after reason why life could not possibly be the product of chance and why evolution couldn’t work, Monod concludes that it must, nevertheless, have happened that way.

Monod has no valid reason for his “faith”.  He simply refuses to accept creation by God and trusts “chance” instead.

British Museum of Natural History senior palaeontologist Colin Patterson declares:  “Evolutionists – like the creationists they periodically do battle with – are nothing more than believers themselves.  I had been working on this stuff [evolution] for more than twenty years, and there was not one [factual] thing I knew about.  It’s quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled for so long.”(14)  Speaking before a group of his fellow biologists, D.M.S. Watson, popularizer of evolution on British television (as Carl Sagan has been on American TV), reminded them of the common religious faith they all shared:

Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or…can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible. (15)

The Irrational Consequences

Furthermore, evolutionists cannot live with the consequences of their godless theory.  If evolution, not God, is responsible for our existence, then we should shut down all medical facilities and let the weak die naturally.  Medically prolonging the lives of those with genetic disabilities of diseases allows such persons to pass on their defects to subsequent generations and thereby weaken the race and undermine the survival of the fittest.  We must stop trying to find a cure for AIDS and let its victims die.  Since AIDS is largely a homosexual disease, one can only conclude that it is nature’s way of eliminating those who practice what is undeniably unnatural and unreproductive sex.  The sooner those deficiencies die the better for our species.  That is the way evolution works!

If stopping all assistance to the ill so that only the fittest survive sounds harsh, then blame nature (that’s her way);  and blame the theory of evolution (that’s how it supposedly works). Nature has neither morals nor compassion but simply involves an inexorable process.  Human beings, however, do have concern for the weak, the sick, and the dying; they feel compelled to help the helpless even to their own detriment.  That fact cannot be explained by evolution.  It proves that man was created by a personal, loving, and gracious Creator who has given us the capacity to be compassionate.  Certainly the law of the jungle, of fang and claw, of the survival of the strongest, would never move us with compassion for others.

If nature is god, then let nature take its course without any interference from man.  There is nothing more natural than disease, pain, death, and those calamities known as “natural disasters” (hurricanes, earthquakes, lightning, drought, and famine, to name a few).  Gaia or “Mother Nature” is anything but kind.  The evolutionist’s attempt to have it both ways – denying a personal Creator yet insisting upon morals and compassion which can’t come from nature – betrays the lie that is taught as fact in our educational institutions.

Irreconcilable Contradictions

The contradictions that go unnoticed or are deliberately ignored reveal the prejudice of mankind against God.  If evolution is true, then man is as much a part of nature as the animals and no complaint can be made against anything he does, any more than against any other part of nature.  If it is not “wrong” for a volcano to spew forth poisonous gases, then surely it is not wrong for a man-made factory to do the same.  And as for all the furore that is raised over the possible extinction of a species such as the spotted owl, isn’t that what evolution has been doing for millions of years?  If man wants to cut down trees for making his home, is that any more unnatural than for a bird to pick up grass and sticks to make its nest?  Then to stop loggers from felling trees because it might cause the extinction of the spotted owl is to defy the natural forces of evolution!

One cannot believe in both evolution and ecological preservation of species or habitats.  If evolution is a fact, then whatever man, as the end product of that process, does is natural.  If he, as a result of the evolution of his brain and nervous system and psyche, succeeds in  destroying the earth in a nuclear holocaust or some ecological disaster, then in the big picture of the evolving universe that must be accepted as progress, since it was brought about by evolution.

On the other hand, the mere fact that man can reason about and interfere with ecology and survival of species, including himself, indicates that he is not the product of such forces.  On the contrary, he must have a higher origin.  Obviously he didn’t create himself, so he, like all of the universe, must have been made by some intelligent Creator to whom he is accountable.  If that is so, then the solution to his problems is not in hugging trees, in getting in touch with nature and in listening to the earth, as we are being told, but in getting in touch with the God who made him and in submitting to His will.

In contrast to all animals, man mourns the death of his fellows for days and years.  It is not only that the love one is grieved for is missed, but there is something tangible beyond that.  There is in inner anger felt against death, that it is an enemy of life and all that ought to be.  At a deeper level, man realizes that death is not natural; it is not the way things ought to be, but is an enemy which has invaded our lives because something has been lost that is beyond our power to recover.

This is where religion comes in – to offer something beyond death – the happy hunting ground of the American Indian, the Nirvana of the Buddhist or Hindu.  Despite these vain hopes, the hereafter is most often a land of shadow and fear that is haunted by an inescapable sense of loss.  Something has gone wrong.  We were not made to die, and that fact seems to be built into the human psyche.  Hope of life after death is vain without a resurrection.  And that is what Jesus Christ came to provide.

Hope or Hopelessness

If life evolved by chance, then “God”, even if there were a God, has no concern for humanity.  If He didn’t even bother to create man, but simply let him become whatever evolution might make him, then surely he has no interest in man’s affairs.  Then the  Bible is a fraud, written by men.  Then “God” didn’t choose the Jews, has no interest in Jerusalem or Israel, and couldn’t care less whether Arabs of Jews are in control.  Let them fight it out and let the world destroy itself, for all that this “God” cares.

The prophecies we have considered, however, prove that [the God of the Bible] God does exist and that He inspired His prophets to write the Bible.   That Book’s testimony can be relied upon.  When it tells us that God gave Israel to the Jews and has a plan for His chosen people, for their land and for Jerusalem, the world needs to behave accordingly.  And what God has to say about Jerusalem tells us that there are not ETI’s out there.  As we have already seen, God repeatedly states that Jerusalem is the city which He has chosen for His Temple and where He has placed His name forever.  It is the center of the universe.  We will come back to that in the closing chapter.

In spite of the impotence of science where it really matters and the confession of that fact by the world’s greatest scientists, religious people continue to bow to this sacred cow and thereby try to gain certain credibility.  In order to be “scientific,” a hybrid belief is becoming popular among Christians:  that God allowed evolution to proceed, then stepped in to transform an apelike creature into Adam when it had evolved high enough.  But evolution is a fraud.  And the Bible says that the moment God breathed life into the form He moulded from dust, it was a man, Adam (Genesis 2:7), so he couldn’t have existed in a previous form.  Furthermore, death did not invade earth until Adam sinned (“by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin” – Romans 5:12), so there could not have been prior species dying and evolving.


(11)  From an interview by AP correspondent George W. Cornall, Quotes from Times-Advocate, Escondido,California, December 10, 1982, pp. A10-11
(12)  Sir Arthur Eddington, The nature of the Physical world (Macmillan, l953), p. 345
(13)  Erwin Schroedinger,cited in Wilbur, Quantum Questions, pp. 81-83
(14)  Harpers, February 1985, pp. 49-50
(15)  Douglas Dewar and L.M. Davies, “Science and the BBC.” in The Nineteenth Century and After, April 1943 p. 167

The above article has been taken from the book “A Cup of Trembling” by Dave Hunt.   Published by Harvest House Publishers.
Copyright 1995.   Used with permission.
The book is unfortunately out of print.