Why? Because both scientists and some religious leaders have confused the PROCESS of evolution with the BELIEF of atheism. Some scientists left their field of empirical research and went into religious philosophy or metaphysics and used evolution as an excuse not to believe in a higher power. The religious leaders then thought that to defend God they had to attack evolution and the great age of the earth.

Atheists could use the process of condensation to “disprove” that God exists and sends rain. It’s a category error. They confuse processes with ultimate causes. God could evolve life or set up the universe so we would evolve and it’s still creation. If an alien biologist cooked up life in a test tube and sent it to earth it would be instant or fast creation but could be atheistic. Twice in Genesis 1 God commands the EARTH to produce something – first plants and then animals. The Bible does not rule out evolution – says Adam was made of the dust of the ground – but also says we are – it was not giving HOW God created. With the sun created on the 4th day and the same word day used in Gen 2:4 to refer to all 6 days the Bible is probably not telling us WHEN, just WHO and WHY.

By the way the origin of the universe requires a cause that is before, outside and more powerful than it – and with the discovery of fine tuning that cause must be smart. Don’t ask where God came from – He is not running down like the universe is and therefore does not need a beginning. Something had to be at the beginning and since all matter runs down it had to be non material.

Ironically, many evolutionists actually accept random chance, not because it works but because they have philosophically eliminated intelligence so they HAVE TO accept chance mutations as the creative force.

I am not opposed to evolution for religious reasons – God could be behind or work through His natural laws – it’s the mathematical, anatomical and physiological problems that random chance plus natural selection cannot explain.

I have struggled with this issue for over 40 years.
I have taught science, mostly high school biology but some part time at the college level for 27 years,
I have 2 masters degrees in science and science education.
I have been tested at over 145 IQ – got a 5 on my AP bio test and 2100 on my GRE’s and 1345 on my SAT’s back when they had only Math and English –
I came up with some of the probability problems on my own in the 1970’s but since then have read Demski and Behe on Information theory and irreducible complexity.
I am trying to contribute to the dialog on origins.

1. An alien Biologist in our galaxy or at least within our universe – we don’t have to explain the biologist’s origin
2. An alien supernatural or extra universal biologist who somehow existed in ANOTHER universe (if multiverse theory is correct there could be many of them – in fact there would be an infinite number of them!!)
3. An alien being that exists outside any universe: extra multiverse being – or super multinatural being – which some call God – making life
4. A supernatural – extra multiverse being that created an infinite number of universes in order for one of them (and thus an infinite number of them according to the deffinition of inifinite) to naturally produce highly improbable things like a first cell and other life forms. This is design THROUGH chance!!!

All these are Intelligent Design hypothesies.

Richard Dawkins actually admitted intelligent design could be a legitimate theory on the origin of life. He would be the first to say that anything
natural was a legitimate object of scientific investigation.

Therefore ID can be legitimate science and discussed in science classes!

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html#r4

Problems with the creationists’ “it’s so improbable” calculations

1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a “modern” protein, or
even a complete bacterium with all “modern” proteins, by random events. This is
not the abiogenesis theory at all.

ALL THE STEPS BETWEEN SMALL POYPEPTIDES AND A SIMPLE CELL ARE IMAGINATION. THEY HAVE NOT
BEEN DEMONSTRATED AND EVEN IF THEY EXISTED YOU STILL HAVE TO EXPLAIN THE PRESENT
COMPLEXITY. NATURAL SELECTION CAN ONLY SELECT REPRODUCING ENTITIES THAT ARE STABLE IN
THEIR STRUCTURE. THEY MUST BE ABLE TO REPRODUCE, GROW AND GET ENERGY = DOZENS AND PROBABLY
100′S OF GENES = IMPOSSIBLE BY CHANCE.

2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.

THERE MAY BE A LARGE NUMBER OF POROTIND THAT COULD ACT AS THE STARTING POINT BUT THE NEXT PROTEIN NEEDS TO FIT AND WORK WITH #1 AND #3 MUST FIT WITH 1&2 ETC UP TO ABOUT 200 PROTEINS. THE MAJORITY OF ORDERS ARE USELESS GOOP (SEE MILLER’S “SOUP”). JUST AS MOST LETTER COMBINATIONS ARE MEANINGLESS – MOST PROTEINS ARE NON FUNCTIONAL. EVEN IF 90%
WERE USEFUL THE ODDS WOULD STILL BE ASTRONOMICAL.

3) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.

I CALCULATE SIMULTANEOUS TRIALS. IF A NEW GENE OR PROTEIN FORMED EVERY TIME EVERY ATOM IN
THE UNIVERSE COLLIDED YOU WOULD ONLY HAVE 10 TO THE 110TH POWER PROTEINS – THE NUMBER OF
POSSIBLE ORDERS OF PROTEINS ONLY 100 AMINO ACIDS LON EXCEEDS THAT NUMBER FOR 1 PROTEIN AND
IT’S GENE, NEVER MIND 200 THAT WOULD NEED TO BE IN THE SAME PLACE AT THE SAME TIME TO MAKE
A REPLICATING LIFE FORM = AGAIN IMPOSSIBLE.

4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.

HE SPENDS A GREAT DEAL OF TIME SHOWING HOW A SMALL MOLECULE COULD REPLICATE – I’M GIVING
YOU FULL PROTEINS AND GENES AT THE RATE of 10 TO THE 90th MOLECULES EVERY SECOND – STILL
ONLY SCRATCHES THE SURFACE OF ALL THE POSSIBLE PROTEINS – MOST OF WHICH ARE USELESS. AND
THE OCCASIONAL USEFUL ONE WOULD BE MILES FROM ANOTHER AND TEND TO BREAK DOWN RAPIDLY –
PROBABLY IN A FEW SECONDS. IF IT WERE PRESERVED IN ICE, IT WOULD LAST LONER BUT BE NON MOBILE AND UNABLE TO BOUNCE AROUND AND MEET OTHER PROTEINS.

5) They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.

CYTOCHROME C CAN WORK WITH ABOUT 2/3 OF IT’S AMINO ACIDS CHANGED. BUT THE 1/3 LEFT MUST BE EXACT OR IT’S USELESS. THE OTHERS NEED TO BE SIMILAR TO THE ORIGINALS OR THE SHAPE AND
FUNCTION WON’T WORK.

THE ODDS OF GETTING AN ENZYME TO SPLIT DNA OR TRANSCRIBE RNA ETC IS THE SAME WHETHER IT HAPPENS IN ONE SHOT OR BIT BY BIT. THE PROBLEM IS THAT MOST OF THE INTERMEDIATE FORMS
WOULD BE USELESS. TO GO FROM A RIBOZYME OR MINI ENZYME TO THE PRESENT FORMS REQUIRE THAT EVERY INTERMEDIATE FORM BE FUNCTIONAL – THAT HAS NEVER BEEN DEMONSTRATED = IMAGINATION/speculation