Your session will end in  seconds due to inactivity. Click here to continue using this web page.
Bible app
Wednesday, May 5, 2010 | Comments (11)

Either there is a God who created the universe and sovereignly rules His creation, or everything was caused by blind chance. The two ideas are mutually exclusive. If God rules, there’s no room for chance. Make chance the cause of the universe, and you have effectively done away with God.

As a matter of fact, if chance as a determinative force or a cause exists even in the frailest form, God has been dethroned. The sovereignty of God and chance are inherently incompatible. If chance causes or determines anything, God is not truly God.

But again, chance is not a force. Chance cannot make anything happen. Chance is nothing. It simply does not exist. And therefore it has no power to do anything. It cannot be the cause of any effect. It is an imaginary hocus–pocus. It is contrary to every law of science, every principle of logic, and every intuition of sheer common sense. Even the most basic principles of thermodynamics, physics, and biology suggest that chance simply cannot be the determinative force that has brought about the order and interdependence we see in our universe—much less the diversity of life we find on our own planet. Ultimately, chance simply cannot account for the origin of life and intelligence.

One of the oldest principles of rational philosophy is ex nihilo nihil fit. Out of nothing, nothing comes. And chance is nothing. Naturalism is rational suicide.

When scientists attribute instrumental power to chance they have left the realm of reason, they have left the domain of science. They have turned to pulling rabbits out of hats. They have turned to fantasy. Insert the idea of chance, and all scientific investigation ultimately becomes chaotic and absurd. That is precisely why evolution does not deserve to be deemed true science; it is nothing more than an irrational religion—the religion of those who want to sin without guilt.

Someone once estimated that the number of random genetic factors involved in the evolution of a tapeworm from an amoeba would be comparable to placing a monkey in a room with a typewriter and allowing him to strike the keys at random until he accidentally produced a perfectly spelled and perfectly punctuated typescript of Hamlet’s soliloquy. And the odds of getting all the mutations necessary to evolve a starfish from a one–celled creature are comparable to asking a hundred blind people to make ten random moves each with five Rubik’s Cubes, and finding all five cubes perfectly solved at the end of the process. The odds against all earth’s life forms evolving from a single cell are, in a word, impossible.

Nonetheless, the absurdity of naturalism goes largely unchallenged today in universities and colleges. Turn on the Discovery Channel or pick up an issue of National Geographic and you are likely to be exposed to the assumption that chance exists as a force—as if mere chance spontaneously generated everything in the universe.

One Nobel laureate, Harvard professor George Wald, acknowledged the utter absurdity of this. Pondering the vast array of factors both real and hypothetical that would have to arise spontaneously all at once in order for in–animate matter to evolve into even the most primitive one–celled form of life, he wrote, "One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible." Then he added, "Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation." How did Wald believe this impossibility came about? He answered: "Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the ‘impossible’ becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles." Given enough time, that which is impossible becomes "virtually certain." That is sheer double–talk. And it perfectly illustrates the blind faith that underlies naturalistic religion.

There is no viable explanation of the universe without God. So many immense and intricate wonders could not exist without a Designer. There’s only one possible explanation for it all, and that is the creative power of an all–wise God. He created and sustains the universe, and He gives meaning to it. And without Him, there is ultimately no meaning in anything. Without Him, we are left with only the notion that everything emerged from nothing without a cause and without any reason. Without Him, we are stuck with that absurd formula of the evolutionist: Nothing times nobody equals everything.


You have 3000 characters remaining for your comment. Note: All comments must be approved before being posted.


#1  Posted by scott parker  |  Wednesday, May 5, 2010at 11:19 AM

Is there a God who has among other things created the universe? It is not by its conclusions but by its methodological starting point that modern science excludes creation.

-- C. F. von Weizsacker

#2  Posted by Scott Corgan  |  Wednesday, May 5, 2010at 11:22 AM

I grew up going to public school. Boy was it a shock to realize that everything I was taught was more or less and assumption. Praise God for his perfect plan and evidence of it!

#3  Posted by Paul Tucker  |  Wednesday, May 5, 2010at 9:09 PM

It amazes me, (that is the scripture),in it's detail. For instance take Matthew's Gospel,chapter four (4), and verses thirteen and fourteen (13-14). It reads: "And leaving Nazareth, he came and settled in Capernaum, which is by the sea, in the region of Zebulun and Naphtali. This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet:" The Scripture leads us to believe that Jesus did this in order that he might fulfill one of the prophets sayings. Just think for a moment, if Jesus Christ was willing to go to a place like Capernaum to fulfill the word of a prophet, why should we think that he would be any less concerned about the creation account.

It also mystifies me that otherwise intelligent folks would believe in a system which believes anything but God created the universe and fabricates the evidence to prove it. Much of the "evidence" that I have seen really speaks against every aspect of evolution. The evidence against evolution is so vast that it boggles the mind.

#4  Posted by Garrett League  |  Wednesday, May 5, 2010at 11:05 PM

R.C. Sproul wrote a book called "Not a Chance," on why chance has no causal power since it has no being. Good stuff. He also argues "If anything exists, then something (someone) has always existed." Classical apologetics has its uses after all! Personally, I think that's one of the best reasons for believing in a self-existent God.

#5  Posted by Joshua Perez  |  Thursday, May 6, 2010at 12:55 AM

Excellent article and I agree with it. The naturalist's Achilles heal is their own prepositional view that the universe could ONLY be explained by purely natural principles. I believe it was Al Mohler who made that comment on a Q&A session of the 2007 Ligonier Conference Contending for the Truth.

Also, speaking of R.C. Sproul, he made an excellent comment towards chance and he mentions that classical apologetic argument.

This is exactly what John MacArthur and R.C. Sproul are stating; chance is nothing.

#6  Posted by Craig Linkowski  |  Thursday, May 6, 2010at 7:39 PM

We have a "reasonable faith"...For since the creation of the world His INVISIBLE attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly SEEN, being understood through what has been made, so that they are WITHOUT EXCUSE. (Romans 1:20).

#7  Posted by John Joseph  |  Friday, May 7, 2010at 5:02 AM

I also posted this on the "Evolutionary Trinity"...

On this morning...

"DNA show humans, Neanderthals mated"

...Did Neanderthals ever exist?

#8  Posted by Fred Butler  |  Friday, May 7, 2010at 6:36 AM

Of course they existed. And the fact that they "mated" with "humans" demonstrates all the more that they were human beings, not some soul less hominid. I believe the Neanderthals were our ancestors from after the dispersion at the tower of Babel. Their odd skeletal features represent the impact of long age, perhaps even over 200 years of age, as the table of nations genealogy makes reference too in Genesis 10 and 11. Here's a good article on the subject:

#9  Posted by John Joseph  |  Friday, May 7, 2010at 11:59 AM

The post, "Breakthrough: Second Genetic Code Revealed", over at is a must read. Humans will never even scratch the surface of the intelligence that is God. I have been exposed to a lot of debate lately on this blog and others about genetics and evolution. I have grown weary of the arrogance of those who constantly use fancy language, and claim to know how it all works. Yet, "He who sits in the heavens shall laugh". With loving kindness I say to stop your rebuttals and clever retorts and start praising God. To those who work diligently at GTY to keep ever wandering humans focused on the scriptures I thank you.

#10  Posted by Theo Parillo  |  Saturday, May 8, 2010at 5:20 AM

-- C. F. von weizsacker

It's through Methodological naturalism that the conclusion should speak loudly to all scientist that life had to be created by a Intellegent designer, in which Christian Believe to be God, the Father, the creator of the whole universe.You can't put God in a test tube but you can put all your conclusions and theories in one and the conclusion is, CREATION NOT CHANCE, WAKE UP!!!

#12  Posted by Anthony R  |  Saturday, May 8, 2010at 8:55 AM

GTY, I thank God for the work you do. Great article!!