| Chance / Randomness by Darrel Kautz (January-February, 2001) |
Evolution, as an atheist views it, is a process which occurs without intelligent direction.
Instead of purposeful, planned activity there is chance with its sequences of accidental
events. Chance events, however, are devoid of meaningful patterns and causal
relationships. This is in marked contrast to Proverbs 3:19-20 which says, “By wisdom the
Lord laid the earth’s foundations, by understanding he set the heavens in place; by his
knowledge the deeps were divided, and the clouds let drop the dew.”
The created order exhibits an amazingly high degree of organization. Witness the
operation of the eye, heart, lungs, and brain, such processes as photosynthesis, the food
cycle, the movements of the planets around the sun, and the day-night cycle.
Instead of purposeful, planned activity there is chance with its sequences of accidental
events. Chance events, however, are devoid of meaningful patterns and causal
relationships. This is in marked contrast to Proverbs 3:19-20 which says, “By wisdom the
Lord laid the earth’s foundations, by understanding he set the heavens in place; by his
knowledge the deeps were divided, and the clouds let drop the dew.”
The created order exhibits an amazingly high degree of organization. Witness the
operation of the eye, heart, lungs, and brain, such processes as photosynthesis, the food
cycle, the movements of the planets around the sun, and the day-night cycle.
The existence of such magnificent order contradicts the evolutionary view of origins with its sequences of
random events, and points to an intelligent Creator. The components of nature possess all the earmarks of
having been designed to do precisely what they do, just as do the components of an automobile. Now that
molecular biologists are eploring the incredible complexities of the biological cell by means of the electron
microscope and the mass spectrograph, and are seeing a technology which exceeds anything known today, the
age-old argument of design is more strikingly valid than ever.
It is commonly observed that in the presence of a field of magnetic force, iron filings arrange themselves in a
particular order. However, those filings have no intrinsic tendency to do that; their order is imposed upon them
by a force external to themselves. This is true in respect to other forms of order in nature; for matter in and of
itself is not known to have the capacity to arrange itself into highly organized structures. “In our opinion the
same applies to the order of protein sequences in living protein matter where the patterns do not result from the
intrinsic properties of their constituent amino acids but are imposed on to the amino acids from without by the
DNA sequences read off in the ribosomes. But where did the original DNA sequences or order originate?
Certainly not in matter itself”’ 1
Chance does not produce the kind of “state-of-the-art” technologies found in nature. Neither can it generate the
coded information embedded chemically in the genes. The information on the DNA molecule had to be imposed
upon it by an intelligent Being just as the pictures on a TV screen and the music on a cassette tape are imposed
by intelligent people. To attribute the production of the information on the genes to chance, is to commit a
cardinal sin in the world of modern information theory.
In this connection it is important to recognize that within the genetic system of organisms are two independent
but hierarchical systems, neither one of which can be accounted for on the basis of chance. 1. The
matter/energy system — the physical aspect of the genetic system, and 2. The system which is comprised of
what can be spoken of as information concepts, programs, or projects — the system which directs cells to build
such structures as plants, trees, frogs, horses, and people. The latter system can only originate from a source
outside of matter, specifically in an intelligent Being. Matter/energy, irrespective of how highly ordered it is, has
no power to generate programs or projects; for it partakes of none of the attributes of intelligence. 2
Were it not for the prior existence of an intelligence (God, the Creator), there would be no universe, no life, no
vegetation and animals, and no human beings at all. Chance cannot even generate a simple machine such as a
vacuum sweeper, much less a machine which is self-diagnosing, self-repairing, and self-replicating such as a
biological cell. To hold that nature and biological organisms are products of chance, is to ascribe intelligence to
chance and to deify it.
Michael Denton states that the “intuitive feeling that pure chance could never have achieved the degree of
complexity and ingenuity so ubiquitous in nature has been a continuing source of scepticism ever since the
publication of the Origin [Origin of Species by Charles Darwin]; and throughout the past century there has
always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to
accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of
disillusionment is practically endless. When Arthur Koestler organized the Alpbach Symposium in 1969 called
‘Beyond Reductionism’, for the express purpose of bringing together biologists critical of orthodox Darwinism, he
was able to include in the list of participants many authorities of world stature, such as Swedish neurobiologist
Holgar Hyden, zoologists Paul Weiss and W. H. Thorpe, linguist David McNeil and child psychologist Jean
Piaget. Koestler had this to say in his opening remarks: “... invitations were confined to personalities in academic
life with undisputed authority in their respective fields, who nevertheless share that holy discontent.” 3
random events, and points to an intelligent Creator. The components of nature possess all the earmarks of
having been designed to do precisely what they do, just as do the components of an automobile. Now that
molecular biologists are eploring the incredible complexities of the biological cell by means of the electron
microscope and the mass spectrograph, and are seeing a technology which exceeds anything known today, the
age-old argument of design is more strikingly valid than ever.
It is commonly observed that in the presence of a field of magnetic force, iron filings arrange themselves in a
particular order. However, those filings have no intrinsic tendency to do that; their order is imposed upon them
by a force external to themselves. This is true in respect to other forms of order in nature; for matter in and of
itself is not known to have the capacity to arrange itself into highly organized structures. “In our opinion the
same applies to the order of protein sequences in living protein matter where the patterns do not result from the
intrinsic properties of their constituent amino acids but are imposed on to the amino acids from without by the
DNA sequences read off in the ribosomes. But where did the original DNA sequences or order originate?
Certainly not in matter itself”’ 1
Chance does not produce the kind of “state-of-the-art” technologies found in nature. Neither can it generate the
coded information embedded chemically in the genes. The information on the DNA molecule had to be imposed
upon it by an intelligent Being just as the pictures on a TV screen and the music on a cassette tape are imposed
by intelligent people. To attribute the production of the information on the genes to chance, is to commit a
cardinal sin in the world of modern information theory.
In this connection it is important to recognize that within the genetic system of organisms are two independent
but hierarchical systems, neither one of which can be accounted for on the basis of chance. 1. The
matter/energy system — the physical aspect of the genetic system, and 2. The system which is comprised of
what can be spoken of as information concepts, programs, or projects — the system which directs cells to build
such structures as plants, trees, frogs, horses, and people. The latter system can only originate from a source
outside of matter, specifically in an intelligent Being. Matter/energy, irrespective of how highly ordered it is, has
no power to generate programs or projects; for it partakes of none of the attributes of intelligence. 2
Were it not for the prior existence of an intelligence (God, the Creator), there would be no universe, no life, no
vegetation and animals, and no human beings at all. Chance cannot even generate a simple machine such as a
vacuum sweeper, much less a machine which is self-diagnosing, self-repairing, and self-replicating such as a
biological cell. To hold that nature and biological organisms are products of chance, is to ascribe intelligence to
chance and to deify it.
Michael Denton states that the “intuitive feeling that pure chance could never have achieved the degree of
complexity and ingenuity so ubiquitous in nature has been a continuing source of scepticism ever since the
publication of the Origin [Origin of Species by Charles Darwin]; and throughout the past century there has
always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to
accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of
disillusionment is practically endless. When Arthur Koestler organized the Alpbach Symposium in 1969 called
‘Beyond Reductionism’, for the express purpose of bringing together biologists critical of orthodox Darwinism, he
was able to include in the list of participants many authorities of world stature, such as Swedish neurobiologist
Holgar Hyden, zoologists Paul Weiss and W. H. Thorpe, linguist David McNeil and child psychologist Jean
Piaget. Koestler had this to say in his opening remarks: “... invitations were confined to personalities in academic
life with undisputed authority in their respective fields, who nevertheless share that holy discontent.” 3
In his book The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins, a zoologist at Oxford
University, attempts to show that complicated things came into existence by
natural selection rather than by a conscious Designer. To him natural
selection is a blind, unconscious, automatic process; it is the blind forces of
physics deployed in a very special way. 4 Dawkins readily acknowledges that
any complicated thing such as an eye is much too improbable to have come
into existence in a single act of chance. He is persistent, however, in affirming
that a complicated organ could come into existence “as a consequence of
gradual, cumulative, step-by-step transformations from simpler things, from
primordial objects sufficiently simple to have come into being by chance.” 5
University, attempts to show that complicated things came into existence by
natural selection rather than by a conscious Designer. To him natural
selection is a blind, unconscious, automatic process; it is the blind forces of
physics deployed in a very special way. 4 Dawkins readily acknowledges that
any complicated thing such as an eye is much too improbable to have come
into existence in a single act of chance. He is persistent, however, in affirming
that a complicated organ could come into existence “as a consequence of
gradual, cumulative, step-by-step transformations from simpler things, from
primordial objects sufficiently simple to have come into being by chance.” 5
Dawkins holds that in spite of the astronomically long odds against chance as the source of the spontaneous
arising of order, complexity, and apparent design, chance can be tamed. To tame chance is to break down the
very improbable into less improbable small components arranged in a series. However impossible a large-
scale change may be, smaller changes are less improbable.
To that kind of reasoning John Warwick Montgomery responds as follows: “This argument is utter nonsense. If
there are ‘astronomically long odds against the spontaneous arising of order’ in the universe, it doesn’t help
matters in the least to suppose a series of smaller spontaneous changes. Small changes are not one whit less
improbable than large changes if you cannot ultimately account for either one. And if there is no intelligent,
divine Source of life in the universe, neither the sudden appearance of life itself nor the sudden flight of the first
bird can be explained at all — much less arranged in an order of greater or lesser probability.” 6 LSI
References
1. Wilder-Smith, A. E., God: To Be Or Not To Be? (Telos-International, Stuttgart, 1975), p. 51.
2. Wilder-Smith, A. E., The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution (Master Books, 1981), pp. 85-86.
3. Denton, Michael, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Adler & Adler, 1985), pp. 327-328.
4. Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker (W. W. Norton, 1986), p. 5.
5. Ibid., p. 14.
6. Moody Monthy, April 1987, p. 10.
arising of order, complexity, and apparent design, chance can be tamed. To tame chance is to break down the
very improbable into less improbable small components arranged in a series. However impossible a large-
scale change may be, smaller changes are less improbable.
To that kind of reasoning John Warwick Montgomery responds as follows: “This argument is utter nonsense. If
there are ‘astronomically long odds against the spontaneous arising of order’ in the universe, it doesn’t help
matters in the least to suppose a series of smaller spontaneous changes. Small changes are not one whit less
improbable than large changes if you cannot ultimately account for either one. And if there is no intelligent,
divine Source of life in the universe, neither the sudden appearance of life itself nor the sudden flight of the first
bird can be explained at all — much less arranged in an order of greater or lesser probability.” 6 LSI
References
1. Wilder-Smith, A. E., God: To Be Or Not To Be? (Telos-International, Stuttgart, 1975), p. 51.
2. Wilder-Smith, A. E., The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution (Master Books, 1981), pp. 85-86.
3. Denton, Michael, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Adler & Adler, 1985), pp. 327-328.
4. Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker (W. W. Norton, 1986), p. 5.
5. Ibid., p. 14.
6. Moody Monthy, April 1987, p. 10.
