Nevertheless, from a practical standpoint, our whole lives revolve around and depend upon what we believe to be possible and what we think is not. I think it's impossible to fix my computer with a hammer. So when it freezes up or loses data, I don't start hitting it with a hammer. I think it's very possible that a technician at a computer store can help and so I set the hammer down and call the store. Such practical reasoning occurs on a daily basis with all of us and makes life livable.
The question of the origin of life is a matter of odds as well. These comments from Stenger, a physicist, typify the confidence evolutionists have in the chance origin of the universe:
"Why not? Given all possibilities, why shouldn't it have happened? And why not all other possibilities as well? Our universe was formed in one of the infinite number of ways it could have formed. The particular structure of our universe came about by chance, freezing into form just like the six points of a snowflake."
Evolutionists load the dice with infinite universes (even though we have a sample size of only one) and infinite time to make the odds of the origin of life coming to be by chance not a long shot, but a virtual certainty—since, after all, life exists. After acknowledging that scientists have not been able to create life, Dawkins makes the following statement of faith, "... it is still possible to maintain that the probability of it happening is, and always was, exceedingly low—although it did happen once!"1
Before we permit ourselves to get too excited about this "anything is possible" argument, let's set the ground rules. If anything is possible—peaches jumping off the ground and reattaching to trees, humans hatching out of chicken eggs, the desert sand turning into ocean, life emerging from lifeless matter—then there can be no certainty about anything. All science would end and we would fear putting one foot in front of the other because of the possibility of the floor turning to quicksand or disappearing entirely.
Yet such an uncertain world is not how things are, for you, me, or the most devout evolutionist. So by what process does a scientist partition his mind such that he can one day busy himself about in the laboratory clanging together test tubes looking for high probabilities and certainty, go to sleep, wake up in the morning and then announce to a classroom or in an article that high improbabilities make certainty— such as the origin of life was by chance and evolved? By so doing he accepts unquestionably, as a philosophical premise, that which he would never excuse in others or permit in his lab—namely, that unlikely events are the ones we should bank on.
This same evolutionist/materialist most likely rejects extrasensory perception, remote viewing, miracles, intelligent creation, foreknowledge, life after death, and the like not because they are impossible, but because they appear improbable.
In spite of how improbable any of the specifics of evolution are, they are excused as simply a gap in our current understanding. This hopeful attitude makes evolution undeniable by logic, science, or math—in other words, unfalsifiable.
1. Dawkins, R. The God Delusion. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006.
To read more on this topic and on many more relevant topics, please click the link below
Living Life As If Thinking Matters