Even if the chance that all the events coming together perfectly to create life on Earth is virtually an impossible probability with staggering odds (which it is), we are told by evolutionists that it should not matter. As the physicist Stenger says, ?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.? So the evolutionist loads the dice with infinite universes and infinite time and that makes the impossibility of life coming to be by chance not a long shot, but a virtual surety.

Before we permit ourselves to get too excited about this ?anything is possible? argument, let's set the ground rules. If anything is possible?apples 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 that is not how things are, for you, me or the most devout of materialistic evolutionists. The philosopher Descartes, wrestling with a similar quandary concluded, ?cogito ergo sum?, I think, therefore I am. That is a good starting point for us as well. We are real and our thinking process is real. The way we sort real from unreal, resolve important human issues and go about day-to-day life (thinking and being ?I am?) is by ignoring the virtually impossible and banking on the probable, the reasonable and certain.

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, i.e., life emerged by chance? By so doing he accepts unquestionably, as a philosophical premise, that which he would never excuse in others, namely that unlikely events are the ones we should bank on.

Remember, this same materialist rejects extrasensory perception, remote viewing, miracles, creation, foreknowledge, life after death and the like not because they are impossible, but because they appear improbable.

Double standard? Most certainly.

The illogic emerges from distorting the meaning of the math of probabilities. For example, if the chance of a simple protein coming into existence by chance is 1 in 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 (it's actually a much larger denominator than that but those are enough zeros for my point here), the ?1? in the numerator is viewed as a very real possibility. It is not. That's what all the zeros mean.

This is not a probability that argues what could happen but rather a probability that insists upon what will not happen. If the odds of something happening is 1 in 10, then the odds it won't is 9 in 10. Odds for, of 1 in 10000000000, means odds against are 9999999999 in 10000000000. Extrapolate that to the larger number in the previous paragraph to see the virtual surety that the protein will not emerge by chance.

From a strictly probabilistic standpoint, the chance emergence and evolution of life is, by any reasonable definition of the word, impossible. Yet this impossibility becomes surety to the materialist because other possibilities (such as intelligent design), no matter how probable they may be, are just too unpalatable.

But all this play on numbers and odds assumes that the hypothetical phenomena of life emerging and evolving are a matter of chance. They are not. Scientific laws make things happen in a particular way, not chance. Things with mass fall to Earth, north poles attract south poles, negative charges attract positive charges and mass and energy are never destroyed, they just change places. An apple ?could? jump to Pluto rather than fall to the ground and one could calculate the odds for that. But it won't happen because there is a law of gravity and several others that declare it won't. It's not really a matter of odds; it's a matter of law.

Now then, law governs every event that could lead to the emergence of life and to its evolution as well, not chance. The laws of chemistry, physics and biology declare and demand that order cannot emerge from chaos, life cannot emerge from non-life (law of biogenesis), and once order is present it cannot compound and improve upon itself (gain complexity and information) from chaos. Since life is highly ordered it could not therefore have emerged from a chaotic primordial soup. Neither could existent life have increased complexity (evolved) and transmutated from random events such as mutations.

The most obvious, well tested and sure of all laws in science and experience demands that order come from order, information from information and mind from mind. Spontaneous generation and evolution fly directly in the face of these laws. Probabilities do not change that.

For further reading, or for more information about, Dr Wysong and the Wysong Corporation please visit www.wysong.net or write to wysong@wysong.net. For resources on healthier foods for people including snacks, and breakfast cereals please visit www.cerealwysong.com.