People say, Bible is against Darwinism, so it must be wrong. Darwinism teaches that intelligent information in entities like RNA and DNA can be created with pure chance. But if you take mathematics of probability into consideration, you will see that Darwinism is not real science, when it comes to macroevolution.
The mathematics of probability put big hurdles on the lucky derivatives of blind nature. Sir Arthur Eddington (1882 – 1944) was an English astronomer, physicist, and mathematician. He wrote, “ If an army of monkeys were strumming on typewriters, they might write all the books in the British Museum”. Given enough time, monkeys can produce all the books in the British Museum! Really? Richard Dawkins applied this idea to natural evolution. ‘Give enough time, nature can produce all intelligence embedded in genes’. But the mathematics of probability proved them wrong.
Professor Michael Starbird from the University of Texas at Austin calculated the odds of producing one sentence from Shakespeare’s Hamlet. ‘To be or not to be’. If the monkey used a keyboard with 100 keys, there are 100¹⁸ different 18-character patterns, which is 10³⁶. The Big Bang to now is about 13 billion years, about 4 X 10¹⁷ seconds. Even if the monkeys make 1 billion attempts per second, the probability would be about 1 out of a billion that ‘to be or not to be’ would have been written.
Russell Grigg in his article ‘Could Monkeys Type the 23rd Psalm?’ calculated that to produce something as long as the 23rd Psalm, it would take on average around 10¹⁰¹⁷ years!
Think about it for a moment. We are not even asking about the origin of the monkey or the typewriter, which are themselves intelligence systems. If you bring them together, even if the monkeys type at the rate of 1 billion times a second, which is unlikely, after 14 billion years, the probability of getting one sentence out of Shakespeare’s Hamlet is just 1 out of a billion. With each accumulated sentence, it becomes harder and harder to compose the book.
In 1994, American computer scientist and a pioneer in DNA computing, Professor Leonard Max Adleman demonstrated the use of DNA in computation by solving a math problem. In 2012, molecular engineer George Church stored a 53,000-word book in DNA. According to Harvard’s Wyss Institute1 gram of DNA can hold an estimated 215 petabytes of data. A petabyte holds 1000 terabytes and a terabyte holds 1000 gigabytes. All of our world’s data could fit in a few grams of DNA. This clearly points to a Creator God with mathematical genius.
Even Richard Dawkins acknowledged this, when he said ‘You don’t need to be a mathematician or a physicist to calculate that an eye or a haemoglobin molecule would take from here to infinity to self-assemble by sheer higgledy-piggledy luck’. From Charles Darwin to Richard Dawkins, the evolutionists expressed serious doubts about the origin of the eye with purely natural means. Higgledy-piggledy luck does not create intelligent systems like RNA, DNA and human brain.
The Bible never says it has answers to all life’s problems. The Bible does not inform us on the number of planets in the solar system or the treatment of strep throat or how to cook pasta. But it informs us on the nature of God, nature of man, nature of woman, heaven, hell, angels, demons etc. That’s a special revelation. It is about things we cannot know by our own wisdom and research.
That God came to this world to save us from our sins. He died on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins and to give us hope which goes beyond the grave. This truth – we can only learn from the Bible.
So, to sum it up, the Bible is not against Science. Great scientists like Newton had very successful scientific careers while believing and loving God.