On the probability of life:
Hoyle, Sir Fred, "The Big Bang in Astronomy," New Scientist, vol. 92 (November 19, 1981), pp. 521-527. Sir Fred Hoyle, FRS, was an honorary research professor at Manchester University and University College, Cardiff. Twenty five years earlier he was University Lecturer in Mathematics at Cambridge University. Sir Fred Hoyle is a great British astronomer; he originated the Steady State Theory, but later repudiated both the Steady State and Big Bang theories.
"At all events, anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with the Rubik cube will concede the near-impossibility of a solution being obtained by a blind person moving the cubic faces at random.* Now imagine 1050 blind persons each with a scrambled Rubik cube, and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling of just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order. Life must plainly be a cosmic phenomenon."
*[There are 4 x 1019 possible scramblings of the Rubik cube (that is, ten billion billion)].
Hoyle, Sir Fred, and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984), p. 176.
"No matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have had a random beginning. Troops of monkeys thundering away at random on typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare, for the practical reason that the whole observable universe is not large enough to contain the necessary monkey hordes, the necessary typewriters, and certainly not the waste paper baskets required for the deposition of wrong attempts. The same is true for living material."
"The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it.. It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence."
Wickramasinghe, C., Interview in London Daily Express (August 14, 1981), Wickramasinghe is Professor of Applied Math & Astronomy, University College, Cardiff.
"Each found that the odds against the spark of life igniting accidentally on Earth were . '10 to the power of 40,000.'"
Here are two advocates of evolution, and yet their own words indicate their lack of faith in the evolutionary theory. In the same interview in London Daily Express, Wickramasinghe stated:
"We used to have an open mind; now we realize that the only logical answer to life is creation-and not accidental random shuffling."
Also he was quoted:
"From my earliest training as a scientist, I was very strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed."
Why don't they believe in their theory? Sir Fred Hoyle couldn't have said it better:
"In short there is not a shred of objective evidence to support the hypothesis that life began in an organic soup here on the Earth."
The Intelligent Universe (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1983), p. 23.
On the Complexity of Life
While there exists no evidence for life based on chance, there does exist such overwhelming evidence of design. Each human individual is a complex compilation of chemicals and cells that makes the space shuttle look like duck soup in comparison. Michael Denton in his book Evolution: A theory in Crisis (London: Burnett Books, Ltd., 1985), explains the complexity of the human brain. On page 330 he writes:
"Altogether the total number of connections in the human brain approaches 1015 or a thousand million million. Numbers in the order of 1015 are of course completely beyond comprehension. Imagine an area about half the size of the USA (one million square miles) covered in a forest of trees containing ten thousand trees per square mile. If each tree contained one hundred thousand leaves the total number of leaves in the forest would be 1015, equivalent to the number of connections in the human brain."
On pages 329-30, Mr. Denton briefly scratches the surface of the supposedly "simple" cell:
"Altogether a typical cell contains about ten million million atoms. Suppose we choose to build an exact replica to a scale one thousand million times that of the cell so that each atom of the model would be the size of a tennis ball. Constructing such a model at the rate of one atom per minute, it would take fifty million years to finish, and the object we would end up with would be the giant factory, described above, some twenty kilometres in diameter, with a volume thousands of times that of the Great Pyramid."
The cell, a microscopic organism, was once thought to be simple, but now with the aid of technology, we have found that it is so incredibly complex that all inventions of man seem simple in comparison. Yet there exists even smaller creatures and organisms which baffle even the most scientific of minds. Although you have seen only a few quotes from evolutionists regarding evolution and the complexity of life, there exist hundreds of others. I encourage you to look them up for yourself and with a mind open to new ideas, research this heated debate.