The laws of nature do not support the theory of evolution

Stabroek News
July 5, 2001

Dear Editor,

I have followed with keen interest the debate in your letter columns about evolution and creation. Some seem to go for evolution because of the observed hypocrisy and fallacies in religion. But such persons need not embrace evolution when the established scientific evidence does not support such a theory.

An article in the "New Scientist" magazine of Sept.18, 1999, entitled "Is Anybody Out There", is just one among many that inadvertently make statements that attest to the 'intelligent design' explanation for the existence of life on earth.

The article mentions that "the Miller-Urey experiment was hailed as the first step towards the creation of life in the laboratory: many chemists envisaged "destination life" to lie at the end of a long road down which a chemical soup zapped with energy would be inexorably conveyed by the passage of time".....

"But this idea did not stand up to scrutiny. Making the building blocks of life is easy--amino acids have been found in meteorites and even in outer space. But just as bricks alone don't make a house, so it takes more than a random collection of amino acids to make life. Like house bricks, the building blocks of life have to be assembled in a very specific and exceedingly elaborate way before they have the desired function."

The article continues, "We now know that the secret of life lies not with the chemical ingredients as such, but with the logical structure and organisational arrangement of the molecules".

"Like a supercomputer, life is an information-processing system, which implies a special sort of organised complexity. It is the information content, or software, of the living cell that is the real mystery, not the hardware components."

The laws of nature do not support the theory of evolution. Again quoting from that article, "...biological information is not encoded in the laws of physics and chemistry....", and "...there is no known law of physics able to create information from nothing....."

This is the reason some believe that life on earth must have arisen by mere chance. But as the same article notes, "Life is ultimately about complex information processing....". "It is easy to work out the odds against a random chemical mixture just happening to shuffle the appropriate molecules into the elaborate arrangement needed. The numbers are breathtakingly huge. If life as we know it arose by chance, it will have happened only once in the observable Universe." In my opinion it could not have happened by chance at all.

Probability, and the laws of natural science do not support the theory of evolution. What we see instead is strong support for the 'intelligent design' proposition. When one carefully examines the raw scientific data and established scientific facts from various sources, even from articles not intended to support creation, one could grasp that the evidence for an intelligent creator is overwhelming.

Religion basically, in an attempt to explain the nature of that creator, is flawed.

Yours faithfully,
Neil Mercurius