Page 176 - The Creation Of The Universe

174 THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE

Because this is a subject that is discussed in more detail in other books
of ours, we will just present a few simple examples here.
Earlier in this book we showed how the accidental formation of the bal-
ances that prevail in the universe was impossible. We will now show how
the same is true for the accidental formation of even the simplest life-form.
One study on this subject that we can refer to is a calculation made by
Robert Shapiro, a professor of chemistry and expert on the subject of DNA
at New York University. Shapiro, who is both a Darwinist and an evolu-
tionist by the way, calculated the probability that all 2,000 of the different
types of proteins that it takes to make up even a simple bacterium (the hu-
man body contains about 200,000 different types), could have come into
being completely by chance. According to Shapiro, the probability is one
.
in 10 40.000 101 (That number is "1" followed by forty thousand zeros. and it
has no equivalent in the universe.)
Certainly it is plain what Shapiro's number must mean: The materialist
(and its companion Darwinist) "explanation" that life evolved as an acci-
dent is certainly invalid. Chandra Wickramasinghe, a professor of applied
mathematics and astronomy at the University of Cardiff commented on
Shapiro's result:
The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate
matter is one to a number with 10 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. 102
The astronomer Fred Hoyle makes the same point:
Indeed, such a theory (that life was assembled by an intelligence) is so
obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-
evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific. 103
Both Wickramasinghe and Hoyle are men who, during much of their ca-
reers, approached science with a materialist bent; but the truth that con-
fronted them was that life was created and both had the courage to admit
this. Today, many more biologists and biochemists have put aside the fairy-