All right, well, good evening, everybody. We will go ahead and get started. So, welcome. We are continuing with the apologetics class. I had a couple weeks off because I was in Hawaii, so had to come back with a new Aloha shirt. But anyhow, we are now continuing with the presuppositional class, and we are now moving into the subject of evolution. the theory of evolution, we are going to be here a while. I have written so much on this and I want to share all of it. So I'm thinking we're talking six, seven weeks minimum just on evolution, but you're going to have everything you need to deal with it. And because there's so much information, like the word count of this lesson is significantly longer, than some of my previous ones. So I will try to go off script, you know, as little as possible and just stick to what's in my manuscript. But that being said, we'll start in prayer and then we'll just get into it. Lord God, we just come before you, we pray that you would be with us this evening, and I pray for everybody who's listening online, that God, we would just understand, this is one of the biggest ideological challenges to biblical Christianity, and it is the one that really rules our society right now. It's got the universities, the media, just everything. And so, Lord, may we have just a biblical understanding of why evolution is not true, and that we would be equipped to show that as we are contending for the faith that was once for all delivered to us. May we have these facts in mind when we evangelize, should they be needed. And we just pray all this to you, God, in Jesus' name, amen. And before I go any further, I just wanna remind everybody that this Saturday at Gateway Seminary in Ontario, there is the Reasonable Truth Apologetics Conference, which is dealing with the topic of paganism, which is growing a lot in our society. Now, I'm not gonna be talking about that tonight. I'm gonna be talking about secularism for a very long time. But paganism's another side of what we're dealing with in our culture. So if you want a good crash course on it, this Saturday at Gateway Seminary in Ontario, It's free now. I don't know if you know that, but they dropped the price down to free. You just have to register. Not a lot of folks have registered for it yet. And so you'll be missing out if you don't go. So I just wanted to throw that plug in for the Reasonable Truth Conference. But on our end here, we're not going to be dealing with paganism. We're going to be dealing with the theory of evolution. And so I think it starts at 8. Yeah, eight in the morning. Yeah, so there shouldn't be a big traffic problem, you know, on a Saturday to get down there. Oh, and for anybody for the men's breakfast, we're gonna push the men's breakfast to the next Saturday, so we gotta put that out there. So if you're a man and you're gonna come this Saturday hungry, come hungry to Ontario to learn about how Christianity defeats paganism, right? And then next Saturday come, with your physical appetite for bacon and all the stuff that'll kill you. But anyhow, so getting into what I want to talk about tonight because I got a lot. Okay, so we're dealing with the theory of evolution. I've got this in two giant lessons. Okay, the first lesson is going to be the argument from folly dismantling evolution. Then I want a whole nother lesson that focuses specifically on the argument from truth, showing how Christianity presents an alternative that just makes sense out of everything. It's going to take me a while. I think it's going to take me about four lectures to get through each lesson. In my second edition of the book, this is going to be the biggest part of it. It's going to be huge, but I've done a lot of work on this particular subject, so let me just get to it, right? In the last lesson, we dealt with atheism, and we gave it a death blow. Now, I've been using the martial arts analogy. What I would say is we shattered atheism's legs with a really strong, devastating Muay Thai kick, right? And we made the whole system collapse. Well, in this particular lesson, we're going to face off with a particular style of combat fondly held by atheists, and it is called the theory of evolution. Now, we crushed atheism as a worldview in the previous lesson, but a lot of atheists still feel justified in their atheism because they believe that the theory of evolution really gives them a satisfactory explanation of where everything comes from. They're like, yeah, all that philosophy stuff you said, I don't even care, I got evolution. And that's why evolution needs its own lesson or chapter, two chapters in my book, in addition to just atheism. Because even though it's a part of atheism, this is the justification that these people use that they keep holding on to. And the truth be told, a lot of people take evolution for granted, they assume. It's a scientific fact that has been proven a long time ago. And even a lot of Christians assume that the universe is billions of years old because of these people, right? And that humans began as unintelligent cavemen and that the secular scientists have good reasons to believe in evolution. So we either try to avoid it or we try to say, well, maybe God used evolution and all that stuff. But listen, evolution is a flawed idea on many levels. It will fail against the PIA technique. And listen, you can't even have evolution without the uniformity of nature. But the uniformity of nature contradicts the time and chance formula that evolution claims it believes in, right? So again, this thing's riddled with problems. But even so, this is the most prevalent atheistic attack that we have faced. Secularists have convinced many that scientists have proven this theory, and that this discredits the biblical account of creation. Now, this has led to a number of different responses from the Christian community. Some shifted to strict fundamentalism, where they really are anti-science, because they think that the science is evolution. And then others have conceded to the evolutionists, and they believe in theistic evolution, that God just used evolution. And both of those are wrong. Christians have nothing to fear from the theory of evolution, because it's groundless. And so that's what all these next many lectures will be focusing on. Now, the subject is enormous, and that's why I'm gonna spend as much time on it as I will. Tonight, what I want to do is give a brief history and description of the theory of evolution. I wanna explain its philosophical nature, right? And then afterwards, we'll use the PIA to destroy it, which is gonna be very similar to what we did in the atheism lesson. And then I'm gonna start showing you how Well, I don't want to get ahead of myself, but we're going to start getting into a lot of evidential reasons within a presuppositional framework, so I don't think I'm going rogue. I'm going to give you some evidential reasons within our framework why evolution is just, it's bonkers. There's really nothing to it. And then in future lessons, we'll talk about the political controversy with it, the consequences of it, why theistic evolution is garbage. We're going to hit all that. That's why it's going to take as many lectures as it will. So let's jump into the description and the history. Now you might not know this, but Charles Darwin did not invent the theory of biological evolution. It's an ancient theory. It's older than Christianity, not older than Judaism, but older than Christianity. The Greek philosopher Anaximander, who lived from 610 BC to 546 BC, As far as we know, he's the first guy to propose biological evolution. He was a materialist, he rejected any form of supernaturalism, and he came up with this theory that he believed that life evolved by chance from lower life forms to higher life forms. That's the theory of evolution. And so he was probably one of the only evolutionists, but he wasn't the only materialist. I mean, if you remember, you had Epicureans, sophists, skeptics, all those guys of the ancient Greco-Roman world, and they were materialists, but Anaximander took that materialism and added like an origin story to it, which was evolution. But here's the thing, even with this existing, it didn't take hold among the masses. Most of the masses would never believe this. Fast forward to the 18th and 19th centuries, that's the 1700s and the 1800s, and what you had first were these emerging geological theories called uniformitarianism. And with uniformitarianism, the idea started to develop that the earth is very old. It's not young like the Bible would seem to present, it's very old. Now uniformitarianism, just let me define it real quick, this is the position or the idea that the processes that happen on earth have been uniform throughout earth's history. Meaning the present day rates, however long it takes for sediments to build or carbon to decay, whatever it is, The present day rates have always been that way. You could apply these things uniformly throughout the past. And so naturalists would then say, well, based on how long we see it takes for this to happen, we look at how big it is and we count backward, oh, the Earth is billions of years old. That's uniformitarianism. So if the Earth is that old, then the naturalists started to think, well, with enough time, Natural processes without God could account for life on Earth. And so then the theory of evolution started coming back in. And first was Jean Lamarck, and he came up with a really dumb theory of it. So the scientists rejected it, even though they kind of liked what he was trying to do. He said, how does the giraffe have such a long neck? Well, it was once a horse, and it kept reeling. And eventually it just, its neck got longer and it passed it on to the next generation and they're like, okay, that's done. And so Lamarckianism was rejected. But a few decades later, Charles Darwin presented a theory that naturalists would accept. And ironically, I can't remember the other guy's name. Some other scientist came up with the exact same theory and published it the exact same year, but nobody knew about it, so Darwin gets the credit. It's just the way it goes sometimes. So we call it Darwinism instead of an ism after this other guy's name. But Darwin's theory was like he proposed natural selection as the means for how evolution could happen. And people liked it. And it captured the heart of all the secular universities, public school systems, museums, science fiction movies, and beyond. No, the theory has changed a lot since Darwin's time. It's been modified, and I'll explain some of those modifications as we go on. And there's a lot of disagreement among evolutionists as to the fine-tuning and details of the theory. But the one thing they all agree on is evolution must be true. That's how we all got here, and that's where everything is going. So, now that I've historically given the background of it, let me define it. In its most basic form, the theory of evolution states that billions of years ago, the universe originated through a Big Bang, causing time, space, and energy to expand from an original infinitesimal point at an extremely fast rate. So, a tiny little dot, and from that came everything. and it explodes and expands at a really fast rate, and then as energy starts to cool down, it formed into matter, and over time, it condensed into stars and galaxies. Those stars then cooled down a bit, and in turn, they produced heavier elements, which then condensed into planets. Our solar system was thought to emerge in this manner, with Earth then particularly having the right conditions for biological life. On Earth, the idea is that the living matter then emerged from non-living matter in this perfect prebiotic soup, where under the right conditions and with the perfect bolt of lightning striking at the right time, you had what's called spontaneous generation, meaning you had a single cell. A living cell emerged out of non-living material. That cell then divided, made copies of itself, and then through time, it changes and becomes multicellular, and eventually multicellular things start copying themselves, and eventually you just get everything. Everything that exists, all life that exists, over millions and millions of years, evolved from lower to higher complexity through the course of these various geological ages. And so humans then are not made in the image of God, we're just one of the more recent products of this chance-based random circumstance of Earth's history. Now, as I already mentioned, Darwin proposed that evolution occurred through natural selection. You may have heard of this. Natural selection is survival of the fittest. So you have a particular creature, the ones that run faster, could jump higher, will survive predators, the weaker ones get eaten, they don't pass on their genetics, only the strong survive. And when you have a creature, population within a species only passing on the stronger, greater genetic information, eventually it could turn into something greater. Now, most evolutionists say, no, the more we think about natural selection, it doesn't work that way. So they've added mutations to it. So you have natural selection to weed out the weak, but then mutations to create something that's new. And I'll be talking a lot more about that in the next few lectures. I won't get to and this one, but I just want you to know that's the theory in a nutshell. Natural selection plus mutations is how they think evolution happens. Now, this theory proposes that random natural processes account for everything. Everything that we see on earth. And so the value of this theory for the atheist and for a society that wants to reject God is this theory leaves out the need for God. There's no room for God or the supernatural in this theory. In fact, evolutionists from the beginning set the game board saying, you can't assume God at all. That's not science. You're not allowed to assume him. We have to assume naturalism rather than supernaturalism. And then, as I said in previous lessons, they want you to then believe that that's neutral. That's not neutral. That's biased, right? But they want you to think it's not. So they rule out any appeal to the supernatural. They say it's unscientific. And yeah. That's the theory of evolution. Now, past generations, I'm gonna give you some new terminology, past generations called it macroevolution and microevolution, okay? So macroevolution is the idea that one species evolves into a completely different species that can no longer reproduce with members of the original species. Okay, that's macroevolution. Microevolution is the idea that change happens within a species. Like if you have enough moths, and they live near the polluted factories in London, then the moths will eventually change their color to match the polluted sky, you know, to avoid predators, and so that's change within a species. That's microevolution. Now, Christians don't dispute microevolution. You could observe changes within species. But evolutionists in the past had this bad habit of giving all the examples of microevolution. Look how these moths changed. Look how this frog changed. Look how this fish changes. And then they jump from that and say, now that we've shown you these thousands of examples of evolution, yeah, it's micro, they say, therefore, microevolution has happened. Now, that's illogical for a lot of reasons. And a lot of people were deceived by the faulty argument. All that to say, this is a good time to comment on this terminology. In the past, this is how evolutionists talked, micro and macro evolution. They don't talk that way anymore. And Christians used to, creationists, would speak of macro and micro to refute them. And some creationists still try to do this, but it won't work anymore because the terminology and the concepts have been updated. Yeah, so in the first edition of my book, one reason I had to make a second edition is I did that. I've spoken macro and micro. That's how I presented it. It needs to be presented in its most updated form, which in my opinion is a lot more clear. So creationists most, like the scientific ones, do not advise the micro and macro approach. Because first, evolutionists, they don't use that nomenclature, those words. Now they use two different terms. The first is the General Theory of Evolution. The second is the Special Theory of Evolution. Now, I don't want to keep saying these words, so I'm abbreviating them. GTE, General Theory of Evolution. STE, Special Theory of Evolution. Now, a surface understanding might get one to conclude that GTE is just macroevolution under a new name and STE is just microevolution under a different name, but actually that is a big oversimplification and it's not actually true. So what do these words mean? The GTE, general theory, refers to the idea that all living things share common ancestry. That's the GTE. We all come from that one cell, and we're all part of that one big tree that share that common ancestor. That's the GTE. Now, in the old days, they might call that macroevolution, but again, they're not identical ideas. The STE, the special theory, speaks of speciation. Speciation talks about new species emerging within a phylum. If you remember back to 10th grade, when you're taking biology, they say, okay, you have animal kingdoms, and then I think you have genera, and then phylum, and then species, and I forgot where it goes after that, right? And so you have phylum, And then under phylum, you have species. And so the special theory of evolution talks about new species that emerge within a phylum, but they don't develop into a new phyla, right? It doesn't become a new category, right? So within the phyla of fish, let's say, you're gonna have a lot of different speciation, new species of fish, but they don't turn into a different phyla. It's still the phyla of fish. Now, that's not an instance of macroevolution, but under the old definition it might sound like it, right? Because if macroevolution means a new species emerges that can no longer mate with the previous one, that actually happens. That happens. So if you say macroevolution doesn't happen, they'll say, yes, it does, and they can prove it. That's why it's so much better to say, OK, no, the general theory of evolution doesn't happen, but we will concede that the special theory of evolution happens because creationists were actually the first ones to propose this, just under different words. But in the early 1800s, creationists said, look, God created kinds. And then after the flood, you had all these different environments, ecosystems, and the kinds then, they didn't use the word speciated, but they would use a different term. The kinds then broke out into all the different types of species we see today. Creationists have believed in the special theory for a long time, right? Yes, Al. Is that how you explained all the animals got on the ark? Because they were only- So many. Correct, correct. And we'll get to that in the, not the next lecture, but the next lesson, which is like probably five lectures from now. But I'm going to talk about the flood and kinds and how one of the big fallacies that atheists use is they say if you take all the species in the world today, you can never fit them all on the ark. And it would take this many thousands of years to even load them on the ark. But it's a fallacious argument because the Bible doesn't say he puts every species, it's he put every kind, right? So that would be like saying he put every phyla or even better, probably every genera. And if that's the case, you could easily fit them on the ark and it wouldn't take that long. So yes, good question. But it's important for the Christian apologist to understand this because if we argue against the theory of evolution by only focusing on micro and macro, then we're gonna talk past our opponent because they're not using those terms anymore. Not only that, the claim that we believe in micro evolution but not macro, it's not entirely accurate. Because really what this comes down to is not micro versus macro, it comes down to the issue of information. Okay, information is the key. So when I said that macroevolution actually happens, sort of. Sort of. When I say it happens, I mean like, yeah, you can have one kind of horse come from other horses that can no longer repopulate with the original. That would be macro, but not really, because for it to really be macro as they used to mean it, there has to be new information. And there's not new information. That's what sets GTE and STE apart. Okay, whether you're referring to GTE or macroevolution, the question is whether these changes we see in a species or phylum, does it constitute an increase in genetic information or a decrease? Is it new genetic information that never existed before or is it a loss of previous information? Observation only demonstrates one. These changes always refer to a loss of information not an increase. That is why there's so many species, not because of new information, but because of information that was lost from the original. And so each little variant represents something that's missing from the original, right? That is why we have all these species. And again, this is all gonna be unpacked later when we're talking about natural selection and mutations. If GTE, the general theory were true, there should be frequent increases of information at the micro level, but they're absent. There are none to be found anywhere and there have never been any to be found. And whenever you have this macro change observed, When we do see it, it's not new information. It's all of it. Macro, micro, anything we observe is a loss of information which puts it all under STE, the special theory which creationists believed in all along. We have no examples of GTE. No examples of new information. And so, you cannot use the special theory as evidence for the general theory. And most evolutionists deep down know this, but they use the word evolution to describe both. I mean special theory of evolution, general theory of evolution, both use the word evolution and then what they'll do is they'll take these special theory examples which only describe a rearrangement and loss of information and degenerative accidental changes and then they'll try to jump to GTE and you can't do that. GTE, the general theory, depends on the formation of new and complex information that contains instructions for generating characteristics that did not previously exist. So evolutionary scientists, a lot of them, openly admit that the special theory does not explain or account for the general theory. But this does not prevent entry-level biology classes from presenting a million examples of the special theory and then saying, therefore, the general theory. Okay, that's what they do. And they present the formula in a very memorable manner. After presenting all the small changes, they then make the jump by saying millions of small changes can lead to the big changes over the course of millions of years. And then the students hear that, they're like, huh, that makes a lot of sense. These big changes must be inevitable because the small changes are undeniable. But I want you to understand, this is a fallacy. Now, if you guys have been reading your philosophy books, you'd right away say, that's the fallacy of equivocation. And I'd be like, give that person a cigar. And then somebody else will be like, well, an alternate name for it is the fallacy of simple ambiguity. I'd be like, give that guy a Hershey's bar, right? Anyhow, the fallacy of equivocation or the fallacy of simple ambiguity. This fallacy occurs when a word or phrase with more than one meaning is used with ambiguity as to which meaning is intended. In this case, the word is change. Change. It means something entirely different in the special theory than it does in the general theory. But evolutionists will use the word change in both synonymously, which then leads to the thought error, as you're hearing it, that an accumulation of one kind of change leads to an entirely different kind of change. See, small changes within phyla are not the same kind of changes that are required for new phyla. The small changes, as I keep saying, record a loss or rearrangement of existing information, whereas the emergence of new phyla needs the generation of new information. So I want you to think about this. The word change is being used as if they refer to the same thing. In one case, the word change is talking about subtraction. In the other case, the word change is talking about addition. So would it make sense if you said, if we have a million subtractions in the big picture, that equals addition? No, you just keep having subtractions. That is the thought error that's happening here, and that is what the biologists never say out loud. And so these impressionable 18-year-olds walk away from this saying, whoa, you know, and they're impressed by it. Okay, so anyhow, with the theory now described and the terminology now addressed, we can move to our presuppositional evaluation of the theory of evolution. The question for us, for the Christian, is how well does the theory hold up? And I'm telling you, it doesn't hold up well at all. So we need to evaluate it from the proper perspective. And as I've been saying the whole time I've been teaching this course, for us to argue against evolution in a piecemeal fashion. So the first thing we're going to do is just destroy the whole thing and then we'll take the pieces. That's how we're going to do it. And so to destroy the whole thing we have to treat it as what it really is. It is a philosophy. Now before I move on, any questions? Alright, are we tracking? Okay, so Evolution is a philosophy first. It's a so-called science second. So the GTE or general theory, it should be judged as a philosophy more than a science. Why? Well, contrary to all the popular claims made by evolutionists, They are controlled by presuppositions just like us. They are not unbiased as they're coming up with this. They're just like the creationists. Therefore, both positions are philosophical worldviews whose philosophical commitments dictate how they interpret the evidence. And because of that, it's appropriate then and proper to evaluate evolution with the PIA. Does it meet the preconditions of intelligibility? Is it consistent? Does it avoid arbitrariness? Well, we're going to demonstrate that clearly there's a negative answer to all those questions. So because of that, evolution can't be true. And what? It's failure as a philosophy does not remove our need to still evaluate it as a scientific theory. Cuz the temptation is to say, I proved it's a philosophy, I destroyed it as a philosophy, and so I'm not even gonna deal with it as a science. But then they're gonna walk away still feeling justified. So we do have to deal with their supposed scientific claims as well. And where we're gonna do that is where we're showing their arbitrariness and inconsistency, we're gonna test the scientific claims. you know, under the accepted rules of science. And we're going to show that they are, in fact, arbitrary and inconsistent. And we will test evolution's scientific credentials. And really, you're going to see it fails disastrously underneath this critique. So, since evolution is touted as a science, I think a quick word about science is in order. The National Science Education Standards, they published their criteria for what constitutes science. According to their criteria science can be summarized by six characteristics and here's the six. Science first depends on observational data, second it results in accurate predictions, third it's logical, fourth it's open to criticism, fifth it proliferates accurate information And sixth, it contains no presuppositions. Kind of interesting. Now, evolutionists believe their theory meets these characteristics. But there's a lot of evidence to the contrary. For example, the first one's observation, right? Observable data. Much of the theory is not based on observation, it's based on interpretation of historical artifacts. That's not the same thing as observation. Not even close, right? So that's the first thing. And then second, right, it's supposed to result in accurate predictions. Evolutionists have a horrible and embarrassing track record of repeatedly failed predictions. They've lost count of how many things they said were going to happen that didn't happen, or what they expected they would find based on their theory, and then they never find it, right? horrible track record. Third, it's supposed to be logical, but evolution's basic claims are counter-logical because everywhere you see design, they say, okay, I know it looks like design, but you can't invoke design, so you have to assume it's random, accidental chance, even though it looks like design. That's not logical. That's the opposite of logic, that I can't believe what I'm seeing, is what they're telling you. That's not logic, okay? So it fails there. And then the fourth thing is it's open to criticism. Really? The scientific community has exercised groupthink for a long time. And if you criticize evolution, it's costly inside that community. Just watch the documentary from 20 years ago, Expelled, with Ben Stein. Man, people lost their jobs just for questioning it. Okay, so that's number four, it's not open to criticism. Number five, does it proliferate accurate information? There have been numerous cases of fraud that come back later, like you've probably seen the whole embryos of frogs and turtles and humans, and it's like, look, and it turns out that was all doctored. Many of the fossils that supposedly are pre-human ancestors, frauds, comes out later, right? So there's a lot of fraud. That's not the proliferation of accurate information. And then six, it contains no presuppositions. Are you kidding me? The whole thing is presuppositional. So it's a philosophy that's shielded by scientific veneer and vocabulary. That's why really it fails the presuppositional critique, but it will also fail the scientific analysis. So considering this, the Christian apologists, that's us, we must insist on the fact that evolutionists, we insist on the fact that they're constantly denying. We have to point out to them that there is a difference between operational science and historical science. There's a big difference. Operational science is what people normally think of when they think of science and this is where you're dealing with experiments. repeatable, observable processes in the present. This is where you have a hypothesis, you have an experiment group, a control group, and you control for the variables and then you're done with it based on what is observable in the present. And then future people could do the same test under the same conditions and get the exact same result. That is operational science. Evolution is not that kind of science. It is speculating on things that happened in the deep past, where there were no witnesses, no observers, and no testers. Right? So it's not operational science. It's a historical science. It's more like forensical science. But they're getting the forensics all wrong on this. Now a lot of times as creationists we bring this up and they say science doesn't recognize those two differences. Science is science. That's baloney. It's baloney. It's rotten baloney. It's stinky baloney. You gotta just hit them with it and tell them this is not true. Stop lying. There is a big difference between what the physicist and the chemist is doing in the lab versus what you are doing with this theory of evolution. Massive difference. And you can just give them examples. So don't let them try to bait and switch you on that. Now, the primary goal of this lesson is a presuppositional refutation of the theory of evolution. So first thing we have to do is we have to treat it as a battle between two incompatible worldviews. The popular secular propaganda, it's just not true. And what I mean by that is they say that it's a battle between creationism versus evolution, it's a battle between religious dogma versus scientific fact. You have biased religious wackos, and then you have unbiased scientists who are in the world of facts rather than the world of belief. Now again, it's baloney because both sides appeal to science, both sides appeal to facts, yet both sides come to radically different conclusions because of their presuppositions. See, all the facts, I don't care who you are, all facts are interpreted according to a framework. The framework for evolution is naturalism. Naturalism is not a fact, it's an ism. Isms are philosophies, they're beliefs, they're assumptions about the way the world works. Naturalism is the idea that all things emerged through natural processes without divine intervention. That's not a fact, that's a belief. You can never prove that. Okay, but that is the guiding framework for how they interpret evidence. It's an assumption. They assume that a universe can come into existence by itself. They assume that non-living matter could produce the first living cells. They assume that a single-celled organism could generate new information and produce multi-celled life forms. None of that could be observed. That is, all those are assumptions, which are presuppositions. Okay? And those assumptions will entirely govern how one interprets the facts and evidence that they see. Okay? It just will. It dictates what one believes to be possible and impossible. Therefore, This contest is not a contest of biased religious creationists versus unbiased scientific evolutionists. Instead, it's two biased people. It's the biases of two different worldviews squaring off against each other. Now, fortunately, there are some honest evolutionists out there, and I'm going to quote one of them. He's at least honest on this, okay? It's very well illustrated with this quote from the atheist professor of zoology at Harvard University. His name is Richard Luontan, and here's what he writes. It's a pretty long quote, so bear with me. Quote, our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment a commitment to materialism. It's not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door." That's what he said. He just laid it all out there. Thank you, Mr. Lewontin, for being so honest. He made it clear that, listen, science doesn't make us materialists. We're just materialists, and we won't let God in. So yes, some of the things we say are really stupid, but that's what we're willing to do to not allow supernaturalism into the door. That's what he said there, right? And so some people, most evolutionists won't admit that, but I'm sorry, most evolutionists don't have the, I don't know, the standing of the professor of zoology at Harvard University. I mean, that's almost as high as it gets, right? And so even if Richard Dawkins would never be so candid, at least this guy was that candid. He's making it clear the theory of evolution is clearly just as religiously dogmatic as Christianity. It's just as much of a philosophy containing a metaphysics, an epistemology, and an ethics. It's the religious dogma of materialistic atheism. That is what evolution is. It is their religion, whether they want to admit it or not. It's a dogma that dictates what they will accept and reject, what they will believe, how they live. In fact, atheists insist as a rule, like that guy said, that one cannot explain obvious traits of design in the universe by appealing to an intelligent designer. They say you can't. Even though it looks like design, even though it's obvious, you haven't seen that designer. So you can't appeal to him. But they will accept the claim from a secular archeologist that an ancient arrowhead was designed, even though no one saw the designer. Same logic, same logic. They accept one, they don't accept the other. Why? Their presuppositions serve as the controlling factor. Not God, but yes, primitive man in Alaska, sure, but not God, right? Their presuppositions will allow for one, but not the other. So the best way to refute evolution first is to start off by comparing it as a worldview. against Christianity, and really a lot of what I said in the atheist lesson just applies here. So I'm not gonna spend that much time on this. I'm gonna get more to the scientific arguments because the last lesson really settles this, but I'll hit a couple different points here that I didn't hit there, and then we'll get to some of the evidential back and forth. But anyhow, let's put this to the PIA. With the transcendental argument, one can present a straightforward argument against the general theory of evolution. The theories presuppositions they render incapable of meeting these preconditions of intelligibility or the P section of the critique. I'll start off with a personal anecdote that many years ago, this is old enough to where I can start saying that now. I was an undergraduate student pursuing a history degree and I had to take biology 101. And near the end of the semester, that's when the professor moved to the theory of evolution and he believed it and he presented it as one who believed it. He began the lectures by writing on the chalkboard. It was chalk back then, not even whiteboards yet. He wrote time plus chance equals macroevolution. And that shows you even in the 1990s they were still using macroevolution, even if they're not now. But time plus chance equals macroevolution. Now, I was an 18-year-old that was unfamiliar with epistemology, logic, and transcendental logic. So it went right over my head that, wait, these are assumptions. These are presuppositions. So I just accepted it at face value, which is what they were counting on, right? And I didn't see the problem with the presented formula. So what the instructor did is he shared with the class the basic assumptions of the theory with enough time. and enough chance, eventually, you're going to get evolution. It's just the way it works. That's how you roll the dice enough times, eventually, you're going to get what you're looking for. Now, after he hit those assumptions, then he moved on to the evidences for the next couple of days. He spent days on it, and like most students, Like me and the other students, we forgot about those assumptions that were brought up at the beginning because instead we're remembering all these arguments, these evidence. We'll look at the whales, look at your tailbone, look at... your appendix isn't useful anymore, you have junk DNA, and you're like, oh, yeah. It's kind of adding up. And they present that evidence over days, and you forget about the assumptions on which this whole thing rests. And so had I possessed a keener mind, I would have demanded him to go back before those evidences. and stay on those assumptions for a little bit while. Like, time plus chance equals macroevolution? Like, how could you ever prove that? Can that be observed in real time, that time plus chance leads to macroevolution? Obviously not, especially since they say it takes millions of years and none of us would ever live millions of years. This is nothing we could ever observe. teacher personally observed that time and chance made macroevolution happen? No. He began with the assumption that it did occur, that macroevolution happened. That's the assumption. And because of that, time and chance can account for it. None of that's proven. It's just assumed. It's taken for granted, right? And that makes him guilty of assuming what he's trying to prove, that namely, time and chance will make evolution possible. Now, if there was an honest philosophy 101 professor that walked in, he would say, dude, you're big in the question. But of course, I don't think he would do that, because the philosophy professor is going to believe in evolution as well. But that guy should be the first guy to catch the problem with this. But even they don't, because they don't want to. Evolutionists simply insist that evolution happens. And because of that, time and chance must account for it. But I want to show why that doesn't work. I have this little dialogue, and I didn't write it up there. I was too lazy. So here's the dialogue. Evolutionist, this is his line. The fact of evolution proves that time and chance account for both the universe and life in the universe. Christian. Okay, but how could evolution be possible? Evolutionist. By time and chance, of course. And that's the whole conversation. Now, it goes by fast, and you might not catch it, but if you think about it, that is narrow circularity of the worst kind. The fact of evolution proves that time and chance can account for it. Well, how do you know evolution happened? Time and chance. Wait, you're saying evolution proves that time and chance is what accounts for it, but now you're saying time and chance prove that evolution happened. Which is it? This is a narrow circularity, okay? So you have to point that out, and it might go over their head, just stay on it until they get it. You can't have it both ways. You're appealing to one to save the other, and then when somebody says, well, what about the other, you then are going back and appealing. to the first one. You can't be doing that. Now, the real question I should have asked is this. If you fundamentally assume that time and chance are the ultimate reality, then would you affirm that the governing principles of the universe are randomness and chaos, like I was talking about last time? Because that's what chance is. Look it up in the dictionary. Look at the synonyms for chance. And you're gonna see randomness and chaos and so forth. So consistency would demand that the person say, well, yes, if I believe time and chance, then I must believe the ultimate governing principle of everything is randomness. But if that's true, his position disintegrates, okay? Because you have 100 students in that classroom that are engaging in rational and meaningful discussion about biology. And yet the very basis of biology as a science is the uniformity of nature. Can't have science if you don't have the uniformity of nature. But a predictable universe with consistent and uniform laws of physics are necessary for biology and the ability for us as students to even learn the material. How can the universe be uniform and predictable if it's allegedly based on chance or randomness? That's the problem. Uniformity and predictability are conceptual antonyms for randomness and chaos. I pushed that issue in my debate with Russell Glasser and he kept every which way trying to wiggle out of it saying I'm using random in a very abnormal way. I'm like, dude, I am just using the dictionary and the synonyms and the antonyms and all that. You're the one who is pressing for a special meaning of random that means not random. Meaning chance in the midst of predictable law. That contradicts itself. Yes, Brian. It did. Yeah, yeah, it wasn't about this, it was about the laws of logic. Yeah, so again, my argument as a Christian and presuppositionalist is the fact that logic exists proves that immaterial reality supersedes the physical reality, right? But his argument was, well, the second you have two different things exist, by definition, you have the law of identity because they exist. And so physical matter could actually be the thing that accounts for the immaterial laws. And I never heard that before. And I'm like, wow, some random dude on the street did what Russell Glasser, Mr. Famous Atheist, couldn't do. And I forgot what answer I gave him there. It stumped him for a second. But in my head, I wasn't satisfied with my answer. And so that's why I went home. And really, what I came to is this was Plato versus Aristotle all over again, and Plato was right. And I have that on my blog, probably, what was that, 2013, 14? It was a long time ago. And I remember Rachel and Ellie as little eight-year-olds trying to argue with the atheists. It was very cute. But anyhow, but yeah, that was that one. So yeah, these things are antonyms. Uniformity and predictability are conceptual antonyms for randomness and chaos. And so this is the worst type of contradiction for the evolutionist. For evolution to be possible, there must be a uniformity in nature. But you can't have a uniformity in nature if the governing principles of reality are random chance. It just doesn't work. That's what I mentioned back in the atheist lessons. So this is a contradiction of the worst kind. If atheistic evolution's true, it's false, right? You can't get out of that, philosophically speaking. Now, the Christian has to be ready, though, when we make this argument, they're gonna say that, listen, well, you're also guilty of circular reasoning, and that's why we don't deny it. Of course we are. We've just showed that you are, and look what happened. Your system blew up, okay? But the question is, will my system blow up? See, this is why we're asking about the preconditions of intelligibility. The evolutionist assumes time and chance accounts for reality, but we just said, let's question that, blows up, right? Their circular reasoning leads to folly because their presuppositions contradict the preconditions of intelligibility. So then we say, okay, now let's take our presuppositions, which I gave in the second lesson that there's an absolute God who's distinct from creation, who's sovereign over the universe, and is triune. Let's see if those presuppositions contradict the preconditions of intelligibility. And they don't. That God accounts for the uniformity of nature, the laws of logic, which are laws of mind, the reliability of the brain, and absolute morality, all the stuff we covered last time. So we ask the same question of our presuppositions. Oh, everything's intact. We ask the question of theirs, blows up. That's why we use the transcendental argument for the existence of God. We will never be in a position where we have to say if Christianity is true, then it is false. That's the beauty about our belief system. So we welcome the charge of broad circular reasoning because it gives us the chance to demonstrate that everyone reasons in a broad circularity, but we're the only ones who could do it in a way where the preconditions of intelligibility are left intact. Yes, Brian. Because time is a, well, it depends. You could stop them at time because time itself seems to presuppose uniformity. Because time is measurable. A second's always a second. Yeah, yeah, now they might try to do some sort of wiggle, like bring in time dilation, well is time really uniform? Yeah, but even if you could show that time changes based on speed, it still changes based on predictable laws of what happens at that speed. So the time does end up being really a thorn that they step on. Yeah, and this is why they hate philosophy. This is why they want to spend two minutes on this and five days on your appendix. Because then they want to say, see, evolution happened. But yeah, good point. So the next point, through the transcendental argument, we just observed that We observe the definitional impossibility that time and chance account for evolution, and we add to it what Brian just brought up. So it's at this point then, we're like, all right, we already destroyed your position, but they're still gonna say, but I got all this evidence, right? So this is where we want to offer evidence. And I really think the next few weeks is gonna be hopefully a good example of how presuppositionalists use evidence. That way we destroy the straw man that we don't use evidence. All you're going to be getting is evidence for a while now. And so, again, the evolutionist assumes that his assumptions make it possible, but he doesn't investigate whether his assumption is true, and that's supposed to be the hallmark of science, testing your assumptions. But here's the thing, let's go to the first claim they make about life. First claim they make about life is that life, a single-celled organism, emerged from non-life, from this prebiotic soup. They assume it. It's their assumption. That assumption could be tested. That assumption could be tested with probability, with the odds. Because what does it take for one cell to even exist? What would have to be there? See, the evolutionist's most basic premise is if you have enough time and enough chance, meaning enough dice randomly rolling, and you have certain conditions that life on its own can and will emerge from non-life. And again, the technical term is spontaneous generation. The evolutionists argues not only can this happen, but this is what happened. You say, what's the proof? Well, we're here. OK, that's not proof. But anyhow, but they would say this can happen, right? So a question like this can be put to this test of probability. But most evolutionists refuse to submit to their assumption. The first thing they should ask is, is this even possible? I'm going to show you with the numbers, with the math, that it is not even possible. The odds are not good. They're not good at all. The simplest theorized reproducing organism contains numerous proteins and molecular machines that code and store information. In such organisms, DNA stores biological information, but that information must be read. So the DNA has the information, it's stored, It's a code, but then there are these machines that can decode it, that can read and decode it. But the instructions to build these decoding machines are in the DNA itself. Are you starting to see the problem, right? So just so that no one misses the conundrum, the DNA can't be read without the decoders, but the decoders cannot exist without the decoder's own information that's in the DNA. That's a big problem. Those things are not gonna come together sequentially. It's impossible, they have to come together simultaneously already fully intact. Okay, this problem is further compounded by the fact that the decoding, that decoding the information in DNA requires energy. It requires the use of energy and energy is supplied through something called ATP. which is adenosine triphosphate. And I'm not going to say that again because I'm surprised I got it right that time. I'll keep calling it ATP. Okay, so ATP is the energy that the decoder needs to read the information. But where does the ATP or the energy come from? The ATP is produced by a super efficient motor called an ATP synthase. The ATP synthase motor cannot be produced, though, without the instructions in the DNA. So now I've added a fourth problem. The instructions in the DNA must be read by the decoder, but the decoder needs the energy of ATP to do the reading, but to get the energy, it needs this ATP synthase, this wheel that makes the energy, but the instructions for making that wheel are in the DNA, which has to be read by the decoder, supplied with energy from that wheel, but you can't have that wheel. You get what I'm saying? We end up in this infinite loop. Now, I wanna show you a picture or a video of the ATP that was made by, creation.com, this is an animation of the world's smallest machine in every living cell that makes energy. And by the way, this is the only wheel that has 100% efficiency. No energy gets lost. It all goes exactly where it's supposed to. Every system we build, energy gets lost. Check this baby out. And that's what's creating all the ATP, which is the energy that each cell needs. Okay, now I have to find where I was at. Okay, so the chicken and the egg problem is a toddler's riddle compared to this. It really is. DNA without a decoder is useless. A decoder without DNA is impossible. A decoder without ATP will not function. ATP is produced by AT synthase, but the super motor first must be built by decoding the DNA. This is like the chicken and the egg and the crocodile and the whatever. I mean, we're adding a whole bunch of things to this. It's nuts to assume that this all happened, right? So unless all three of these popped into existence simultaneously, with the information to work together, and they're all functioning in perfect tandem, the simplest living cell would not be possible. And naturally, DNA, decoders, and ATP synthase, they all require each other to exist. They can't exist without each other. Every proposed solution to this problem falls flat. Random chemistry occurring in a fanciful primordial ooze cannot even come close to accounting for this minimal complexity. Later, I will introduce a term to you, not tonight, but later, irreducible complexity, where this is, we can't reduce it anymore, and yet look how complex it is. It's still beyond what we can even make with intelligence and design. Now the famous British evolutionist J.B.S. Haldane, I love this, this was way back I think in the 1930s, he claimed that evolution could never produce machines like a wheel within organisms. He said the moment you discover a wheel that exists in the cell of an organism, that would be proof to him that evolution is false. The wheel exists, my friends, and it is better than any working wheel that we can make. Now, oh, it's 1949. He had no idea when he said this in 1949 that the discovery of the ATP synthase would provide the falsification he put out there. He said, this is how you prove evolution false. We have it. Well, guess what? Nothing to see here, boys. Let's just move on. And that's the story of evolution. There's a lot of falsifications that have happened, but they just keep moving on. The bottom line is random chemicals in a soup do not create functional motors that provide energy to decoders that then read information. They just don't. Yes? What was that gentleman's name? His name was J.B.S. Haldane. Yeah, 1949. Now, it would be better to allow a non-creationist to describe the problem. Michael Denton, a molecular biologist, he writes this. He says, to grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times. until it is 20 kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design." He said that word. Adaptive design. On the surface of the cell, we would see millions of openings, like the portholes of a vast spaceship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of those openings, we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity. Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality the smallest element of which a functional protein or gene is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man. Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artifacts appear clumsy." It's so interesting. He's saying, could we really believe something far more advanced than our intelligence could create? Could we really believe that's chance? And really the answer should be no, but he does. And that's where this leads. It's not the facts that lead. It goes back to that previous quote where that guy says, we will believe things that sound so stupid if it means we don't let a divine foot in the door. This is an example of that. It really is. So again, I asked the question, what are the odds of this kind of biological complexity emerging by chemical chance? I'm going to start the discussion today and then continue it next time. And so if the simplest living cell contains information in the form of DNA, first thing we have to ask is where does information come from? Where does information come from? It's beyond argument that the ordering of the nucleotides of the DNA molecule exhibits all the characteristics of a message. DNA can be read. It is a message. In all human experience, messages can only exist if there's a message creator and a message sender. Therefore, before we could even consider the odds of molecules and their arrangement, we first have to ask about the origin of information upon which life is based. This is a more ultimate question than actually the odds of spontaneous generation. We're going to hit both. But this is a question that materialists almost always ignore. And the point is simple. Information and messages always require intelligence. Can information come from non-intelligence? No. No, the existence of information in DNA significantly undermines any notion of spontaneous generation and chemical evolution. There's nothing in the chemistry of DNA's building blocks that would cause them to form up in these predetermined ways. Meaning, if you look at the things that are inherently in DNA, there's nothing in the laws of physics that say they have to form up this way. But that's how we find them. Jonathan Sarfati, he compares it to words written on a page. So you could use a book as an example. When you're reading a book, you're reading information. The information is not based on the chemical properties of the ink drops on the paper. It's not just ink molecules is my point. or pixels if you read e-books. Instead, the information depends on the way the pixels and molecules are arranged into letters, words, phrases, sentences, and paragraphs. You could randomly spill ink on a page for billions of years and you will never produce a single sentence. It's not possible. It's not possible. And you definitely wouldn't produce a classic epic like Homer or whatever, right? Instead, the ink must intentionally be formed into letters, words, et cetera. And let's say you have that. Well, then it's meaningless if the one looking at the page doesn't understand the letters and words. What does this all mean? Information, not chance, is the basis of all life. And information is never random, right? That cell does what it does. It's read by the decoder and all that stuff. It does what it does because of the information in the DNA. That's not chance, yes. I have not seen a good attempt by them to address the problem of information. Often it's just dismissed as another creationist trick. But it's not a trick. That's philosophy, not science, you know. Yeah, or the 800-pound gorilla. Yeah, yeah. Information is one of, I think, the best arguments against materialism possible, is that everything's based on information, but information's not random. We know these cells do what they do because of the information in the DNA. And so that's why life exists. Exactly, exactly. That's when you get a glitch on the page. Yeah, exactly, and so the point is information, not chance, is the basis of life, and information's not random. Information also is not mechanically predictable, okay? I had a longer version of that word, mechanistically. Okay, anyhow, it's not predictable in a mechanical way. Instead, as Sarfati points out, he says, quote, is a non-repeating, non-predictable arrangement of signals that could be read and understood by some pre-engineered system with the predetermined set of rules for storing, retrieving, and interpreting instructions. That's what information is. I mean, think about that. None of that squares with random chance. None of that. All observable generation of information that has ever been produced, it's always by an intelligent agent with the purpose of communicating a message. It is information that accounts for life rather than the chemical ingredients. You know, saying it's the chemical ingredients is like saying ink on the page will make a book. No. Information is what turns that ink into books. Likewise, the chemicals in the soup are not what make life. It's the information that makes the life. And that's what people have to understand. I don't care what conditions you put in this prebiotic soup. You're assuming chemistry is what accounts for it when it's really information. Okay? So yeah, I don't want to beat that point to death, but intelligence is never the product of chance and probability. Okay, so let's finish up with at least one example of probability. Okay, so again, we come back to the question, is it even possible, mathematically speaking, that a single cell, the simplest cell, could come into existence spontaneously? No, no, and so we're gonna talk about this, right? Gosh, can I say this word? Mycoplasma genitalium, yes, is a bacterium with the smallest genome of any known organism. As such, it has 482 genes with 580,000 bases. Now, this cell can't survive on its own. It has to be a parasite. So again, this cell wouldn't even work. But this is the simplest cell we could find today as a parasite. So whatever the first cell was has to be more complex than this one. Because this one has to latch onto something else already living to survive. So I just wanted to throw that out there. The simplest cell we have now wouldn't even cut it. So they need something more complex than the simplest cell. Now, if it's impossible for that one to emerge by chance, how much worse would the problem be for a self-sufficient cell? Okay, so we're going to make our scenario as generous as possible to the evolutionists. We're going to give them things that don't exist in the real world just for the sake of argument, the most favorable conditions possible, okay? Some researchers assume, and they're probably wrong, but we're gonna grant them this, they assume that the simplest possible genome could potentially get by with only 387 protein coding genes and 43 RNA coding genes, which will put us in the 400 and something genes. It's less than that other cell I mentioned. This is hypothetical, this cell doesn't exist, but we will grant this with one major caveat. It is widely accepted that the alleged common ancestor of all life is more like a modern cell, which means it is way more complicated than this hypothetical cell. But we're gonna give them this hypothetical one just to make a lesser to greater argument. If this one couldn't happen, then neither could the one that they think actually did happen. So the question is, what is the probability that this hypothetical cell of 387 and 43 genes could arise by chance? Information theorist Hubert Hubert Yaki produced a calculation beginning with a pool of pure and activated amino acids, which again is much more favorable than what the so-called primordial soup would have been. In these ideal conditions, the total amount of information that could be produced in a billion years would only amount to a single polypeptide one-eighth of the informational size of just one protein. And we need over 400 proteins. In a billion years, they can only get one-eighth of one protein, right? In the most favorable conditions. And a protein's not even life, it's just one of the ingredients they need for life. And so, you know, that is a big problem, okay? Additionally, Hold on, did I lose my spot? Yucky. Yeah, so remember, the hypothetical simplest cell needs at least 387 proteins. Additionally, we must consider the chances of obtaining the DNA sequence for each of those 387 proteins at random. So Sarfati offers a calculation unrealistically generous to the evolutionists, and it displays the impossibility of spontaneous generation. He says, assuming 20 amino acids, 387 proteins, and 10 amino acids that's assumed they conserved on average, he says the chance that this cell could arise by chance is 10 to the 5,035th power. So imagine a one with 5,000 zeros after it. Now, that's impossible to imagine. Those odds are impossible. Let me put this in perspective. There are only 10 to the 80th power amount of atoms in the entire universe. Take all the atoms in the entire universe, it's 10 to the 80th. And yet, the odds of this cell would be 10 to the 5,035th. So 10 to the 80 atoms in the universe, there's only 10 to the 12th power of atomic actions per second. And if we grant them a 14 billion year universe, then there have only been 10 to the 18th power in seconds. Think about those numbers. Think about those numbers. That means mathematically, Only 10 to the 110th power of atomic interactions are possible in the evolutionist timeline, which falls way short of the time required for something with the odds of 10 to the 5000th and 35th power. You know what I'm saying? We're not even close. This is impossible. This is crazy talk that they believe this. Now, leaving these extra generous conditions aside, the real odds are far worse. In 1967, Eden Murray wrote an article called, quote, The Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory, end quote. And keep in mind, he's not a Christian. And his work was not published by a Christian organization. He was a mathematician evaluating the theory of evolution from the standpoint of probability theory. And he wrote this, he said, quote, it is our contention that if the word random is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible, and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws, physical, physicochemical, and biological. In other words, he says we need a whole set of new laws of physics if this is going to work. That's how bad the odds are. So secular mathematician, That's what he put out there. And so we're almost done. In other words, what he's saying is if a person believes that life on Earth came together randomly, he has an enormous problem, since the probability of randomness accounting for life in the universe is impossible. I mean, it's already impossible due to the preconditions, the P in the PIA, but we're even saying, okay, let's use a little bit of evidence here. The probability calculations prove that 14 to 15 billion years is not enough time to allow for their random origins of life. It would take a whole new set of natural laws to make evolution possible. So the science of probability effectively demonstrates that evolution is not scientific. So you might say, why are there any evolutionists? Well, let me tell you, there's a growing list of scientists who are signing this they don't believe in it anymore thing. And it gets longer and longer every day. There's thousands of them at some of the most prestigious universities. I don't know if it's probability that's moving them away from it, but probably some of them. But those who still believe in evolution, it's because they ignore this. That's why. They just, nothing to hear, nothing to see, right? Any evidence you give against it, and that shows they're not really scientists, because scientists follow the evidence and they say, okay, shoot, this destroys my hypothesis. They're not willing to do that, which shows this operates far more like a religion than a science, right? It's a worldview for them. So if more men were honest like Murray, Hoyle, and Denton, I think the GTE would be a footnote in the history books, but most evolutionists aren't willing to be that candid. Now, these aforementioned calculations, they demonstrate that one of the most fundamental, probably the most fundamental, assumptions of evolution could not have happened. They assume that life can naturally emerge with time, chance, and the right conditions. But we just proved with time, chance, and the right conditions, not even close. They are not even close. Now, we can move on to the next argument, but I love overkill, so we have more probability. It's like, okay, you know, we already put them out, take those little defibrillators, and we got them back up just so. You know, we're going to drive probability into the ground, but we don't have any more time tonight to do that. So we'll continue with probability next time. But here's what I want to, I'll just add one more thing. Denton, in his book Evolution, A Theory in Crisis, and he's an evolutionist, he elaborated more on the mathematical problem. The spontaneous generation of a living cell by chance would require the simultaneous appearance of 100 functional proteins in one place and one time, he said. The probability then for each of the 100 proteins, just one of them. is one in 10 to the 20th power. So if you add all 100 together, you end up with one in 10 to the 2000th power, which again is more than atomic interactions happen. And that's not the odds for a cell to come together, that's just an odd for the 100 proteins to be in the same place at the same time. Again, no rational person would bet anything of value on such low odds. Most people won't make a bet on a football game if the odds are 50-50, but these guys will bet their whole life on something as ridiculous as 10 to the 2000th power. That is a heart issue. That's ultimately what it is. It is a heart issue. conclusion for tonight. The theory of evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. Its presuppositions are impossible, information undermines the entire idea of random cell generation, probability studies reveal the impossibility of random spontaneous generation, And so next time we will continue with more probability studies and then move into other problems with evolution. I will tell you one thing and then I'll take some questions. These problems are one reason why some people opt for panspermia. And I'll bring that idea up in a later lesson. Panspermia is like, yeah, this guy is right. Evolution is impossible on Earth. So aliens came. and seeded the Earth with the cells that would evolve. But you're just kicking the soda can down the street. OK, well, where'd the aliens come from? Well, an advanced life did that on their planet. OK, you can only kick the can back so far. And even if you do, 14 billion years does not give us enough atomic interactions for these odds. So you lose, checkmate, whatever, right? So again, we'll have a lot more to say later. But with that, I'll take questions maybe for 5 to 10 minutes, and then