Here is David Penny’s New Confirmation of Evolution

Well, at least he got it down from the original 10^113 (the probability that a simple protein molecule could form at random in an organic soup). The paper shows the arrogance of the scientists as well: "This clearly does not ‘prove’ that yet unknown models are impossible, but the theory of evolution leads to extremely strong predictions, and so the onus is now on others to propose testable alternatives." In other words, we can't prove evolution to be true by this analysis, but it must be and so therefore anybody else must provide a testable hypothesis. That's a metaphysical assumption, not a scientific hypothesis. Oddly enough, they also state: "It is basic to science that we have never tested all possible hypotheses; consequently we never obtain final and absolute knowledge about any aspect of the universe." If you don't know everything there is to know, how can you claim that evolution is true based on your analysis (which, in turn, was based on a metaphysical assumption)? And from the comments on the blog: "Evolution does not say everything arose by chance. It doesn't say anything about origins at all." There are several scientists whom I could quote who said exactly that. Are they wrong, or is the theory of evolution wrong? Or do they not understand it properly? Barb

If there is a God - in the truest sense of the word - then that implies there is a Creator. If there is a Creator, then that implies there is design. If there is design, then that implies there is purpose. If there is purpose, then that gives rise to science. After all, doesn't science try to know and understand things; to discover and comprehend. "What is this protein? How does it work? What is its purpose?" Etc. In fact, all fields of science without exception attempt to MAKE SOME SENSE of some part of the universe - whether it be its most smallest parts to its most grandest. "What makes this tick and why does it tick the way it does?" Thus all of science...even science that is purely materialistic....if there is such a thing....seeks KNOWLEDGE. If, however, the starting point of our premise is that the universe arose or came into existence due to some random event and that all life as well arose from some random event and all current life forms arose from random mutations driven by natural selection. . .then why engage in science at all because the conclusion to this premise is utter meaninglessness! What evolution leads to is the natural consequence of its premise. . .that life ultimately has no meaning or purpose. Being itself rooted in the philosophy of materialism, it will ultimately lead to nihilism - total rejection of natural laws and institutions, the denial of all real existence or the possibility for objective truth, anarchy, extremism, terrorism, annihilation. If this is the case, then why engage in science? Perhaps because deep inside we know that science itself serves a "PURPOSE." We can choose to live in a world of false ideas and lies, but we cannot do so absolutely. Ultimately, PURPOSE and the TRUTH underlying it will, as Someone once alluded to, will be made manifest. What is hidden will be made known, what is in darkness will be brought into light. Evolution's day of making fools of us is quickly coming to an end. I can see the light at the end of this tunnel and then science will have its greatest day ever! Johnnymack