Those who question the idea of evolution are typically faced with the mental gymnastic of the idea that even though it is improbable, it is not impossible that monkeys typing random letters on typewriters may eventually turn out lines of Shakespeare. However, there are assumptions being made and accepted by even that simple statement which must not be accepted, but instead should be turned on the hypothesizer for their false intent and use.
This acceptance of “minor” assumptions on which major falacies are based is as or more dangerous than the acceptance of the major falacy for their insidiousness, and the laxity that accompanies their acceptance. And they are not exclusive to the debate on evolution, but are common to every debate, philosophical, ideological, scientific, or any combination of those or others.
We ought not accept minor assumptions because they are likely just as false, and a house of logic may be built on even the flimsiest of ideas if they are not caught by thoughfulness and attacked with the wind of truth.
In regards to the typing monkeys, the assumptions are the existance of monkeys, the creation of typewriters, and the genius of Shakespeare. Evolution assumes that given enough time, for instance, proteins and the random intent of Dawkins’ “Blind Watchmaker” will create DNA and RNA, and a cell with purpose will occur. But what about proteins? Or enzymes? Where do they come from? And their building blocks, the harmonics of energy which appear to make up the quarks and other sub-atomic particles: Order moves to chaos, so all must begin with order so that order may continue for a while. Or else we are stuck with the question: Where did the order come from?
Truly, the permutations of information drive nails into the coffin of evolution.
A Christian and a Creationist ought not fear gazing into a telescope or peering into a microscope, for from the micro to the macro, the fractal logic continues throughout, and the evidence only ever has and only ever will show the glory and handiwork of God.
Dawkins, in a desperate attempt to indoctrinate the future that they might not question what they actually see, said that “Biology is the study of complicated things which give the appearance of purpose and design.” When one sees a watch on the ground, one cannot assume that the rocks and metal filings, and wind and rain worked in concert to create this timepiece, but one assumes that there was a designer behind the designed watch, William Paley stated famously in his oft lambasted, but never refuted logic argument for the necessity of an intelligent designer of this creation we can observe. And Darwin himself, towards the end of his life stated that “The sight of a feather in a Peacocks tail, when I gaze at it, makes me sick.”
There is no explanation for life occuring within a closed system with any complexity, let alone the layers upon layers, the permutations of complexity and information necessary for that complexity. And the chances don’t get better as time goes by. Each moment has exactly the same chance of the unthinkable occuring as the moment before, and given enough zeros following the probability statement, it is hardly inconceivable that such long-shot chances as, say, the entire earth happening just so, is an actual impossibility.
Truly, the permutations of information nail securely the lid of the coffin of evolution.