Not Just Improbable, Impossible!
The world of science and the worldview of naturalism rest upon the laws of probability. In science, one begins with a hypothesis. One tests the hypothesis by looking at specific observations in the natural world. If those observations prove consistent with the hypothesis, the probability increases of one’s hypothesis being correct. If an observation contradicts the hypothesis, then the hypothesis has been falsified, and must be revised if further study is to continue. Using this method, science can never prove anything to be true, per se. Science can, however, argue for a large degree of probability.
Big Impossible Theories Don’t Fit Factual Realities.
However, simply because something is probable, does not mean that it is necessarily true. Take, for example, the genetic trait of having brown eyes. If a blue-eyed man marries a brown-eyed woman, the probability of their children having brown eyes is greater than the probability of their children having blue eyes because brown eyes are genetically dominant. Nevertheless, such a couple may produce, improbably, blue-eyed children. Improbability does not equal impossibility.
An additional point to be made is that probability does not quantify the actual events themselves, but someone’s knowledge of those events. For example, suppose at a given time and place there is a 50% chance of rain. You walk outside and it is pouring down rain. At that moment, what is the probability of it raining? It is no longer a question of probability but certainty; it is actually raining. The 50% probability of its raining was simply a way of quantifying one’s knowledge of whether or not it would rain given the meteorological conditions. When we apply probability to events, we are speaking accommodatively regarding our knowledge of those events, not the events themselves.
This is true regarding science as well. When one formulates a hypothesis, he is not testing the actuality of the events in the Universe, but his hypothesis of those events. The physical events themselves have either happened or will happen irrespective our knowledge of them. Facts (especially historical ones such as are involved in the creation/evolution debate) do not change, whatever they be, and facts may be lost to (or escape) our strict empirical knowledge. Hence, when we hypothesize, it is our hypothesis (and all that it entails) to which we assign probability. Probability is then a measure of whether or not our knowledge regarding some event is accurate. The actual event itself has either already occurred, or will occur independent of our knowledge of it. The objective reality of the event is certain, our knowledge of its probability notwithstanding.
In that regard, the improbability of the Universe coming into existence so as to produce intelligent life is something that is often touted by theists. The point theists make is that science is inconsistent when it argues for some hypothesis based upon highest probability, but then turns around and accepts something as improbable as the theory of evolution. Such is not typical science. Indeed, prominent atheists and evolutionists have embraced the improbability of evolution. It is not uncommon to hear them say things like, “We were just lucky enough to win the lottery” or to talk about the earth’s “lucky break.” Their point is that regardless how small the probability, it is still possible, and in a Universe as large as ours, any possibility, no matter how small, can become reality – like the one lucky person out of millions that defies the odds and wins the lottery.
But what is the probability of something coming from nothing? Mathematically, the probability is zero. For example, if I were to say that 1 out of 100 people will win a cake in the drawing, the implication is that given one hundred people, one person will be lucky enough to win the cake. The rest won’t. The odds, then, are 1 in 100. However, if I were to say, 0 out of 100 persons will win a cake in the drawing, the statement is meaningless. No one is going to win anything, because the conditions are such that they preclude the possibility of winning at all; the odds are 0 in 100. (Don’t take that bet, by the way, because you will lose every time.) In other words, it is impossible for something to come from absolutely nothing.
But this is exactly where evolutionists stand in their cosmology. Given the big bang theory, the Universe had a beginning. What caused it? To be consistent with their Naturalist Worldview, many scientists will simply say the Universe came from nothing. This is the view of Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow in their recent book, The Grand Design. The universe came into being spontaneously from nothing (see pages 136 and 187). [1] In so declaring, they go beyond the boundaries of probability altogether because it isn’t improbable that something came from nothing, it is manifestly and categorically impossible. In their bizarre use of logic, however, one may arrive at the possible from the impossible and have a Universe that both has a beginning and has existed forever. Such is manifestly absurd.
What drives otherwise rational beings to such erroneous conclusions is their presupposition of naturalism. If matter is the only thing that exists, then no matter how absurd the conclusion is, the naturalist must place his faith in it because he has already precluded the possibility of something existing outside of the natural world. Absurdity is evidently preferred to the abandonment of the naturalistic worldview. With God, however, all things are possible (Luke 18:27). The theist need not sacrifice rationality or the natural workings of the world because he knows that there is an infinite and transcendent God behind them both. God is not merely probably; He is actual!
[1] They go on to say (without evidence) that there was a sea of quantum possibility prior to the Big Bang. This is actually somewhat different from absolutely nothing, though in their mind it counts as nothing. Regardless, the principle of cause and effect is violated because there is more in the effect than there is in the cause. Practically speaking, then, their view implies that something came from nothing.