Why Do People Believe in Christianity in the 21st Century — an Age of Science?

Many people call the 21st century the age of science. And indeed, people place enormous expectations in science and trust what scientists say. As a result, Christianity — along with religion in general and theism — is naturally perceived as irrational, seemingly standing on the opposite side of mainstream science.

I am, by temperament, a person who leans toward reason rather than emotion. I do not enjoy things that are illogical or that cannot be adequately explained. For the past 15 years, I have been investigating and researching whether truth can be explained through reason.

And I can say with confidence: the Bible — historically, scientifically, and philosophically — is more rational than any theory currently championed by mainstream science, and it explains the world better. With every new discovery, that conviction only grows stronger.

This website is for those who believe in God but lack assurance, and for those who do not believe but sincerely want to find the truth. It explains, through objective evidence, why God is real and alive. I am neither a scientist nor a theologian. If you are willing to accept one side or the other simply based on reputation, then you do not need to read further. But if you are willing to examine the objective evidence available to us through reason and logic, I recommend this website with confidence.

This website can only help those who genuinely desire to find the truth — not those who argue for the sake of arguing. Of course, those determined to deny God may read through this website and cry out inwardly that it is wrong. But they will not be able to refute its content through logic.

I go by “fingerofthomas” on the internet, where I engage in Christian apologetics. Christian apologetics is an academic discipline that defends the truth of the Bible using objective facts found outside of Scripture. For example, Christians preach and evangelize based on the Word of the Bible. This is precious, and we must proclaim God’s Word in dependence on the Holy Spirit. However, among those who hear that Word, some may not understand the Bible, may lack conviction, or may even be convinced that the Bible is not true. Apologetics speaks to those people — explaining, through scientific, philosophical, archaeological, and other rational, logical, and objective disciplines and evidence, that the Bible is the Word of God, that it is truth, and that it should be the foundation for our lives and worldview.

This website addresses the debate between atheism — the claim that there is no Creator — and theism — the claim that there is, specifically Christian theism, which holds that this Creator is the God described in the Bible. Before diving into that debate, however, there are several widely accepted but flawed assumptions and arguments that need to be addressed first.

---

Flawed Arguments Accepted by the Public

When debating atheists — even when watching debates among the highest caliber of intellectuals — you can frequently observe irrational rebuttals that the public uncritically accepts as legitimate. The most representative example is something like this: “I don’t have an answer for this right now, but science is always advancing, so in the future science will prove my claim!” Many atheistic scientists try to move on with this kind of response, and because these are renowned scientists, many people trust it and move on. But this is neither scientific nor rational.

Science as a discipline speaks through conclusions drawn from repeated observation, research, and experimentation that have already been conducted. No matter how famous a scientist may be, if they are assuming some future result that is yet unknown, that is not science. Of course, my own claims could be disproven by some future discovery. And their claims could turn out to be true in the future. But rational debate means making arguments based on the evidence currently available to us. If we resort to invoking a future that may or may not favor us, then we are merely deciding truth by majority vote based on who has stronger wishes. Truth is not determined by majority rule.

Similarly, there are cases where people use unproven hypotheses or mere possibilities as rebuttals. The debate between atheism and theism is not a contest of possibilities. It is fundamentally a debate about what actually happened historically — about what really took place. Presenting unproven hypotheses as evidence obstructs rational discourse. The atheist camp demands historically verified facts from theists, yet excuses itself from the same standard — claiming that a mere scenario suggesting something was possible is enough to validate their position. Many of the claims we accept as historical fact are actually nothing more than such hypotheses, and with new discoveries, these hypotheses keep changing and disappearing.

Another error is imposing unproven assumptions that mainstream science makes but that creationists do not accept. For example, mainstream science presupposes naturalism and materialism. Naturalism is the assumption that all phenomena in this world are non-supernatural — that is, no Creator or intelligent designer was involved. Materialism is the assumption that there is no other dimension such as a soul, and that everything is made up of matter alone. These stand in direct opposition to creationism and are assumptions that creationists reject, yet debates are sometimes conducted as if these assumptions are self-evidently true.

One of theism’s central arguments is precisely that naturalism and materialism are wrong — or that they are impossible. If these are assumed to be true from the very start, then no meaningful conversation can take place. Atheists must present reasons and evidence for why naturalism and materialism are true; they cannot simply impose them.

Another error is distortion.

There are generally two types of distortion. The first is distorting the opponent’s argument. This is a technique used in losing debates to confuse the audience so they do not realize which side is losing. The second type of distortion involves redefining terms or twisting the true meaning of one’s own claims. This is best understood through an example. Perhaps the most representative case of definitional distortion involves the word “Nothing” in Big Bang theory. After the discovery that the universe — once believed to be eternal — must have had a beginning, scientists proposed various hypotheses but failed to explain that beginning. Eventually, they arrived at the claim that the universe came from “Nothing.” Since this defies common sense and science alike, attempts have been made to change and distort the definition of the word “Nothing” — a word that everyone understands in its literal sense — to mean something other than literally nothing.

This is just one example. A careful analysis of debates reveals that such instances are remarkably common.

Finally, there is the method of selectively applying a condition or phenomenon to the opponent’s theory while exempting one’s own. This might be described as a double standard — applying one rule to others while excusing oneself from the same rule.

These kinds of errors are obviously wrong and should be avoided. Detailed examples of each will be provided as we explore each topic throughout this website.

Whether you are a theist or an atheist, I ask that you, the reader, serve as a fair judge and determine whose arguments are more persuasive.

In the realm of modern science and atheistic determinism, a startling proclamation is gaining ground: “Free will is an illusion.” Prominent figures like Sam Harris argue that human beings are nothing more than “biological puppets,” dancing to the tune of physical laws and chemical reactions.

But are we truly just pre-programmed biological machines, or is there something more to the human experience? Let’s dive into the logic behind these claims and why the “death of free will” might be greatly exaggerated.

1. The 0.5-Second Gap: Libet’s Famous Experiment

The “smoking gun” for those who deny free will is often an experiment conducted by Benjamin Libet in the 1980s.

• The Finding: Libet discovered that a specific brain signal (known as the “Readiness Potential”) occurs about 0.3 to 0.5 seconds before a person consciously decides to move their finger.
• The Conclusion (by Determinists): They argue that since the brain starts the process before the mind is even aware of it, the “choice” is just an afterthought—a trick played by the brain to make us feel in control.

2. The Scientific Rebuttal: The Power of the “Free Won’t”

However, this interpretation ignores a crucial part of Libet’s own findings. Libet himself did not believe his experiment disproved free will. He observed that even after the brain prepares for an action, the conscious mind retains the power to veto that action in the final milliseconds.

In the English-speaking scientific community, this is often called “Free Won’t.” While our biology might suggest a path, our conscious mind holds the final “signing authority” to approve or reject that impulse. Preparation is not the same as a final command.

3. The Dangerous World Without Choice

If we accept that free will is non-existent, the pillars of our society begin to crumble:

• The Collapse of Morality: If a criminal is merely a “meat computer” following a program, can we truly hold them responsible? If there is no choice, there is no guilt, and if there is no guilt, the entire concept of justice becomes meaningless.
• The Death of Reason: Scientist J.B.S. Haldane famously noted a logical paradox: If my thoughts are merely the result of chemical reactions in my brain, then my belief that “determinism is true” is also just a chemical reaction. Why should I trust a chemical reaction to tell me the truth? Materialism, in denying free will, accidentally denies the validity of its own logic.

4. More Than Just “Meat Computers”

Reducing the human experience to mere matter and motion ignores the profound reality of our existence. We deliberate, we sacrifice, and we often act against our basic biological instincts for the sake of higher values.

Free will is not a “glitch” in our neural wiring; it is the very foundation of human dignity, love, and responsibility. We are not just spectators watching a movie of our lives; we are the directors.

---

Curious for more? Let’s dive deep with the button below!

“In the Beginning…” — The Scientific Accuracy of the Bible’s First Words

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1)

The Hebrew word for “In the beginning,” Bereshit (בראשית), does not merely signify a start in time. It declares the simultaneous origin of time, space, and matter. Today, modern science is finally catching up to the profound truth hidden in this single sentence written thousands of years ago.

---

1. Science Once Scoffed at the Bible

Just 100 years ago, the mainstream scientific community believed the “Steady State Theory”—the idea that the universe was eternal, with no beginning and no end. They mocked the biblical account of a “beginning” as unscientific.

• Einstein’s “Biggest Blunder”: When Einstein’s equations suggested an expanding universe, he was so uncomfortable with the implication of a beginning that he inserted a “Cosmological Constant” to force the universe into a static state.
• The Turning Point: Later, the Hubble Telescope confirmed that galaxies are moving away from us. In 1965, the discovery of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation effectively ended the debate: the universe definitely had a beginning.

[!NOTE]

Key Insight: The Bible declared a beginning for the universe long before human instruments could prove it.

---

2. Can “Something” Come from “Nothing”?

Modern atheistic scientists often claim the universe arose “from nothing” to bypass the need for a Creator. However, there is a catch in their definition of “nothing.”

• A Redefined “Nothing”: When these scientists say “nothing,” they usually mean a Quantum Vacuum—a field fluctuating with energy.
• The Debt Analogy: Claiming a universe came from nothing because the total energy sums to zero is like saying a person with $1 billion in assets and $1 billion in debt has “nothing.” In reality, both the assets and the debt exist.
• The Verdict: True “nothingness” (the absence of anything) cannot produce “something.” Only a transcendent cause outside of time and space can explain the transition from non-existence to existence.

---

3. Probability vs. Chaos: Can an Explosion Create Order?

The Big Bang is often described as a massive explosion. Common sense tells us that explosions result in chaos and destruction, not complex architecture.

• The Law of Entropy: Thermodynamics dictates that systems move toward disorder over time. The odds of an explosion resulting in a functional, beautiful skyscraper are zero.
• The Fine-Tuned Universe: Physicist Roger Penrose calculated the probability of our orderly universe occurring by chance as 1 in 10^{(10^123)}. This number is so large that it is mathematically equivalent to “impossible.”
• Evidence of Design: The universe is not a byproduct of a random accident; it is a masterpiece of precision, fine-tuned to an unimaginable degree.

---

4. Returning to Common Sense

Many scientists observe the undeniable “appearance of design” in the cosmos but dismiss it as an “illusion of design.” They enter their labs with a pre-existing bias: that a supernatural Creator must be ruled out at all costs.

However, if we return to basic logic and common sense, the conclusion is clear:

1. The Universe had a beginning.
2. Something cannot come from nothing.
3. Complex order requires an Intelligent Designer.

The fact that Genesis accurately recorded the origin of the universe millennia ago is powerful evidence that the Bible is indeed the Word of God.

Recent research has announced that the first life on Earth appeared 4.3 billion years ago. [^1] Though not mentioned in the article, this finding must be deeply unsettling for the scientific community, which has yet to establish a convincing scientific theory for the spontaneous emergence of life. This is because their hypotheses, which rely on astronomically low probabilities, lose persuasive power the shorter the time between Earth’s formation and the emergence of life.

Meanwhile, NASA captured widespread public attention with its announcement that seven Earth-like planets had been discovered just 39 light-years away. [^2]

Professor Ignas Snellen, who participated in the peer review of the paper on these Earth-like planets, stated that while it remains unknown whether life exists on these planets, he added the following:

“One thing is certain: the small dwarf star TRAPPIST-1 burns hydrogen so slowly that its lifespan is expected to reach 10 trillion years… That is a long enough time for life to evolve.” [^2]

For humans, who live at most around 100 years, 10 trillion years is certainly a long time. But whether 10 trillion years is long enough for life to spontaneously arise is an entirely different question. In this article, I would like to discuss just how scientifically absurd the notion of the spontaneous generation of life truly is — a claim that is often spoken of as though it were a mere matter of common sense.

The Experiment on Spontaneous Generation of Life and Its Significance

In the 1950s, when understanding of life was still quite limited, Stanley Miller filled a glass tube with methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor — the conditions then believed to represent early Earth’s atmosphere — applied electrical shocks, and discovered that amino acids were produced inside. This finding led many people to leave the church, and atheism began to quietly raise its head. The thinking was: if life can arise on its own, then there is no need for God. However, by the 1960s, knowledge of early Earth’s environment had advanced, and it became clear that the early Earth could not have been the same environment Miller had used. Miller then applied electrical shocks under the newly understood conditions of early Earth, but the amino acids that had previously formed did not appear.

Of course, even if Miller’s experiment had succeeded in showing that amino acids could form naturally, that would be an entirely different conclusion from saying that life itself can arise spontaneously. The fact that soil can form naturally under certain conditions is no more an argument that an apartment building can assemble itself out of nothing. In fact, even if scientists were to place every molecule necessary for a living organism into a single test tube and wait, those molecules would not gather together and become a living creature. It is the same logic as putting every single component needed to build a smartphone into a container and shaking it — no matter how long or how hard you shake, they will not assemble themselves into a working phone.

So then, what is the probability of amino acids coming together to form a living organism?

The Odds of Amino Acids Becoming a Functional Protein

First, let us calculate the probability of a single protein forming by chance, since proteins are necessary for life to exist. If you have studied biology, you will know that there are 20 amino acids that help form proteins. Amino acids are made from groups of three DNA base pairs, and the type of amino acid is determined by the sequence and length of those base pairs. Some smaller proteins may contain fewer than 100 amino acids, while in some cases tens of thousands of amino acids are used. Though not precise, many scientists estimate that an average protein requires around 300 to 400 amino acids.

The critical question, then, is what the probability is that any given sequence of amino acids would fold into a functional protein. On this topic, molecular biologist Douglas Axe published a paper concluding that the probability of a protein 150 amino acids in length being functional is 1 in 10⁷⁷. [^3] But that is not all. There are additional conditions required for protein formation. The first is that each amino acid must be connected by a peptide bond. Peptide bonds form with roughly a 50% probability, so the chance that all 150 amino acids are connected by peptide bonds is 2⁻¹⁴⁹, approximately 10⁻⁴⁵. The second condition is that only L-type amino acids can be used, not D-type. Since the probability of an amino acid being L-type versus D-type is also around 50%, the probability that all amino acids are L-type is likewise 2⁻¹⁵⁰, approximately 10⁻⁴⁵.

If even a single D-type amino acid is mixed in, or if even one non-peptide bond is present between amino acids, the entire combination collapses and fails to form a protein. Therefore, the probability of a random combination of amino acids accidentally forming even a single protein — not a living organism, just one protein — is 10⁻⁷⁷ × 10⁻⁴⁵ × 10⁻⁴⁵ = 10⁻¹⁶⁷.

The spontaneous emergence of life over 10 trillion years is impossible.

This probability is also consistent with calculations previously made by evolutionary scientists. Carl Sagan, a scientist admired by many, calculated the probability of a protein 100 amino acids in length forming at 1 in 10¹³⁰. [^4] Professor Gerald Schroeder of MIT similarly calculated the probability of a protein 130 amino acids in length forming at 1 in 10¹⁷⁰. [^5]

Professor Snellen stated earlier that 10 trillion years would be sufficient time for life to evolve — but 10 trillion years is not even enough time for a single protein to form. For one protein to come into existence within 10 trillion years (10¹³ years), there would need to be approximately 10¹⁴⁷ protein-formation attempts every single second.

The critical point here is that everything we have been discussing so far concerns not a living organism, but a single protein. So what would be the probability of a living organism arising by chance?

The Minimum Conditions for the Simplest Life Form

In 2016, Craig Venter’s research team published findings on the simplest possible cell. [^6][^7] In 2010, they had first created a synthetic cell called Syn 1.0, which was a copy of an existing genome sequence. [^8] The team then attempted to build a cell entirely from scratch on their own, designing a cell with 480,000 base pairs and 471 genes — but they failed. Eventually, the team succeeded in creating the simplest cell yet, Syn 3.0, composed of 530,000 base pairs and 473 genes.

The team had tried to identify the genes essential for life by eliminating from Syn 1.0 all genes thought to be unnecessary for cell survival. At the outset of this research, they believed that as few as 256 genes would be sufficient to sustain life. [^9] But after decades of research, they identified 473 genes that could not be reduced any further, proving their initial prediction wrong. Interestingly, around 150 of those genes were clearly essential for survival, yet their specific functions remained completely unknown.

In any case, we do not know exactly how many proteins are encoded by each gene in the cell the team created, but to make the conditions as generous as possible, let us assume there is just one protein per gene. That means the minimum number of proteins required for life is 473. The fact that there were 531,000 base pairs implies an average of 374 amino acids per gene — but again, we will use the 150-amino-acid probability for our calculation.

The probability of an organism with 473 proteins arising by chance is 10⁻¹⁶⁷ × 473 = 10⁻⁷⁸,⁹⁹¹. Of course, this calculation already rests on the unrealistic assumption that simply having functional proteins is sufficient for life, without even accounting for the specific sequences those proteins must have. And a probability of this magnitude is one that simply cannot occur within the entire history of the universe.

This is why Craig Venter, the lead researcher of the team, stated: “We have shown how complex even the simplest life forms are. And these discoveries have humbled us.” [^9]

These kinds of findings and calculations are also entirely consistent with those of other scientists who have made similar estimates.

People Who Came to Believe in a Creator After Calculating the Probability of Life Arising

Sir Fred Hoyle was an astronomer who was active in the mid-20th century and one of the most prominent atheists of his time. However, together with his colleague Wickramasinghe, he calculated the probability of life arising naturally at 10⁻⁴⁰’⁰⁰⁰ — and became a theist. He stated: “If one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing arrayed complexities were the products of an intelligence. I find no other way to come to this conclusion.” [^10]

Anthony Flew, the defining atheist of the 20th century who served as an idol to Richard Dawkins and many other atheists, similarly announced in 2004 that he had become a theist. In 1950, he had published a paper titled Theology and Falsification, which became the most widely cited philosophical publication of the following half-century.

In that paper, Flew argued three main positions: that the universe is eternal, has always existed, and will always exist; that life is the product of random chemical reactions; and that the existence of God is self-contradictory, and that evil and God cannot coexist. Yet he ultimately acknowledged that the immense complexity revealed through the advance of science could not be explained within an atheistic worldview, and came to accept that this world has a Creator.

Dean Kenyon, who led the field of chemistry in the 1970s, similarly set out to scientifically demonstrate that life had arisen naturally — and believed he could do so. But as science advanced, he found it increasingly impossible, and eventually abandoned evolutionary theory to become a creationist.

He had been one of the leading scientists in the field during the 1960s and 70s, but as he came to understand just how complex and intricate even the smallest cells and proteins are, he kept in mind two possible ways of explaining the origin of life through natural science: either explaining where the genetic binding originated, or demonstrating that proteins in a primordial ocean could combine amino acids into the correct sequence — with or without DNA, whether precisely or by chance.

Kenyon realized he could do neither. In the late 1970s, he abandoned all of his research that had sought to explain the origin of life through chemical evolution. And as subsequent findings continued to emerge about the importance of DNA, he came to recognize the absolute necessity of genetic information — and grew ever more convinced that his late change of position had been the right one.

How Do Evolutionists Explain the Origin of the First Life?

Despite all of this, many evolutionists still hold to an unsubstantiated belief that life arose naturally. So how do they explain the origin of the first life?

Many scientists openly admit that they cannot explain it. Richard Dawkins himself said in one interview: “Nobody knows how the first living matter came into existence!” [^11] They simply refuse to acknowledge a Creator on the grounds of the “God of the gaps” argument — the claim that just because I cannot explain something does not mean God did it.

Some scientists have also attempted to explain the origin of life through the multiverse. The prominent evolutionary biologist Eugene Koonin wrote a highly unusual paper in 2007. [^12]

In it, he calculated the probability of a single RNA replicase enzyme composed of 500 nucleotides forming by chance at 10⁻¹⁰¹⁸, and argued that a probability this low could never occur within the history of our universe. Yet Koonin then abruptly pivoted to argue that if there exists an infinite multiverse produced by eternal inflation, then even an astronomically improbable event like this would be not merely possible but inevitable — and on this basis proceeded to discuss the possibility of life arising naturally.

If an infinite multiverse is real, then events of unimaginable improbability must occur countless times.

Honestly, reading this paper, the only thought that came to mind was: how desperate must these people be to avoid acknowledging God, that such nonsensical reasoning could find its way into a published paper?

Of course, if an infinite multiverse exists, then any event of any probability — no matter how low — must inevitably occur somewhere. That much is logically true. But humans have never observed an infinite multiverse, nor can we ever observe one. What was shocking was that a paper in a biology journal could treat the multiverse as an established fact and build an argument upon it. The second problem is even more serious. Humans have never observed an event with a probability even as low as 10⁻⁵⁰ — which, while extraordinarily small, is still vastly higher than the probability of life arising. If one wishes to argue that a multiverse allows events of staggeringly low probability to occur, then at the very least there should be some observed instance of a comparably improbable event. All manner of seemingly impossible things that defy common sense should be occurring around us constantly.

And yet, the foremost evolutionary theorists make the claim — without any such observation whatsoever — that in an infinite multiverse, anything and everything must inevitably happen. I consider this to be deeply irresponsible propaganda.

I believe these individuals are fully aware of just how flawed and incoherent their own logic is. So why would such intelligent people insist on making arguments this untenable?

The True Motives of Atheists Who Refuse to Acknowledge God

In a debate with creationist Fuz Rana [^13], prominent evolutionary biologist Michael Ruse offered these closing remarks:

“I agree with Dr. Rana that the origin of life is a desperately difficult problem. I don’t think anyone is going to deny that. I agree with Dr. Rana that scientists today don’t have a full answer, or even an adequate answer. I agree with Dr. Rana that there are a lot of ‘bad boys’ in the field, as it were. There’s a lot of what Stephen Jay Gould used to call ‘just-so stories’ floating around.

Of course, at first it seemed like it would be easy. But as ten, fifteen, twenty years have gone by, it’s become clear that it’s much, much harder than anyone thought. Much harder — and I don’t think anyone would deny that today. So the question we have to ask is: what do we do now? Surrender and take a Biblical perspective… I always say — if you want to take a Biblical perspective, I can’t stop you. But you’re not doing science. The question we have to ask is: does science, at some point — what Dr. Rana calls a hybrid, though he might call it something different — does science point to miracles? I want to say no. No…

I would rather be a fool than surrender to the Bible.”

In these remarks, I believe the true inner motives of those who hold an atheistic worldview are laid completely bare. They are not seeking truth — they simply do not want to surrender before God.

No matter how clearly atheists observe that living organisms appear to be designed, they refuse to draw the conclusion that they were designed. Because they do not want to surrender to the Bible. Science as a discipline demands that we set aside our subjective views and preferences when interpreting observations — and yet these scientists are violating even that most foundational principle, denying the obvious conclusion that their own data points toward.

I can only marvel at the remarkable insight of Scripture — why the Bible says that acknowledging God is the beginning of knowledge, and why it says that those who deny God, though they declare themselves to be wise, have become fools.

“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools.” — Romans 1:20–22

To observe with your own eyes just how complex even the simplest living organism is — to see that it bears every appearance not of something that accumulated by random chance, but of something that was painstakingly and deliberately designed — and then to deny the very conclusions of your own observations: that is the work of a fool. And the complexity of life that science continues to reveal, the more it advances, is the most powerful evidence we have that the God who created this world is alive — that He made everything for us, and that He made us.

Scientific Evidence

Ten Trillion Years —
is that enough?

Scientists say it’s plenty of time for life to evolve by chance.
Is it really?

Quick Read 6 min white.org.nz

Scroll to read

When NASA announced the discovery of seven Earth-like planets just 39 light-years away, one astronomy professor added: “TRAPPIST-1’s lifespan is expected to reach ten trillion years. That is a long enough time for life to evolve.” For us — who live, at most, around a hundred years — ten trillion is genuinely long. But is it long enough for life to arise on its own? That’s an entirely different question.

01Will shaking the box build a smartphone?

In 1953, Stanley Miller filled a glass tube with methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapour and ran an electric current through it. Amino acids appeared. The result spread fast, and many people walked away from church, persuaded that life — like everything else — could simply assemble itself.

Two things happened afterward, though. First, geologists realised the early Earth’s atmosphere wasn’t what Miller had assumed. Second — and this is the bigger point — making amino acids and making life are not the same thing at all.

Analogy

Soil forming in nature does not mean an apartment building can assemble itself out of nothing. Take every part needed to build a smartphone, drop them into a container, and shake — no matter how long, the parts will not assemble themselves into a working phone.

So what would the odds actually be of amino acids coming together to form a living organism? Let’s walk through it step by step.

02The odds of just one protein

Life requires proteins. An average protein is built from 300 to 400 amino acids — but they can’t just be strung together randomly. The sequence has to be just right for the protein to fold into something functional.

Molecular biologist Douglas Axe calculated the probability that a 150-amino-acid sequence would fold into a working protein at 1 in 10⁷⁷. And that’s not the end of it. Every amino acid has to be joined by a peptide bond (about a 50% chance per bond) and every one has to be the L-form rather than the D-form (also 50%). Multiply it all together:

Odds of a single functional protein arising by chance

1 in 10¹⁶⁷

That’s 1 followed by 167 zeros. The number of attempts required is far greater than the total number of atoms in the entire observable universe.

And that’s just one protein — not a living organism. Even ten trillion years is not enough time for one protein to form by chance. To produce a single protein within that span, roughly 10¹⁴⁷ attempts would have to occur every second.

03But one protein isn’t enough

In 2016, J. Craig Venter’s team unveiled the simplest possible synthetic cell, Syn 3.0. It contains 473 genes. The team had originally expected that 256 genes would be enough — but after decades of work, they couldn’t reduce the count below 473.

Even more striking: roughly 150 of those genes are essential for survival, but no one yet knows what they do.

Venter himself put it like this:

We have shown how complex even the simplest life forms are. And these discoveries have humbled us.

The probability of all 473 proteins forming together by chance works out to roughly 1 in 10^78,991. That is a number that simply cannot occur within the entire history of the universe.

04The atheists who changed their minds

The math has been startling enough that several prominent thinkers — having done the calculations themselves — moved from atheism toward belief in a Creator.

Sir Fred Hoyle

Astronomer

One of the leading atheists of his generation. After calculating the probability of life emerging by chance at 1 in 10^40,000, he became a theist.

Antony Flew

Philosopher

The defining atheist philosopher of the twentieth century — an idol to Richard Dawkins. In 2004, he announced his belief in a Creator.

Dean Kenyon

Biochemist

A pioneer of chemical evolution research in the 1970s. As he came to grasp the complexity of life, he abandoned his earlier work and became a creationist.

05What do evolutionists actually say?

The honest ones admit they don’t know. Even Richard Dawkins has said in an interview, “Nobody knows how the first living matter came into existence.” But they refuse to acknowledge a Creator on the grounds of the “God of the gaps” objection — that not knowing isn’t a license to invoke God.

Some have gone further and proposed an infinite multiverse: if there are unlimited universes, then any improbable event must occur somewhere. The trouble is — we have never observed a multiverse, and we cannot. They are treating it as fact in order to rescue chance.

The evolutionary biologist Michael Ruse put it more bluntly than most. After conceding that the origin of life is “desperately difficult,” he closed a debate with these words:

I would rather be a fool than surrender to the Bible.

There it is. The real motive on the table. They are not searching for truth — they simply do not want to surrender before God.

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

— Romans 1:20

To look with one’s own eyes at how intricately even the simplest life is designed — and then to deny the obvious conclusion of that observation — is, the Bible says, the work of those who “professed to be wise” and “became fools.”

The complexity that science keeps unveiling, the more it advances, points clearly to one conclusion. The God who made this world is alive. He made everything for us — and He made us.

— Want to go deeper? —

The full case, with all the math

Eugene Koonin’s multiverse paper, James Tour’s chemical critique, Stephen Meyer’s information argument, and the full text of Michael Ruse’s surrender — every piece of evidence for why ten trillion years is nowhere near enough.

Read the deep dive

---