The Impossible Odds of Life by Chance: Deep Dive

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.