A Great Miracle of Our Times: Belief in the Evolution Deceit

All the millions of living species on the earth possess miraculous features, unique behavioural patterns and flawless physical structures. Every one of these living things has been created with its own unique detail and beauty. Plants, animals, and man above all, were all created with great knowledge and art, from their external appearances down to their cells, invisible to the naked eye. Today there are a great many branches of science, and tens of thousands of scientists working in those branches, that research every detail of those living things, uncover the miraculous aspects of those details and try to provide an answer to the question of how they came into being.

Some of these scientists are astonished as they discover the miraculous aspects of these structures they study and the intelligence behind that coming into existence, and they witness the infinite knowledge and wisdom involved. Others, however, surprisingly claim that all these miraculous features are the product of blind chance. These scientists believe in the theory of evolution. In their view, the proteins, cells and organs that make up these living things all came about by a string of coincidences.

It is quite amazing that such people, who have studied for long years, carried out lengthy studies and written books about the miraculous functioning of just one organelle within the cell, itself too small to be seen with the naked eye, can think that these extraordinary structures came about by chance.

The chain of coincidences such eminent professors believe in so flies in the face of reason that their doing so leaves outside observers utterly amazed. According to these professors, a number of simple chemical substances first came together and formed a protein - which is no more possible than a randomly scattered collection of letters coming together to form a poem. Then, other coincidences led to the emergence of other proteins. These then also combined by chance in an organised manner. Not just proteins, but DNA, RNA, enzymes, hormones and cell organelles, all of which are very complex structures within the cell, coincidentally happened to emerge and come together. As a result of these billions of coincidences, the first cell came into being. The miraculous ability of blind chance did not stop there, as these cells then just happened to begin to multiply. According to the claim in question, another coincidence then organised these cells and produced the first living thing from them.

Billions of “impossible events” had to take place together for just one eye in a living thing to form. Here too the blind process known as coincidence entered the equation: It first opened two holes of the requisite size and in the best possible place in the skull, and then cells that happened by chance to find themselves in those places coincidentally began to construct the eye.

As we have seen, coincidences acted in the knowledge of what they wanted to produce. Right from the very start, “chance” knew what seeing, hearing and breathing were, even though there was not one example of such things anywhere in the world at that time. It displayed great intelligence and awareness, exhibited considerable forward planning, and constructed life step by step. This is the totally irrational scenario to which these professors, scientists and researchers whose names are greatly respected and whose ideas are so influential have devoted themselves. Even now, with a childish stubbornness, they exclude anyone who refuses to believe in such fairy tales, accusing them of being unscientific and bigoted. There is really no difference between this and the bigoted, fanatical and ignorant medieval mentality that punished those who claimed the earth was not flat.

What is more, some of these people claim to be Muslims and believe in Allah. Such people find saying, “Allah created all of life” unscientific, and yet are quite able to believe instead that saying, “It came about in an unconscious process consisting of billions of miraculous coincidences” is scientific.

If you put a carved stone or wooden idol in front of these people and told them, “Look, this idol created this room and everything in it” they would say that was utterly stupid and refuse to believe it. Yet despite that they declare the nonsense that “The unconscious process known as chance gradually brought this world and all the billions of wonderful living things in it into being with enormous planning” to be the greatest scientific explanation.

In short, these people regard chance as a god, and claim that it is intelligent, conscious and powerful enough to create living things and all the sensitive balances in the universe. When told that it was Allah, the possessor of infinite wisdom, who created all living things, these evolutionist professors refuse to accept the fact, and maintain that unconscious, unintelligent, powerless billions of coincidences with no will of their own are actually a creative force.

The fact that educated, intelligent and knowledgeable people can as a group believe in the most irrational and illogical claim in history, as if under a spell, is really a great miracle. In the same way that Allah miraculously creates something like the cell, with its extraordinary organization and properties, this people are just as miraculously so blind and devoid of understanding as to be unable to see what is under their very noses. It is one of Allah’s miracles that evolutionists are unable to see facts that even tiny children can, and fail to grasp them no matter how many times they are told.

You will frequently come across that miracle as you read further. And you will also see that as well as being a theory that has totally collapsed in the face of the scientific facts, Darwinism is a great deceit that is utterly incompatible with reason and logic, and which belittles those who defend it.

Interesting. The chain of coincidences… or the necessity of chance.

Order cannot Be Accounted for by Coincidence

How impossible the accidental formation of life is. Let us ignore the impossibilities for just a moment. Let us suppose that millions of years ago a cell was formed which had acquired everything necessary for life, and that it duly “came to life”. The theory of evolution again collapses at this point. For even if this cell had existed for a while, it would eventually have died and after its death, nothing would have remained, and everything would have reverted to where it had started. This is because this first living cell, lacking any genetic information, would not have been able to reproduce and start a new generation. Life would have ended with its death.

The genetic system does not only consist of DNA. The following things must also exist in the same environment: enzymes to read the code on the DNA, messenger RNA to be produced after reading these codes, a ribosome to which messenger RNA will attach according to this code, transfer RNA to transfer the amino acids to the ribosome for use in production, and extremely complex enzymes to carry out numerous intermediary processes. Such an environment cannot exist anywhere apart from aa totally isolated and completely controlled environment such as the cell, where all the essential raw materials and energy resources exist.

As a result, organic matter can self-reproduce only if it exists as a fully developed cell with all its organelles and in an appropriate environment where it can survive, exchange materials, and get energy from its surroundings. This means that the first cell on earth was formed “all of a sudden” together with its amazingly complex structure.

So, if a complex structure came into existence all of a sudden, what does this mean?

Let us ask this question with an example. Let us liken the cell to a high-tech car in terms of its complexity. (In fact, the cell is a much more complex and developed system than a car with its engine and all its technical equipment.) Now let us ask the following question: What would you think if you went out hiking in the depths of a thick forest and ran across a brand-new car among the trees? Would you imagine that various elements in the forest had come together by chance over millions of years and produced such a vehicle? All the parts in the car are made of products such as iron, copper, and rubber-the raw ingredients for which are all found on the earth-but would this fact lead you to think that these materials had synthesised “by chance” and then come together and manufactured such a car?

There is no doubt that anyone with a sound mind would realise that the car was the product of an intelligent design-in other words, a factory-and wonder what it was doing there in the middle of the forest. The sudden emergence of a complex structure in a complete form, quite out of the blue, shows that this is the work of an intelligent agent. An extraordinarily complex system like the cell is no doubt created by a superior will and wisdom. In other words, it came into existence as a Creation of Allah.

Believing that pure chance can produce perfect designs goes well beyond the bounds of reason. Yet, every "explanation put forward by the theory of evolution regarding the origin of life is like that. One outspoken authority on this issue is the famous French zoologist Pierre-Paul Grassé, the former president of the French Academy of Sciences. Grassé is a materialist, yet he acknowledges that Darwinist theory is unable to explain life and makes a point about the logic of “coincidence”, which is the backbone of Darwinism:

The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: A single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur… There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it.139

Grasse summarises what the concept of “coincidence” means for evolutionists: "…Chance becomes a sort of providence, which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshipped.140

The logical failure of evolutionists is an outcome of their enshrining the concept of coincidence. In the Qur’an, Allah reveals that those who worship beings other than Allah are devoid of understanding;

They have hearts wherewith they understand not, eyes wherewith they see not, and ears wherewith they hear not. They are like cattle - nay more misguided: for they are heedless (of warning). (Surat al-Araf : 179)

Worshiping time and chance?

Romans 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles."

False god of chance, the

One evolutionist claim demolished by 20th-century science is that of chance. Research conducted since the 1960s has revealed that all the physical balances in the universe have been delicately regulated for human life. All the physical, chemical and biological laws in the universe, basic forces such as electromagnetism, and the structures of the atom and the elements have all been regulated in such a way as to make human life possible. Western scientists today call this extraordinary creation the Anthropic Principle. In other words, every detail in the universe possesses a special creation that enables human life. (See Anthropic Principle, the.)

The sudden emergence of a complex structure is very definitely not anything that can be explained in terms of chance. For example, if you see a brand-new make of car among the trees in a forest, you will not imagine that various elements combined to produce it over the course of millions of years. All the raw materials in a car, such as iron, plastic and rubber, either come directly from the Earth or are products of it. Yet this does not imply that these substances were randomly synthesized and then combined to produce a car.

Any rational, logical person will naturally realize that the car was designed by intelligent humans and constructed in a factory, and will wonder what it is doing in a forest. Because the sudden emergence of a fully-formed complex structure shows that it was brought into existence by a conscious will. A system as complex as the cell is of course the product of a sublime knowledge and will—in other words, it was created by our Almighty Lord, God.

Evolutionists believe that coincidences can give rise to flawless structures, though here they part ways with reason and logic. The famous French zoologist Pierre Grass8E, formerly president of the French Academy of Sciences, is also a materialist, but maintains that Darwinist theory cannot account for life. He says this about the logic of coincidence that represents the foundation of Darwinism:

The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: a single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur. . . . There is no law against day dreaming, but science must not indulge in it.160

Grass8E goes on to summarize what the concept of coincidence means for evolutionists:
. . . chance becomes a sort of providence, which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshipped. 161

@dubaidreams Salaam, friend! Welcome to our community. I hope we can dialogue about what you have posted here (we are a place for discussion, not just a bulletin board for ideas).

While I don’t have time to respond to everything you have posted here, I would like to suggest that much of the evils you attribute to evolution are actually a result of atheistic/materialistic philosophy, not evolution itself. Any scientific account of the origin of life is vulnerable to idolatry, if not explained in conversation with religious belief. Through the lens of faith, I (a Christian) see God’s guiding hand throughout the process of evolution, and I think evolution powerfully displays God’s creativity and love for his creation. That some people use evolution to worship the god of chance, I do not deny, but this is because they are looking at it through the wrong lens.

To deny the evidence for evolution because some people worship chance or nature through it would be like denying that the earth revolves around the sun because some people use it as an excuse to worship the sun.

Please feel free to respond; I am greatly interested in continuing this dialogue and would love to hear more of your thoughts. I am very curious about the Islamic perspective on faith and science, as BioLogos deals almost exclusively with the Christian perspective.

1 Like

May Allah’s Peace & Blessings be upon you brother Brad Kramer - Pl. click on this link for your curiosity on Islamic perspective on faith & science - THE QURAN LEADS THE WAY TO SCIENCE

@dubaidreams Thanks for the link, I would love if we could discuss my response to your postings. Do you agree or disagree with me?

Sure I am open to a healthy discussion - What is your response

Dubai ( I would love to go to Dubai someday…), I would argue that chance is not secretly worshipped, but is held up as one of the explanations for the diversity of life… so it is honored almost as the god, along with time, that allows survival (through fitness and adaptation) to be the thing that solves all difficult problems for the origin of life and species. In other words, the worship is not so secret, really. In addition, the presupposition of uniformity over time is another “law” an unproven assumption, that provides a basis for the acceptability of evolutionary theory.

II Peter 3:3 Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

@dubaidreams this is my response

dubaidreams, do you not realize that selection is anything but random chance? You appear to be starting from a gross misunderstanding of evolutionary biology.

Can you point to 5 examples of anyone worshipping chance, as you allege? Or explaining the emergence of a complex structure WITHOUT selection? Please try to understand that selection must be explicitly excluded to explain “in terms of chance.”

It is by random chance that something “selectable” appears.


I grew up on the site of a prehistoric river bank. The bank cut through millions of years of layers of fossils found originally on a very old shallow sea. In these fossil beds were many shell fish and other simple sea creatures, but no fish or sea mammals.

I say this because the earth and its flora and fauna have gone through many changes over millions of years. Is God’s creative power responsible for this? The answer is: Yes, of course.

But then the question is: How did God do this? Did God do it in a few days? The evidence suggests that the answer is no.

I am not satisfied with some of the answers science provides as to how God works through evolution, but the question is not what is my opinion, but what does the evidence show?

I agree with Joao that selection is the opposite of chance and if we really believe that God created the diverse forms of life we see today, the we need to demonstrate how God used selection to create humans.

Hmmm. You grew up on the site of a river bank with many layers of fossils, which included shell fish and other simple sea creatures, but no fish, and no sea mammals. (It sounds like possibly mostly somewhat stationary sea creatures vs swimming creatures. Maybe bottom creatures? or were there exceptions to this?) The question is not what is your opinion, but what does the evidence possibly show? Does the evidence lead to only one conclusion? Selection is different, but not exactly opposite from chance. Purpose is different from chance. Selection may be limited by chance. You cannot select from non-existent options. You cannot select quicker than the appearance of options provided by chance or by purpose.

I don’t understand why so many Christians are so troubled by the idea of “random chance”. Anyone who has studied statistics learns that “random chance” is often quite predictable. (Randomness in the universe doesn’t necessarily mean that all is total chaos.)

And we know from scripture that “random chance” poses no problem for God. We are told that God is sovereign over randomness and that he uses it for is glory.

Proverbs 16:33 says “The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD.” So what may seem random to people is surely not unknown or outside of the sovereignty of God. (Of course, my username should make clear that I’m entirely comfortable with the evolutionary events God chose for his creation. Of all the possible universes, and their potential outcomes, God could have chosen whatever he wanted but he happened to choose this one—and that includes all of the evolutionary processes which would play out to produce the diversity of organisms we observe.)

Considering how much even we humans depend upon “randomness” to give us “certainty” in so many scientific contexts, I can only assume that those who are disturbed by randomness for theological reasons simply don’t have a lot of science background. For example, what could be more random than the timing of the decay of an atom of some radioisotope? In a collection of a large number of such atoms, we humans don’t know which atom is going to decay next. To us it is a totally random event. Yet, if given a homogenous sample of some radioisotope, scientists can use the measured half-life of that radioisotope to predict when half of the atoms in that sample will have decayed. As a result, radiometric dating based on radioisotope decay is extremely useful and accurate for determining the age of all sorts of things. (We can KNOW that it is very reliable because we can check the results of radiometric dating against many other known sources of reliable dating, such as tree rings, varves, ice cores, and even recorded human history!)

So if “random chance” can be used by humans to ascertain all sorts of things with amazing certainty, why imagine that God’s ways would be at all deterred by “randomness”?

God in his wisdom chose to create the universe in such a way that the physics of matter and energy would bring about living things and also adapt and diversify those living things over time. What a magnificent, mind-boggling display of God’s wisdom and power!

In fact, it has always bothered me a bit when people speak of God “intervening” in terms of “guiding” evolution, not because that description is necessarily totally false but because it strikes me as a “small” view of God. That is, it gives the impression that God’s created a universe which would “fall apart” or even “fail” to be as God willed it to be UNLESS he constantly monitors and tweaks and trouble-shoots it. While such anthropomorphic descriptions are probably inevitable and even necessary when communicating such mind-boggling concepts as how God “wills” the universe to be as it is, it strikes me as implying that God didn’t quite create it “right” and so the creator is depicted much like an inventor who has produced a flawed invention and must constantly 'babysit it" to keep it on-track. (It reminds me of someone engineering a building and all of its subsystems but then having to live in the basement constantly checking and double-checking those subsystems and being on-call 24/7 for any breakdowns or deviations. God is nothing like limited analogy!) I believe God is omniscient and omnipotent such that he is able to create a universe that is “very good” from the start and which has physics/chemistry established by God in such a way that it produces exactly the creation (past, present, and future and everything in between) God willed to be—and no “nursing along” or “tweaking” is necessary. No, God got it right from the beginning and only an imperfect and limited deity would have to continually “adjust” and “guide” that which was “engineered” to carry out God’s will from the start. “Randomness” is not some kind of entity outside of God’s plan and which constantly produces risks of “compromising” and spoiling God’s will for the universe.

Indeed, that is why I consider my present view of God as Creator a far more impressive deity than the very limited deity I imagined as a young man raised in a young earth creationist church. (I’m embarrassed to say that I followed what was the established tradition of my church where God was imagined to have made a creation that constantly needed his monitoring and guidance to prevent it from continual malfunction and falling apart. Nobody quite said it that way very often but that is what we assumed—and sometimes our pastor even said from the pulpit, “If not for the power of God, even the very atoms within us would explode because of repulsion of like-charged particles in the atomic nucleus.” Yes, the Bible has to convey profound truths in simple ways and in analogies that we humans can grasp. So it is appropriate to say that God “guides” the universe—as long as we realize that that guidance is “engineered into” what God created. Therefore, God doesn’t have to wait and observe for billions of years and then, at just the right moment, he “nudges” the molecules in a particular organism’s genome to produce a particular “random mutation.” No, God is not bound by the time-property of the matter he created. God “guided” that particular mutation when he created this universe with the properties he chose. Nothing in the history of the atoms of this universe was ever outside of God’s original design and plan for them. And because human language is limited and just as time-bound as we are, human language will never entirely capture the relationship between a timeless Creator and a time-bound matter-energy universe. (So we should expect even the most useful descriptive analogies to have their limitations when we discuss these topics.)

As far as the emotive manipulation of propaganda wording like “belief in the evolution-deceit”, I refuse to believe that our Holy God deceived us by planting deceptive evidence in his creation of evolutionary processes and billions of years which never happened! No, we can trust God’s creation to tell us the truth as we observe it—just as we can trust God’s scriptures to tell us the truth.

And if we truly believe that God is the author of both the universe and the truths of the Bible, we should expect them to be in total harmony. Therefore, when our interpretations of the evidence in God’s creation and the evidence in God’s scriptures appear to be in conflict, we can logically assume that it is our interpretations which need to be revised—instead of casually rejecting the reliability of the evidences from God’s creation and God’s scriptures. (Far too many people are willing to say that God’s Bible can be trusted to tell us the truth but not God’s universe!)

I used to pretend that my interpretations of the Bible (based largely on my church’s long-established traditions of Bible interpretation for various passages of scripture) were inerrant while interpretations of the universe were “man’s flawed thinking”. I played a sleight of hand of calling my interpretations of the Bible “God’s infallible truths!” while calling science “man’s fallible interpretations of the scientific evidence” and hoping that nobody noticed the game I was playing (largely a game meant to fool myself, not just others.) But eventually I realized that BOTH my interpretations of the scientific evidence and the scriptural evidence are subject to error. So I no longer pretend that “It’s a question of whether we are going to depend upon God’s infallible Word or man’s fallible science!”

So, borrowing the wording of the OP of this thread, yes: It is a great miracle of our times that even we who follow Christ have an incredible ability to deceive ourselves and pretend that our fallible human interpretations of the scriptures are not to be challenged—despite the fact that our scripture hermeneutics are often far less carefully scrutinized than the scientific method scrutinizes the abundant evidence (which we observe all around us almost every we look) of the evolutionary processes over many millions of years which God in his wisdom chose to create. I don’t know if I would call our self-deception “a great miracle”, but it is often very astonishing. I’m very humbled, embarrassed, and convicted yet again whenever I read some of the “creation science” articles I published in the 1970’s. And as I’ve gotten to know so many other Christian academics from similar backgrounds who were caught up in the excitement of those days, I’m also amazed at the many incredible ways God identified our errors and how he gradually convicted us of our pride and manipulative arguments and thereby prepared us for more fruitful ministries in general. So if my remarks here sound at all condescending or harsh, I hope I’m always quick to emphasize that I have been among the very worst offenders in terms of these human foibles! (Therefore, just to clarify, I’m rebuking myself in this post more than anybody else.)

The fact that in the 1960’s and 1970’s so many of us in Christian academia were so easily misled by the pseudo-science arguments, sloppy quote-mines, and shallow propaganda ploys of the early “creation science” movement makes us guilty of the far greater sin, We as Christian leaders should have been far more vigilant and wise because “To whom much is given, much is expected”. We should have better protected our flocks. I think my situation was typical of many in Christian academia: I enjoyed the attention and adulation which came with bringing alleged “impressive science” into the local church for what we sincerely believed at the time was to the glory of God. Even smaller church congregations could fill the sanctuary when a “Christian university professor will be speaking against the evils of atheist evolutionism and how Satan wants to use it to turn your children away from God.” I still cringe at some of those Moody Science Films I promoted. The motivations were usually very honorable—but lacking in God’s grace and wisdom, and even a basic knowledge of the science we claimed to debunk.

Clearly, our Lord God is the most patient and loving of all fathers. Praise him for that.

It’s a semantic issue, Mr. M.

It depends upon what LEVEL one is discussing.

If it is ENTIRELY RANDOM - even to God - how does he use Evolution to create Humanity?

If it LOOKS random, there’s really no problem.

So, the point of the BioLogos mission is to explain how God could have arranged things
to create Humanity. . . not:

“God got lucky … and Humans appeared.”


Excellent point. God doesn’t preside over every craps table, controlling the dice.

But Ms. Lady, if we extend the metaphor, I think we could say that God has
his OWN private table. And he lets the dice roll as they will on lots of different
things. But when it came time to have Humanity . . . he didn’t say to himself:
“Son, I hope I’m lucky with this throw…”


1 Like