Probability Studies of the Mechanism of Evolution
Evolution supposes that life, its DNA and genetic code with its sophisticated information of instructions came into existence through naturalistic means. We are told that given enough time life by this mechanism is probable. To validate the mechanism of evolution Dr. Kenyon (author of Biochemical Predestination), recognizing that the assembly instructions (DNA code) were far more complex than the parts (proteins) themselves, set out to understand how the first proteins could be assembled without instructions (self replication). He was unable to find a model which attracted amino-acids to construct proteins; no self replicating cycle could be established. He concluded his effort saying “There is not the slightest chance of chemical evolution creating a biological cell”. Why is this so? Proteins are three dimensional structures, and a certain level of folding is necessary for it to perform a function, this requires at least 75 amino acids all having the right bonds between them. They must all be “left-handed” bonds (this is true of all life forms!) all the amino-acids must link up in a specific sequence like letters in a sentence.
What is the probability of forming a single short functioning protein by chance? one in a hundred thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion! (1x10 125). A minutely complex cell requires 300 -500 protein molecules!
Microbes to men evolution requires an increase in genetic information from 500,000 DNA letters to over three billion (the human cell nucleus). (Ps139:13-16) The scientist Sir Fredrick Hoyle has also calculated a probability for an imaginary self replicating protein to be less than 1 in 10 40,000. Hoyle comments “The scientific world has been bamboozled into believing that evolution has been proved. Nothing could be further from the truth”. Could chance and a progressive form of natural selection be this lucky? Behe answers “Luck is a metaphysical speculation. Scientific explanations invoke causes”.

Darwinism - Operational or Origin Science?
In 1978 The Supreme Court ruled that teaching Creationism was a violation of the separation of church and state.Yet creationist have explained many processes found in nature and interpreted many geological events with better models than the evolutionist.
Biased writers are often guilty of equivocation where they use the terms “evolution” and “science” interchangeably, but does evolution deserve the status of operational science? Dr. Phillip Skell, an antibiotic researcher during WWII, examined the outstanding bio-discoveries of the past century. This included the Double Helix, The characterization of Ribosomes, Mapping of Genomes, Research on medications and drug reactions, Food production and sanitation, New surgeries and resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. He found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance but was brought in after the breakthroughs. Macro- Evolution appears to be the stone soup of modern scientific investigation. Since evolution can neither be observed, demonstrated or tested through experiment it must be classified as origin science. Henry Morris comments “..it is fair to conclude that no truly significant accomplishment of modern science depends on evolution or supports evolution! There would certainly be no detriment to real scientific learning if creation were incorporated as an alternative to evolution in school curricula”.
He further states “If creation is excluded from the schools because it is compatible with Christian “fundamentalism”, should not evolution also be banned since it is the basis of communism and nazism?”