R. C. Sproul, author of
Not A Chance
, ex-
plains the unrealistic “scientific” meaning
that
coincidence
has acquired in Darwinist cir-
cles:
When scientists attribute instrumental pow-
er to chance, they have left the domain of
physics and resorted to magic. Chance is
their magic wand to make not only rabbits
but entire universes appear out of nothing.
1
Overlooking the reality of creation de-
spite immeasurable scientific proof, and con-
tinuing to defend their ideology with great
fanaticism, they do not realize how wrong
they are. How far they have distanced them-
selves from reason and logic! In his work
La
Science et la réalité
(Science and Reality),
French scientist and Professor Pierre Delbet has this to say about the
fallacy of attributing creative power to coincidence:
Chance appears today as a law, the most general of all laws. It
has become for me a soft pillow like the one which in
Montaigne's words only ignorance and disinterest can provide,
but this is a scientific pillow.
2
In reality, the concept of “coincidence,” which Darwinists use
as a scientific explanation for life’s origins expresses randomness,
uncertainty, and lack of purpose. Therefore, to claim that a perfect
system and a perfect balance are the product of these “blind coinci-
dences” is incompatible with reason, logic and the scientific method.
To suggest that an existing design is “without purpose,” or to try
and explain a functioning system with “chance happenings” is plain
denial.
The Miracle of Talking Birds
12
