Scientism depends heavily on Random
Chance to explain causality without God

Scientisms, especially evolution, depend heavily on changes occurring in a random chance fashion such that the end result is alwaysthe current reality. Since the end point must be the current reality random chance is an incoherent explanation. If random chance exists then any outcome would, of necessity, also be randomness based on chance, beyond one's influence. Let us look at the world of random chance.

Randomness demands that each event is not linked to any other events; i.e., each coin toss is independent of previous coin tosses. However, each coin toss is not random! Gravity remains the same with minor imperceptible variations. The same applies to air density, human muscle activity and so forth. Thus, randomness is actually only minute variations from one event to another. If the world were truly random then I would have no certainty that gravity would remain fairly constant; thus, I could not knowif my next step would propel me off the ground or if I could even move my leg! The same applies to breathing. Breathing requires consistent atmospheric pressure, density and gas mixtures. Minute variations occur but even minor variations can be catastrophic resulting in anoxia, lack of adequate oxygen. Thus, the idea of randomness or random chance falls apart in the face of everyday reality. Let us look at a mandated scientism that depends heavily on random chance to explain current results.

Evolution Requires Random Chance
As a Replacement for God as Creator

Evolution masquerading as a science {scientism} says that mutations are random chance events that move development upward along the evolutionary chain. Unexplained, and thus random, mutations that result in improvements of organisms, as defined by the evolutionist, are the major mechanism explaining how life developed. What can one expect with random chance changes? By their definition of random chance such changes would be independentof any past changes! And, any future changes would be independent of any current changes! Therefore, life could not advance because each change is not effected by previous changes. Let us take the human clotting cycle for an example. All elements of the clotting cycle must come into existence simultaneously or one bleeds to death. This irreducible system requireseach part of the system to function perfectly, all 13 steps! Or, the organism dies! Each of these step parts must also have cells and systems in place to not only produce these parts but also to keep them in balance. Each system within an organism is immensely complex and interdependent so that random chance mutations actually harm the organism! But, for argument's sake let us say this could occur. Where would the information come from? DNA molecules do not produce random protein chains but are highly controlled to produce specific protein molecules are required by the body. There is no mechanism whereby new informationcould be introduced; but, if it could be introduced: Where would this information come from? So, information theory mitigates against an evolutionary origin of life and the concept of irreducible mechanisms reinforces this negation. As, the above graphic illustrates, people who deny God work tirelessly to make evolution the God replacement theory for life's origins and subsequent developments. Whereas they claim Christians use God to fill in the gaps of knowledge; the evolutionists use random chance to fill their gaps of knowledge. The former simply says, "We do not know yet." The latter compounds their ignorance with big word mumbo-gumbo and the power of the state to force their silliness onto everyone.

Random Chance does not explain itself
Ergo, it is no explanation for anything else

Random chance is the fall back theory for physicists to explain the Universe (when they do not use the collision of asteroids to fill in the gaps of their knowledge). The Big Bang exploded randomly sending material throughout the universe to form complex and intricately balanced galaxies and solar systems. There is not one credible theory to explain how material moving in straight lines from a single source could take on circular velocity, overcome centrifugal force and coalesce into stars, planets and other material objects. All the universe is spinning. Planets spin on their axises as do stars, moons and so forth. Solar systems spin, galaxies spin and for all we know the entire universe is spinning about a central point. If random chance were truly in effect there would be compounding sets of changes resulting in increasingly complexity for each change would be independent of any other change.

So, what does this boil down to? The evolutionists, physicists and other practitioners of scientisms claim that Christians are irrational for believing in God as Creator rather than science. Yet, they are the irrational believers in a mechanism that they constantly violate to achieve the results that correspond to the current reality. Their reliance on state force to impose their beliefs on everyone is a serious indicator of the flaws in their logic. The simple fact is that science does not and cannot dispute the existence of God as God is not empirical; i.e., measurable. The universe has a material, empirical, aspect as well as a non-empirical aspect which by definition is beyond science. Science has limits. Scientisms arose to ignore the limits of science and push credibility by claiming to be science while violating the boundaries of science. Much of scientism claims to knownon-empirical facts which scientists do not claim. Probability mathematicians understand the foolishness of claiming random chance could produce the universe and life on earth within anytime period! It cannot be done, period. So, people with long degrees looking down on us without their indoctrinations precede to tell us how ignorant we as Christians are. They do this even though their logic cannot even pass the smelltest. It not only depends on incoherent illogic but requires the force of the state to insist that it be the ONLY theory taught. Why would the state support such nonsense?