When They Break the Bank in the Devil’s Casino

“The prudent see danger and take refuge,
but the simple keep going and suffer for it” (Proverbs 27:12)

As stock markets roar, few seem to realize the financial crisis that began in 2007 is not yet over. The patient was rushed to the emergency room and then put into the intensive care unit. The problem is the doctor has not yet given him a clean bill of health. He is still on life-support. And at some point the power will go off for the hospital because it is no longer able to pay its bills…

Here are the disturbing realities: First, the financial crisis was essentially one of irresponsible lending and borrowing. Second, that problem was never resolved; private debt that will never be repaid simply became public debt that will never be repaid. Third, the scale of this problem is global; the sovereign debt of Greece, Portugal, Spain and Ireland, among others are being viewed skeptically.

The sum of U.S. public debt and unfunded obligations such as Social Security, Medicare and universal health insurance is approximately 105 trillion dollars. The total umber of working Americans is about 162 million. That means the per capita burden for total U.S. debt and unfounded obligations is about $650,000. Each working person would have to pay off about that amount to pay off the debt and meet the obligations. It will never happen, at least in today’s dollars.

Many of those who are considered heavyweights in economics are agreed about this. There are two types here. The first type is the theoretician and the second the savvy investor; I'll give examples of both. Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Fed recently gave this blunt warning: "It is very, very important for Congress and administration to come to some kind of program, some kind of plan that will credibly show how the United States government is going to bring itself back to a sustainable position." For the uninitiated, a rough translation of the fed speak into plain English would read something like: "Stop it! If the Congress and the administration don't stop feeding this Ponzi scheme by spending like drunken sailors and act to balance the budget, we're all doomed!!!"

Canadian hedge fund manager Eric Sprott also sees the writing on the wall. His record as a prognosticator speaks for itself: his hedge fund has returned 400.8 % over the past ten years versus -2.87% for the S&P 500. At this time he is invested in precious metals and mines and is selling U.S. financial stocks short.

This debt situation means that unless there is a radical and timely change in the policies and practices in government as well as in business, the mother of all financial crises looms ahead. It may not be tomorrow and it may not be next year, but it will surely come. If the U.S. government waits too long to act radically and decisively, it risks passing the tipping point and falling into to the death spiral of loss of confidence and creditors demanding crushingly high interest rates. It remains to be seen whether the present administration and congress will be able to resolve this issue in time. Political leaders get elected by promising not to raise taxes, and by promising benefits, the exact opposite of what is now required. The question is whether our leaders can act before we reach that tipping point.

Disclaimer: This is written an expression of personal opinion and is not offered or intended to be used as investment advice. For investment advice, consult a reputable, qualified adviser.

CHRISTUS INVICTUS

During this Christmas season, our family went to see the wonderful inspirational movie Invictus, about how Nelson Mandela led a racially divided South Africa toward reconciliation and unity through preserving, encouraging and inspiring the losing rugby team, the Springboks. The film has been nominated for three Golden Globe awards and has received critical and popular acclaim and is well worth seeing. It is especially of interest to leaders as it is a clinic on how to provide moral leadership by way of example.

In the movie, a critical moment arrives when Mandela gives Francios Pienaar a copy of the poem Invictus (Latin: Unconquered).

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds and shall find me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

There is one minor point: it never happened. Nelson Mandela never gave Invictus to Francios Pienaar. Even though I liked the movie a lot, that poem was one obvioiusly false note in an otherwise beautiful symphony. In my spirit, I knew it was false. I knew that Mandela was a man who attributed his success in moral leadership to his Christian faith, and this poem was at odds with that. Sure enough, when I investigated a little, I discovered Mandela actually gave an entirely different text to him. He gave him an excerpt from Teddy Roosevelt's The Man in the Arena:

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

Some, in the postmodern tradition, say this doesn’t matter. Steve W. Schaefer, in The Union-Recorder said: 'I doubt if this matters much. “Invictus” is a better title than “The Man in the Arena.” '

Actually it does matter. Truth matters. And whether we give the credit to autonomous man and his “unconquerable human spirit” and “whatever gods may be” or to the living God, who is the only source of all that is good, matters far more than many realize. Since the end for which God created the universe is his glory, it matters a lot. And since the reason we are in this world is to glorify and enjoy him, it matters a lot to us. Above all it matters to God whether we give him the credit he alone deserves, or whether we try to rob him of it by ignoring him, or worse.

Nelson Mandela was able to exercise powerful moral leadership in forgiveness and reconciliation because he worshipped One who has given us the priceless gift of forgiveness and reconciliation at a great cost to himself. We are able to give only out of what we have received.

Mandela received inspiration from Teddy Roosevelt, a proponent of “muscular Christianity.” And where did Teddy Roosevelt receive inspiration? He was a voracious reader who read five books a week. He read one work at least a dozen times: Puritan Cotton Mather’s To Do Good.

In Documentary History of Philanthropy and Volunteerism in America, Peter Hall cites Matter’s work as seminal in the development of the modern outlook on social transformation:

[To Do Good] bridges two worlds -- the late medieval epoch out of which Puritanism emerged (and which is in many ways epitomized by Winthrop's "Modell") and the modern epoch of self-determined individuals and voluntary associations. Winthrop embraced the concept of spiritual sovereignty, but resisted its economic and political implications: for him, community was defined by the interdependence of the poor and humble on the wealthy, learned, and dependable; as such, it was inseparable from the State, which remained the ultimate arbiter to the community's best interests and which, in all cases, stood above the claims of individuals.

For Mather, on the other hand, because the State and society were untrustworthy and subject to corruption, the source of a truly Christian community was, first of all, the reborn individual and, secondly, the capacity of such individuals to voluntarily associate for the purpose of bringing about the reformation and redemption of society and the State. This distinction between the two, together with an emphasis on voluntary associations as agents of change, was truly revolutionary. Like most medieval men, Winthrop accepted the world as an expression of God's will and intentions. Mather, on the other hand, saw it as chaotic and unformed, awaiting only the application of the organized force of reasonable men organized into voluntary bodies. This is a quintessentially modern outlook.

And what was Mather’s source of inspiration? To Do Good was simply an exposition, reflection and application of Galatians 6:10:

As we have opportunity, let us do good to all men.

The ancient Israelites had a saying, “Give God the glory.” It meant to admit the truth. We don’t deserve the credit for the all the good things he has so graciously given us, and if we are honest we will not try to rob him of the credit. We will give him the glory he alone deserves.

Soi Deo Gloria

Will Those Who Die in Jihad Go to Paradise?

In March, 2004 a 16 year old mentally retarded boy heard his teacher promise him paradise along with a river of honey, wine and 72 virgins. This quiet, innocent, naive boy had been struck on the head as a child, and as a result was mentally disabled. Abdu Muhammad believed his teacher and strapped on a suicide bomb and went forward toward paradise, or so he imagined. An Israeli soldier intercepted him before he could kill himself or others. Days later another 15 year old school boy was enticed to become a suicide bomber by a religious sheik who also promised him money, paradise and virgins. In his case, he had grave doubts, and backed out with tears and trembling. This story and others like it have become increasingly common. Others, such as the al-Qaida bombers of 9-11, did not back out, but killed 3,000 people in the United States. But did they enter Paradise to enjoy a river of wine and virgins forever? Or did they meet a very different fate?

Since so many believe they will go to Paradise if the die fighting jihad, the question deserves a serious answer. For that, let us consider what God has to say about the matter, rather than appealing to human opinion or any other source. After all, He is the Judge before whom everyone must give an account:

"So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God" (Romans 14:12[in the Injil]).

The word "jihad" means two different things. First, in the traditional sense it means to engage in a holy struggle for the sake of Islam, either inwardly and spiritually or outwardly in war. The word also applies to violent acts against governments and others deemed to be enemies of true Islam. We will consider both as the same answer applies to both.

The answer is found when we ask another question: what does God say about how we can enter Paradise?

First of all God tells us how we cannot enter Paradise:

"Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin" (Romans 3:20 [in the Injil]).

God has clearly stated that we cannot gain Paradise through our own good works. Why? Because the whole human race is in a sinful condition, and an evil tree can only produce evil fruit. Therefore even our efforts to do good works cannot earn us favor with God.

"There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one"(Romans 3:10-12 [in the Injil]).

Again, the prophet Isaiah says:

"All of us have become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;
we all shrivel up like a leaf,
and like the wind our sins sweep us away" (Isaiah 64:6)

Therefore, since our own efforts cannot earn us a place in Paradise, it is clear that even dying in jihad in the classic sense cannot do so. And if trying to obey God's law cannot gain us Paradise, how much more will violating God's holy moral law by engaging in the second type of jihad not earn us anything of the kind:

"You shall not murder" (Exodus 20:13 [in the Taurat])

"Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him" (1 John 3:15 [in the Injil]).

This is why the 19th century artist Gérôme depicted a man's many killings as worth less than a dead pig in the eyes of the Holy God in the painting above. This is not only how God regards murder, but also all our sins and our unholy attempts at pleasing God. Even when we manage to do good deeds, apart from God's grace are they not tainted by wrong motives? Sinful men by nature cannot by their own efforts please an infinitely holy God, whose standard is perfection. Deep down most of us know the good and gracious God of heaven never asks his children to commit murder and suicide. This is why the parents of the so-called martyrs weap and grieve bitterly upon learning their children have taken their own lives and the lives of innocents. Their tears testify of the truth.

If participating in jihad and our own good works cannot gain us Paradise, how then can we gain it? The answer is found in the character of God and in his good and gracious provision. God is not only perfectly holy and just, he is also loving and merciful. That is why he sent Isa al-Maseeh (Jesus Christ) into the world to become the Lamb of God and take away our sins:

“But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus” (Romans 3:21-24 [in the Injil]).

God has given Paradise to all who will receive the gift of Isa al-Maseeh with faith and repentance.

Why Is It Wrong to Pretend to Kill the Guilty, but Right to Actually Kill the Innocent? An Open Letter to President Obama About the Least of These

Dear President Obama:

First, allow me to thank you for your leadership and congratulate you on your historical achievement.

I know from listening to your speeches and reading your biography that you are deeply committed to caring for the "the least of these." You said at the Saddleback debate that the abortion question was "above your pay grade." May I suggest that is no longer the case. If someone at your pay grade can't settle this justly, who can?

I am asking you to consider how this issue is parallel to slavery. The proponents of that horror justified the practice by doing two things: denying the humanity of the victims, and asserting a bogus "right." If you believe there is no right to do wrong, you must condemn this holocaust. There is no right to chose slaughtering and discarding fetuses any more that there is a right to own and enslave others.

I am writing you to humbly ask you to oppose the horror of abortion. I have just heard the news that you have moved to use our tax money to fund this holocaust worldwide, as well as to support stem-cell research.

The argument against abortion is simple: it is heinously wrong. We have heard much about how water boarding is wrong. Fair enough. But how is it wrong to pretend to kill the guilty, such as the mastermind of 9-11, but right to actually kill innocents ? Explain this to me. And how is this caring for "the least of these"?

May I respectfully remind you that every leader who has initiated, supported or acquiesced to this holocaust will one day have to give an account to the sovereign God who created these 40 million little ones?

I respectfully beg you in the name of the Lord to take a stand against this horror, not to fund it and expand it.

Sincerely and Respectfully Offered,

andy mckee rylynn

rylynn

The Meaning of Christmas

Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord (Luke 2:10-11).

A wise pastor once said that our real question is not "Does God exist?" Deep down we all know the answer to this. The real questions are "Is he good?" and "Will he love me?" I might add we also need to know "Will he forgive me?" These are the deep heart questions of a fallen humanity. We long to know God, but our doubts and fears keep us from him.
The coming of Christ answers these questions. He came to us as a little child who would willingly become the Lamb of God for us. In Christ and in his cross, the three questions are answered with a resounding Yes!

Don't Let Darwin Make a Monkey Out of You

The recent court decision in which a judge rejected a Pennsylvania school board’s plan to teach intelligent design has reignited the debate about evolution. Judge John Jones wrote, “To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.”

Since the debate has been reignited, some museum directors have felt forced to offer training their staff and docents how to deal with some of their mistaken visitors, according to an article in the Dec. 26, 2005 Washington Post. A typical question and answer from The Museum of the Earth in Ithaca, N.Y. read as follows:

Is evolution “just a theory”? A “theory” in science is a structure of related ideas that explains one or more natural phenomena and is supported by observations from the natural world; it is not something less that “fact.” Theories actually occupy the highest, not the lowest, rank among scientific ideas.

Some 49% of the U.S. population the theory of evolution as true, with 40% holding to a theistic view of it and 9% believing in naturalistic evolution. Only 47% adhere to the creationist view. Among college graduates, about 70% believe the theory of evolution. Among scientists, 55% believe in a naturalistic form of evolution and 40% believe in a theistic form, while only 5% of them believe in creationism. (See poll.)

To many educated people, and especially among scientists, evolution is virtually an established fact. Since the vast majority of the people best qualified to understand this issue, namely scientists, almost universally believe it to be true, shouldn’t that settle the issue? Shouldn’t we just dismiss those who object to the theory of evolution as hopelessly ill-informed fundamentalists?

Since this has become a hot topic again, I want to pose some questions and offer some thoughts.

Why is the question of evolution so important?

Underlying the question of evolution is the question of authority. If the theory of evolution is true, then Genesis 2:7 is false. It says, “the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground,” but the theory of evolution directly contradicts this and speculates that man evolved from lower species. If Genesis 2:7 is false, then the veracity and authority of the Bible is undermined. If the veracity of the Bible is called into question, God's authority is undermined.

The moral difference between viewing man as having animal rather than divine origins is profound. "As he thinks in his heart, so is he" (Proverbs 23:7, NKJ).

What is the Theory of Evolution?

The theory of evolution, first proposed in The Origin of the Species by Charles Darwin, is the theory that different species of living things originated as the result of gradual changes over long periods of time through a process of genetic mutation and natural selection. Higher life forms such as man evolved from lower forms such as single cell forms.

What are some of the principle arguments for the Theory of Evolution?

1. Naturalistic Observations

An example of the naturalistic observation is systematically observing the darkening of the color of moths in settings that were darkened by industrial soot. Moths which were darker were less apt to be eaten, and thus tended to survive.

This might explain how one variety of a species might be more viable than another, but it doesn't provide evidence that one species becomes another.

2. Scientific Experiments

An example of using the scientific method to support this theory was Ernst Mayr’s breeding fruit flies to change the number of bristles in 1948. "In the first experiment, the fly was selected for a decrease in bristles and, in the second experiment, for an increase in bristles. Starting with a parent stock averaging 36 bristles, it is possible after thirty generations to lower the average to 25 bristles, "but then the line became sterile and died out." In the second experiment, the average number of bristles were increased from 36 to 56; then sterility set in.

Again, this experiment shows how a species might change slightly, but it doesn't demonstrate how one species becomes another.

3. Imperfections in Nature

The argument here is that imperfections show that living things are not created. Stephen Jay Gould summarizes this argument: “Evolution lies exposed in the imperfections that record a history of descent. Why should a rat run, a bat fly, a porpoise swim, and I type this essay with structures built of the same bones unless we all inherited them from a common ancestor? An engineer, starting from scratch, could design better limbs in each case. Why should all the large native mammals of Australia be marsupials, unless they descended from a common ancestor isolated on this island continent? Marsupials are not "better," or ideally suited for Australia; many have been wiped out by placental mammals imported by man from other continents. ( See Stephen Gould)

Am I missing something or is this argument less than compelling?

4. The fossil record

There are in existence fossils that appear to be bridges between two species. Again, Mr. Gould writes, “…what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human, Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any ape’s of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours? If God made each of the half-dozen human species discovered in ancient rocks, why did he create in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features—increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and teeth, larder [sic] body size? Did he create to mimic evolution and test our faith thereby? (See archaelogyinfo.com.)

When I look at the reconstructed image of this creature, it looks much more simian than a chimp! Again, this is not at all convincing. And where are the fossills that are half bird and half reptile?

5. The Age of the Earth

It’s very clear that the Earth is well over 10,000 years old. Calculations of how long it would take for water to carve out the Grand Canyon prove the earth is old, as well as carbon dating of fossils and other objects prove the earth is old. Thus, according to some, the biblical accounts and dating derived from biblical genealogies cannot be true.

It is crucial to note that here in the genre of biblical genealogies, the lists are representative representative, not inclusive. Therefore, accepting the innerancy of scripture doesn't imply a young earth view.

What’s wrong with this picture?

When evaluating the Theory of Evolution, it is helpful to ask some very fundamental questions. Is the Theory of Evolution hard science or “soft science?” Does the question of origins properly belong to natural science or philosophy and religion? How does the question of faith related to the question of Evolution?

1. “Soft science” is not a reliable source of knowledge and The Theory of Evolution is soft science.

There are two very different kinds of science. The first I’ll call “hard science.” In hard science hypotheses are subjected to rigorous scientific experimentation. “Independent variables” are systematically controlled and the changes in “dependent variables” are observed. For example, the distance an object has to fall is varied and the length of time it takes to fall is observed. Natural sciences such as physics and chemistry are generally hard science. For example, consider Sir Isaac Newton’s postulation of the law of universal gravitation:

Every object in the Universe attracts every other object with a force directed along the line of centers of mass for the two objects. This force is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the separation between the centers of mass of the two objects.

This could be expressed mathematically as F(r)=mg(r). Newton conducted controlled experiments to validate his hypothesis. Others were able to replicate his experiments and increase the level of certainty of his hypothesis, which came to be considered a “law.” See the wikipedia article.

In contrast to hard science is “soft science.” This kind of science is generally based on naturalistic observations rather than on the scientific method. Examples of soft science include psychology. If psychology were able to arrive and the same kinds of clear conclusions as physics or chemistry, there would not be the kind of fundamental disagreements we see the various schools of thought. According to psychologist John M. Grohol, “There are probably hundreds of different types of theoretical orientations and techniques that therapists use nowadays in the field of psychotherapy.” These include contradictory schools of thought such as psychoanalytic, behaviorist, humanistic, cognitive-behavioral and existential psychology. The fact that there are many mutually contradictory schools of thought is evidence that psychology is not scientific in the same way as chemistry. Imagine the confusion among engineers if we had hundreds of different opinions about the chemical composition of say, steel?

Hard science requires that the subject of any hypothesis be only about things that are objective, observable and controllable. Otherwise, controlled experimentation is impossible. The Theory of Evolution is by nature not subject to direct testing by the scientific method. Why? For one thing, the purported variables are not observable. It postulates changes that supposedly occurred over many millions of years. No scientific experiment is possible for such time frames. Secondly, the variables in question are not only not observable, they are not controllable. Arranging conditions to simulate those which are supposed to have existed when life began. What lab has the wherewithal to simulate planet earth 600 million years ago, let alone observe the results?

Soft science is not a reliable source of knowledge, and the Theory of Evolution is soft science, and has no greater credibility than such things as “cognitive ethnology,” which purports to study the “minds” of animals. Soft science is more like speculative philosophy than hard science.

2. The question of the origin of life is a question for theologians and philosophers, not scientists.

Each discipline has its own field of inquiry and thus its own area of competence. If we want to solve a complex mathematical problem, we don’t go to an art teacher and if we have a medical problem, we don’t consult an astronomer. Scientists have the competence to answer questions only about cause and effect relationships between observable, controllable natural phenomena. We have already seen how the Theory of Evolution is not subject to direct scientific experimentation. The broader issue of the question of origins in general is also not subject to direct scientific testing. We are not dealing with recurring, replicable events and cause and effect relationships that can be tested in the lab. We are dealing with events that happened long before the scientific method was developed and far outside the scope of experimental investigation.

In the realm of science, only natural scientists are capable of giving objective, credible answers. But the question “Did God create the universe?” is outside the purview of natural science.

3. According to Almighty God, He created both animals and man from inanimate material.

A great many people, 40% of the U.S. population, believe in theistic evolution. They believe that God created the world, but that evolution was the mechanism. This was actually the view presented in the Origin of the Species:

Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual. (Origin of the Species, Conclusion)

Darwin is right that authors of the "highest eminence" differ with him. His view contradicts the clear words of the inspired account.

…the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground …Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air (Genesis 2:7, 19).

This is the crux of the matter. It’s not about whether or not species change in small ways over time to better adapt to their environment. That happens and few would question it. The question is did God create each species as Genesis records, or did the various species just differentiate over time in the way Darwin theorized? These two views are mutually exclusive.

We have already seen that the Theory of Evolution is “soft science.” It is actually a speculative theory which cannot by nature subjected to experimental validation. And even some of those scientific conclusions which seem to be validated by the scientific method later turn out to be untrue. Such was the case with the “law of universal gravitation,” which turned out to untrue, according to the Special Theory of Relativity, which has been verified experimentally. And if hard science is uncertain, how much more uncertain is soft science, and so deserving of a healthy skepticism rather than the uncritical acceptance it has received.

At the heart of this issue is the issue of faith. Whom will you believe ─God, who is perfect in character and who is infinite in knowledge, or Charles Darwin who was neither. Why then do 95% of the scientists in America believe the Theory of Evolution? Perhaps this is where natural selection actually operates. Academic institutions practice a kind unconscious selection through the imposition of intellectual political correctness. Who can deny that universities will generally grant advanced degrees only to those who agree with and submit to the accepted presuppositions, beliefs and practices of the department? And who can deny that, in the case of the natural sciences, the world views have a clear naturalistic, rationalistic and anti-supernatural bias?

Science is a wonderful thing, and a gracious gift from God. It is no accident that it originated and has flourished only in countries that have had the transformative benefits of the Gospel. But if any good gift is idolized, it can become detrimental as well. We have a definite tendency, as fallen creatures, to turn the good gifts of God into idols. The essence of idolatry is attributing the things of God, such as creation, to things that are not God. Our default tendency as fallen creatures, is to unbelief and idolaty rather than faith and worship, whether we realize it or not. There is no problem with science per se, and there is no conflict between hard science and the Bible, rightly understood. But there is a conflict between scientism and faith, because every "ism" is an idol.

Could this be why this theory, which is absurd on its face, is so widely accepted? Is it remotely possible that all the wonder of creation, with its very obvious designs, could have just happened by chance? According to Dr. Frank Salisbury of the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, the probability of the formation of just a single strand of DNA occuring by chance is on the order of 10 x 415 power. This is far, far above the level of certainty required to rule out chance in scientific experiments in the natural sciences. See The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution.

The fact that the law of gravity in its classical sense, which has been clearly proven by both common sense and the scientific method, has been discredited ought to give us a little humility with respect to what we think we know about science in general and the Theory of Evolution in particular.