Donald Thomas
As Richard Dawkins clarifies in his book Climbing Mount Improbable
What Hoyle{and Wickramasinge} miss is that Darwinism is not a theory of random chance.It is a theory of random mutation plus non-random cumulative natural selection.Why,I wonder,is it so hard for even sophisticated scientists to grasp this simple point?
He further explains
It is grindingly,creakingly,crashingly obvious that,if Darwinism were really a theory of chance,it couldn't work. You don't need to be a mathematician or a physicist to calculate that an eye or a haemoglobin molecule would take from here to infinity to self= ssemble by sheer higgedly-piggedly luck.Far from being a difficulty peculiar to Darwinism.the astronomic improbabilty of eyes and knees,enzymes and elbow joints and the other living wonders is pecisely the problem that any theory of life must solve,and that darwinism uniquely does solve.It solves it by breaking the improbabilty up into small,manageable parts,smearing out the luck needed,going round the back of Mount Improbable and crawling up the gentle slopes,inch by million year inch. Only God wouls essay the mad task of leaping up tje precipice in a single bound. And if we postulate him as our cosmic designer we are left in exactly the same position as when we started.Any Designer capable of constructing the dazzling array of living tings would have to be complicated beyond all imagining.And complicated is just another word for improbable--and therefore demanding of an explanation.