Calculations prove: Life could not have arisen by itself. But who created it?
Human cell. Photo: open sources
In July 2025, Robert Endres of Imperial College London published a study casting doubt on the possibility of life arising by chance. Endres is a highly respected scientist, and Imperial College ranks 2nd in the QS World University Rankings and boasts 14 Nobel laureates.
Using modern mathematical methods and information theory, Endres demonstrated that even the simplest living cell requires about a billion bits of structured information. He compared the probability of life’s spontaneous emergence from the chemical “soup” of ancient Earth to a scientist trying to write a complex research paper by randomly scattering letters on a page. Another analogy: it is like assembling a functioning computer by tossing a pile of parts onto the ground. That, according to his calculations, is the likelihood of the first cell “self-assembling” from inorganic matter.
In other words, the dominant theory of life’s origins has been shattered. And if you say “A,” you must also say “B.” If life could not appear on its own, then someone must have created it. A believer knows Who. But atheism has become so deeply ingrained in the minds of modern society (including the scientific community) that researchers invent the most far-fetched explanations, simply to avoid acknowledging the obvious.
Convinced that life could not have arisen spontaneously, Endres turned to the hypothesis that aliens brought life to Earth. Yet here a logical problem immediately arises, one obvious even to casual readers of scientific articles. If aliens created us, then who created the aliens? And if they were created by other aliens, then who created them? This produces an infinite regress, leaving the core question unresolved and merely pushing it further back.
Today, as technology reaches unimaginable heights, we are told that everything can be explained by science, logic, and reason – and that faith is nothing but superstition and fanaticism. Yet here lies the paradox: even with supercomputers capable of calculating trillions of possibilities, scientists cannot reach the simple conclusion that any child in Sunday school would state without hesitation.
Read also
A dip in the Jordan on “one – two – three”
Well-known OCU blogger in “holy orders” Oleksii Filiuk has come up with his own theological formula on the banks of the Jordan. It goes like this: “One – two – three.”
On the situation at Sviatohirsk Lavra
After the killing of Monk Varsonofiy and the attempted murder of two other monastery residents, many patriots claimed that the crime had been committed by enemy saboteurs.
You’re happy, aren’t you? Then why change anything?
The KIIS poll seems to be telling the U.S. authorities: Look, Ukrainians like living this way. They’re not just satisfied with everything – they’re happy. They don’t need peace, so why change anything?
Portrait of the “сonscience of the nation”
Shevchuk waxes eloquent about the uniqueness of the Ukrainian nation and the value of human life – while supporting the sweeping mobilization that is grinding that very nation down.
OCU in the Lavra: When a recording replaces the choir
Parishioners have been pushed out of the Lavra. The monks are barred from the churches. But there is room for a handful of OCU “monks.”
Sviatohirsk murder no one is allowed to talk about
Logic suggests that Zelensky was informed about the monk’s murder that very day.