我去过许多教会，里面的布道方式不尽一致，但有一处相同，每当批驳进化论时，传道者必解下腕上手表，作欲投掷状，言，若把一堆手表零件砸向墙壁，绝不能砸出一块走时精确的瑞士表。因此，比瑞士表还要复杂无数倍的人类，不可能没有一个创造者，必有上帝如瑞士钟表匠般，精心设计、制造了人类，以及整个世界。
这个拙劣的类比，往往赢得一些廉价的认同，让信仰顿时更为坚定执着。不说无机（inorganic）的手表零件与有机（organic）的生物细胞，有着本质的差别，就说把一堆手表零件砸向墙壁1万次，产生不了一块手表，也不意味着向墙壁砸10的1万次方次，依旧产生不了一块瑞士表。抓1万只猴子，让它们在键盘上敲打，产生不了莎士比亚的剧本，并不意味着抓10的1万次方只猴子，它们在键盘上还是打不出莎士比亚的剧本。
而以四价碳原子为骨架的有机物，可以通过各种各样的自组织（self-assembly）方式，由简单无序的分子，组成令人惊异的复杂有序结构。这种由自组织导致的复杂和有序，可以传递和积累，亿万年无穷无尽地演化，最终产生出生命，繁衍生息，仿佛一个奇迹，虽然整个过程在时间那悠久漫长的河流里，平淡无奇。
但基督教认为，凡复杂之物，必源于创造。相对简单一点的汽车、轮船等物，是人的创造；而人，无比复杂，超过世间他物，必是上帝的创造。既然如此，那么比人更为复杂的上帝，乃是谁的创造？
答案只能是这两者之一：（1）上帝由上帝之外的东西所创造；（2）上帝创造了上帝自己。（1）肯定不对，因为根据基督教的教义，上帝创造了上帝之外的所有东西，不能被自己创造的东西所创造。因而，创造上帝的，只能是上帝自己，也就是说，上帝只能是自组织出来的，也是（spontaneous） self-assembly.
这样，基督教既不承认一切如人一样复杂的东西，可以由自组织产生，同时又不得不承认，远比人复杂的上帝，须由自组织产生。陷入两难的基督教，只好诡辩，实际上拒绝回答谁创造了上帝。
这个问题的实质，是世界只可能源于无计划的自组织，而非有计划的创造。因为创造需要创造者，若无自组织，创造者本身需要其他的创造者来创造，从而形成无限的循环；而如若某级的创造者是由自组织形成的，那么世界的源头，就不是有计划的创造，而是无计划的自组织。
因此，世间万物，包括人类，皆可且仅可有两种起源之一：（1）自组织；（2）被创造，其创造者源于自组织（或者是其创造者也是被造的，但源头依旧是自组织）。人类是何种起源，从哲学思辨上无法肯定或否定其中的一种，需要证据来判断。现有的证据，指向前者。而由自组织产生比人类远为复杂的东西来创造人类的概率，要远远小于人类直接由自组织产生的概率。
退一万步，即使人类真是由高于人类的某种智慧所创造，其创造者（或曰“上帝”）也是源于自组织。这个靠自组织而形成的上帝，不可能创造出其自组织的规律，而是被自组织的规律（或曰“自然规律”）所创造。而自然规律无需创造，因为自然规律说到底就是对称不变性（比如六面完全一致的骰子，每一面出现在最上方的概率完全一样），各种各样的对称不变形，组合在一起，形成看似复杂无比，实则简洁和谐的自然规律，在无穷无尽的变换演化中，生出我们眼前的世界，还有我们自己。
2007.9，初稿
2012.1，修改
Appendix: Some Discussions and Thoughts
1.
The issues here are: (1) whether events with extremely small probability can actually occur at least once after a gigantic number of tries; (2) whether certain events, such as randomly organizing (tossing) watch parts to make a workable watch, have non-zero probability.
I guess most people believe that (1) is true, but have suspicion on (2). My opinion is following. Any system (including human hands tossing watch parts), macroscopic or microscopic, is a quantum system; therefore quantum theory applies to macroscopic and microscopic systems equally well. The principles of quantum theory assert that anything possible is possible, which means that anything that is not excluded by certain physical principles (constraints), e.g., charge conservation, has non-zero probability.
In this sense, randomly organizing watch parts to make a workable watch has a non-zero probability to occur. A workable watch simply has certain combinations of watch parts among all the possible combinations, and no particular combinations can be excluded due to violation of certain physical principles. The bottom line is that physically these particular combinations cannot be distinguished from other combinations, hence one can not find any reason to prohibit such combinations.
The only possible obstacle in a transition between two combinations (by random tossing) is energy barrier, which can be overcome by quantum tunneling, though in principle a transition path with energy barriers within human power can always be found, otherwise people cannot make a watch from assembling watch parts. Furthermore, this system is certainly complex and aperiodic, and an aperiodic system can span all possible configurations randomly.
I think my second example is more convincing. The probability of making Shakespeare’s plays by random typing is certainly non-zero, since a Shakespeare’s play is just one combination of a large number of letters, which cannot be distinguished if you do not know English like a monkey. Thus you have no reason to exclude such combination from other combinations. Finally, the second example is essentially the same as the first one, regarding issue (2).
2.
The problem is that many people always use classical model (and your feeling, not logic) to argue quantum systems. Any quantum system is indeed a “quantum tossing machine”, which can toss out all the possible states of the system. This is one of the foundations of quantum theory, which states that an arbitrary state is a combination of all possible states with different probability; even an initially pure state can be perturbed so that the perturbed state has the combination of all other states with certain probabilities. So after a perturbation (human hands, monkey paws, or what ever), your measurement can find any possible state with a non-zero probability, including a highly ordered one, unless it is not a possible state of the system, which is forbidden by certain physical laws.
In the end, if quantum theory applies to macroscopic systems (which you think so), there is no doubt that any system, macroscopic or microscopic, is a “quantum tossing machine”. In another word, if anything possible becomes impossible, then it is not a quantum system. As a result, anything that can be created can also be “tossed out”, since it is possible.
Someone argued that “A human hand is not capable of producing so many exact rotations of the screws in one tossing so that the screws will screw into their right places.” This is based on deterministic nature of classical physics. In the probabilistic regime, “producing so many exact rotations of the screws in one tossing” is not the necessary condition to produce a watch. Quantum theory states that the transition between two states can be realized by infinite possible ways with different probabilities, though along certain ways the probabilities are significantly larger than along other ways. In an intrinsically probability world, any permitted state of a system is possible to be “tossed” out, not necessary by “design”.
3.
Science is based on simple and testable assumptions, and then uses logic and mathematics to derive all the other results, which can be tested by experiment, at least in principle. For example, the theory of relativity is based on the postulate that all physical laws are invariant under different reference systems. This postulate can be tested in experiment, and all the following results, such as length contraction and time dilation, can be verified or falsified by experiments.
On the other hand, religion just assumes (or defines) what need to derive (or verify) are correct.
