Rubik’s Cube, Probability, Creation, and Evolution

Rubik’s Cube is a simple puzzle, containing six sides with nine squares on each side. The cube can be twisted and turned, mixing up the puzzle, creating many combinations. Twisting the cube in random patterns, we will never see all of the 43 quintillion combinations but the cube can be solved in a matter of minutes, or even seconds, using logical patterns. Logic and intelligence brings order; random chance will only bring chaos.

Through the complex laws of probability, Rubik’s Cube supports the theory of Creation while disproving the theory of evolution. The basis behind the theory of evolution is that things move from simple to complex by random chance (Ferrel, 2001, p. 777). The theory of evolution claims that random chance is responsible for the existence of life and the universe. Marshall Brain states:

Billions of years ago, according to the theory of evolution, chemicals randomly organized themselves into a self-replicating molecule. This spark of life was the seed of every living thing we see today (as well as those we no longer see, like dinosaurs). That simplest life form, through the processes of mutation and natural selection, has been shaped into every living species on the planet (n.d., How evolution works).

Marshall goes on to say, “Through random mutations and natural selection, evolution has produced mammals of striking diversity from that humble starting point” (n.d., How evolution works). The laws of probability cannot allow this to happen any more than randomly twisting Rubik’s Cube would result in a solved puzzle.

Dr. Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research explains the difficulties of probability of random chance:

For example, consider a series of ten flash cards, numbered from one to ten. If these are thoroughly and randomly mixed, and then laid out successively in a linear array along the table, it would be extremely unlikely that the numbers would fall out in order from one to ten. Actually, there are 3,628,800 different ways in which these numbers could be arranged, so that the “probability” of this particular ordered arrangement is only one in 3,628,800. (This number is “ten factorial,” written as 10!, and can be calculated simply by multiplying together all the numbers from one to ten.) (2004, Probability).

Random twisting would not even allow you to see all 43 quintillion (43,252,003,274,489,856,000 to be exact) combinations. As Joyner explains, “Twisting the cube at random would never allow every combination to be seen, no matter how long the cube is twisted and turned” (2001, Mathematics of Rubik’s Cube). Rubik’s Cube cannot be solved by random twists; however, using intelligently designed patterns, Rubik’s Cube can be solved within seconds.

Rubik’s Cube demonstrates the impossibility of random chance bringing order to chaos. As explained by Henry Morris, “Creationists maintain that highly ordered systems could not arise by chance, since random processes generate disorder rather than order, simplicity rather than complexity and confusion instead of ‘information’” (2004, Probability). It took intelligence, not random chance, to create the universe and everything in it. Likewise, it takes intelligence, not random chance, to solve Rubik’s Cube. Rubik’s Cube supports intelligent design.

Henry Morris goes on to say, “..the probability of the chance occurrence of any kind of “information” in a system is very small, and that this probability rapidly diminishes as the complexity of the system increases” (2004, Probability). Morris concludes, “…whenever one sees any kind of real ordered complexity in nature, particularly as found in living systems, he can be sure this complexity was designed” (2004, Probability). The universe is no more a product of random occurrence as is Rubik’s Cube.

Comparing the cubes that make up Rubik’s Cube to DNA, we see that Rubik’s Cube, when taken apart, would reach just a couple of feet across the table. DNA, on the other hand, would stretch to the moon and back 130,000 times (Stanford, 2004). If just a couple of feet of cubes could not happen by chance, or requires intelligence to solve, it is not possible, let alone probable, that DNA could happen by random chance.

Billions of years of random chance did not result in Erno Rubik’s puzzle. Billions of years of evolution did not bring the universe into existence. The existence of Rubik’s Cube demands a designer. More importantly, the existence of the universe demands a designer. There is an intelligent, loving creator and we are his special creation.


Brain, M. (n.d.). How evolution works. Retrieved 12-11-2004, from,

Ferrel, V. (2001). The evolution cruncher.

Altamont: Evolution Facts, Inc.

Joyner, W. (2003). The mathematics of Rubik’s Cube. Retrieved 10-31-2004, from,    

Morris, H. (2004). Probability and order versus evolution. Retrieved 12-11-2004, from,   

Rubik’ (2004). Cube facts. Retrieved 10-31-2004, from, vl3=cubfct Seven Towers, Ltd. (nd) Solutions hints booklet Hong Kong: Winning Moves, Inc.

Standford (2004). What is a gene? Retrieved April 19, 2010 from,

This article was taken from my final paper for my technical writing class. To read the complete article, which includes instructions to solve Rubik’s Cube in one minute, go here:


  1. As a “cuber” I found it intersting, and enojy to find news about the Rubik’s Cube around the web! Thanks! FYI, I too sent this around Twitter…

  2. Sorry, hit return before I finished..
    Just a comment though on how it “proves” Creationism.  While there is only one solution to the Cube, there are SEVERAL ways to arrive at the solution, which your article does not address.  Random twisting may not arrive at a solution, but two different people with the same scrambled sequence will arrive at a completed cube via different methods.  Cubers have names for different methods, LBL, Fridrich, … And even within those methods, there are “sub variations”, all of which while very different, will result in a completed cube.  There are many ways to make order out of the random mess the cube is in the beggining.
    I’m not denying or promoting on theory over another, just saying, the Cube may not be the best example in this case.  Very interesting theory however..

  3. Daniel,

    Thank you for your comments. You’ve made some excellent points. “Proves” is a very strong word. Perhaps I should have used “supports”. You are correct that it is not a perfect analogy (it just offers support to the main point). There are many ways to arrive at the solution and much better analogies. Thanks for your input and for the retweet!


  4. Oh boy…

    Mutations are random, natural selection is NOT random. If you do not understand this you do not understand the first thing about how evolution works.

    The appropriate analogy, if you insist on using a cube, would not be someone randomly twisting a cube until it was solved. The appropriate analogy would be someone randomly twists a cube (random mutation to the cube configuration)… then if it got “better”, as in closer to the solution, that twist was kept. If it got worse, that twist was undone (natural selective forces acting on the mutated cube). Repeat indefinitely.

    Now what do you suppose the oddare of the cube being solved?

    (That is of course leaving aside the not-so-minor detail that there is no “solution” in evolution. It isn’t working towards any kind of specified goal.)

    Since this *entire* article is based on incorrectly calling evolution a random process, it is simply completely wrong.

  5. @Grant – “Mutations are random, natural selection is not random” I would agree.  But, the issue is that when life is first created from non-life there is no natural selection per se.
    The argument of non-creationists is that reproductive life occurred from a selection of elements that organized themselves appropriately.  This is either guided by a creator or occurred at random. 

    Natural selection is not able to eliminate unsuccessful mutations or propagate effective mutations before organisms even exist. Natural selection is only able to work through increasing or decreasing reproductive success.

    You could try to argue that the conditions in the environment (rather than other organisms) selected for the success of the first organism, but this still requires a random mutation (many of them) that offered the first viable reproductive life.

    No, probability does not prove God, but it certainly calls into question the theory that the first origin of life was non-directed.

  6. The Rubik’s cube analogy works for me.  Using the “God number” of 20 turns minimum to solve the cube, it would take 116 million years on average (1 turn/second) to randomly solve the cube.  According to the theory of evolution, a monkey-like creature evolved into man in 6-7 million years.  It would be faster for the monkey to evolve into a man than to solve the cube randomly.

  7. Very interesting article here.

    However I have to agree with Grant on this one, he has a valid point.

    And scientists have practically proved something came from nothing with a “soup” like substance that can appear very naturally, and stimulating it with a small electric shock, which can also occur naturally. When they did this it produced the building blocks for DNA, and from this a VERY simple cell would have been made. Remember the earth would have had billions of years for this process to happen. And from here evolution starts.

    And if you cant understand evolution then I am afraid everything you said here is rather invalid. 

  8. @Adam- If you are talking about the experiment that Stanley Miller did, why did he not use oxygen in his experiment? there are oxidized rocks as deep as we can dig, suggesting there was always oxygen in the atmosphere. It seems like he knew oxygen would be detrimental to his experiment so he omitted it. just a thought…

  9. So, why not let the cube just sit there until each sticker mutated and evolved to the respective sides’ color (the center square). Problem solved, right?

    Creator made the cube, evolution solves it.

    Kidding. I love the cube, just having fun with this information. Thanks for sharing!

  10. :0) I love it! Now I wonder how long it would take for the cube to solve itself…


  1. Tweets that mention Rubik’s Cube, Probability, Creation, and Evolution | Studies In Scripture -- - [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Joel L. Watts, Randy A Brown. Randy A Brown said: New blog…

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *