Over the past decade or so, several scientists, authors, and speakers have joined forces to promote their observations that indicate life originated with a designer. Cells are just too complicated, they say, to have arisen by chance. Spontaneous generation, disproven centuries ago, remains the naturalist’s only option for the origin of biological life. Yet the odds against even a simple single-celled organism arising by chance are astronomical. The molecules have to line up all at once to form proteins, which have to line up quickly into the cells. DNA is a complex code for building life: made up of simple proteins, the series communicates a baffling level of information. Intelligent Design usually rests their case for an original designer at this point, picking back up after life has begun to debate Darwinism’s explanation for the variety of life we witness on earth.
But they could take the matter farther. Even if the remotest of far-fetched chances (this is before mutation or natural selection or heredity can have any impact on the process) came true and all the chemicals and molecules lined up, the language DNA writes still had to come from somewhere. It has no meaning without an Author. That age-old question, “Why?” asked by every two year old since humanity began, remains: both inside science and in the realm of philosophy.
According to the theory of evolution, mutations and natural selection account for increasing complexity and increasing variety among living creatures. (Evolutionists have precious little to explain the acquisition of new information in the DNA; all observable speciation, mutation, and variation consists of loss of information, reduced parameters for variety in future generations.) Evolutionists usually posit that all life arose from a single simple organism (which found sufficient nourishment, reproduced, and gave us the definition of life as we know it). Intelligent Design scientists point out that among the known species, there are many examples of features too complex, too perfectly adapted to be attributed to chance. The advent of each of these mechanisms would have been almost as miraculous as the first life, according to the mathematics. Take vision, wings, migration instinct, sex. Some creatures demonstrate irreducible complexity: all the new parts have to be present and perfect immediately to be functional. In some cases, the slightest difference means death for the creature in whom the feature was derived, and we know that dead creatures don’t pass their genes to future generations.
Complexity, information, and observed natural processes and their limitations are the data. Statistical probabilities are the analyses. Impossible is a logical conclusion. But life exists whether we can explain it or not. So some, purely on scientific grounds, conclude that there may be a designer. If we include this intelligence in the list of natural phenomenon; in other words, accept it as an observable* part of our world, humans can keep studying this marvelous, orderly world, drawing conclusions allowing for design and occasional if not constant intervention by a creative and powerful force.
*Scientists observe evidence for design in other fields (outside of ‘natural science’) all the time. Forensic science, for example, searches for clues that will tell an investigator whether a crime was committed. We not only judge whether there was intelligence, but degrees of intelligence using science. Consider archaeology. We may find a rustic clay pot, or a ziggurat aligned with constellations. Both represent intelligence, but of varying degrees.
Nor does it take a scientist to observe evidence for design. You are walking on the beach. Lying in the sand is a watch. With its gears and correspondence to what you call and measure as time, you conclude that the watch was designed, intelligently. Here most people explain our conclusions using a contrast with something “obviously” not designed, like the sand on the beach. The casual observer can see nothing about the form of the sand that stands out, that indicates someone intentionally smoothed it out and drew in ripples. In fact, we can even explain the tiny size of the particles, their smoothness, and the ripples by natural, consistent, observable events.
Here’s where I differ. Just as we have no explanation (using forces exclusive of a designer) for life, so science cannot explain the origin or structure of these tiny rocks. Under a microscope these crystals and substances reveal a mastery of molecular architecture. Each different rock is functional and unique from other kinds of rock. We’re taught that everything is composed of atoms, those busy bits whirling and attracting and repulsing with a reliability that we need every moment. What keeps the atoms together? What gives them weight? Why are there so many different substances? Even if “naturalists” are right, and the universe began with a big bang, what exploded, why and how? Where did the “what” come from, or the energy for the explosion? Why are there laws, and why are they repeatable? Taking our illustration of the sand, how did it get in the sea to be beaten into fragments, smoothed along a beach, and shaped by the waves breaking on the shore? Why do waves break, and how?
I argue that there is no such thing as naturalism without a designer, because every bit of nature is inexplicable without a designer. The laws of the universe represent order and harmony and intelligence. A cell may be more complex than a grain of sand, but only as the ziggurat is to a clay pot. Both are designed. And everything “natural” is so elegantly structured that its aesthetic far outweighs the clumsy pot made by man.
To God be all glory,
Lisa of Longbourn
Some things to consider regarding the premise everything natural was designed –
In our eyes, why does light pass through a mass of blood vessels before it hits our retinas?
Why are our genomes full of so called junk DNA?
Why is child birth so arduous?
My point is – the idea that life is at all well designed shows a lack of understanding. If it was designed, it wasn’t done intelligently!
Hi,
A well written and eloquent god of the gaps argument.
I prefer to leave my gaps empty until I see evidence and rational arguments start to fill them.
Of course some of your gaps have already started to close. “RNA world” research announcements this week, for example.
In any event my question to you would be this;
Do you have any evidence for filling the gaps with your particular god?
Thanks,
Psi
Arrogantscientist –
I would like to respond with a quote from Coming to Grips with Genesis. It is translated from Martin Luther, “If we do not comprehend the reason for this [creation in six days], let us remain pupils and leave the job of teacher to the Holy Spirit.” In reference to your questions, I would direct you to the level of scientific information we have today as compared to that of two hundred years ago. Even 150 years ago when Origin of Species was published, Darwin believed a cell was a simple blob of matter. He didn’t know its parts or how it worked. Now we do, and there is complexity and apparent intentionality beyond our imagination. To say that our present science has no explanation for light going through blood vessels, and therefore there is no purpose is quite a fallacy. There are two options: 1) There is a purpose of which we are unaware. 2) The genetic code has mutated in a loss of usefulness and information from the original “very good” creation. (Such decay is the result of the Fall, divinely-imposed consequences for personal human rebellion against His perfect holding-together of the universe. In His grace He continues to hold the world together in a functional way.) Obviously these arguments apply, as far as your points are accurate, to the rest of your questions.
Specifically regarding child birth, the Bible teaches that Eve (and women) were directly cursed for their rebellion in that pain in child birth would be multiplied (from the original creation, presumably easier and less painful). I understand that from a purely scientific perspective (excluding God), this is not a logical conclusion. If you grant my premise of the God of the Bible being the Designer whose work we observe, it makes sense that what He says happened is the true cause of pain and suffering in our world.
To God be all glory,
Lisa of Longbourn
psiloiordinary –
As a matter of fact, when I originally wrote this post, there were additional paragraphs addressing your question. I removed them for not matching the tone of my essay. However, since you asked, I will paste them here.
The Bible teaches 1) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Long before Intelligent Design had made their case for non-random life, the Bible taught that God was that intelligent creative source. 2) From creation God’s existence can be determined. The Bible teaches that one specific, personal being created the universe and, in the language of forensics, left His fingerprints. Observing the creation gives us insight into the level of intelligence with which we are dealing, as well as the character of this Being. 3) The correct response to recognizing a designer is to give him glory.
Also found in the Bible is a miraculously accurate account of biology, geology, astronomy, and anthropology. Though the natural world may point to a benevolent Creator (rain falls on the just and the unjust, the sun rises and sets on schedule, the fragile settings of the universe are ideally adjusted for human life on earth), this appears inconsistent with the level of suffering which we see. In a world without a designer, one may expect bad accidents to happen. In fact that should be the vast majority of occurrences. Chance has no explanation for the vast good fortune of humanity and earth. The inconsistency is there either way. Only the Bible tells us how we got good things and pain on earth. Our world is cursed. One disastrous evidence of this curse is the worldwide flood recorded in Genesis. Only such a cataclysm (not even billions of years of relatively tame processes of erosion and sediment deposition) can account for what we observe in the geological strata, be it stratification, striking rapid erosion, rifts in the earth’s crust, or the pools of fossilized remains. Only God’s testimony of earth history explains how we can have what appear to be millions of years worth of geological layers and what are referred to as “anomalies” like trees upright through multiple layers and the discovery of particles in lower layers not fully decayed though their half life is much shorter than millions of years. One must take the youngest testified age. When a ship goes down, it is the youngest date printed on the coin that tells you how recently it sunk, not the oldest. The Bible gives a hint of natural rates varying over time or at least at one time, offering theories as to the exaggerated ages found via some forms of radiometric dating.
My point is that the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments provide the only scientifically accurate, internally consistent complete scenario for the origin and history of the universe. Any evidence found of a Designer is merely further proof that the testimony of Scripture is true in all its particulars.
(If you happen to disagree with the statement that science is aligned with the Bible, as in the example given of radiometric dating, please see ICR.org and AIG.org for thorough, scientific explanations of these assumptive/interpretive sets of data.)
To God be all glory,
Lisa of Longbourn
Hi Lisa,
Thanks for this response.
You seem unaware that followers of other religions make exactly the same claims about their holy texts. With equal firmness of belief and quiet certainty that they are absolutely right.
I presume you find their claims unpersuasive even though they are identical to yours on the face of them.
I would also point out that your open and honest pre-suppositionalism also means that these claims (and those made by folks of other religions) are anything but unbiased.
For example here is a quote from Ken Ham of AIG;
“By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and
chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.
Science is conducted by many many people of many. many faiths and people with no faith and only asks that we only follow the evidence and pre-suppose anything at all before we look at the evidence.
So I ask again,
Do you have any evidence (a claim which is identical to that made by several other faiths is anot evidence by the everyday use of the word it is merely a claim – please give us your supporting evidence for this claim) for filling the gaps in our knowledge with your particular god?
Thanks,
Psi
ooops
sorry for the odd typo !
Ken Ham’s quote ends at “Spiritual record.”
Thanks,
Psi
It’s interesting to see how some people try to bend the bible to fit with science, which obviously varies as much as people’s actual beliefs do.
I find it hard to see how anyone could be satisfied with the arguments you make, such as humans have now effectively “de-evolved” from the original perfect creation. Your arguments are made from the stand point of believing in God, but if you could have your mind reset to be totally objective and consider the evidence again – do you seriously think you would come to the conclusion “God did it” again?
By the way – where are these “perfect” humans now – why is there no trace of them left? Skeletons? DNA samples?
Also, a note on your comment about ID – “Long before Intelligent Design had made their case for non-random life…”. This suggests the previous theory, evolution, is random. It isn’t. If you think it is, then you don’t understand it – have a look at http://arrogantscientist.wordpress.com/2009/01/15/understanding-evolution-chance-and-randomness/ on my blog.
I am aware that other religions make truth claims. I am also aware that their claims fall utterly short of reality. The Bible’s claims stand up.
There was no substantial population of perfect humans: two, and both of those rebelled against God and received the consequence immediately in their bodies: dying they continued to die until they were dead.
By “random” I mean evolution is purposeless, unguided. Obviously evolutionists believe there is a positive direction to these mutations “chosen” by natural selection. It is, however, fundamentally limited to those choices provided by random chance.
This blog is not really written to be read one post at a time. In the context of the tone and worldview of this blog, this post was not designed as an apologetic (though I have investigated evidence for design). Rather, this is an essay about the philosophy of the debate.
Thank you for your participation.
To God be all glory,
Lisa of Longbourn
Hi Lisa,
You said;
“I am aware that other religions make truth claims. I am also aware that their claims fall utterly short of reality. The Bible’s claims stand up.”
I had asked you to back this up with some kind of an argument. Just restating it doesn’t make it true.
I could simply have responded originally with the comment;
“Your argument doesn’t stand up.”
This would have been impolite and unpersuasive of me.
Is this really your most persuasive argument? (insistence and repetition)
Regards,
Psi
psi,
“Insistence and repetition” are occasionally necessary when previous arguments and links seem to have been ignored. I would refer you to Josh McDowell (who has addressed critics of the biblical narrative for decades, studied other religions, and dabbled in Creation apologetics) for evidence that the Bible is true, and to ICR.org and AIG.org as well as The Evolution of a Creationist by Jobe Martin for more information about science, the Bible, and the beginning of earth and life. Yes, these men are all Christians, and their stated purpose is to defend the Bible. They use the Bible as absolute authority because they believe in God, and logically (if you grant them that position), attribute more intelligence and familiarity with these topics to Him than to His creatures. This is not circular. Every scientist, and every human makes some assumptions that determine the supremacy of their sources of information when sources conflict. The Bible has never been proven false in any statement. If you wish to point out that evolution is scientific evidence that stands opposed to the Bible, then I will once again point you to the Scriptural Creationists who recognize the weakness and fallacies of “naturalist” interpretations of the evidence. Humans have been wrong many times about topics the Bible has had right for centuries. God and the Bible are the more consistently reliable source, so it is logical to give them precedence.
Those arguments I used were not my most persuasive, but I also said that the purpose of this post and blog is not to persuade people who do not believe in the God of the Bible to believe in Him. In the context of my whole blog, I am addressing an audience who does believe in Him, in order to encourage them.
That said, I have read books about, given thought to, and linked websites that address a defense of the Bible as historically and scientifically accurate (and useful in those fields). So I am not backing down from my statement, merely redirecting you to other places that have already answered my questions and yours – to avoid redundance. I have better things to do than to repeat simple answers to ancient questions repeated by a skeptic who doesn’t have any real interest in hearing what we have to say.
So, if you, being outside of my target audience, wish to read and even comment on my blog, I welcome that. Just realize that my goal in this blog is to challenge and encourage Bible-believing Christians.
To God be all glory,
Lisa of Longbourn