God: Fact or Fiction?: Exploring the Relationship Between Science Religion and the Origin of Life

by Brendan Roberts

  But what does spelling differences have to do with nature or Intelligent Design? DNA is critical to Intelligent Design as the specified complexity or information content is shown in DNA to follow the principle of code; the four bases of As, Cs, Ts and Gs is a complex code, more complex than Morse Code which has two bases. The information in the DNA must also be sequential or else major mutations will result. Each letter of the code is meaningless; only when combined with other letters is there a sequence or pattern revealing significance, a code. The coming together of this pattern of letters would never have meaning without a mind. Therefore it takes a mind to understand what a mind intended with DNA.

  Therefore design is detected. Because there is design there must have been a designer. One is led to ask, ‘What reason or purpose did the designer use for such complex information?’ The answer is that the information of DNA controls the production of proteins.

  Specification can show a pattern which can point to intelligence being responsible for its formation: ‘If those hundred letters are found to correspond to the words of a Shakespearean sonnet, then surely something is going on of a highly significant kind.’7

  Incredibly scientists are now using DNA sequences and transposing them to music.

  Irreducible Complexity The third category we will look at is irreducible complexity, first coined by Dr Michael Behe; it involves a system that exists in such a way that if you take one component out then it will collapse and so cease to function. This indicates that it did not gradually evolve by chance but was designed. For example the bacterium flagellum has a propeller which rotates at 100,000 rpm. It contains several parts such as, ‘the hook region, which attaches the propeller to the drive shaft, the motor, which uses a flow of acid from the outside of the bacterium to the inside to power the turning, a stator’.8 Without the hook, motor, propeller, drive shaft, or most of the forty different types of proteins either the flagellum does not work, or it does not even get manufactured in the cell. Therefore it is irreducibly complex.

  Another example is the cell. If you take away one of its components, such as the cell membrane, endoplasmic reticulum, lysosomes, mitochondria or the nucleus then the process integral to survival of the cell will collapse. Additionally if we remove one part of the human, such as the arm the human can still go on living. But if we remove the brain or the heart the human will die. Therefore the heart relates to irreducible complexity of the whole person.

  Behe gives a brilliant analogy of the concept of irreducible complexity with an analogy from the Bugs Bunny Show. In one episode the mischievous and loud-mouthed rooster, Foghorn Leghorn bugged the hell out of the young chicken he was babysitting. Behe recalls the young chick meticulously scribbling equations on a piece of paper (Ahuh! He revealed he would be exacting his revenge in a precisely empirical manner). Then Foghorn sauntering along and minding his own business stumbles across a dollar bill lying on the ground. Impressed with his stroke of luck, he picks up the dollar note. But unknown to the poor sucker, he has set off a chain reaction of events; the dollar was tied by a string to a stick that was propped against a ball. So when he picks up the dollar note, the attached string pulls down the stick and the ball gathers momentum, cascades off a cliff and crashes onto the raised end of a seesaw which hurtles a rock through the air. A piece of sandpaper attached to the projectile strikes a match projecting out of the cliff which lights the fuse to a cannon.

  Foghorn is very perplexed at the deafening boom of the canon, but is still unaware of the master plan unfolding before his startled eyes. On the downward trajectory the cannonball flirts with the rim of a funnel, touches down and hypnotically rolls around the edge before falling through the funnel. Upon emerging out the other end it triggers a lever that starts a circular saw. The startled Foghorn gazes as the saw cuts through a rope holding a telephone pole in place. But he is like a transfixed possum caught in the headlights of an approaching car. His demise appears to happen in slow motion as he sees his life flashing before his transfixed eyes; the pole smashes the poor fellow mercilessly into the ground.9

  As we reflect on the British crop circles which were widely reported throughout the world as an unusual phenomenon, and possibly alien, we see a great example of deducing Intelligent Design. We can now categorically say that it was the Intelligent Design of humans. These huge geometric patterns which appeared in wheat fields caused rumours to run riot. But a couple of shrewd and innovative men admitted responsibility. To everyone’s surprise their equipment consisted merely of a very large version of a stylus and string and they had worked ceaselessly and cunningly at night. Therefore it was difficult to be observed in action.

  Philosopher of Biology, Dr Michael Ruse tries to rebut the principle of irreducible complexity. He believes that it’s not good enough to state that if you remove one part from such a system, then it breaks down and so couldn’t come about merely by natural processes. He says, ‘Sure, if you look at it now things cannot be replaced. But historically often you’ll have a process like dry-stone bridge building. Things will piggyback, they’ll start to work, and natural selection will wipe away the scaffolding.’10 But Ruse’s example is non-living. Therefore it doesn’t matter if you take away one part of the process and substitute it with another. If you do this in living things, then either severe mutation or death can result.

  You have probably often heard that science studies natural causes and if we try to introduce God into the situation then we are blamed for invoking supernatural causes, or called a religious nut. William Dembski in Mere Creation reveals this is the wrong contrast. He says that intelligent causes are more versatile; undirected natural causes could drop scrabble pieces on a board but could not arrange them to form meaningful words or sentences.11

  Therefore intelligence is needed for complex and meaningful systems. I shall reveal more systems resulting from intelligent causes, in the chapters, The Wonder of the Universe and Unlocking the Chemistry of Life. In the former chapter you can discover whether there is an intelligent cause behind our universe; and in the latter chapter whether the human cell and DNA reveal specified complexity or information rich content.

  Cosmological Argument An intelligent cause should lead us to a first cause, an instigator of the cause. For example, when we see signs of intelligence within nature such as the Big Bang Theory, fine-tuning of the universe to support the existence of life, and the existence of complex information systems which use code we can reason that something caused them all. And if you trace back the causes you must come to a first cause – the beginning. This theory is also known as the Cosmological Argument which aims to prove that a first cause exists for our universe. It also aims to show there is an Intelligent Designer responsible for the order of our universe. One version of the Cosmological Argument originated in the attempt of early Christian philosophers to rebut the Aristotelian doctrine of an eternal universe. But non-Christians also used the same principles; one of its greatest proponents, the medieval Islamic theologian al-Ghazali, simply defined it as:12

  1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

  2. The universe begins to exist.

  3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

  In defense of point two al-Ghazali explained the impossibility of an infinite past. Because the universe has a cause then it had to have a beginning. Dr William Lane Craig, Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California explains the relationship between time and this first cause. He says that the Uncaused Cause must be timeless because time had a beginning. But he also postulates it must be spaceless ‘since it is both immaterial and timeless, and no spatial entity can be both immaterial and timeless…Hence the uncaused First Cause must transcend both time and space and be the cause of their origination’.13

  Wow! This is so breathtaking. Let us focus on al-Ghazali’s explanation: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. It is logical that such a first cause is beyond time and space (the creation of the universe began time as we know
it); sacred scripture reveals Him as pure Spirit – immaterial and spaceless. Because such a first cause did not begin to exist (is beyond time) then He always existed. In other words He is a Necessary Being, not a Contingent Being. This will be explained in more detail in The Philosophy of God’s Existence chapter. Paul Davies in The Last Three Minutes explains the concept of there being nothing before the Big Bang:

  Remember that the expansion [of the universe] being graphed here is that of space itself, so zero volume doesn’t mean merely that matter is squashed to an infinite density. It means that space is compressed to nothing. In other words, the Big Bang is the origin of space as well as of matter and energy. It is most important to realize that according to this picture there was no pre-existing void in which the Big Bang happened.14

  Problems of Evolution without Design Evolution is usually interpreted as excluding any hint of design in its processes. If there is any order it is due to Natural Selection, nature controlling it, but what about negative and positive mutations? As a result we should have a plethora of ghastly looking species. In fact what we see is an overall order in nature, a complexity that puzzles many atheists who keep scrambling to explain away their struggles or even fears. How can they really explain such scintillating beauty in nature?

  Those who support Intelligent Design are usually believers in God; but supporters of principles of Intelligent Design Theory also include atheists. Such proponents search for signs of specified complexity and irreducible complexity; reason why we exist; and point out scientific flaws of atheistic evolution. Incidentally, they are not all against evolution as they hold to the equilibrium that: yes it is likely that something or someone created the universe; and that this design included the laws of nature and so microevolution – allowing species to adapt to different or changing environments and changes within the species. As for macroevolution a Creator could also have designed the laws of nature for this to happen.

  Dr Antony Flew, a well respected philosopher was an atheist. The reason he gave for his conversion to deism (belief in an eternal Creator but not in a personal God active in our world and who reveals Himself) was that the investigation of DNA by biologists revealed intelligence. He says that the investigation illustrated the almost unbelievable complexity that is required for the production of life which shows intelligence must have been involved. Concerning the origin of the first life he says: ‘It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism.’15

  While he now accepts that there is a Creator he does not accept the proposition of a personal God. On the contrary many evolutionists, especially other atheists do not hold to this equilibrium; they believe humans evolved by chance but do not recognise the possibility of any Creator. Their agenda is usually hidden but sometimes rears its ugly head – the agenda to disprove the existence of God. It must be noted that some atheists are happy to live without imposing their beliefs on others, some are keen for honest and respectful dialogue, and yet some hardcore atheists feel they must impose their beliefs by harshly criticising others.

  But Dr Antony Flew is not the only philosopher to support Intelligent Design. In fact there are two atheistic philosophers who support much of the Intelligent Design Theory. Is this really such a surprise when philosophy is the love of wisdom? The second atheist to support Intelligent Design is Dr Bradley Monton, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Colorado. He holds that Intelligent Design can legitimately be viewed and taught as science, including in public schools. Now this will undoubtedly shock many, especially the secular media who have been on a crusade to denounce Intelligent Design.

  Lastly the atheist Professor Thomas Nagel from New York University also supports the principle of Intelligent Design. He has published ten books and more than 60 articles. Although evolutionary biologists expound that chance is enough to explain DNA and chemical processes in living things, he does not believe that the evidence is as strong as they claim. However he doesn’t believe this compels one to accept the Intelligent Design Theory. He merely believes that Intelligent Design is possibly correct and that it could be taught in schools in this regard but by impartial teachers.

  Creationists By popular use and particularly by the secular media, Creationists are labelled as Christians who reject the Big Bang Theory and macroevolution outright while supporting Intelligent Design. But Creationists are those who believe that the universe and all that is good has been caused by a supernatural being. There are two major types of Creationists: Old Earth and Young Earth Creationists.

  The latter hold to a literal 24-hour, six days creation and believe that the Earth was formed only about 10,000 years ago through their interpretation of Sacred Scripture and geological data. But the literal 24-hour day is a little obscure since the book of Genesis reveals that on the third day God created the two great lights – one to govern the day and the other the night. Though we know these refer to both the sun and moon, it is important to note that the moon merely reflects the sunlight. Therefore how could there have been a literal 24 hours when there was no sun to govern the day prior to the third day?

  Moreover the Young Earth Creationists believe that Sacred Scripture is infallible in every detail. These often good-meaning Christians act as if Genesis is a scientific document. They go on the defensive when they believe that all of Sacred Scripture is threatened by the theory of evolution. Therefore they seek to defend Genesis, trying to justify every single word. It is understandable that they feel that the Word of God is attacked at times and yet it is unfortunate that they seek to justify it to the letter, rather than focusing on the overall message. The complete message they could take from the beginning is, for example, that God created the universe, together with mankind as the pinnacle of His creation.

  Young Earth Creationists argue convincingly that macroevolution from particles to humans requires changes that increase genetic information. However, what is only observed is sorting or loss of information. They also argue that we are yet to see even a micro increase in information let alone macro changes that involve new information.

  Old Earth Creationists do not hold to the literal views of the former group; they believe that the universe has taken millions, if not billions of years to be created by God as Sacred Scripture says one day on Earth is like a thousand years to God. If God created time for us it doesn’t matter how long it took for creation to reach the point where we were created. They believe that the fossil record shows creation was accomplished in stages, each new appearance in the record pointing to a new moment of creation – e.g. bacteria first, followed by a long time gap and then invertebrates, then fish, followed by amphibians, and so on until the creation of human beings.

  Both groups agree that the fossil record holds significantly more evidence for creation than atheistic evolution, and that God was the Creator of the universe and life. Saint Augustine illustrated a fascinating revelation from Sacred Scripture with God resting on the seventh day still happening now. In Confessions he says that Genesis does not mention an evening and morning for the seventh day, as is mentioned on all the preceding days. This is a change of pattern from the preceding days and so it appears to signify that the seventh day may not have ended. This is not to say that God has retired. God still creates but man and woman co-operate with God as the Catholic Catechism beautifully describes.16

  A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. Called to give life, spouses share in the creative power and fatherhood of God. “Married couples should regard it as their proper mission to transmit human life and to educate their children; they should realize that they are thereby cooperating with the love of God the Creator and are, in a certain sense, its interpreters…”

  Does Evolution Rule out Intelligent Design? Are evolution and Intelligent Design really on opposite ends of the one spe
ctrum? Or are they really two sides of the same coin? Can design be detected within the theory of evolution? Asa Gray, a Congregationalist Christian and author holds to a broad concept of design and that overall nature can be understood through evolution. He says that mind and moral personality are not explainable by matter in random motion but by design. He believes in a Creator who works through laws of evolution to produce a gradually unfolding design.17

  Behe also supports Intelligent Design and aspects of evolution. He accepts the idea of common descent and also respects his evolutionary biologist colleagues who he admits have contributed enormously to understanding our world.

  Teleology is evident within the laws of nature that we have in our everyday world. The word itself means goal or purpose. Looking to generation of cells, growth and entropy one can see end-directedness or even purpose. Or looking at examples exhibited by creatures one can see the bee working for the good of the colony or the beaver building his home for his family. Therefore living creatures strive to live and grow.

  As covered previously Natural Selection reflects purpose as it always works to the better. In the language of Darwin it daily and hourly scrutinises every variation, rejecting the bad, preserving and adding up all that is good.18 Daily and hourly scrutinizing shows intention or teleology. While rejecting, preserving and adding up all that is good depicts purpose or control. These are obviously the result of a mind.

  Paul Davies confesses that he is being drawn closer to the realisation that the universe exudes design, though he is very hesitant to attribute it to God:

  Through my scientific work I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as a brute fact. There must, it seems to me, be a deeper level of explanation. Whether one wishes to call that deeper level ‘God’ is a matter of taste and definition. Furthermore, I have come to the point of view that mind – i.e. conscious awareness of the world – is not a meaningless and incidental quirk of nature, but an absolutely fundamental facet of reality.19