It is all so intuitive, so straightforward, so reasonable. One wonders how people can be so naive as not to see what is so obvious.
In fact, evolutionary theory that depends on nothing but time + matter + energy + chance has problems at almost every step in the above sequence (an extremely hostile prebiotic soup and the juggernaut of irreducible complexity, to cite but a few). In the context of this discussion about DNA, complexity, information, order, and design, let’s examine just two of the problems associated with strict evolutionary naturalist theory: time and mathematical probability.
Time —All life on earth, whether bacteria, bee, bear, or boy, is DNA-based. How non-life first stepped across the magical threshold and became life— something that uses nutrition, discards waste, reproduces itself, and stores DNA-based information—is yet unknown by evolutionary microbiologists. This is not a small step but a gaping gulf: instead of stepping from our back yard to the porch, it is stepping from the earth to the moon. In the words of Australian microbiologist Michael Denton: “Between a living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to conceive.”16
Still, here we are today, alive on planet earth, so … something must have gotten us here, right? The fallback position for many evolutionary theorists is time. Given enough time, they argue, anything can happen. And when you postulate billions of years, well, that certainly sounds like enough time. If you just keep saying it over and over, and louder and louder, and you pile up a few Ph.D.s behind your name, then people finally say “I guess it seems reasonable to me”—even if they don’t really have a clue about its actual reasonableness.
Let me at this point borrow from Gerald L. Schroeder, an orthodox Jewish biblical scholar, who earned a Ph.D. in physics from Massachusetts Institute of Technology before moving to Jerusalem to further his study of the Torah and teach at the Weizmann Institute. In his book The Science of God, Schroeder explains how the “time solves everything” argument was claimed in 1954 by Harvard biology professor and Nobel laureate George Wald in a Scientific American article entitled “The Origin of Life”:
However improbable we regard this event [the start of all life], or any of the steps which it involves, given enough time it will almost certainly happen at least once. And for life as we know it … once may be enough.
Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time the “impossible” becomes the possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.17
It sounded authoritative, and who is going to argue with a Harvard Nobelist? The only trouble is, it was wrong. So wrong, in fact, that twenty-five years later Scientific American made the rather shocking decision to print an unequivocal retraction:
Although stimulating, this article probably represents one of the very few times in his professional life when Wald has been wrong. Examine his main thesis and see. Can we really form a biological cell by waiting for chance combinations of organic compounds? Harold Morowitz, in his book Energy Flow and Biology, computed that merely to create a bacterium would require more time than the Universe might ever see if chance combinations of its molecules were the only driving force.18
Since 1979, observes Schroeder, reputable scientific journals no longer accept articles that cite the origin of life as rising from random reactions over billions of years. “Confirmed evolutionists agree that you just cannot win if the classic concept of randomness at the point molecular level of DNA is the driving force behind the mutations. The time is just not there.”19
Time, it seems, doesn’t perform miracles. That is still God’s department (including that clever trick when He reached into a hat and pulled out time itself).
Mathematical probability— Why did time fail the hopeful evolutionist? Time failed because it could not pass the probability test. The origin of life appears theologically suggestive via the probability (and related complexity) argument, just as the striking informational nature of DNA looks theologically suggestive via the probability (and related complexity) argument. Let’s look at the evidence.
Marcel P. Schutzenberger of the University of Paris, in calculating the probability of evolution based on mutation and natural selection, concluded that “there is no chance (<10-1000) to see this mechanism appear spontaneously and if it did, even less for it to remain.”20
Molecular biophysicist Harold Morowitz calculated that if one were to take the simplest living cell and break every chemical bond within it, the odds that the cell would reassemble under ideal natural conditions would be 10-100,000,000,000.21
Astrophysicist Edward Argyle calculated the probability that even a simple organism arose on the early earth by chance. “It would seem impossible,” he wrote, “for the prebiotic earth to have generated more than about two hundred bits of information, an amount that falls short of the six million bits in E. coli (a bacteria) by a factor of 30,000.” (The E. coli having an information content of six million bits means that it would require 101,800,000 different possible cases or states for its inception to occur.)22
Writes John Horgan in Scientific American: “Some scientists have argued that, given enough time, even apparently miraculous events become possible—such as the spontaneous emergence of a single-cell organism from random couplings of chemicals. Sir Fred Hoyle, the British astronomer, has said such an occurrence is about as likely as the assemblage of a 747 by a tornado whirling through a junkyard. Most researchers agree with Hoyle on this point.”23
Physicists Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe calculated the odds that all the functional proteins necessary for life might form in one place by random events as one chance in 1040,000. They concluded that this was “an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.”24
Thomas Huxley, in apparent support of the “time solves everything” thesis, once said that six monkeys typing randomly for millions of years would eventually type out all the books in the British Museum. Calculating the actual number of permutations of letters, lines, and pages in the 700,000 books in the British Museum in Huxley’s time, cyberneticist David Foster concluded: “Huxley was hopelessly wrong in stating that six monkeys allowed enormous time would randomly type all the books in the British Museum when in fact they could only type half a line of one book if they typed for the duration of the universe.”25
Physicists Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe also did calculations that refuted Huxley: “Troops of monkeys thundering away at random on typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare, for the practical reason that the whole observable universe is not large enough to contain the necessary monkey hordes, the necessary typewriters, and certainly the waste paper baskets required for the deposition of wrong attempts. The same is true of living material.”26
A simple calculation, explains physicist Schroeder, can show that the likelihood of producing any particular sonnet of Shakespeare by random typing is about one chance in 10690. “The statistical improbability of pure chance yielding even the simplest forms of life has made a mockery of the theory that random choice alone gave us the biosphere we see.”27
Continuing with the typing monkeys illustration, Schroeder further clarifies the problems with randomness. “First we notice that random generation of letters by a computer, or by the hypothetical monkeys typing away on typewriters, never produces meaningful sentences more than a few words in length. … There is essentially zero chance (actually in the order of one chance out of 10120) that any one of the sentences from all the libraries of the world would be generated by random typing. Randomness just doesn’t cut it when it comes to generating meaningful order out of chaos. Direction is required. Always.”28
In attempting to make a case for the
possibility of extraterrestrial intelligence, Carl Sagan and Francis Crick estimated that the difficulty of evolving a human by chance processes alone is 10-2,000,000,000. (ET, phone earth. Please!)29
“While many outside origin-of-life biology may still invoke ‘chance’ as a causal explanation for the origin of biological information, few serious researchers still do,” explains Stephen C. Meyer, who earned his Ph.D. in the history and philosophy of science from Cambridge University. “Since molecular biologists began to appreciate the sequence specificity of proteins and nucleic acids, many calculations have been made to determine the probability of formulating functional proteins and nucleic acids at random. … Such calculations have invariably shown that the probability of obtaining functionally sequenced biomacromolecules at random is, in [Nobelist Ilya] Prigogine’s words, ‘vanishingly small’. … Chance is not an adequate explanation for the origin of biological complexity and specificity.”30
There are more illustrations of the probability problem—in fact, many more. But the point is that neither time nor chance can solve the naturalist’s probability problem. Everywhere we see life—from simple to highly developed forms—we see order. This order involves coded information in the form of DNA. Any serious thinker is confronted with two unavoidable questions: How did non-life first step across the threshold to become life? And how did life encode immensely complex amounts of information on DNA? Time + chance has no answers for these questions. Randomness is a non-starter, not a solution.
“Our experience with information-intensive systems indicates that such systems always come from an intelligent source—i.e., from mental or personal agents, not chance,” explains Dr. Meyer.
During the last forty years, every naturalistic model proposed has failed to explain the origin of information. … Thus, mind or intelligence or what philosophers call “agent causation,” now stands as the only cause known to be capable of creating an information-rich system, including the coding regions of DNA, functional proteins, and the cell as a whole.31
This is not to assume that God needs us to mount a statistical defense of His sovereignty. But it is only to say that if we observe design, it is not wrong to infer a Designer. If we observe life, it is not wrong to infer a Life-giver. If we see DNA, it is not wrong to infer the precision of a Genius. If we see information and intelligence and intention, it is not wrong to infer that “behind the dim unknown, standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own.”32
DNA, Bioethics, and Designer Genes
Before leaving the topic of DNA as it relates to God’s sovereignty it is important to pay a glancing visit to the future of bioethics, including such issues as the Human Genome Project, gene therapy, stem-cell and germ-cell manipulation, genetic engineering and eugenics, cloning, and the attempt to create life. The word sovereign applied to God is not only a label but also a title. His possessing such a title means we need to be careful about invading His DNA turf unless permission is granted beforehand.
The answers to these issues are not easy, and I do not wish to be theologically simplistic or ethically legalistic. But I would be less than honest if I didn’t express my deep concerns about what this all will mean for collective humanity. God surely has an opinion about such things, even though the Scriptures are not always theologically clear about what that opinion might be.
Let’s explore some generalizations before moving to specifics.
First, it is inevitable that as a society, a nation, and a world we will relentlessly pursue biogenetic research and intervention. This inevitability is fixed. The forward thrust of progress and knowledge acquisition is both powerful and unstoppable. The scientific knowledge and engineering technology will be here before we know it—and surely before we are ethically prepared for the consequences.
Second, these things will be presented to us as a benefit, a promise. Such developments arrive at our doorstep looking more like Dr. Schweitzer and Mother Theresa than Hitler and Frankenstein. Our future ability to treat a wide range of diseases through gene therapy, for example, will be almost beyond imagination. A current ad for a biotechnology company shows a picture of the DNA double-helix molecule with the immodest caption “At the top of this ladder is a world without disease.” To eventually alleviate suffering through relatively simple genetic interventions seems not only humanitarianly sound but almost morally imperative.
Third, despite the fact that these issues will be presented in a positive light, the final result will be mixed. We will experience both positive and negative consequences together. Whatever humans use, we also abuse. Everyone involved in the biotechnology frontier recognizes such a potential. But not everyone agrees about the degree of danger that awaits us or the degree of caution thus warranted. Fearful pessimists insist we should forbid all activity in human genome biotechnology. Hopeful optimists think we should free-float and let the issues work themselves out over time.
The following brief synopses offer a glimpse of what the near future will hold.
Human Genome Project— Holding the completed human genome in our hand will represent one of the deepest penetrations yet of humankind into understanding the fundamental mysteries of life, with all the positive and negative implications inherent in such a statement. Once we have available the technology to print out all 100 thousand of our genes, what will we do with such potential knowledge? Would you want to know if you have the gene for a certain disease? Would you want to know if you have the gene for a tendency toward a certain disease (a much more complex question)? Who would pay for testing, or for screening? Would screening be conducted for all genetic disorders, or only selected ones? Will potential employers insist on such information prior to offering a contract? Will insurance companies insist on such information prior to offering a policy? Will parents wish to obtain a full genome of their developing baby—obtained, for example, by chorionic-villus sampling at ten weeks gestation? Will they choose abortion even for minor imperfections? Will attorneys sue physicians who don’t offer such tests if a child is born with a genetic disease? None of these questions has socially stable answers.
Gene therapy— Gene therapy essentially means slipping a healthy gene into the cells of one organ of a patient suffering from a genetic disease. The first human case was in 1990, and the initial experience was disappointing. Recently, however, the record of success has been brighter. “Twenty years from now gene therapy will have revolutionized the practice of medicine,” predicts Dr. W. French Anderson, director of gene therapy at the University of Southern California Medical School. “Virtually every disease will have gene therapy as one of its treatments.”33 This road, however, will lead all the way to “designer babies,” where genetic structures will be placed within the genome of an embryo prior to being implanted into the mother’s womb.
Another variant of the same general theme is a process called pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), where the mother’s egg and father’s sperm are mixed in a Petri dish and the resultant fertilized eggs are subjected to intense DNA analysis. Only those that pass the genetic tests are implanted. Says Dr. Jeffrey Botkin of the University of Utah: “Instead of aborting a fetus, you’re flushing down a bunch of 16-cell embryos—which, to a lot of folks [who oppose abortion], is a lot less of a problem.”34
Stem-cell manipulation —Embryonic stem cells are those that exist prior to the primitive cell’s differentiation into more than 200 types of specialized cells. By working with these pre-differentiated cells (usually taken from early abortions), scientists hope to grow organs for transplant on demand, among other applications. Human embryonic stem cells, first isolated at the University of Wisconsin and Johns Hopkins University in 1999, have been called “immortal” because with the help of an enzyme called telomerase, they appear to subdivide endlessly.35
Germ-cell manipulation— Genetic therapy in germline cells has the potential to affect not only the individual being treated, but his or her children as well. “Germline therapy would change the genetic
pool of the entire human species, and future generations would have to live with that change,” explains one biotechnology corporation.36
Genetic engineering and eugenics— Some futurists predict biotechnology will “alter the course of human evolution.” Princeton biologist Lee Silver predicts the creation of super-races genetically enhanced for physical prowess or superior intelligence.37
Cloning— The cloning of humans will happen. This is not an if issue, but a when issue. Once the technology is fully available (and some suggest the technology is already here), then it is only a matter of time. As someone observed, the song “There’ll Never Be Another You” might no longer be true.
First, choose an egg cell—any egg cell will do.
Next, remove all the chromosomes from the nucleus.
Set the egg aside and save for later use.
Discard the chromosomes.
Next select an adult cell from a Nobel physicist—any adult cell will do.
Remove the chromosomes from this cell.
Carefully transfer these “Nobelist chromosomes” to the egg cell.
Place egg cell in uterus.
Bake at 99 degrees for nine months or until brilliant.
Creating life?— Geneticists from the Institute for Genomic Research are experimenting with the minimal number of genes necessary for life (the “minimal gene set”). They began by selecting a tiny microorganism with a mere 470 genes, and then started removing one gene at a time. By so doing, they discovered that 170 of the individual genes were not essential for the life of the microorganism. However, if all 170 were removed, the microorganism did not survive. So they began adding the genes back one at a time to see if they could arrive at a level when, by adding one gene, they go from non-life to life. Recognizing the ethical importance of this experiment, the geneticists invited twenty ethicists, theologians, and philosophers to pull their beards and cross their eyes before the research proceeded. Bioethicist Arthur Caplan of the University of Pennsylvania commented: “I think what they discover will be a threat to the view that there is some magic, secret, outside force creating this thing called life.”38
More Than Meets the Eye Page 7
