|
Evidence of Design
The Bible clearly indicates that evidence of God's handiwork is readily seen in His creation.1 As I have cautioned previously, we must take care not to assume that this amounts to a promise of prima-facie scientific evidence of God's existence, as I believe such indisputable evidence would be inconsistent with the emphasis on faith found throughout the Scriptures; once God's existence were established by scientific mandate, the element of faith would be effectively removed from the equation. I believe therefore that the evidence of God's existence and His nature promised in the Scriptures is one that is compelling but not absolute. That is, there will always be some room for argument from a scientific perspective. On the other hand, there will likewise ultimately be no absolute evidence that God does not exist. This is because if we were to accept this possibility, we would have to disregard the scriptural imperative cited above. Further, I believe that the evidence for God's existence will ultimately be more compelling than any evidence or argument against it, again because of this scriptural imperative. Now, I must clarify what is meant by using the word "ultimately" in stating that science cannot discount God's existence. It is clear that in the short run, theories can emerge and gain widespread acceptance that appear to contradict the necessity of a divine Creator. This is due largely to the humanity of individual members of the scientific community. It is human nature that we tend to carry our preconceived ideas about what is true and what is not with us into the research field. As a result, individual researchers, or groups of researchers, often have an inherent bias toward one explanation of what they observe over another. A scientist who is an avowed atheist, as an example, would tend to overlook any evidence that may point toward design, while a scientist who subscribes to young-earth creationism may likewise overlook evidence that points toward the antiquity of the universe. However, all scientific theory is subjected to peer review and extensive testing so that those that do not pass the test will eventually be done away with. Granted, this may take a very long period of time, possibly generations, to fully run its course, but ultimately we will be left with an objective product. A contemporary example of the type of bias described above is naturalism, often called "Darwinism". This is as much a philosophy as it is a set of scientific theories. Naturalism is based upon the premise that the universe and all of life has come about by random process driven by the forces of nature rather than divine creation. It is this philosophy that I intend to refute in this essay by offering evidence of design by an intelligent agent as opposed to randomness. I. Specified Complexity In his seminal work, Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology, William Dembski provides a framework for determining intelligent causation for phenomena as opposed to causation by random natural forces.2 The defining factor in this framework he dubs "specified complexity". This is the first standard for detecting design that we shall review in this essay. Perhaps the most efficient way to define specified complexity is by way of example: Suppose your dog, trying to get your attention because you've been on the Internet so long that you've forgotten to feed him, begins pawing at the keyboard of your computer. Suppose he hits a random series of keys, say, ",c,cljfd soiwrhlkjfa;lvm dhg". Now, the probability that he would strike that exact sequence of keys is very low; we would say that the sequence is complex. However, the probability of him hitting that particular sequence is really no less or greater than that of his hitting any other random sequence of keys of equal length. You certainly would not find it difficult to believe that a dog generated that sequence of letters. In other words, in order to indicate design, it is insufficient for an event to only be complex. Second, let us suppose that the dog struck the following keys: "dog". This event is specific, but it is not complex, and, while the probability of him hitting that particular sequence of keys is very low, it is not completely improbable. While likely very impressed, you would not find it terribly imperative that this event was caused by an intelligent agent. You aren't quite ready to enroll your dog in college just yet. You could very comfortably write the event off as happenstance. Now suppose that the dog generates the following series of keys, in order: "please feed me i want kibble now". This sequence is not only complex, not only specific, but both. Your reaction to this sequence of letters generated by a dog pawing at a keyboard would be utter shock and bewilderment! If you were not present to witness the event, you would likely be incredulous toward anyone attempting to convince you that the dog did this. Why would it be such a shock? Because a dog is not considered to be an intelligent agent capable of generating coherent sentences. The odds of this sequence being generated at random are so much more insignificant than for the complex random sequence above or for the three-letter sequence that you would be compelled to attribute it to a human prankster rather than accept non-intelligent causation. This is what Dembski calls specified complexity. Therefore "we apprehend design in highly improbable (complex) events that also fit some independently identifiable pattern (specification)."3 Dembski points out that this standard already has substantial precedence in the scientific community, most notably forensics. Another example is SETI, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, which uses specified complexity to distinguish between radio transmissions generated by natural sources and those created by intelligent sources. Dembski cites the movie Contact, based upon the novel by the famed late astronomer Carl Sagan, in which SETI receives a transmission that consists of a string of sequential prime numbers (numbers that are divisible only by themselves and one). Any scientist observing such a transmission would necessarily come to the conclusion, as did the researchers in the movie, that this signal originated from an intelligent source. The probability that such a specific and complex signal could originate from a natural source is so infinitesimal as to be wholly inconceivable.4 Complex specification indicates that an event relays complex and specific information.5 In the above examples, your dog pawing your keyboard and generating the random sequence relayed no specific information; perhaps the fact that he was doing so might indicate to you that he wanted your attention, but nothing further could be determined from the event itself. However, the latter sequence relayed very specific information to you: "Please feed me" -- it even specified exactly what he wanted to be fed. In the SETI example, a transmission consisting of random pulses would simply be static; even a signal that generated pulses at regular intervals could originate from a natural source, perhaps a pulsar. This may relay complex information regarding the radiometric properties of the source, but neither signal contains both complex and specific information. In the transmission received in Contact, however, the sequence of prime numbers itself constitutes complex specified information. Complex specified information can only originate from an intelligent source.6 II. Irreducible Complexity The second standard for detecting design that we shall examine came to the spotlight largely as a result of the work of Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University.7 Behe notes that on observing life functions at the microscopic level, one observes structures that behave like "molecular machines" of impressive complexity. Some examples of this are the flagellum used to propel the paramecium (a single-celled organism), cilia (hairlike structures found in, among other places, the human respiratory system), a bird's wing, and the mammalian eye. The notable feature of these molecular machines is not only that they are highly complex, but that they are irreducibly so. In other words, there are no components of these machines that can be removed without destroying the functionality of the machine. Behe uses the example of a simple spring-loaded mousetrap.8 If one component of the mousetrap is removed, the trap is nonfunctional. This concept is important in detecting design, because naturalism depends on the process of undirected evolution to account for all biological phenomena seen in nature. Evolution, by definition, begins with the simple and evolves toward the complex. Evolution, also by definition, must occur at a gradual rate. Saltations (sudden appearance of complex systems within the space of a single generation) are widely rejected within the scientific community, even by Darwin himself, as such an evolutionary "quantum leap" would almost by necessity entail the miraculous.9 Therefore, any biological system, say an organ such as the eye, would have to evolve in gradual steps over many generations. The problem is that the eye is irreducibly complex. Just like the mousetrap, if any part of the eye were removed, the eye would no longer function, therefore, there is no functional intermediate step between a primitive "eye" of photosensitive cells and a complete eye as seen in modern mammals, reptiles and birds. This is further complicated by the process of natural selection, which is a major component of naturalistic evolution. Any useless organ, such as the partially-evolved eye would certainly be, rarely survives very long as it provides no benefit to its possessor in terms of increasing his survivability. Therefore, the eye could never evolve without some type of intelligent guidance,10 which makes it very difficult to argue that biological diversity is resultant from undirected evolution. While not addressing the question of whether evolution in the broadest sense occurred (this issue shall be dealt with separately), this does leave the door open for saltations or even for outright special creation, either of which begs for the presence of a Designer. III. Abiogenesis In beginning this section, I should take the opportunity to point out that in discussing matters pertaining to biology, I am far from an expert. Nonetheless, I believe we can gain sufficient insight by applying stringent logical analysis to a set of relatively simple -- that is, widely known -- biological concepts. That said, let us continue. The term abiogenesis refers to the formation of life from non-living matter. It is important to note that at the time of Darwin's Origin of Species, "spontaneous generation" was a widely accepted concept. Spontaneous generation was the belief that "simple" (by 19th century understanding) organisms were able to spring into being instantaneously given the proper environment. For example, when meat was left to rot it would soon become covered in maggots; it was believed at the time that the maggots spontaneously generated from the dead matter of the rotten meat. This was thought to be possible because cells were believed to be "simple little lumps" of protoplasm.11 Given such simplicity, it would certainly be conceivable that life could have at some point sprung from a "primordial soup" of organic chemicals in Earth's distant past. In modern times, however, scientists understand the intricate complexity of the structure of the living cell. Even the most primitive microorganisms discovered fossilized in rocks dating back over four billion years are far more complex than "simple lumps". Spontaneous generation has of course long-since been discredited. However, naturalism still requires that life initially had to arise through purely undirected, and therefore random, means. This requires some form of abiogenesis, which presents some very serious problems for the naturalistic school. As just stated, cells are intricately complex in their structure. Even if we assume the existence of the proper amino acids (the "building blocks" of proteins, which in turn comprise the basis for protoplasm) in the environment of the early Earth, these must combine (in a very specific pattern) into highly complex protein molecules before a cell can be constructed. The cell itself requires DNA, the molecule containing the genetic information vital to the cell's function.12 In this sense, cells are irreducibly complex. There can be no living cells without the proper proteins, or without DNA. DNA is itself an interesting challenge. Not only is DNA an incredibly complex molecule13, the four nucleotides that make up DNA are arranged in a very precise pattern that can be compared to an alphabet. This alphabet spells out very specific sequences that communicate complex specified information that is encyclopedic in volume. Without the complex and specific information -- literally instructions on every aspect of the cell's functioning -- cells, and therefore life as we know it, could not exist. Therefore, cells constitute a problem for naturalists in that they are irreducibly complex in the sense that they cannot function without DNA, and in the specified complexity of the DNA molecule itself. Now, if we assume the naturalist assertion that life, including DNA and other cellular structures, came about by undirected abiogenesis, then we must accept that the emergence of life is subject to the laws of probability. Dembski gives the probability of a specific protein chain of 100 amino acids forming by chance as one in 20100; the chance of a specific DNA sequence of the same length forming by chance as one in 4100.14 Juxtaposing these numbers against the apparent age of the Earth (roughly 5 billion years, or ~1.6*1015 seconds, which for simplicity we will round to 1016 -- that is, 1 with 16 zeros after it), this makes the probability of the protein chain forming by chance in any given second over the entire history of the Earth roughly one in 284, and the chance formation of a specific DNA sequence one in 483.15 Chemist Robert Shapiro16 estimates that if an entire cell were completely disassembled, the probability of it reassembling itself, even under ideal conditions, is one in 10100,000,000. If we can apply this same probability to the initial assembly of a cell out of a primordial soup by random natural forces (which would seem a reasonable extension), this makes the probability that the first living cell could have come about by chance in the entire history of the Earth, or the universe (~12 billion years) for that matter, (at the risk of committing a gross understatement) statistically implausible. These examples are further complicated by the fact that fossilized bacteria have been found in rocks dating back to within less than half a billion years of the Earth's formation, making these odds even more infinitesimal. It is worth noting that naturalists largely once believed that the universe was infinitely old, which of course would leave ample time and a wealth of opportunities for life to emerge by chance, making our existence not so much of a statistical aberration. However, with Edwin Hubble's discovery that the universe was expanding, and the later discovery of cosmic background radiation, which was predicted by Big Bang Theory, many scientists were forced to concede that the universe did indeed have a relatively "recent" beginning.17 More recent attempts to deal with the appearance of life "against the odds" have included the proposal of "space-seeding" -- the idea that primitive cells first arrived piggy-back on meteorites from Mars or even were seeded here by extraterrestrials. Such a theory does not solve the problem, however, but simply shuffles it conveniently to another location. Other theories have to do with geothermal vents on the ocean floor and clay crystals -- neither of which deals with the problem of specified complexity -- and an hypothesized affinity for chemicals to combine into organic form, which has so far not stood up to laboratory testing.18 In short, the concept that life could have arisen by sheer chance is wholly untenable, given the probabilities of such intricate structures and complex specified information coming about without input from an intelligent Designer.
|
|
Notes:
|