For over one hundred and sixty years, science, or rather the materialistic branches of science have been selling us on the idea that our universe, and we humans who occupy it are the product of happenstance. That, out of the primordial soup of early, hot earth, lightening caused the spontaneous formation of a string of amino acids that would self-form into a functional, as opposed to a dysfunctional, protein and bring into life the very first cell. For a variety of reasons which we shall discuss later, such a proposition is both statistically and mathematically unlikely, as Dr. Stephen Meyer so elegantly outlines in his book “Signature in the Cell – DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design” (HarperOne 2009). Nonetheless, a large body of scientists continue to subscribe to a theory of evolution which arose following the publication of Charles Darwin’s “The Origin of Species” (1859), a masterful work in which, following some twenty years of research, he outlines his conclusions of how species change and adapt through a process of natural selection. While there is no doubt that species, including we humans, evolve over time, I find less and less reason today to accept that science and theology are at odds with each other. Rather, I believe that as science peels back the onion” in cosmology, biology, paleontology, and physics, we are seeing more reasons to find common ground. While Darwin’s work is highly instructive on the impact of environment and the forces of nature on species, might he have reached a different set of conclusions had he, in his time, had the advantage of knowing about irreducible complexity and the importance of the information that directs the structure, and order of amino acids in the DNA of a cell? I believe that such a man, one so committed to scientific discovery, would have deeply explored all such information, and incorporated it into his work. In understanding such Immense revelations, perhaps he and his followers would have been less likely to denounce the work of John Ray, William Paley, and others.
Why are the materialistic branches of modern science so heavily invested in their theories that they simply refuse to even consider the possibility that the intricate and very specific nature of the laws and forces of our universe point decidedly to an intelligence which precedes, and has directed all that we can now observe in both the micro and macro universe? Why would intelligent men such as the late Carl Sagan and his protégé Neil deGrasse Tyson seek any possible explanation for our existence, including the proposition that earth was seeded by aliens, yet refuse to consider even the possibility of Intelligent Design? Even Fred Hoyle and the great Stephen Hawking would seemingly rather support the idea of panspermia (life carrying space dust) than the possibility of an intelligent creator. Of course, they would still have to explain where and how the very first life form originated! Yet none have been able to provide a satisfactory explanation as to how the universe, and we its occupants came into being. From Big Bang theory to Hawking’s singularity theory and on to the idea of a multiverse, all break down at the point of origin and the current state in which we find ourselves and the infinity of space around us. As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle would state through his famous character Sherlock Holmes, “When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” For the materialistic proponents of science such self evidence evades them.
In their 2009 survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, they found that just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power. Specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. Within scientists practicing in physics and astronomy those numbers were 30% and 20%, and 29%and 14% respectively. Where are these scientists? AAAS is an American and International body of some one hundred and twenty thousand members, yet to read the press, watch television, or specifically, read most scientific journals, you would be hard pressed to find any indication that there might be an alternative to the materialist argument for the existence of the universe, and us as the inhabitants! Are they hiding, or is it just easier to respond anonymously to a survey than to declare one’s position openly and be subject to derision? Given how the liberal media and liberals in general attack anyone who disagrees with their point of view, it is easy to understand why few scientists openly express concerns with the inadequate attempts by materialistic science to explain these critical questions of origin.
I confess that I am neither trained in any branch of science, nor mathematics, but I try to envision challenging questions and issues from a broad view that encompasses rather than segregates things into special branches such as physics, cosmology, biology, paleontology, etc. Such a “thirty-thousand-foot view” helps me to gain a perspective that evokes a multitude of “why” questions which might otherwise remain dormant. Allow me try to summarize as simply as possible, what we are asked to believe by the materialist branches of science. That out of the hot, fiery early earth as it cooled from the hot gases which were crushed tighter and tighter together by the increasing force of gravity, that lightening striking the primordial “soup” of the day, caused a primitive, living cell to self-form. This single cell life form which, we might presume, was quite happy in the nutrient environment in which it was formed, dividing, and replicating itself to become a burgeoning colony of single-cell life. However, it mutates, and changes, and mutates, and changes, ad infinitum, so that it will become every type of living thing in the sea, from the minnow to the blue whale. The sea, which by the way, we are told is the result of asteroids bombarding the planet (science used to claim that it was comets which caused our oceans, seas, and lakes to form, but after landing a remote experimental craft on one they found that comet ice did not match the chemical composition of earth’s water)! Not happy with their ocean environment, some of these creatures decide that the now dryer, cooler land, might be a safer place and so, growing legs and developing lungs they emerge to then mutate into every living creature upon the land, from the ant to the elephant, including us! Moreover, some of these cells mutate into coral polyps, seaweeds, sponges, etc., while on land, grasses, ferns, flowers of every kind, and trees, such as the one that emerges from the tiny mustard seed, on up to the giant redwoods which will grow to hundreds of feet in height. Can we imagine such diversity being the product of happenstance, of undirected changes emanating from that primordial single cell? As Darwin’s tree of life suggests, this is the “science” which we are supposed to believe as the only possible explanation of how we came into being. Seriously, does this make sense? This is particularly difficult when we consider that mutation, especially in early cell formation, is more likely to cause disfunction, as opposed to function as Michael J. Behe explains in his paper, “Experimental evolution, loss-of-function mutations, and the first rule of adaptive evolution"! He states, “Because mutation occurs at the molecular level, it is necessary to examine the molecular changes produced by the underlying mutation in order to assess whether a given adaptation is best considered as a gain, loss, or modification of function. Although that was once impossible, the advance of molecular biology in the past half century has made it feasible. In this paper, I review molecular changes underlying some adaptations, with a particular emphasis on evolutionary experiments with microbes conducted over the past four decades. I show that by far the most common adaptive changes seen in those examples are due to the loss or modification of a pre-existing molecular function,” (my emphasis). It also occurs to me that if the process of natural selection is to weed out the weakest and promote the stronger of any given species, why would one mutate into something that is going to see the former as a food source? That seems rather self defeating for the lesser, original species!
The materialist branches of science, tend to look at distinct segments of this process rather than stepping back and trying to explain the whole process, and it is not a question of evolution, or intelligent design, they are not mutually exclusive! Of course, creatures evolve, one only need view the costumes in the Tower of London, or visit a seventeenth century house in France, to see that people were typically shorter back then. Diet, advances in medicine, and location all contribute to changes that are a natural process of all species. Nonetheless, evolution cannot answer the question of how we came into being in the first place, any more than cosmology and physics can explain how the universe came into being. If it was always there, we have a big problem with its current state. If it suddenly came into existence, then science must explain what external force caused that to happen, because you cannot create something out of nothing!
Let us now turn to one of the great, modern proponents of the intelligent design movement, Dr. Stephen Meyer. A PhD philosophy of science graduate at Cambridge, Meyer has written extensively on subjects such as irreducible complexity, the Cambrian explosion, and the mathematical improbability that life as we know it could have self-formed in an undirected manner. By way of example, he states that the mathematical probability of even a simple protein of say, 150 amino acids long, self forming in a functional, as opposed to a non-functional manner – a critical distinction, is a number, 1077, greater than the number of atoms estimated in our milky way, 1066… and would require a timeframe longer than the age of the universe. Why such improbability? Because of the information coding of the nucleotides along the spines of the DNA helix, which Watson and Crick would so elegantly illustrate in 1953, in which the four types of bases, Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine, and Thymine must be arranged in a specific order for the possibility of a protein being made, which are the essential building blocks necessary for tissue and organs to exist? This goes way beyond the adage that if an infinite number of monkeys with and infinite number of typewriters had an infinite amount of time, one would produce a Shakespearean play!
We also must consider the Cambrian explosion, which occurred in the fossil record some 550 to 530 million years ago, in which a plethora of new life forms appeared without precursor forms in the earlier fossil record. Meaning that within the short span of a few million years they just appeared but are unconnected to earlier fossil forms. This has been verified in the shale formations in North America and China. In fact, it was the Chinese’ shale deposits which led to the recalculation of the timeframe in which these deposits were laid down, a timeframe much shorter than the earlier, North American deposits seemed to indicate.
In addition to the unique properties of our universe, we also need to consider the uniqueness of our planet, our “goldilocks planet” as it is sometimes called. and with good reason! First, our ninety-three-million-mile distance from the sun places us within a temperate zone, which means we neither freeze, nor burn up. Our planet is also tilted on its axis, which moves over time at an angle of between 21.5 and 24.5 degrees. It is currently at 23.5 degrees, and this tilt enables us to experience the seasons in the northern and southern hemispheres. Our moon also performs a critical function, in that the ocean tides are a product of its gravitational pull. All of which means that we can grow food and live-in relative comfort, depending on whether you like warm, or cool climatic conditions. In another master stroke, our planet is surrounded by the van Allen belts in our magnetosphere, which protects us from the life-threatening gamma rays emanating from our sun, especially when there are massive solar flares. For us, fortunately, this might only interfere with radio and television transmissions, or the tripping of a circuit breaker in the power grid.
I believe that it is also worth noting that while Albert Einstein eschewed formal religion, his own Jewish faith, together with Christianity, Islam, and others, it cannot be said that he did not have theistic inclinations when it came to the extraordinary complexity of the universe, and the laws, and constants in physics which, if altered even slightly, would make the universe inhospitable to human life. He often mentions God in quotes, and not in a disparaging way. I think that the most mystifying one is when he stated, “When the answer is simple, God is speaking.” Einstein was always seeking simple ways to explain and demonstrate complex theories, so perhaps we might think of him as a scientist with theistic inclinations as opposed to an atheist, an epithet he rejected vigorously!
Finally, I am reminded that science, in its most foundational sense, as well as the information on which scientific theory is based, has changed over time. For example, Sir Isaac Newton, together with many of his seventeenth century colleagues, saw the natural world as being the signature of God; that the magnificence of the universe and created Man, were the product of an intelligence that was way beyond ours. It would not be until the so-called age of enlightenment, around the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, that natural science, or the materialistic branch of science, succumbed to the idea that everything we could observe was the product of an undirected series of occurrences. At least according to The Pew Research Foundation, some fifty one percent of scientist today, still subscribe to that earlier belief, unfortunately only a few of them are willing to claim so publicly. I am confident that as the materialistic branches fail to explain, in effort after effort, the beginning of everything, that more of them will eventually come out, so to speak.
