The Scientific Argument Against Evolution, Part Two

Last week we considered the difference between primary and secondary causes as well as operation science and origin science. In doing so we concluded that evolution is seeking to apply the principles of operation science to explain things that by their very nature only happened once. This week we want to consider the question of whether intelligent primary causes are possible.

    Origin science is not restricted to secondary causes (the natural causes that operate the universe); therefore, origin science sometimes finds evidence that suggests an intelligent primary cause.(1) Previously we considered the example of the detectives and medical examiners on the television show, CSI. These law enforcement personnel have to determine for each death whether they are looking for a natural cause of death or a murderer—an intelligent cause. More often than not it is concluded that an intelligent being has intervened to bring about the victim's demise.

    In the case of the origin of life, what type of evidence is needed to safely suggest the handiwork of an intelligent being? Noted evolutionist, Carl Sagan, has said that a single message from outer space would confirm his belief that there is extraterrestrial life.(2) Unwittingly, Sagan has admitted that some normal events such as communication require an intelligent cause. Do you remember Alphabets Cereal? It's that sugary kid's cereal where the pieces are shaped like the letters of the alphabet. Suppose you awoke one morning to find the following message spelled out on the table in cereal, "Good morning, honey. I hope you have a good day at school today. Love, Mom." Your first inclination is not to assume that the box of cereal tipped over and the characters randomly assembled themselves to deliver you a message. Rather, your first reaction would be to perceive that some intelligent source, in this case your mother, has purposefully arranged the bits of cereal to deliver a message.

    The type of order necessary to spell out messages in cereal is known as specified complexity and it always points to an intelligent primary cause. Specified complexity is more than simply design or order; it is order of a complex nature that possesses a clear and specific function.(3) Consider the following three types of order.

• Orderly (repetitive) and specified (GIFT GIFT GIFT GIFT). Example: crystal, nylon
  
• Complex (unrepeating) and unspecified (TGELDHT TBWMHQC PUQHBT). Example: random polymers.
  
• Complex (unrepeating) and specified (THIS SENTENCE CARRES A MESSAGE). Example: DNA(4)
  

Only one of these three types of order is the result of intelligent intervention. "It is obvious that wherever we see a clear and distinct message—a complex design with a specified function—it was caused by some form of intelligent intervention imposing limits on the natural matter that it would not take by itself."(5)

    To bring the point home let us consider two geological formations. As we make this comparison, we need to remember that origin science is a forensic science based upon the principle of uniformity, which maintains that causes in the past are similar to the causes we observe today.(6) In order to illustrate the point, consider the following question, "What caused the Grand Canyon?" Even though we were not there to see the formation of the Grand Canyon, we can observe the natural process of water erosion causing canyons today and see the results produced, which are similar to the Grand Cayon. Therefore, we can surmise that the Grand Canyon was formed through the natural process of water erosion even though we did not directly observe its origin.(7)

    In contrast, no reasonable person consistently applying the principle of uniformity would look at Mount Rushmore and conclude that it was the result of the natural process of water erosion. "Since we never observe natural laws chiseling a highly detailed sculpture of a president's head into stone at the present time, we rightly conclude that natural laws couldn't have done it in the past either."(8) In the present, we observe that only intelligent beings are capable of carving detailed sculptures out of rock. "As a result, we rightly conclude that, in the past, only an intelligent being (a sculptor) could have created the faces on Mount Rushmore."(9)

    The implications of these conclusions are magnified when one considers the extraordinary complexities of human life. Recall that Darwin theorized that all life emerged form a one-celled organism through spontaneous generation alone (natural process). This is the height of absurdity when one considers that a single strand of DNA contains the equivalent of 1,000 encyclopedias worth of complex information. "Natural laws have never been observed to create a simple message like 'Drink Coke,' much less a message 1,000 encyclopedias long."(10) Spontaneous generation of life according to the Darwinian model has never been observed. Rather life only arises from similar existing life.(11) Ironically, any experiment that seeks to prove the spontaneous generation life suffers from the intelligent intervention of the scientist conducting the study.

    We have seen that it is valid science to look for intelligent primary causes to events that show signs of intelligence. Archeology is based on this principle. When archeologists discover pottery or arrowheads they rightly conclude that some intelligent being produced it.(12) Likewise, present experience tells us that intelligent causes should be sought anytime we find specified complexity. "This gives us a criteria to show when an intelligent cause is operating and when it is not."(13)

Even the noted atheist, Richard Dawkins, author of The Blind Watchmaker, acknowledges that life bears evidence of design. Dawkins writes, "Biology is the study of completed things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."(14) Despite acknowledging "the intricate architecture and precision-engineering"(15) in each of the trillions of cells in the human body, Dawkins rejects the notion that any form of life is the product of design. All of this highlights the point Norman Geisler and Frank Turek make in I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, "the creation-evolution debate is not about religion verses science or the Bible verses science—it's about good science verses bad science."(16)

Since evolutionary biologists can offer no support for spontaneous generation, either empirical or forensic, it appears the "scientific" deck has been stacked against creationism by ruling out intelligent primary causes in advance. Phillip Johnson, author of the essay, The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, states "Darwinism is based on an a priori (prior) commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses."(17) Physicist Hurbert Yockey confesses, "The belief that life on earth arose spontaneously form nonliving matter, is simply a matter of faith in strict reductionism and is based entirely on ideology."(18)

Yockey highlights the dirty little secret naturalists don't want the public to know. Naturalism is a religion. It takes more faith for a reasonable person to believe that life spontaneously arose from nonlife than it does to believe that God, an intelligent cause designed the created order.

Endnotes:

1. Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks. When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook of Christian Evidences. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1990), 216.
   
2. Ibid., 216-217.
   
3. Ibid., 217.
   
4. Ibid., 217.
   
5. Ibid., 217.
   
6. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek. I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004), 117.
   
7. Ibid., 117-118.
   
8. Ibid., 118.
   
9. Ibid., 118.
   
10. Ibid., 118.
    
11. Ibid., 118.
    
12. Geisler and Brooks. When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook of Christian Evidences. 217.
    
13. Ibid.,218.
    
14. Richard Dawkins. The Blind Watchmaker. (New York: Norton, 1987), 1.
    
15. Ibid., 3.
    
16. Geisler and Turek. I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. 120.
    
17. Phillip E. Johnson. "The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism," First Things (November 1997): 22-25.
    
18. Hubert Yockey. Information Theory and Molecular Biology. (Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 284.