We cannot see Him, hear Him, touch Him, or put Him in a test tube. How can we know anything about Him, or even be sure He exists? It is widely asserted, and accepted, that this is impossible, and therefore God’s existence and nature are unknowable. This agnostic position commits a major fallacy of omission, already briefly mentioned in ch. 5. Let me explain.

    First consider another question: How do we know there is a wind? We cannot see it or hold it. But we can see its effects: things blow around, tree branches move back and forth, we hear noise. The only reasonable explanation is that the wind is blowing. If someone refuses to believe a wind exists, we consider him crazy! This is not exactly the same as God, but it is similar in some respects: We cannot see God, but we can see some things He has done. There are many things and events for which the only reasonable, simple explanation is that God caused them. We do not have a right to demand that God show Himself to us when, where, and how we ask Him to. Making such demands is an act of presumption that has already implicitly rejected the existence of a God Who is really sovereign. As for objective experiments, anything you can cram into the proverbial test tube is not God, so that is not a reasonable way to look for evidence of His existence either. This reveals the foolishness of the Soviet cosmonaut who looked out of his spacecraft and reported that he didn’t see God. In the vastness of this universe, any human space-flight thus far is totally insignificant, and anything we found that way would not be God. If the cosmonaut really wanted to see God, the way to do it would be to take off his space suit.

    So, how can we know anything about God? If He really is God, He can choose when, where, and how to reveal Himself. This is the major and fatal omission committed by those who adopt the agnostic position: it is true that we cannot find God by our own ability and effort, but He can take the initiative in finding us and placing certain events and objects in our path. If He has done so and we refuse to see what He has done, we cannot complain that He did not do something else, nor sit obstinately with our eyes closed insisting that there could be no such things. Well, we can, but it doesn’t make sense.

    Many people object to this, saying that any explanation that mentions God is not reasonable or simple, but is unscientific, irrational, religious, an escape from finding a natural cause, a step backward toward the Dark Ages, and a hindrance to scientific research. We have already discussed this objection (ch. 5, V); it is reductionism, “nothing but science.” When we say that some things indicate that God exists and has acted, this is a conclusion from research, and is always open to further research. It is not escaping anything. If some facts really are the result of God’s actions, is science forbidden to discover that truth? Isn’t science supposed to be an open-minded search for truth? How can anyone say before we even begin research that we must not conclude that some things are the result of God’s actions? Who seems to be trying to escape something? Who is limiting the progress of research?

    This approach avoids the danger of finding only a “God of the gaps” who explains the gaps in our present ability to understand nature. This error was often committed in the past, to explain comets, lightning, disease, etc. The God of the gaps has far less work to do now than he used to, and is approaching retirement. But the God of the Bible is the God of what we do know, not just what we don’t. What we know points to something beyond nature and its laws. Some such things were already introduced in ch. 3, IV, D, and ch. 5, V, responding to materialists’ reductionist explanations of religion and human nature. Now we will find several more such things even within the physical, material realm where many modern people think God’s activity has been excluded by scientific knowledge.

    Atheists capitalize on Christians’ past errors, and refer derisively to any mention of God’s work as a repetition of the “god of the gaps” fallacy. There are at least two fallacies in this association. First, it is not a fact that all the gaps in our understanding have been filled by science in the past. This book emphasizes some still-unfilled gaps. Thus atheists are invoking a seriously biased data sample in drawing their conclusion. This is like saying that because some rocks can be dissolved in water, therefore all rocks can be.

    The second fallacy is the pretense that it is only religious believers who indulge in various strategies of filling gaps. The only way in which atheists are different is that they have a “no-god of the gaps” policy. They simply fill the present gaps with unknown “laws,” which we are assured will be discovered sooner or later by continuing research; these could be described as “laws of the gaps.” The fact is that there are gaps in our understanding, and there always will be. Some are eventually filled by scientific discoveries, while others are increasingly found to be unfillable in that way. Such gaps include ones discussed in ch. 2, IV, and the mysteries of human consciousness, ethical standards, and sense of purpose, as well as the ones discussed in this chapter, the origin of the universe, of living things, and of the Bible. It takes just as much faith to believe in yet-unknown laws to explain all these as it does to believe in a personal God.

    Some Christians are so fearful of repeating the “God of the gaps” error that they insist we must not find any scientific evidence for God anywhere; this amounts to the separation of faith from fact, ch. 5, I, F, 1. They go so far as to assert that God must have created the universe so as to require no physical intervention forever after, and even claim that it is a lack of faith, or clarity of thought, to believe He would do so. This is treading on dangerous ground, putting our thoughts in God’s mouth, constraining Him to conform to our opinions. The question is what He has in fact chosen to do, and the Bible seems to clearly state that He has chosen to continue acting within His universe. So, while being careful not to imagine such action where it has not occurred, we also must not hamstring God by denying it where it does occur. There is no simple answer, but we must investigate each purported case with a skeptical but open mind.

    Earlier chapters discussed the Bible’s outlook on science. This chapter uses the scientific outlook on the Bible. So our starting point is that facts about the universe, ourselves, and the Bible exist, and that we are rational, logical beings. We do not begin by assuming that God exists (though there is no other basis for assuming that facts exist and that we are rational!). We simply do not assume that God does not exist, nor even that He can be omitted in the explanation of our life and world. This is the only truly open-minded approach.

    The facts that show us that the God of the Bible exists may be summarized in four main points as follows, and each point tells us something relevant to the question of the existence and nature of God.

    The first three are factual, objective. They are in this order because they tell us progressively more about God. The fourth point is partly subjective, and some aspects were already discussed in the section on social sciences versus Christianity, which talked about psychological and sociological effects. We will have more to say.

    One final comment before we begin discussion of these points: Since the emphasis here is on finding things that God has done, this is not a repetition of the classical purely logical “proofs” of the existence of God which occupied so much of the energies of pro- and anti-Christian thinkers for centuries. These were called ontological, cosmological, teleological, and so on. These had some validity, but also seemed to contain enough loopholes to be insufficient as “proofs.” A modern-day incarnation of this approach is Cornelius van Til’s presuppositional viewpoint, insisting that it is impossible to be a rational human without at least implicitly believing in the existence of God. I of course believe he is right, but I am not convinced such an argument is logically airtight, and many others both Christian and non-Christian share that lack of being convinced. This is related to the topic of ch 5, V, A, 3, about our inherent personhood, which I consider as something which is simply felt, and beyond logical proof. Be that as it may, I am intending here to stick to observed facts, or truths, though conclusions unavoidably must also draw in some assumptions and logic along the way (ch 5, III).

I The characteristics of the universe

    There are at least four important facts about the universe that indicate it had a beginning, and that its beginning cannot be explained by the presently known laws of nature.

    This is a very important conclusion. It gives our first valuable clue from science in our search for the correct religious faith. It means that materialism, the belief that matter and energy are all that exists and are either eternal or self-created (whatever that means), has no scientific basis and in fact contradicts what we can observe. This belies materialists’ claims to a scientific basis for their beliefs.

    Agnostics also have a hard time coping with this fact. While they do not deny the existence of a realm beyond the physical universe, they deny that it has any interaction with the universe, and a beginning certainly is an interaction. Perhaps some agnostics grudgingly concede the possibility of an act of creation, and then no further supernatural intervention. This makes them equivalent to the position of deists.

    For pantheists and animists, the question of ultimate origins is mostly ignored as unknowable and distant to the point of irrelevance. The existence of our environment, and ourselves, is simply given, and attention is centered on coping with life here and now. There are creation myths, but they are not regarded as serious historicalaccounts. Hinduism has a concept of a cyclic universe, but that seems ruled out by known physical laws.

    Deists accept creation; no problem there.

    Some Christians conclude that the discovery of a beginning of the universe confirms that the God of the Bible exists and was the cause of the beginning. It does not prove that much. It does mean that there is nothing unscientific about believing the Bible’s story of creation: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Modern Christians need not be ashamed to admit that they believe it. In fact its consistency with recent scientific research can be viewed as a confirmation of faith in the Bible; it is the only religious tradition that seems closely parallel to what is now known. All others are unrelated or contradictory.

    What are the four characteristics of the universe that indicate a beginning?

A Olbers’ Paradox: The sky is dark and cold

    This question is named after Heinrich Olbers, who stated it in 1826. But whoever thus named it had not done his homework, because the question had previously been raised by Thomas Digges in 1576, Johann Kepler in 1610, and Edmond Halley in 1721.

B The Second Law of Thermodynamics

    This may sound very complex, but the principle is familiar to all of us. We are all experts on the Second Law; we just don’t know the Second Law when we see it. We straighten and clean our room today, but tomorrow it is less orderly and less clean. A more scientific example is that heat always flows from hot to cold, not cold to hot. A folded piece of paper will never again be flat, and clothing fresh out of the dyer needs to be ironed. Mixed liquids will never separate themselves back into different liquids, or into hot and cold parts. And so on. If someone tells you that his room just cleaned itself, the wind blew all the dust into the wastebasket and the clothes into the closet, you know that person needs to see a psychiatrist.

    This has some very profound implications. The universe is a system which is not in a totally random state. It is very non-uniform in density, temperature, and composition. There is a large amount of energy available to do work, and the stars are busy using that energy to shine. Sunlight that streams into space will never again be regathered to heat the Sun. This means that the process of randomization has not yet reached completion, therefore either it has been continuing for only a finite time, or the universe is infinite in size and the part we see is an infinitesimal pocket where the process is not yet complete. This second option is a dubious play of degrees of infinity. Also, an infinite universe does not explain many other things we will mention later about living things and the Bible. If the universe has been here a finite time, then that is the same as saying it had a beginning, which was an ordering process or event, which was different from the processes which we now observe. We will not now discuss whether this beginning should be called “supernatural,” or “creation,” . For now, we will just say “a beginning.”

C The General Theory of Relativity

    An interesting side-note is that in recent years the cosmological constant has been resurrected, but not as a return to the concept of an eternal universe. It is a possible factor in the development of the universe since the beginning. In the motion of the distant, early objects seen by the largest telescopes, there are evidences of another force besides the four presently known, because the expansion of the universe seems to be accelerating, instead of decreasing as it would if gravitational attraction were the dominant force. This is still an active area of research and there is no firm conclusion yet. Whatever the conclusion, it is a confirmation not a denial of the concept of a beginning.

D The expansion of the universe

    This means that Einstein’s equations were (perhaps) right the first time. At least he was not wrong in allowing for an expanding universe. The universe is not stationary and eternal, but apparently had a beginning a long but not infinite time in the past. Given a distance and a speed, it is simple to estimate the time of travel. Estimates of the distances of galaxies still have some uncertainty, and the speed should decrease with time if gravitational attraction is the main factor affecting it. Or it may increase if the cosmological constant overcomes that attraction. To estimate this we need to know the average density of the universe, which is not at all well known. So the estimate of the time of expansion of the universe is uncertain, probably between 10 and 20 billion years.

    This expansion is only important on the largest scale of the universe. It won’t make you taller. Within a cluster of galaxies there are local motions, so that a galaxy is approaching some of its near neighbors and receding from others. For instance, M31, the Andromeda Galaxy, is approaching us. It is the nearest large spiral galaxy, “only” a little over 2,000,000 light years away, virtually our next-door neighbor, a member of the Local Group of galaxies. Also, the expansion of the universe has no significant effect on the motion of stars within a galaxy, so half the stars we see in our Milky Way are moving toward us and the other half are moving away, mostly due to the rotation of the galaxy.

    Scientists in Hubble’s time still did not accept the concept of a beginning of the universe, because science could not explain such a beginning. Such remote questions of origins were simply unknowable, and thus ignored. But by the 1940’s a few physicists saw that the developing field of high-energy particle physics could be applied to the possible conditions in an explosion that produced the present expanding universe. Around 1950 George Gamow and several others worked out the basic implications of such a theory.

    Calculations from the known properties of high-energy particle interactions indicated that such an explosion would produce mostly H (hydrogen, the lightest element, with only one proton) with a little He (helium, the second element, with two protons and two neutrons) and a very small amount of a few more of the lightest elements. They also could explain that all the heavier elements were later produced in fusion reactions in the cores of stars, which finally explained the long-standing question of the origin of the stars’ tremendous energy output. These elements in the cores of stars were then mixed into interstellar gases when large stars exploded as supernovae, or ordinary stars lost their outer layers in their final stage as a red giant. Another conclusion of the theory is that the initial explosion would produce heat radiation, which would cool as the universe expands, and should now be everywhere, with a temperature of a few degrees above absolute zero, which places it in the microwave range.

    This theory has come to be called the Big Bang. Fred Hoyle, a British astronomer, gave it this name in derision, but it was such an appropriate description, and no one could think of a better one, that it quickly became the standard terminology.

    There are several important confirmations of the Big Bang theory. First, it correctly predicts the observed chemical composition of the universe, which is in fact (by mass) about 3/4 H (hydrogen), 1/4 He (helium) and about 1% all the heavier elements. However, this alone was not sufficient to win general acceptance for the theory. The predicted heat radiation could neither be confirmed nor disproved in 1950, because at that time there was no equipment that could observe it. So most scientists could still ignore the subject.

    Hoyle and others who opposed the Big Bang in the 1950’s proposed a “steady-state” theory of continuous creation of H in an eternal universe. Such creation violated the known laws of conservation of matter and energy, but the estimated rate of creation is so low that measurements cannot prove it does not occur. It was a choice between one sudden big creation or a continuous slow one that could be considered normal, a new law of nature. The second choice became popular for a few years, but failed to account for the facts that became apparent as astronomical observations continued to progress. If the universe is steady, or unchanging, then we should see galaxies in various stages of development, both old and new. But research showed that all galaxies close enough to see clearly have similar ages, and there are no signs of new ones in process of formation. This confirmed the concept of a beginning, and began to shake confidence in the steady state theory.

    Then in 1965 the “3K microwave cosmic background radiation” was observed by Penzias and Wilson of Bell Labs. The steady state theory then quickly fell out of favor, and almost all scientists accepted the Big Bangtheory. No alternative explanation of this radiation has gained general acceptance. Hoyle and a few others still advocate a modified form of their theory, and cite some observations in support of it, primarily the nature and distribution of some quasars. But that is getting beyond the scope of this book. In the early 1990s, COBE satellite measurements of this radiation provided further confirmation of the Big Bang theory. See ch. 1, VI.

    Progress in astronomical instruments has enabled astronomers to see galaxies further and further away, which means we are seeing their condition longer and longer ago. The history of the universe is not merely a matter of theory and deduction from the observed present, as is true of history on the earth. The history of the universe is actually set before our eyes, but the early parts of it are very distant and difficult to observe. As we see it increasingly clearly, it is apparent that galaxies long ago were different than they are now. There were super-bright quasars, rapid bursts of star formation, and a large proportion of spiral galaxies. All this once again confirms that there is change with time, and a beginning.

    It also finally solves Olbers’ paradox. The sky is dark for two reasons: the universe visible to us is limited in both space and time, because there has not been sufficient time for light to reach us from points beyond a certain distance. Also, the expansion weakens the light from the more distant parts that we can see.

    The presently known laws of nature can be used to calculate from the present back to a moment (about 10^-43 sec) after the beginning of the expansion. Before that time the density and energy is beyond the range of known laws. Either that was a beginning, or there are other laws we do not know yet. But even if there are other laws, that only pushes the question of the beginning back further, and we still must ask where that material and those laws came from. It is doubtful if our research can possibly find out what happened before that, but I won’t venture a“never”: prediction on this point. Science is simply silent about the exact moment of beginning, and “before the beginning” has no scientific meaning within the presently accepted theories of science. There are some interesting recent (2000) developments in “string theory” that claim to circumvent this limitation; stand by to see how this develops in years to come.

    Hugh Ross’s books discuss several attempts to escape the conclusion that there was a beginning. Some scientists have speculated that the universe may be cyclic. They assume that the expansion will eventually slow to a stop, and the universe will then begin to contract, ending finally in a “Big Crunch.” They also assume that the universe could then “bounce” back, and thus continue expanding, contracting, and bouncing back again and again forever. But the second law of thermodynamics means that the bounces could not be the same each time, but could only happen a finite number of times. So, this only pushes the beginning further back, but still does not escape the fact that there must have been a beginning. Another problem is that there is no known scientific principle which could cause the bounce. Also, it means there is no scientific confirmation of the Hindu-Buddhist concept of an eternal, cyclic universe. Finally, as already mentioned, it seems that the expansion of the universe is accelerating not slowing down.

    Some theorists have referred to a “cosmic egg” which “became unstable” and exploded. This too has no scientific basis, but is only another attempt to escape the concept of a beginning. It is merely a personal speculation of scientists trying to evade the implications of a beginning, and has no role in the Big Bang theory.

    So we conclude that the universe began between 10 and 20 billion years ago, and that at present science cannot explain the cause of that beginning. This will always be the most that can be said on the basis of science: We haven’t yet found a natural cause. But the longer this continues to be true, the more credible is the conclusion that there is no natural cause, but that this is an example of an interaction with a larger realm of reality beyond the physical universe. Such interactions are represented by the arrow in the diagram at the end of ch. 2 and discussed in ch. 5.

    For more details on the age of the universe, see ch. 7, II, C.

    Another conclusion is that compared to the universe we are extremely small and short-lived. Humans and human life seem insignificant in this vast and ancient universe. Something inside of us needs to believe that there is more value and purpose in life than just this little bit of time and space.
II. The characteristics of living things

    In our search for things that might be indications that there is a God, we continue on to the consideration of living things.

    Most people believe that science has proved there is no God who made living things, including us, and therefore there is no purpose for life. However, many facts about living things indicate that they are the result of intelligent design. Design implies a designer. This means that naturalistic materialism, which denies the existence of a designer, is not supported by science. In fact naturalism is refuted if it cannot account for the origin of living things. They do exist, and did have an origin. If the facts support the conclusion of intelligent design, then there is no objection to faith in religions that teach a concept of creation by a higher being. This need not be a barrier to such faith.

    As just explained in sec. I, the currently known evidence indicates that the universe had a beginning, which is called the Big Bang. The source of the power and laws of the Big Bang is not necessarily personal, but a designer is, so this is progress in our quest for guidance from science in the selection of our religious faith. If we have a designer, he or she no doubt has a purpose for his work, which might not be the same as some of our plans. He might still be around, and be concerned about what happens to the things he designed. If so, this is an important consideration in the choice of our philosophy of life and values, in other words our faith.

    This reinforces the rejection of atheism and agnosticism indicated by the characteristics of the universe. As for pantheism, a designer is more personal and purposeful than a vague universe-god, and it attaches more importance to the physical universe and our bodies than considering it all a mere illusion. So it is difficult to reconcile pantheism with the evidence for precise and intricate design. Animism in many places contains a creation myth, and a supreme God with whom people at first had a relationship, then lost it, so animism seems at least possibly still compatible with the clues from science. 18th-century deism accepted the creation of living things, but modern-day liberalism prefers to keep this creation very fuzzy and indirect.

    Christians sometimes assume that this proves the God of the Bible was the designer, but it does not prove that much. It does not even prove that the cause of the Big Bang is the same as the designer of living things. We must have further information before we can make that conclusion. Sec. III will provide that information.

A. The suitability of the universe and the earth for life

1. The basic constants of physics

    If these constants were only slightly different, the universe would be totally different, or probably not exist at all, and the existence of living things of any kind would be impossible. It is impossible to make any meaningful quantitative estimate of the number of combinations of values these constants that would yield a habitable universe, but it is certain that the probability is very small that a random choice of values for these constants would be any such combination. Even if it was up to us to tune them properly, with seventeen adjustments to make all at once we might never find the right combination. Why do these constants “just happen” to be so precisely “just right”? This is called the anthropic principle, that the universe seems somehow required to be suitable for us to be here.

    Examples are endless. Here are a few important ones. The constants are just right so that the Big Bang produced hydrogen and helium and a small amount of a few other light elements, as summarized in the previous section. These materials and conditions were suitable for the formation of stars. Stars can form, and all but the largest shine for billions of years. In earlier generations people took the existence of stars for granted, because they did not understand what stars are. Now that we have a fairly accurate understanding of the structure and processes of a star, we realize that it is amazing that they can exist. Nearly all the laws of physics are involved in forming a star: gravity, thermodynamics, nuclear reactions, electromagnetic radiation, gas behavior, static and dynamic balance of forces. It is not easy for a solution of all these equations to exist. If gravity were a little stronger, all stars would simply collapse under their own weight into a black hole never to be seen again. Or if gravity were a little weaker, or nuclear reactions a little stronger, the fusion reaction at the center of a forming star would be explosive and destroy it; there would be no steady state. It is truly remarkable that a stable solution exists which satisfies so many constraints. Don’t take sunshine for granted, nor all those stars at night.

    The story continues. The largest stars form heavier elements in their core through fusion reactions, and then explode as supernovae which places these elements in space where they can form future stars and planets. Solid planets can form and keep an atmosphere. One of the more abundant elements collected into these planets is carbon. All forms of life on earth are based on the ability of carbon atoms to form long chains and link to other atoms. Many other elements have special chemical characteristics that serve special purposes in life processes: oxygen, hydrogen, iron, calcium, phosphorus, potassium, zinc, nitrogen, etc. The formation of these elements is determined by the nuclear physics of fusion reactions in stars, but the chemical properties are determined by the quantum mechanics and electrodynamics of the electrons circling around the nucleus.

    Water is an unusual material, important to our life in many different ways. It makes up most of our body, is an almost universal solvent, and all the chemical reactions that keep us alive occur in water solution. Liquid water has a large specific heat and latent heat, and water vapor in the atmosphere is a strong absorber and emitter of infrared radiation and therefore plays an important role in the greenhouse effect; these characteristics have a major role in stabilizing the global climate. Water expands when it freezes, instead of contracting like almost every other liquid does; this means that oceans and lakes do not freeze solid from the bottom up, but instead an insulating ice cover forms over lakes, rivers, and polar oceans.

    We cannot say that water was especially designed for all these roles. All these characteristics are of course determined by the few basic laws of physics. Those laws just “happen” to produce a substance like water, along with all the countless other substances around and in us.

    One other number is not a basic constant, but determines the nature of the universe: the initial expansion rate of the Big Bang. It must be exact within at least 10⁵⁰, or in other words correct to at least 50 digits. Outside of this range, the universe would either quickly re-collapse under its own gravitation, or disperse too rapidly for galaxies and stars to form. This seems to be fine-tuning to an incredible degree. A solution to this problem has been proposed in terms of a period of rapid “inflation” during the early instants of the expansion, due to certain high-energy particle interactions. One result is that the universe may be 10¹⁰⁰ times as large as the part that is visible to us. This inflation would guarantee the establishment of the correct expansion rate. If this is correct, it does not refute the evidence for design, only rephrases it: The initial explosion was designed with exactly the right basic laws that produced this type of inflation period.

2. The characteristics of the earth-moon-sun system

    Hugh Ross, in his book listed below, considers 33 characteristics that are necessary for living things to exist on the earth. Making very optimistic assumptions, he estimates that the probability of all of these being just right by chance is 10^-42. The number of planets in the visible universe, up to about 10 billion light years away, is estimated to be at most 10²². This too is extremely optimistic, based on virtually no actual data. It simply assumes that the number of planets is approximately the same as the number of stars, in other words that one every several stars has a system of several planets. Recent (since Hugh Ross made this estimate in 1993) observations of planets of other stars indicate that planets are in fact numerous, but the formation of a stable solar system with an Earth-like planet is exceptional. So is such a system’s long-term survival without disruption by passing stars and massive nebulae. This conclusion will become clearer in the next few years as observation methods continue to improve and more such planets are discovered. Finally, the probability that random chance could produce one planet in the universe suitable for life is very closely approximated by the product of these two numbers, which is 10^-20! It is more reasonable to say that it happened by design than by accident.

    In recent years, moons of giant planets have also been proposed as habitable sites, but this has many serious shortcomings, and in any case it at best multiplies the odds by a factor between 1 and 10, which is insignificant.

    There is some apparent hope for escape from this dilemma. If cosmologists are correct that the universe is 10¹⁰⁰ times as big as the part that is visible to us, then that easily overcomes the factor of 10^-20. But this number came from consideration of only 33 characteristics. Dr Ross’s more recent material lists nearly 100 factors required for a habitable Earth. The probability of all these factors being correct is of course far lower than the above figure. Progress in this field of research does not make the prospects for life in the universe look more optimistic. The resulting decrease in the probability estimate can easily offset an additional 10¹⁰⁰ increase in the number of opportunities. Furthermore, all this is irrelevant to the possibility of extra-terrestrial life anyway because as discussed below, favorable circumstances do not at all guarantee the production of life, and the existence of life does not at all guarantee the appearance of advanced intelligence. The improbabilities involved in that process hopelessly overshadow even this number.

    Even if it could be demonstrated that there is a high probability of the existence of a planet suitable for life and inhabited by an advanced civilization somewhere in a very vast universe, it still is ridiculously optimistic to expect to find it in our nearby neighborhood. But this is precisely what the SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) program hopes for. It was funded by the US government National Science Foundation for a few years, until deleted by Congress. One Senator is recorded to have remarked that it is hard enough to find intelligent life in Washington, DC, let alone outer space! The program continues on with private funding, the primary promoter being the Planetary Society.
    The theoretical basis of this program is expressed in the Drake equation, produced by Frank Drake. This equation is an excellent analysis of the factors that determine the likelihood that technologically advanced extraterrestrial civilizations exist. I will not write it in symbols, but just describe the factors. The desired answer is the expected number of technologically advanced civilizations in the Milky Way Galaxy whose messages we might be able to detect. We can for now assume that signals from other galaxies would be too weak to detect. This number is the product of the following factors: the rate at which solar-type stars form in the Galaxy (number per year), the fraction of those stars that have planets, the average number of Earth-like (habitable) planets per planetary system, the fraction of habitable planets on which life does in fact appear, the fraction of those planets on which life forms evolve into intelligent species, the fraction of those species that develop the technology to send messages into space and choose to do so, and the average lifetime (in years) of advanced civilizations. Most factors in this equation are interesting subjects for research. The crucial ones are the number of Earth-like planets, and the fractions that produce life and intelligent life. As we have discussed, a good planet is extremely hard to find. In the following sections we will find that given a suitable environment the probability of life appearing by chance is hopelessly infinitesimal, and given a simple life form the probability of randomly evolving into advanced and intelligent forms is far smaller than even that probability. Thus no matter what the other factors in the Drake equation may be, two or three zero factors yield an answer of zero.

    The optimistic estimates on which the program was originally based in the 1970s only considered a few characteristics required for habitability, less than 10. They also assumed that given a habitable environment the probability of the appearance of life is not small, in fact almost certain, and so is the evolution of advanced intelligent forms. These estimates were then inserted in the Drake equation, giving the optimistic result that there must be at least a few, perhaps millions, of advanced civilizations in our own Milky Way Galaxy, just waiting for us to notice their signals. One reason that federal funding was discontinued was that more realistic information was provided to the congressmen considering it. But the advocates and especially participants of the SETI program seem to disregard these more realistic estimates. No doubt one factor in this oversight is that doing so would leave them unemployed. But they also express a deep psychological investment in the search, a longing to find that we are not alone in the universe. If only they would accept a relationship with the God Who created them and the universe, this need would be met. But they would still be looking for another job.

    Books that discuss this subject include:

    The Universe: Plan or Accident?, by Robert E. D. Clark. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1949, revised 1961, republished 1972. The only thing that is out of date in this book is some pre-space-age speculation about conditions on other planets. The author is a Christian.
    The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, by John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986. This huge book lists many things that must be just right for life to exist. The authors are agnostics, so they do not believe this is a result of intelligent design. They suggest that there must be a large number of universes with different laws of nature.

    The Creator and the Cosmos, by Hugh Ross. Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1993. An excellent discussion by a Christian astrophysicist of the origin of the universe and of living things, showing evidence that it was all carefully designed, and the designer was the God of the Bible. It contains the above-mentioned estimate of the number of habitable planets in the known universe.

    Rare Earth, by Peter D. Ward and Donald Brownlee. New York: Copernicus (Springer-Verlag), 2000. ISBN 0-387-98701-0. The authors firmly believe evolution, but they face the facts that a habitable planet is hard to come by.

B.   The information content and complexity of living things

1. The “simplest” living things

    A so-called simple cell is incredibly complex. It contains thousands of different proteins, which are huge molecules made of many thousands of atoms grouped in units called amino acids. Each protein performs a special function, because of its special shape. It is like a tool, or a robot. This shape and function is not determined by the natural laws of reaction of the amino acids in it, just as the nature of iron does not determine the shape of a screwdriver, hammer, wrench, key, etc. This is why chemistry is divided into inorganic and organic chemistry; the interactions between these ultraminiature organic robots must be explained on an entirely different level than the simple forces and energies which are sufficient to account for inorganic reactions. The processes of metabolism and reproduction consist of many processes which are carried out by these complex proteins. If one of them is missing, the entire cell cannot live or reproduce.

    All this is interdependent. The DNA in a cell contains the blueprint determining the structure of all the other proteins, including ones called RNA. But RNA contains the code for interpreting and executing the blueprint, including producing more DNA. It is a classic chicken and egg arrangement. Even the simplest imaginable living system would have to be extremely complex, containing a large number of proteins which in turn are extremely complex.

    The processes that go on in actual living cells are incredibly complex, and we will probably never finish research to understand them. For example, photosynthesis involves a huge protein and several steps in the physical process of converting energy from sunlight into chemical energy. Vision is also a complex process, converting light into an electrical signal in a nerve cell. The ability of muscles to contract depends on protein molecules which are linear electric stepping motors. And many bacteria actually have reversible rotary electric motors only a few nanometers in diameter (a few dozen atoms), which power their motion.

    The simplest known object that can be considered “life” is a virus, which is a single giant protein, and the smallest known virus contains over 1000 amino acid units. Some theorists have estimated that a minimum of 400 units is required to possess the most rudimentary capabilities of reproduction and metabolism. But viruses in the present world are not independent. They survive only by invading and exploiting the vast resources of existing cells. No known truly self-reproducing molecule exists in the real world, only in the imagination of writers of articles and textbooks on the origin of life.

2. Complex systems, which are useless unless complete

    In a plant or animal, many organs form systems which must work together in order to live and reproduce. A comparatively simple example is a poisonous snake. Its poison gland produces several different complex poisons. This gland, a sac, tube, hollow tooth, control muscles, nerves, and the brain’s ability to operate this system all are necessary for the system to have any use; if any one part were missing it would all be useless, and ifmisconnected it would kill the snake itself. And the snake must not be poisoned itself when it eats the animals it has killed with its poison. A spider has a web gland and knows what to do with it. A mosquito’s bite is a complete tool set, with saws, a suction tube, and a thinner to make blood thin enough to flow up such a tiny tube. Some mosquito species even have a pain killer to keep you from feeling their bite. Butterflies go through their complex process of metamorphosis from egg to adult. Many other insects have similar and even more complex processes. A woodpecker has an unusual long tongue, a sharp beak, and a cushioned brain, all essential in order to drill holes in trees to get insects. Most animals have intricate systems of vision, hearing, touch, smell, taste, and in fact there are very different forms of these systems in different animals. They cannot all be derived from one very early common ancestor.

    Our bodies possess the ability to heal injuries, resist diseases, become conditioned to increased demands, and grow from small to large. These processes are so common that we take them for granted. It seems that living things “just naturally” have these capabilities, because they are essential for the very survival of life. This attitude may be considered a case of “familiarity breeds contempt.” Research shows that each one of these abilities is not merely simple and natural, but is accomplished by an extremely complex and very specific mechanism. Even the researchers seem to forget to wonder at their discoveries, and blithely trust random mutations and selection to be able to produce such marvelous solutions to these problems. Michael Behe is one researcher who has not forgotten the sense of wonder, and expresses it eloquently in his book, Darwin’s Black Box.

    Finally, there is the realm of ecology, the interaction and interdependence of all the different living organisms inhabiting this planet. This too contains endless wonders, which fill magazines and TV documentaries.

    A bag of loose clock parts does nothing, and shaking the bag is unlikely to assemble them. Even in an infinite time period, it simply will not happen. This is dramatically illustrated by the shy repentant nun in “The Sound of Music” confessing that she has stolen a single wire which immobilized an entire automobile. In our modern technological life we constantly deal with devices disabled by one small malfunctioning part. Similarly, complex biological systems work only if they are complete and precisely assembled. Our bodies are vastly more complex than any man-made device could ever be. Hospitals are filled with people whose bodies are 99% perfectly healthy; in fact so were most of the people who now fill the cemeteries, with the exception of victims of massive injuries or destructive diseases like cancer. Even the lowly proverbial mousetrap is a classic example of a complex system, emphasized in Dr. Michael Behe’s book. Half a mousetrap will not catch half a mouse. He cites this and many other examples of complex systems which cannot be simplified without completely losing their function. He has a chapter each on the chemical reaction involved in vision, the bacterial cilium and flagellum (powered by a two-directional electric motor!), the process of blood clotting, transport proteins within a cell, and the immune system. There is one more chapter on systems which could conceivably be assembled; they are not irreducible. But even these systems would have to survive an insurmountable obstacle course of improbabilities to achieve their current form. He likens this to road kill, like a blind ground hog trying to cross a ten-thousand lane freeway.

    All these examples are on the level of molecular biology, so there is no lower level of structure in which simple laws and patterns can explain the complexity higher up. What to Darwin was a “black box,” a mysterious entity whose inner workings were unknown, has now been opened. Darwin assumed there must be something simple inside. It is not.

    He calls all this “irreducible complexity,” and reports that he changed from faith to doubt about evolution when he searched the technical literature for proposed solutions to the problem of the origin of such complexity, and found to his amazement that almost no one has even attempted to give one. He specifically searched the Journal of Molecular Evolution, which began in 1971. The very few attempts he did find in that journal and a few books were totally inadequate, and his personal conclusion is that there cannot possibly be any naturalistic solution. Only intelligent design could produce such systems.

    Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity, and the scientific community’s failure to account for its origin in terms of Darwinian theory, is a strictly scientific critique of the theory of evolution. Behe is a Roman Catholic, with no religious objection to evolution as the process by which God acted to produce living things. But he concludes that the evidence indicates that there is no such process in action.

    All these amazingly complex systems in living things must have an explanation, an origin. They do exist, and they have not always existed. Something happened in the past to produce them. And whatever it was could not have been gradual; a complex system’s function is all or nothing. The simple, obvious conclusion from the existence of such vast complexity should be that it was designed. That is the unquestioned explanation of all such systems in the nonliving realm, from paper cups to supercomputers.

    No-one could deny that even something as simple as a paper cup must be a product of design. There is no paper cup tree. Consider a hand holding a paper cup. Which is more complex, the hand or the cup? The hand is, of course. It is the most precise tool in the world, capable of swinging a hammer, playing a piano, painting a picture, making and repairing a watch, calming a baby, or knocking out a heavyweight boxer. If the paper cup is designed, surely the hand is. But as everyone knows, virtually all the scientific world at present rejects that explanation for the hand. Why? Because it is a living thing, living things reproduce “naturally,” and living things are not believed to have come into being by design. Instead, scientists offer the theory of evolution. So we must now discuss evolution in considerable detail, before we can draw our own conclusion on the matter of our origin. Can we believe that the cup was designed but the hand holding it was not? This is the crucial question in the following lengthy discussion.

3. The theory of evolution

    I am not criticizing evolution just for the sake of criticizing evolution, or only because it has a perceived conflict with my belief in the authority of the Bible. We need to understand our origin, because where we came from largely determines why we are here, which in turn determines how we will live in our daily actions, words, and decisions. The two possible explanations, accidental impersonal evolution or intelligent purposeful design, lead to vastly divergent worldviews, and therefore different lifestyles in every facet of daily life. This is not merely an issue for theologians and biologists.

    First we must clearly define what evolution is. One definition is that any small change in living things is evolution. This is sometimes more precisely called “micro-evolution.” But a broader definition is an envisioned process in which all living things were produced by natural processes alone, time plus chance, not supernatural activity or intelligent design, only continuous descent and modification from less complex to more complex. These natural processes are the interactions of physics and the reactions of chemistry. This envisioned process is called “macro-evolution,” and it is what is usually meant by the term “evolution.”

    The key point for our present discussion is the words “natural processes alone,” specifically excluding any role for intelligent design, planning, or purpose. As stated a few paragraphs above, evolution is the alternative to, and denial of, design. The theory of evolution is in practice an application of the agnostics’ diagram in ch. 5, I, B, the exclusion of any intrusion into the natural world from outside. The National Association of Biology Teachers in the early 90s prepared guidelines for teaching biology. In one point they stated that there is no conflict between science and religion, but in a following point they asserted that the origin of living things was “unsupervised, impersonal,” which is very clearly in conflict with at least some religions, particularly those based on the Bible. The NABT leaders seemed unable to comprehend why this was a problem to anyone, and finally under considerable pressure in October 1997 they deleted the offending words, still not sure what the problem is. It is this: Is our existence fore-ordained for a purpose, or are we an accidental meaningless byproduct of an impersonal process?

    According to the naturalistic theory of evolution, it is random mutations, natural selection, environmental changes, and other natural factors that have produced increasingly complex living things, including you and me. If this is true, then we are the direct descendants of a clump of lifeless rocks and mud on the early earth 3 or 4 billion years ago. In discussion of evolution, the focus is often placed on the question of whether humans are descended from monkeys. This is a minor issue; the big question is whether we are descended from a mud puddle.

    This theory was first popularized by Charles Darwin’s book The Origin of Species in 1859. He later published several other books, most notably The Descent of Man in 1871. The Origin made no mention of humans. The laws of heredity, or genetics, had recently been discovered by Mendel but were not yet widely known. Darwin had a copy of the journal containing Mendel’s article in his office, but after his death that journal was found still sealed shut. The modern theory of evolution including genetics and molecular biology was not developed until the 20th century, and is called the neo-Darwinian synthesis.

    The proposed sequence of development is told in countless textbooks and television programs, with the certainty of proven fact. We have all heard it countless times, so we only need give a very brief summary:

The earth’s earliest atmosphere was composed mostly of ammonia, methane, water, and carbon dioxide. Organic molecules were produced by reactions in the atmosphere, ocean and/or shore, assisted by energy from some combination of volcanoes, undersea hot-water vents, lightning, solar ultraviolet radiation, and perhaps comet impacts. These molecules randomly combined, producing some amino acids, which randomly combined into larger molecules until one molecule was able to reproduce itself. This first part of the process was molecular evolution which, because it did not involve reproduction, did not involve genetics and natural selection, but proceeded by random chance reactions alone. Thus to call it evolution is really a misnomer.
The power of reproduction was a revolutionary breakthrough, allowing new characteristics to arise bymutation and be multiplied almost endless. Natural selection rejected the harmful mutations and retained and accumulated the beneficial ones. These self-reproducing molecules thus rapidly became more plentiful, and combined into larger and larger units, producing viruses and simple cells. Some cells developed the process of photosynthesis, using solar energy to produce growth. Other cells were able to use these cells for food. Some single cells combined into simple organisms. Some of these organisms became increasingly complex. Some became plants, and others became animals. The most complex ones developed bisexual reproduction, which was another revolutionary breakthrough allowing far more interchange and variation in genetic makeup. Some plants and animals became able to live in the tidal area on the shore, and then some became independent of the ocean and able to live on dry land. They began spreading over the land surface. Much later, some plants developed flowers and pollen as their means of reproduction. Some animals developed hard skeletons. Some had these hard parts inside their body (vertebrates), and some had it outside. Early vertebrates were fish. Some fish developed into amphibians, which can live on dry land as adults. Some amphibians developed into reptiles, able to live completely on land. Many invertebrates also became able to live on land. Some reptiles changed into birds with wings and feathers. Others changed into mammals, the most recent and advanced of which are you and me.

    They have written several books specifically trying to prove evolution and disprove creation. Stephen Gould has written much. Other books include:

    Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism, Philip Kitcher. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1982

    Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, Douglas Futuyma. New York: Pantheon, 1983

    The Blind Watchmaker: Why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design, Richard Dawkins. New York: W. W. Norton, 1987. 0-393-315703

    The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989. 0-192860925

    Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life, Daniel C. Dennett. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1995

    River Out of Eden, Richard Dawkins. New York, Basic Books, 1995. 0-465016065

    Climbing Mount Improbable, Richard Dawkins. New York: Norton, 1996. 0-393-039307

    Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, delusion, and the appetite for wonder, Richard Dawkins. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1998. 0-395883822

4. Evidence to support the theory of evolution

a. Similarities between different species

b. Vestigial organs and imperfect structure

    Imperfect structure is also cited as evidence that the process of formation was one of random chance, not planned design. Stephen Jay Gould named one of his books after the panda’s thumb, which is not a true thumb but a spur of a wrist bone that pandas use to strip bamboo to eat it. Dr. Gould considers this a poorly arranged mechanism, surely not something an intelligent designer would produce. Another example is the human eye, in which light has to pass through the retina to be detected, which seems backwards, and some animal retinas are in fact the other way around.

c. Embryology

d. Mutations and natural selection

    The study of genetics is very advanced, with theories of population genetics, genetic drift, recombination, adaptability, and variability. The experts have worked long and hard, and express confidence that such principles can account for the vast variety of living things in the world today.

e. Many examples

f. Geographical distribution of living things

g. Fossils

    Some people consider fossils to be the most important evidence for evolution. All other evidences are inferences from the present to the past, but the fossils are an actual record of the past which proves that evolution did happen and tells us a lot about how it happened. The later, more complex species must have descended, and evolved, from the earlier, simpler ones.

h. Origin-of-life experiments

i. Organic molecules in space

j. Philosophical arguments

5. Christians’ response

    This must, though, still assume some sort of providential guiding of the process so as to reach its goal, people who can become God’s children. If a person is satisfied that this viewpoint resolves any apparent conflict between science and the Bible in this area, I am not anxious to disturb his/her satisfaction immediately. But of course I feel uncomfortable leaving people with an answer that I believe is false, and therefore will sooner or later become a problem to them. So I hope for an appropriate occasion to introduce a different viewpoint which is more satisfactory.

    Three separate questions are often scrambled together in this discussion: what God could do, must do, and did do. Frequently a question about one of these is answered with a statement about a different one, which is not progress. There are interesting things to be said about what God could or must do (we will return to this question in ch. 7), but the present subject is what He did do. I am not convinced that the scientific evidence supports evolution. I have not seen convincing (to me) evidence that the physical world is capable of producing life, nor that this is in fact what has happened in the past. I also do not think that fits several details in the Bible’s story of creation. When someone says he/she considers evolution to be in conflict with the Bible and asks me what I think, I will give the reasons why I feel evolution is scientifically unacceptable. These are discussed below.

    Christians have written many, many books against evolution and advocating belief in God’s creative activity. Most of them are poorly written, with many factual mistakes and logical weaknesses. Another big problem is that most of them mistakenly connect evolution with the Big Bang and billion-year time-spans, and so they try to oppose both at once (as discussed in detail in ch. 7).

    There are a few that are better: (in chronological order)

    Why Scientists Accept Evolution, R. T. Clark and James D. Bales. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 1966. A collection of statements by leading advocates of evolution, clearly indicating their philosophical presuppositions.

    Darwin before and after, an evangelical assessment, Robert E. D. Clark. Exeter, Devon, England: The Paternoster Press, 1966, and Chicago: Moody, 1967

    The Case for Creation, An Evaluation of Modern Evolutionary Thought from a Biblical Perspective, Wayne Frair and P. William Davis. Chicago: Moody Press, 1967
Evolution: Nature and Scripture in Conflict? by Pattle P. T. Pun. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982

    The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, by Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, Roger L. Olsen. New York: Philosophical Library, 1984. This is specifically about the origin of life. The authors are scientists and Christians, but they do not mention anything religious until the appendix. This classic book is considered the beginning of the intelligent design movement.

    Biology Through the Eyes of Faith, Richard T. Wright. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989. ISBN 0-06-069695-8. Begins with an excellent introduction to the general subject of science and faith, then evolution in particular, accepting more of evolutionary theory than I do.

    Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins, Percival Davis and Dean Kenyon; Charles Thaxton, Academic Editor. Dallas, Texas: Haughton Publishing Company, 1993. Kenyon was once a leading researcher on the origin of life, and through his research came to the conclusion that it could not have occurred without intelligent intervention. He has been involved in some landmark legal battles over his right to say so in his biology courses at UC Berkeley.

    Darwin on Trial, Phillip E. Johnson. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1993. ISBN 0-89526-535-4. A UC Berkeley law professor turns his critical eye on the logic of evolution.

    The Impact of Evolutionary Theory: A Christian View, Russell Maatman. Dordt College, 1993. ISBN 0-932-914-28-4

    The Creation Hypothesis, Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer, J. P. Moreland, editor. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity, 1994. ISBN 0-8308-1698-4

    Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Michael Behe. New York: The Free Press, Simon & Schuster, 1996. ISBN 0-684-82754-9

    Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, Phillip E. Johnson. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1997. 0-8308-1360-8

    Mere Creation, ed. Bill Dembski. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1998. 0-8308-1515-5 Proceedings of a conference.

    The Design Inference: Eliminating chance through small probabilities, Bill Dembski. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998. 0-521-62387-1. A massive, expensive, technical presentation of the evidence and reasoning involved in determining the presence or absence of intelligent design.

    Intelligent Design: the bridge between science and theology, Bill Dembski. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999. 0-8308-1581-3. The layman’s version of his big book, giving extensive philosophical and logical background.

    Creation & Evolution. 4455Torrance Blvd., PMB 259, Torrance, CA 90503: Rose Publishing, 1999. ISBN 1-890947-01-6. A laminated fold-out sheet with a remarkably compact and neutral (but obviously not evolutionist) summary of facts and opinions by evolutionists, old-earth and young-earth creationists. The sections are astronomy, geology, paleontology, genetics, biochemistry, and mathematics.

    What’s Darwin Got to Do with It? A Friendly Conversation About Evolution, Robert C. Newman & John L. Wiester, with Janet and Jonathan Moneymaker. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000. 0-8308-2249-6. Would you believe a comic book from the scholars at IVP?!

6. Criticisms from non-Christian scientists

    The Neck of the Giraffe, Francis Hitching. New American Library, 1982

    Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Michael Denton. Bethesda, Maryland: Adler & Adler, 1985. 0-917561-05-8

    Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, Robert Shapiro. Bantam, 1986. 0-553-34355-6

    Information Theory and Molecular Biology, Hubert Yockey. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992. 0-521-35005-0, ppbk …903-1

    Computer Viruses, Artificial Life, and Evolution, Mark A. Ludwig. Tucson, Arizona: American Eagle Publications, 1993. 0-929408-07-1

    Nature’s Destiny: How the laws of biology reveal purpose ion the universe, Michael Denton. New York: Free Press, 1998. 0-684845091

    Not by Chance! Shattering the modern theory of evolution, Lee Spetner. New York: Judaica Press,1999. 1-880582244

    These authors do not accept creation either, but they are telling other scientists to admit that the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution fails to explain the origin of living things. It takes a lot of courage and a very secure position to make such statements. There are many others who agree but do not dare say so, because it would cost them their position and career. That is exactly what has happened in several instances. That is another long story beyond the scope of this book.

7. Considering the “evidence” for evolution

j. Philosophical

    This is a glaring instance of the fallacy introduced at the end of ch. 2 and discussed in ch. 5, V, the disguising of metaphysical naturalism as equivalent to methodological naturalism. This is what the experts mean when they state that evolution is science and creationism is not. They are defining science so as to exclude any trace of intelligent design, and furthermore claiming that the limits of the scientific method thus defined are equal to the limits of reality. We should voice strong objection to such manipulation of definitions and assumptions.

    One symptom of this prejudicial treatment is the very terminology usually used: notice, it is evolution versus creationism. We must at least insist on parallel nomenclature, either evolution and creation, or evolutionism and creationism. Why is creation an ism but not evolution?

    Anything else is relegated to another realm, which they are willing to politely tolerate as material for the study of comparative religions. The Biblical creation account is lumped in with all “creation myths” of other religions and cultures, and its origin and significance is thus considered fully dealt with and removed from further consideration in polite scientific discussion. Ch. 5, V, B already discussed this naturalistic outlook on the origin of religion. It never occurs to them that the modern scientific establishment with its metaphysical naturalism is also a culture and a religion, and that neo-Darwinian evolution is that culture’s creation myth. Thus if there is some reason why all creation myths must be disregarded, then evolution goes out with all the rest.

    The question of whether intelligent design occurred is not a religious question but a historical one. It is a simple question of what in fact happened. Belief in a designer can be a conclusion from research and a motive for more research, not an obstacle. The only religious question is, if there is a designer, whether the designer is the god of one or more religions, but that is no reason to forbid asking the historical question. Whether there is design, and who the designer is, are two separate questions. Of course, it is natural to consider the gods of various religions as the foremost candidates for the role of designer. Forbidding the question of design for this reason is like restricting the police from investigating a murder because it might turn out that the murderer is someone in a high position. That would be called obstruction of justice, and is itself a serious crime.

    Speaking of police investigations, that is one of many fields of scientific research which are explicitly devoted to discerning evidence of intelligent design, sometimes with no knowledge of the identity or purpose of the designer. Archaeology and cryptanalysis are other such fields. The SETI (search for extra-terrestrial intelligence) program has a sophisticated criterion for distinguishing signs of intelligence in a radio signal. Yet it never occurs to them to apply their criterion to their own DNA. Actually, it does occur to them. Evolutionists consistently talk about the appearance of design in living things, they just insist that this is not really the product of design, but of Darwinian evolution.

    Evolutionists complain that creation is not scientific because there is no test that can prove or disprove creation or design. This statement is false; see the discussion below of information and its production. Be that as it may, can they name a test that can prove or disprove evolution? Actually, it is possible to study an object and conclude that it is extremely, overwhelmingly, improbable that it was produced without design. There are things all around us that were obviously designed by someone for a purpose: paper cups, tables, chairs, lights, cars, watches, computers, books, words on the blackboard, posters, etc. If someone insists that we must explain all these things by natural laws alone without design, he’s simply crazy. Design is not a miracle; we see it all around us, and we do it ourselves all the time. At least the process of design and manufacturing does not involve any apparent violation of known laws of nature. On a different level, there is the question of whether our thoughts that produced the design and guided the manufacturing are a strictly natural process in our brain cells or something beyond, and if so whether that could be called a miracle. But that is another deep subject, which was discussed in ch. 5, V, A, and will be further pursued below in sec. d on mutations and natural selection.

    According to evolutionists’ own principles, how can they account for the existence of all the obvious products of design around us? We have experience with designing automobiles and paper cups, but not with designing universes and living things. There is only one universe, and we have no recollection nor direct record of its origin. Therefore, what basis is there for ruling out the possibility of design in the universe, and living things?

    The real problem is that the design of living things is not supernatural, but is superhuman. There were humans involved in the design of automobiles, but not of living things. In fact, that is an awesome project that no one on this Earth could possibly begin to accomplish. Perhaps the reason people do not believe there is such a designer is not that they are unconvinced but that they are unwilling to acknowledge that possibility, and accept the further implications it might have. The questions of design and designer are separate, but the first leads inescapably to the second. If we have a designer, he of course had some plans for his design, and those plans might be different from some of our own plans and wishes. So it might be preferable to believe there is no designer. As was asked in ch. 5, V, B, who is dreaming? We ourselves are living things, so it is impossible to have an objective, scientific attitude about this question; it is not a neutral, safe topic about things “out there,” like the origin of the physical universe. But, as noted earlier, even that subject makes a lot of people nervous.

    Michael Ruse, a philosopher of science, has been one of the outstanding defenders of evolution as the only truly scientific explanation of our origin. He was one of the most influential witnesses at the 1982 Arkansas trial about teaching an alternative to evolution in the public schools, and Judge William Overton’s ruling closely followed his position. That ruling stated that creation is a religious concept and evolution is scientific, basing that on some definitions of science and religion. This has been extensively criticized in the years since, not only by Christians but also by non-Christian philosophers of science. But in 1993 Michael Ruse himself shocked the annual convention of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Invited to give a speech specifically “to refute Phillip Johnson’s book Darwin on Trial,” he instead stated that he had come to agree with one of the book’s primary conclusions: that evolution is in fact as much a philosophical assumption as it is a scientific deduction. He attributed this change of mind largely to his personal contact with Phillip Johnson, especially in their encounter at a conference on Darwinism at Southern Methodist University in Dallas in 1992. Ruse of course still staunchly supports belief in evolution, but at least he has come to admit to himself and to others why he does so.

    It is true that in many cases evolutionary theory has motivated a lot of interesting research, but in many other instances it has also often been a hindering and misguiding influence. For example, it has caused an overemphasis on competition between species, and a slowness to notice cooperation. It encouraged a mistaken interpretation of embryology. Paleontologists (fossil researchers) “must” find fossils that show evidence of gradual change, or at least that is the only kind they can publish articles about.

    Evolutionists say that any theory is better than none, and evolution is the only possible scientific theory; does evolution really need such a defense?! Aristotle’s astronomy was better than nothing too, but it waswrong. Is there really no alternative to evolution? Why is intelligent design not an acceptable alternative, a suitable subject for research?

    The questions are not restricted to the origin of life on the Earth. There is also the question of the origin of the Earth with all its just-right characteristics, and the origin of the universe with its just-right physicsconstants. If intelligent (superhuman) design is not an acceptable explanation of all this, then what is? For the formation of the Earth, naturalism can only offer blind faith in blind chance. However improbable it may be, they can only say that it did somehow happen. For some people, the anthropic principle has been transmuted into an inversion of cause and effect, claiming that the universe and the Earth are like they are because we have to be here. It is a clear-cut example of the fact that the only way to reject God is to make yourself God. This is unavoidably connected with new-age concepts of guiding spirits and a pantheistic universe. Somehow that seems to be acceptable to most scientists, or at least they feel it is not polite (or politically correct) to criticize it. But the idea of a personal intelligent God Who designed it all is firmly rejected. Why?

    The only alternative scientific explanation for the universe’s characteristics is to propose that there is a huge number of other universes, all with different characteristics, and of course the one we see is the one in which it is possible for us to exist. Therefore it is not a result of design, but an observational selection effect. But this merely pushes the question back one step, by assuming there is a higher level of laws governing the formation and characteristics of multiple universes. The question then becomes why those laws exist. But another question is why we should prefer this explanation over intelligent design of the one universe we see. There is by definition no possibility of evidence for the existence of other universes, let alone for their characteristics; can this be considered science?

    The issue thus boils down to the logic of explanation, first introduced at the end of ch. 2. What is the “best” explanation of the characteristics of living things? That depends on our definition of “best.” If we accept metaphysical naturalism, then some form of evolution is the only player on the field. If we do not accept that philosophical assumption, then the field is still open to other players, and intelligent design is a very qualified contender. In fact that contender seems the overwhelming winner by all objective logical standards when we finish looking at the evidence in the following sections.

    Now that we have discussed the philosophical arguments which are often used in support of evolution and against intelligent design, we can discuss the evidence.

a. Similarities

1 That we know what characteristics would result from an evolutionary process,

2 that we know what characteristics would result from design, and

3 that the characteristics of actual living things fit evolution and not intelligent design.

    Point 2 is debatably false, and is certainly false as evolutionists state it. Evolutionists claim that the result of design would not be so many similarities between different life forms. Why not? We will pursue this point in the next paragraph. But now, to be as generous as possible, let’s say that we just do not know what would result from design, since we did not design living things. For now, we can at least conclude that we do not know points 1 and 2, so this gives us no basis for point 3, deciding whether living things fit one theory better than the other. Thus, giving evolution every possible benefit of the doubt, similarities prove nothing in choosing between evolution and design. They are irrelevant.

    In fact we do have vast experience with design; we all do it every day, and see it all around us. Products of human design display many points of similarity, with differences in details. One good idea deserves many applications. Automobiles have many common features, because they have many common functions. But no one argues that they therefore must be lined up into a family tree of evolutionary descent. The same is true of airplanes and teaspoons. If the incredible complexity of living things is not evidence for design, what would be? Why would a creator not make things with many similarities? We make things that way.

    One evolutionist many years ago made an often-quoted remark that it is difficult to understand the capriciousness of a deity who would create things with so many similarities, and thus the deceptive appearance of evolution instead of creation. It is difficult to understand the capriciousness of an undeniably intelligent man who would make such a statement with the deceptive appearance of stupidity.

    Even evolutionists are not sure similarity always proves a common ancestor. Many similar-looking plants and animals are obviously not closely related; this is called convergence or mimicry. There are similarities in shape and color, and in functions like vision, flying and swimming. Mimicry is in fact difficult to explain by evolution.

    Some very similar organisms must be related, but this does not prove that less similar ones must be related more distantly. It is a huge extrapolation to say that micro-evolution proves macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is an observed fact; the question is where its limits are. This is a subject for research. The assumption of design does encourage research.

An example of extrapolation helps to emphasize the importance of this point. Suppose I am severely out of condition, due to my sedentary lifestyle as a university professor. Finally one day I become concerned about my physical condition, enough to get into action. I decide to begin by completing one mile, four laps around the track. That first time, it takes me 15 minutes to trot/walk/stumble one mile. But my body takes notice of the event, perceives that I may be raising my expectations of the service my body should provide, and makes some improvements in the necessary systems just in case. The next day I try it again, and am able to finish the mile in 14 minutes! Two days in a row is really a stimulus to my body’s conditioning capabilities. My heart, arteries, and lungs hold a meeting and decide that two days in a row means the boss is really serious. They agree to further upgrade their condition, and the third day I complete the mile in 13 minutes. Now, based on these three days of data, can I extend the straight line on the graph and predict that on the fifteenth day I will complete the mile in 1 minute? That is analogous to using micro-evolution, changes in the beaks of finches and colors of moths, to prove that macro-evolution is possible, and could transform mud into man, legs into wings, reptiles into mammals and birds, mice into bats, cows into whales.

    There are many dissimilarities that do not fit the predictions of evolutionary theory. Michael Denton, author of a book listed above, is a molecular biologist. He says (and so do others) that molecular biology is finding many dissimilarities among living things that evolution cannot explain, and is not finding the pattern of varying degrees of similarity that evolution predicts there should be. A few examples that do fit those predictions have been widely publicized, while the many that do not are ignored.

    We who are not experts can observe that some experts say that other experts have not reported the facts accurately or completely. We can also conclude that the logic of this argument is unconvincing. Familiarity breeds contempt; the experts seem so familiar with the wonders of life that they take it all for granted. We non-experts who are not so familiar with the endless intricacy of living things are still amazed to learn about a little of it, and incredulous that anyone could assert that it all came about by accident.

b. Vestigial organs and imperfect structures

    Another famous example is small bones in whales that are claimed to be useless remnants from walking ancestors of whales, and thus proof that whales are descended from land mammals. This is a very interesting example. It raises several questions. Are those bones really useless in whales, or do they still serve some purpose, for instance for muscle attachment? Or perhaps in the process of development of the embryo. Perhaps a designer did begin with a land mammal and do an extensive editing of its DNA to produce a whale, and the intricate interactions of the DNA structure required leaving this little bit there.

    As for supposedly imperfect structures, this is a very subjective statement. When one person considers another stupid, it means they have a widely different degree of understanding of the matter at hand, but which is which requires further investigation. In this case, where one is a human and the other is the Maker of heaven and Earth, I’ll put my bet on the latter. What seems imperfect in one regard may be the best solution of several interrelated requirements. There is no such thing as perfect design, only satisfactory fulfillment of many often-competing requirements. I have seen articles claiming that the structure of the human retina is not inverted but is in fact very effective and better than the other way around. So which expert am I to believe?

    But this still misses the point. Intelligent design is not necessarily perfect design. Imperfect design is still design. This questions the intelligence, not the existence, of the designer. When a model of tire is found to be faulty and recalled, no one concludes that that proves those tires were all found congealed in a river downstream from a rubber plantation. In the case of living things, purported imperfection does not prove the nonexistence of a designer but only leads to questions of the identity, ability, and nature of the designer, which is another whole subject of theological questions, and ends up connecting with the problem of evil that is discussed in ch. 4, IV. Once again, separate questions must be dealt with separately.

    Even if in some cases an organ really is useless and proves descent from an ancestor in which the organ was functional, this is evidence of regress, not proof of the possibility of progress! Something has gone astray in the logic (see “Facing the Experts” ch. 5, III) when examples of degeneration are used as evidence to prove the possibility of development. It takes little time or skill to destroy something, but great effort and ability to create something new and useful. Destruction is the one thing that time plus chance can accomplish very well. You don’t need a license to work on a demolition team, except in some exceptional circumstances where it is important to avoid unwanted damage nearby. A small guerilla force can bring a strong army to its knees, as in Vietnam. Two teenage boys with guns can devastate a high school in a few minutes, but it takes a large team of professionals many years to build one.

c. Embryology

d. Mutations and natural selection

    We must ask whether the assumed random, unguided, unplanned processes of evolution can account for all the life forms we see in the world today. Specifically, can this account for the countless complex systems of which living things are constructed? Can DNA molecules, randomly disrupted by various chemical, mechanical, organic, and radioactive agents, generate the genetic code for all these new structures for natural selection to preserve and accumulate? Can this process ascend from mud to man?

    Can it ascend at all? There is a dilemma here, because the vast majority of mutations are destructive, a few are neutral, and a vanishingly small proportion could in any way be considered as introducing something with a really new function beneficial to survival. There is not yet a single observed mutation which can be claimed to do so. Too many mutations will overload the population with defects and lead to its extinction, but too few will fail to supply the assumed rate of development. It is not even theoretically proven that a balance exists between these conflicting requirements.

    In considering random events, this must boil down to an assessment of probabilities. But in such complex systems, that is impossible to do with any meaningful precision; any attempted estimate is doomed with fatal flaws in its relevance to the real world. Advocates of evolution are quick to point out such flaws. But those flaws consist of erring on the side of simplicity. If even a simple model fails to confirm the principle, it gives little encouragement to confidence that the principle could be successful in the vastly more complex real world.

    There have been attempts to write a computer computation that at least demonstrates the principle of progress by random mutation and natural selection. Some such attempts have failed, and evolutionists respond of course by claiming the model does not adequately represent the real world, and this is a valid objection. But other attempts have succeeded in displaying change that meets some criterion of “progress,” such as Richard Dawkins’ famous “blind watchmaker” program (discussed a few paragraphs below). Evolutionists are strongly inclined to feel these models do have some relevance to reality, although they may be even simpler than the ones that do not show progress. This seems to be a double standard, and further evaluation is needed before any convincing conclusions can be drawn. The computations that “succeeded” have been criticized as having the result built into them, thus actually demonstrating intelligent design instead of random evolution. It seems that for the foreseeable future, a really meaningful computer analogy to biological evolution is beyond the reach of any computer facility. This leaves the concept of development by random variation and selection an unverified and unverifiable speculation.

    Actually, the very existence of computers and programs is an unintentional experiment in evolution, a point which is the subject of an entire book by Mark Ludwig. He analyzed the structure of computer viruses, managed a contest for the smallest possible virus capable of certain functions, and evaluated the possibility of evolution of such viruses in their ability to evade virus scanning programs. All of this is precisely parallel to the standard Darwinian natural selection scenario. Ludwig, not at all a Christian let alone a creationist, comes to the conclusion that mutation and natural selection produces absolutely nothing that could be called improvement in the world of computer viruses, and that this is highly relevant to the theory of biological evolution. The argument can be extended to all computer hardware and software. How often is an accidental modification an improvement? The answer is never, at least not in this world. No one, not even an evolutionist, wants a computer that has a certain rate of random malfunctions in the hope that it will sometimes lead to improvement in either the hardware or the software. It is of course imaginable that it could occur, but the improbability vastly overwhelms the finite number of computers and time spent doing computation. And evolution requires not just one such instance but a fairly abundant and steady supply of them.

    We can at least evaluate evolutionists’ attempted defenses of this theory. Richard Dawkins has become one of the foremost participants in this debate in the 1990s. He has produced a “blind watchmaker” computer program which can by random changes quite rapidly produce a designated sentence from any given initial string of random letters. Is this relevant to our origin? Notice the detail “a designated sentence.” Here is where the intelligence is in fact inserted at the beginning. The random changes are “selected” according to their progress toward or away from the destination sentence, and all such progress is retained as the starting point for further variation. In the evolutionists’ unguided world, where did the genetic designated destination sentences come from, with which to compare the products of mutational variation?

    But this is the least of Dr. Dawkins’ problems. To be a true analogy of evolution, his sentence must be a correct meaningful sentence at every step. It is not. Even if evolutionists can imagine a gradual process which would produce functioning complex systems in the end, we still must ask what would make the process go on. When the system is only half-complete, the animal is not fit to survive, and natural selection, the survival of the fittest, will reject it. What will make reptile scales keep changing until they become bird feathers? What good is a fuzzy scale? What will make reptile feet keep changing until they become wings? If they are neither feet nor wings, they are useless and unfit to survive. A snake’s poison system with just one part missing is worse than useless. A hollow tooth by itself will only cause cavities. Without an intelligent designer why does the process go on? With an intelligent designer, what need is there for a process? Not only is it difficult to propose a process to explain the origin of flying birds; there are also bats, and many different types of flying insects. Evolutionists themselves estimate that the power of flight arose not just once but over a dozen separate times. Rather than taking this as evidence that some intelligent design must be occurring, they take it as evidence of how easy it is for flight to be produced by evolution!

    In the survival of the fittest, anything less than fitness is extinction. Survival is the definition of fitness. Genetic “sentences” must not only make progress toward being meaningful, but must be meaningful at every stage along the way. This is an interesting exercise with a single word; try changing “dog” to “cat” one letter at a time, so that it is a valid word at every step. There are several possible solutions which you can find fairly quickly, getting there in three (can you find that one?) or a few more steps. But how would a random process find them? It could be restricted to changing a letter into any other letter, so there are 25 choices at each step. So it would take at least about a hundred attempts to reach the answer, and that includes smuggling in your intelligence in knowing a valid word when you see one. A dictionary search at each step is a vast increase in the computing necessary, and of course introduces the information content of the dictionary. In a really random selection process, we quickly run into millions of possibilities, in which the successes constitute a very tiny fraction. (More about these fractions a few paragraphs later.)

    Now try changing the Declaration of Independence into the first chapter of Uncle Tom’s Cabin, one letter at a time, keeping it meaningful at every step (whatever that “means”!). And now we have capitals and punctuation, so there are a lot more than 25 possible changes of each letter. Changing it a word at a time might seem to promise faster progress, but that vastly increases the number of choices and lowers the probability of survival at each step; remember this is done randomly. Or to change the analogy from sentences to computer programs, try to transform a Microsoft program into a Gameboy game, let alone into a Macintosh program (all registered trademarks, just for the record), with the requirement that at every step it is a functioning program (on what computer?). Or to think in terms of machines, convert a functioning VW beetle one part at a time into a Rolls Royce, let alone into an airplane, or a radio telescope. Even if you could do it, who would buy a Volks Royce? And what does “function” mean for something halfway between a car and a radio telescope? Or even between things as closely similar as a VW and a lawnmower. And if you did by great ingenuity devise a successful conversion process, would you expect a random process to be able to duplicate it, let alone improve it?

    It is impossible to attach any meaningful numbers to these hypothetical conversions. But it is possible to prove that the numbers are unimaginably huge, making astronomical numbers infinitesimal in comparison, and it a matter of sheer common sense that these incalculable numbers amount to simple impossibility. Yet this is precisely the kind of conversion we are talking about in assuming that a four-footed scaly cold-blooded reptile was the ancestor of a flying feathered warm-blooded bird, or a walking mammal the ancestor of a swimming whale or a flying sonar-equipped bat, or that an egg-laying reptile produced a live-birth furry mammal, and that these conversions were accomplished by a long series of small random modifications. We should ask the same kind of questions about such conversions that we asked about the Volks Royce.

    It would seem reasonable to say that these key transitions in the theory of evolution are as impossible as the mechanical examples just given, but hope springs eternal, and the fact that we cannot think of a solution does not prove one does not exist. We are surrounded by things we could not figure out how to make, but obviously somebody did. I can’t even figure out how a split-ring key ring could be made. Crocheting boggles my mind, but many illiterate people have mastered it. A chess grandmaster might be able to get out of a game situation that ordinary mortals would consider hopeless. But we are not talking about a grandmaster rescuing evolution; we are talking about random mutations. Even assuming that a solution exists which our most intelligent research cannot discover, what is the probability that a random search would find it before it self-destructs instead?

    Some evolutionists admit that slow change like this is impossible, and also lacks evidence from fossils, so they assume a giant mutation produced major changes. For example, they say the first bird hatched from a reptile egg. The best-known example of this suggestion was Richard Goldschmidt’s “hopeful monster,” for which he was mercilessly ridiculed. The ridicule was probably correct, but the only alternative is gradual change, and he was trying to point out that this too seems hopelessly improbable. But even if the hopeful monster appeared, notice that it is a single individual. Where would this lone creature find a mate?! With such a major alteration, surely it would not be inter-fertile with its relatives. If it were inter-fertile, what kind of offspring would it have? Does the literature contain any attempts to answer such questions? If there are a few attempts, are they convincing? Would you dare ask Michael Behe to give his considered opinion of them?

    With either gradual or giant changes, once again we are up against assessing probabilities, and evolutionists invoke the vast times and populations of the ancient earth. But vast is not infinite. We can attach numbers to the generations and DNA locations involved. There are tens to hundreds of thousands of locations, and 20 different amino acids to substitute at each one, and all this is assembled in a flexible three-dimensional structure. In estimating the number of random possibilities in such cases, authors criticizing evolution can easily come up with numbers that are ten to the power of many hundreds or thousands, in fact ten to powers that are that big. These are numbers that you could not even finish writing from the Big Bang to the present, let alone imagine what they mean. You could not even finish writing the exponents. The age of the universe, 15 billion years, is a fleeting 10¹⁷ seconds or so, and the visible universe only contains is a scant 10⁸⁰ electrons. So the known universe, not to mention the early earth’s beaches, is far too tiny and young to give much comfort to the stories of evolutionists.

    We now see why there is little encouragement to be found even in the cosmological theories which say the universe may actually be 10¹⁰⁰ times bigger than the 10,000,000,000 light years or more that we can see. Even this factor pales to insignificance next to the numbers required in evolutionary theorizing. What is needed is an infinite universe and eternity, plain and simple, in which our existence is an incredibly unlikely fluke occurrence leaping up the powerful waterfall of improbability and decay, which will inexorably soon carry us back downstream. Some like Stephen Jay Gould have in professional publications discussed the lack of a definition of progress, and insisted we cannot really talk about higher or lower life forms. Most change is neutral, sideways, drifting. But that is not at all the way evolutionists routinely view our existence. In their confident moments with a trusting audience, evolutionists give firm assurance that life arose quickly and naturally on the early earth as soon as conditions were suitably favorable, and that the process of evolution continues inexorably upward and onward all around us at this very moment. And that it surely can and did happen anywhere else in the universe where conditions are suitable, for instance perhaps on Mars long ago when it possessed liquid water, or right now in the dark ocean under the icy crust of Jupiter’s moon Europa.

    I recently (in 1999) heard a radio interview with an “expert” confidently proclaiming that “Biology has taught us that wherever there is water, life arises.” And as near as I could tell on the radio, he said it with a straight face. What biological research has taught us this? What biology has taught us is that wherever there is life there is water, not the other way around. One of the (no pun intended) watershed advances in the history of biology was the realization that life does not arise from non-life. But somehow in evolutionists’ hands that fact becomes inverted into a reason to reject intelligent design by a living God, in favor of an origin-of-life model of random production on a sterile early earth. This sounds to me like saying precisely that life arose from non-life. It is time to make a critical evaluation of these experts’ assumptions and logic (see ch. 5, III).

    Another common fallacy in assessing probabilities is the assertion that “something must happen.” This reveals a common error in both defense and criticism of evolution. Critics estimate the probability of a given protein structure forming by blind chance, giving the astronomical numbers referred to above. It is usually presented as if this is the only possible structure, and therefore of course impossibly unlikely for a random process to produce this particular one. Evolutionists retort, rightly, that this is not the only possible structure, but one of an essentially infinite number of structures that would be successful living things. Evolutionists basically assume that out of all these vast possibilities surely one will occur, so “something must happen.” The only question is what it will be. But this defense is as false as the criticism it answers.

    Analogies evolutionists often use are winning a lottery, having the particular people in the audience at a particular performance or lecture, or a golf ball landing on a particular blade of grass. These are all exceedingly improbable, yet they do occur. Someone wins the lottery. Some audience is present. The golf ball lands on some blade of grass.

    The flaw in these analogies is so obvious that explaining it is like proving two plus two is not five, but apparently it must be done. The flaw is of course the assumption that “something must happen”. We cannot assume that there will be a winner in the origin-of-life lottery, or an audience for the origin-of-life lecture, or a blade of grass in the origin-of-life golf course. It is true that there is an infinite number of living protein structures. But there are ranks of infinities. Similarly, there is an infinite number of possible meaningful 500-page books, or even just one page or paragraph, but there is an infinitely larger number of meaningless ones, and therefore an essentially zero probability that the proverbial monkey at a keyboard will produce one of the meaningful ones. He won’t even produce a meaningful 50-letter sentence, any sentence, let alone one from Shakespeare. Life is not like a golf ball landing on a golf course but like a meteor landing on the Sahara Desert, which may contain a large number of blades of grass, but if the meteor lands on one of them the only reasonable explanation is that it was extremely carefully aimed.

    In yet another analogy, there is an infinite number of possible computer programs, but what fraction of all possible random computer codes are functioning programs? Computer programmers earn most of their living not by writing new code but by searching for the “bugs” in what they and others have already written. What was written was not, at some tiny point, what was meant, and the computer, high-speed moron that it is, knows no better than to do as it was told.

    There is an infinite number of possible ways to design a microprocessor, but what fraction of all possible random patterns on a silicon chip would be a functioning microprocessor? No one would expect to ever see even a single successful chip produced in this way, and the probability is impossible to estimate without some detailed constraints on how the “random” patterns are generated.

    I have read about a personal conversation with James Sire in which Dr. Dawkins criticized Dr. Behe for being too lazy to figure out how irreducible complexity can be produced by natural processes. If nobody else has done it yet, then Dr. Behe should work on it. But Dr. Dawkins obviously assumes that there is a solution, that it is what actually happened. What if there is none, and it is not what happened? Dr. Dawkins is too lazy to develop an objective criterion for distinguishing intelligent design from random formation. On what basis could he assert (as he surely would) that a paper cup is a product of design but the hand holding it is not? Bill Dembski’s newest book, The Design Inference, claims to present exactly such a criterion, and deserves careful evaluation. By his criterion, living things indicate design.

    It is significant that Dr. Dawkins does not challenge Dr. Behe’s assertion that the literature does not contain any attempts to solve this problem. He does not claim he was too lazy to find it, so he apparently agrees that none exists. If the entire world biological community has not produced an answer in several decades, it is hardly laziness on Dr. Behe’s part to be unable to sin