How did life get started?

The next section of I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist deals with the design of life. It focuses particularly on the most difficult problem of all for Darwinists – where did the first life come from?

The authors point out that the first problem when talking about evolution is in its definition. Darwinists make no distinction between microevolution and macroevolution, and thus use the evidence for micro to prove macro. Microevolution has been observed (changes within species), but it can't be used as evidence for macroevolution, which has never been observed (the evolving of one organism into another kind of organism). Natural selection, the device Darwinists say that powers evolution, has never been observed to create new types.

There are five reasons the authors list to explain why natural selection can't create new life. For one thing, there seems to be genetic limits built into basic types of animals. For example, dog breeders create different kinds of dogs, but the dogs always remain dogs. Secondly, the change that occurs within types of animals appears to be cyclical rather than directed toward the development of new life forms. The two authors use an example of Darwin's finches, which were noted as having varying beak sizes depending on the weather. No new life forms came into existence; only the beak sizes changed in these birds. The third reason involves something called irreducible complexity. Living things are filled with molecular machines that are irreducibly complex, meaning that all the parts of each machine have to be completely formed and in the right places and in the right size in the correct operating order at the same time for the machine to function. The authors use as an example a car engine, which needs so many systems to operate together for success. These complex biological systems could not have developed in a gradual Darwinian fashion because intermediate forms would be nonfunctional. All the right parts must be in place in the right size at the same time for there to be any function at all. A fourth problem with natural selection is the non-viability of transitional forms. The authors use as an example the Darwinian assertion that birds evolved gradually from reptiles. Such a change would necessitate a transition from scales to feathers, but how could a creature survive that no longer has scales but does not quite have feathers? A creature with the structure of half a feather has no ability to fly. Finally, the authors discuss molecular isolation. If all species share a common ancestor, the authors indicate we should expect to find proteins sequences that are transitional from fish to amphibian, for example. That's not what is found. Scientists have discovered that the basic types are molecularly isolated from one another, which seems to preclude any type of ancestral relationship.

But Darwinists say the fossil record supports their position – does it? It actually lines of better with supernatural creation. There aren't missing links – there's a missing chain. Nearly all the major groups of animals known to exist appear in the fossil record abruptly and fully formed in strata from the Cambrian time period. This is been called the Cambrian explosion or biology's Big Bang. This, of course, is completely inconsistent with Darwinism. There's no evidence of gradual evolution but of instantaneous creation instead.

Again, I'm going to quit at this point even though I have not finished the chapter in the book. There's plenty here to think about.

The philosophy behind Darwinists

This blog is a continuation of a summary of a powerful book, I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Geisler and Turek.. The last time I discussed the book I was working my way through a chapter about the complexity of life. This time I would like to finish that particular chapter, which talks about the philosophy behind Darwinism and materialism.

The authors say Darwinists have been successful in convincing the public that Darwinism represents science while those who oppose Darwinism represent bad science. However, Geisler and Turek say just the opposite. It's the Darwinists who are practicing the bad science because their science is built on a false philosophy.

Where does Darwinism go wrong? Many Darwinists start with the idea that God is not necessary because science can explain everything. But there are all sorts of rational beliefs that cannot be proven by science: mathematics and logic (science can't prove them because science presupposes them), metaphysical truths (for example, there are minds that exist other than my own), ethical judgments (you can't prove by science that Mother Teresa was good because morality is not part of the scientific method), aesthetic judgments (no one can scientifically prove something is beautiful), and science itself (the belief that the scientific method discovers truth ironically can't be proven by the scientific method itself).

The key point the authors wish to get across is that science itself is built on philosophy. So, if you have bad philosophy, you get bad science. How is it that science is built on philosophy? First, scientists use philosophical assumptions and the search for causes. For example, scientists assume by faith that reason and the scientific method allow us to accurately understand our world. You can't prove the tools of science by some sort of experiment – the laws of logic, the law of causality, the principle of uniformity. Secondly, philosophical assumptions can dramatically impact scientific conclusions. I think right now about the debate on climate change. Many scientists are getting a conclusion that they wish to get to keep the scientific funding going.

The authors say the bad science of Darwinists essentially comes from their false philosophy of naturalism/materialism. Geisler and Turek have five reasons why materialism is not reasonable. First, there is specified complexity in life that cannot be explained materially. Think about the DNA message. Secondly, human thoughts and theories are not comprised only of materials. How much does love weigh? Third, if life was simply material, then we could take these materials and make a living being. But we cannot do that. Fourth, if materialism is true, then all people of human history who had spiritual experiences have been completely mistaken. That's hard to believe considering the list of those who have had such experiences – think of Abraham, Moses, Kepler, Newton, Pascal, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Jesus Christ. Fifth, if materialism is true then reason itself is impossible. Why? If mental processes are nothing but chemical reactions in our brains, why should we believe that anything is true? Chemicals don't reason, they react. We would be doomed to conclusions based on chemical reactions rather than reason.

Well, that's a lot of heady material to consider, and it deserves further thought. But I think it's pretty powerful.

Total truth--Darwinism on trial

In the next section of Nancy Pearcey’s book, Total Truth, she deals specifically with Darwinism. She believes that so much of what is wrong today in American society goes back to how we see the beginning of life on earth. The Christian perspective is that God created everything; the Darwinian view says matter randomly assembled itself without any overall design or plan. The crucial thing to realize is what Darwinism does for the concept of truth. If evolution is true, than both religion and philosophical absolutes (goodness, truth, and beauty) are false.

She begins by showing how limited the evidence for Darwinian evolution really is. First, evolutionists trot out the idea of Darwin's finches, showing the beak size differs according to the habitats where they live. However, this is nothing but a cyclical fluctuation; the birds were not evolving into a new kind of bird. Beak size either grew or went back to a smaller size depending on the amount of rainfall. This was cyclical, not heading anywhere. The same thing applies to resistance of bacteria and viruses to antibiotics. Once the drugs are removed, the changes reverse. Then there are fruit flies -- exposed to radiation, they produce many mutations. After fifty years of bombarding fruit flies with radiation, scientists have not managed to turn them into any kind of new insect or even a new and improved fruit fly. The fourth case Pearcey discusses involves peppered moths in England. Supposedly, dark moths survived in England rather than light colored moths because of soot which during the Industrial Revolution darkened tree trunks where the moths perched. The lighter colored moths were easier for birds to pick off. This has been touted as the showcase example of natural selection. Oops – it can now be revealed that the moths don't actually perch on tree trunks in the wild. But what about all the pictures of them doing so in textbooks? Actually, scientists glued those moths onto the tree trunks. Perhaps the most famous fake was a well-known exhibit of vertebrate embryos lined up side-by-side -- fish, amphibian, reptile, bird, and human. The point of the illustration is to show how similar all the embryos are, suggesting common ancestry. It turns out the creator of this, Ernst Haeckel, fudged his sketches, making them look far more similar than they really are. Scientists in his time, more than 100 years ago, already knew these illustrations were fakes, yet only recently have they publicly been talking about them. Strangely enough, these illustrations still show up in biology textbooks.

These examples illustrate a flaw in the standard Darwinian argument. The essence of Darwin's theory is that minor adaptations (microevolution) can be extrapolated over vast periods of time to explain major differences in groups of animals (macroevolution). But small changes simply don't add up the way the theory requires. In 1980 there was a landmark conference on evolution held at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History. Paleontologists reported at the conference that the fossil record does not, and never will, support the Darwinian scenario of a smooth, continuous progress of life forms, nicely graded from simple to complex. What do the rocks show? Forms appear suddenly, with no transitional forms leading to them, followed by long periods of stability where there is little change or none at all. Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, a popularizer of evolution and science, called this "the trade secret of paleontology."

Something important is going on here, Pearcey says. She believes smart people tout evolution not because of the evidence but because of philosophical reasons. They have already committed themselves to what is called philosophical naturalism -- nature is all that exists, or at least the natural forces are all that may be invoked in science. Once people have made that commitment, they can be persuaded by relatively minor evidence. There’s no good reason science has to be run according to philosophical naturalism. It didn’t used to be—scientists followed the evidence, no matter where it led. Now the playing field has been changed. Only naturalistic answers may be given. So, based on this set of parameters, evolution is the best choice, despite its problems.

Last of four parts--summary of Signature in the Cell

Here is the last part of my summary of Dr. Stephen Meyer's new book, Signature in the Cell. It's a bit daunting, but he has so much good info on recent discoveries that indicate a designer behind all life. The other three parts are available here in case you want to catch up.

Another complaint about intelligent design is that it does not qualify as a scientific theory by definition. Scientific theories, according to this complaint, must explain events or phenomena by reference to natural laws alone. Science must not assume there are any seen or unseen powers that interfere with the normal working of material objects. Meyer rejects this by saying the activity of a designing intelligence does not necessarily break or violate the laws of nature. He says it is the same style of explanation as other historical scientific theories in which events are explained primarily by reference to prior events. Those who say ID does not qualify as a scientific theory generally argue that it invokes an unobservable entity, it is not testable, it does not explain by reference to natural law, it makes no predictions, it is not falsifiable, it cites no mechanisms, and it is not tentative. But Meyer indicates that many scientific theories infer unobservable entities, causes, and events. For example, there are theories of chemical evolution and the existence of many transitional intermediate forms of life. Both of these are unobservable. Historical sciences commonly use indirect methods of testing as they weigh competing unobservable events to determine which one has the greatest explanatory power. The theory of intelligent design is subject to empirical testing and refutation. Many times scientists say that a theory must explain all phenomena by reference to purely material causes, but Meyer wonders why science should be defined that way. Scientists in the past have not always restricted themselves to naturalistic hypotheses. Today many scientific fields currently suggest intelligent causes as scientific explanations – consider archeology, anthropology, forensics, astrobiology.

Meyer spends time refuting the idea that intelligent design is religion. Religions usually involve various formal structures, practices and ritualistic observances, but these are all missing in ID. In addition, it does not offer a comprehensive system of belief about the intelligence behind the design of the universe. The theory of intelligent design does not affirm any sectarian doctrines. Of course this theory has religious and metaphysical implications, but these are not grounds for dismissing it. Intelligent design is not the only idea that has metaphysical or religious implications. Consider Darwinism – it has significant metaphysical and religious implications as well. Scientific theories should be evaluated on the evidence rather than the implications they may have. Antony Flew, a well-known atheistic philosopher who has now become a proponent of intelligent design, insists that we should “follow the evidence wherever it leads.” Meyer argues that the motivations of the people behind the theories should not invalidate them either because it is not the motivation that determines the merits of the idea; it’s the quality of the arguments and the relevance of the evidence marshaled in support of that theory.

Meyer ends his book by explaining why this issue matters. The scientific case for intelligent design poses a serious challenge to the materialistic worldview so dominant today in the West. Materialism may seem liberating, but it has proven “profoundly and literally dispiriting.” It suggests we have no purpose in life, we are all accidents, nothing lasts beyond the grave, everything will be gone as the universe spins down to heat death. On the other hand, intelligent design says that the ultimate cause of life is personal, suggesting there is something beyond this life.

I spent a long time going through Signature in the Cell because I like wrestling with interesting concepts. I was only able to scratch the surface of the book’s content in this summary, but my goal was to pass along the main points I got and to arouse your curiosity to know more about this fascinating field of study.