God: Fact or Fiction?: Exploring the Relationship Between Science Religion and the Origin of Life

by Brendan Roberts

  14. See Biology: Concepts and Connections, p. 270.

  15. Ian G. Barbour. Religion & Science, SCM Press, 1998, p. 58.

  16. John A. Hardon. Pocket Catholic Dictionary, (New York: Image Books, Doubleday, 1985), p. 12.

  17. Collins Pocket English Dictionary, p. 16.

  18. Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, i:68 as cited by A.N. Field. The Evolution Hoax Exposed, (Felstead: Foundation Tracts, 1971)(first published as Why Colleges Bread Communists in 1941), p. 62.

  19. Ibid.

  20. Ibid.

  21. Morton, John. Man Science and God (Auckland; New Zealand: Collins, 1972), p. 19.

  CHAPTER 3

  PROBABILITY OF LIFE BY CHANCE

  The Watchmaker Model Darwin would have studied William Paley’s book Natural Theology in which his famous analogy depicts a lone figure on a deserted island stumbling across a watch. On careful observation he quickly determines that the watch is obviously designed. Since the parts are clearly integrated it is viewed as an example with a single purpose. Therefore this analogy was lauded by theists and deplored by atheists and even some theistic macroevolutionists.

  The Doctrine Commission of the Church of England (Episcopalian) criticised the watchmaker model, and proposed the artist and the work of art as an alternative model. The artist’s vision of the whole piece changes and is modified as he proceeds. But the medium, for example, sculptor’s wood or stone, restricts the artist and so imposes inescapable constraints. Relating it to God, our Creator exercises limited control and redeems the imperfections instead of preventing them.1 I can’t see how this model excludes the notion of the watchmaker model. Does not the watchmaker exercise limited control when the watch leaves his shop? The Commission does not include the notion that God can operate in our world, for example through miracles; the watch could be brought in for repairs or our Creator could be called upon for our spiritual or physical repair. Many people have witnessed their loved one recovering from serious illness after prayer.

  There are other various imperfections as a result of the Fall of Mankind and the presence of evil as you will read in later chapters. But what we term to be imperfect does not necessarily mean God sees you or me as imperfect.

  The analogy seems rather strange when you consider the Commission states that the artist’s vision changes and is reformulated as work proceeds. God is much bigger than that. His vision would only change as the result of humanity’s disobedience and yet His overall plan would remain the same – God’s kingdom on earth. The image of the artist shows that God knows the result of His creation before He starts. This limited analogy is correct in asserting that God has chosen a medium with constraints – God has chosen to give humans free will.

  Life by Chance? When I was in an evolution associated chat room on the internet the young people adamantly claimed that chance is not a theory supported by evolutionists as pertaining to our origin. But after some research it is abundantly clear that this is what atheistic evolutionists cling to when defending their theory.

  French biologist Jacques Monod in Chance and Necessity refers to chance when claiming that religion has been defeated by evolution: ‘The ancient covenant is in pieces: man at last knows that he is alone in the unfeeling immensity of the universe, out of which he has emerged only by chance.’2 Paul Davies also claims that life owes much to chance and circumstance; philosophers call it contingency.3

  Davies writes creatively regarding DNA and chance. However the chapter, Unlocking the Chemistry of Life will reveal how absurd the idea is that no one wrote the message of life. He describes a message residing in us, inscribed in an ancient code which contains instructions on the make up of a human being. But Davies claims that no one invented the code. He ascribes their spontaneous existence to Mother Nature working through chance.4

  When neo-Darwinists claim that life happened by chance, they exclude the possibility of a Creator. Colson and Pearcey explain how the theory of chance is being refuted as a result of the computer revolution. They recount that from the 1960’s mathematicians have been writing computer programs to simulate the trial-and-error processes of neo-Darwinian evolution over billions of years. But the outcome was startling: ‘The computers showed that the probability of evolution by chance processes is essentially zero, no matter how long the time scale.’5 Is this really so incredible? How could you have a fine-tuned universe exploding into being and life coming into existence by chance?

  Mathematicians claim that, statistically, any odds beyond 1 in 1050 have a zero probability of ever happening.6 The famous astronomer, Sir Fred Hoyle relates the possibility that life happened by chance to lining up 1050 blind people, giving each one a scrambled Rubik’s Cube and finding that they all solve the cube at the same moment.7 Moreover he makes a startling claim that Darwin’s theory of evolution should be buried. He concluded that there was no primeval soup on any planet, and if life did not happen by chance then it was the result of purposeful intelligence.8

  Nobel Prize Winner (1974), physician and biochemist, Christian de Duve uses a great analogy regarding the possibility of life happening by chance. In the card game, Bridge, each of four players is dealt 13 cards from a deck with hearts, diamonds, spades and clubs. The odds of any player receiving all thirteen spades is an astonishing one in 635 billion. De Duve then compares this analogy with the impressiveness of life.9

  We are dealt thirteen spades not once but thousands of times in succession! This is utterly impossible, unless the deck is doctored. What this doctoring implies with respect to the assembly of the first cell is that most of the steps involved must have had a very high likelihood of taking place under the prevailing conditions. Make them even moderately improbable and the process must abort, however many times it is initiated, because of the very number of steps involved.10

  The probability of life happening by chance is virtually impossible. The process includes a number of steps and like any recipe, the steps must be in sequence or else it is doomed to failure. The Bridge analogy is pertinent; just imagine playing Bridge and being able to get thirteen spades thousands of times in a row! It just defies logic.

  Following de Duve’s reasoning the universe must be pregnant with life;11 the process which life used to exist must be natural and yet does not exclude a Creator from creating the natural process in the first place. Nor does it exclude such a powerful Being from holding the universe in existence by will alone and operating in our universe too.

  Materialism Materialism is the philosophy that the only thing that exists is matter and everything is the result of material interactions. Naturalism is similar because it is a philosophy that everything can be reduced to natural causes.

  Though all of our existence has a sort of material basis, neoDarwinism embraces materialism when it sees only matter as the cause and explanation of our existence, while ruling out any nonphysical explanations.

  Dr Neil Broom, Professor and Head of Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering, University of Auckland, New Zealand explains that scientific materialism views humanity as a fluke biological by-product of a natural set of processes.12

  Darwin placed animals on the same moral level as humans, saying both had different degrees of morality. Once again we see this view echoed through the philosophies of materialism and naturalism. Herbert Simon, computer theorist, psychologist and Nobel prize-winner also supports the notion of man losing his uniqueness. He tells us that certain scientific discoveries caused mankind to cease to be the species central to the universe, created and especially endowed with soul and reason. He concludes that artificial intelligence results in mankind ceasing to have the unique ability to make complex, intelligent manipulation of one’s environment.13

  Though this article was written by Herbert Simon in 1977, we all know that computers are much smarter than humans in the sense they can take in vastly more amounts of information. Plus they won’t answer you back. LOL! (lol is computer speak for laughing – laugh out loud) But seriously, we als
o know that computers have been designed and created by humans; without humans there would be no computers. Likewise, do not humans owe their origin to a Creator?

  Artificial intelligence, is just that, artificial. You can tell a three year old to go and collect the mail from the letterbox. The child will open the door, go to the letterbox and open it, take the mail out, close the letterbox with the other hand and come back without being told. In comparison you would have to give precise instructions through programming to a robot such as: walk to the door, open the door, walk through it, stop, close the door, go to the letterbox, open the flap of the letter box, take the mail, close the flap of the letterbox with the other hand, come back, and open the door, etc.

  Computers do not destroy humanity’s uniqueness and wonderful creativity. They may interfere at times, but they also enhance and contribute to our creativity too (for example, the cover of this book was created on the computer). It is absurd to think of a computer as a species or superior to humans – a computer is not a living being; it is not alive and unlike humans it can’t freely choose between right and wrong, good and evil, (reason) and does not have a soul: Nor can it delight in beauty or love freely.

  The question begs to be asked: But how can other animals reason between right and wrong, good and evil? They do not have an intellect or free will; they lack abstract thought; they can’t reason between right and wrong; and they do not recognise or love the truth. Therefore they do not foresee possible consequences to their actions. For example a dog could attack an innocent person or in the case of Moko the dolphin here in New Zealand, harm humans by not recognising their power as they mature and prevent humans from getting back to shore wanting to play with them for longer, but not realising they could drown.

  The animal does not have a sense of morality; since morality is intrinsically linked with reasoning between good and evil, then the animal is not a moral being.

  We are still the species located at the center of the universe. We are the only ones who can study the universe together with its atoms and scientific theories. Anybody who has studied physics and astronomy is well aware that an analogy that can be used is that space is like circles that are drawn on a balloon. If you were standing on any of the circles when the balloon was inflated it would be as if you were at the center of the universe.

  The culmination of this philosophy of materialism bears its ugly head as a result of Darwin placing humans and animals on the same moral plain. It seems to have an eerie ring about it, one that brings to mind images of the holocaust and World War II as Hitler invaded and raped so many countries and treated humans as worthlessly expendable. Did not Hitler view the Jews and those that blocked his progress as being subspecies or not worthy of life as Darwin viewed ‘savages’, as subspecies? In fact Darwin warned that future progress would be hindered by sentimental policies that protect weaker individuals. Hence, he set the stage for Hitler to seek the elimination of the sick, maimed, lower classes or races, or anyone who got in his way. This conjures up images of the 20th and 21st century with the amounts of wars, abortions (killing of the most defenseless humans in our world), infanticide (unwanted newborn babies left to die) and also what is now trying to take a foothold in Western countries, euthanasia. Euthanasia has opened up the door for the handicapped and elderly to end their lives, or in some cases for someone to end it for them. In Holland some people are making living wills, stating that they do not want to be euthanised (killed) if they get sick.

  Suspect Motives One of the most outspoken statements of the philosophical motivation of some neo-Darwinists comes from Harvard geneticist, Richard Lewontin. In an article in which he argues for the superiority of science over religion, Lewontin admits that in the struggle between science and the supernatural he sides with science. The answer to why he and obviously other neoDarwinists take this side is very revealing: ‘Because of a prior commitment to materialism.’ Unfortunately, because of their commitment they have to deny even the principle that a Creator could exist. This type of bias by neo-Darwinists permeates Chapter 4, Clutching at Straws, as I reveal some of the bizarre theories of macroevolution.

  Nobel Laureate, Jacques Monod gives another classic example of materialism which is filled with a rather morbid and dreary philosophy:

  Man must at last wake out of his millenary dream; and in doing so, wake to his total solitude, his fundamental isolation. Now does he at last realize that, like a gypsy, he lives on the boundary of an alien world. A world that is deaf to music, just as indifferent to his hopes as it is to his suffering or to his crimes… The ancient covenant is in pieces; man knows at last that he is alone in the universe’s unfeeling immensity, out of which he emerged only by chance.14

  Intention Some scientists declare that all species, including at the level of microbiology, have an intention to excel – hence Natural Selection. But how can a micro-organism have any intention in which to improve itself? The distinguished evolutionary biologist, Theodosius Dobzhansky warned: ‘I would like to plead with you, simply, please realize you cannot use the words “Natural Selection” loosely. Prebiological Natural Selection is a contradiction in terms.’15

  Richard Dawkins (I had to refrain myself from making any joke about his surname) explains intent within evolution in relation to the eye by using the metaphor of climbing a mountain: ‘Going upwards means mutating, one small step at a time, and only accepting mutations that improve optical performance.’16

  But Dawkins’ statement oozes with calculated purpose. Author and biology graduate, Sylvia Baker who formerly embraced neoDarwinism explains that all the specialised and complex cells that constitute our eyes are meant to have evolved as the result of positive mutations of simple cells. She argues in minute detail:

  But what use is a hole in the front of the eye to allow light to pass through if there are no cells at the back of the eye to receive the light? What use is a lens forming an image if there is no nervous system having evolved before there was an eye to give it information?17

  Purpose reveals the likelihood that it has been put there by an intelligent being – hence there is a programmer. Attributes of purpose/intention can only be related to the mind, and of course mere organisms do not have such a thing. So it is a weak metaphor to attribute something resulting from the mind to merely an organism. Furthermore, to accept only positive mutations is also short sighted! It reveals a mind is behind the process. So in Darwin’s statement you will find many references that can only be attributed to the mind:

  It may be said that Natural Selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life.18

  Do we not see the mind-like qualities which could be attributed to a Creator inventing such a theory or natural law? Remember that Empedocles said those things that are suitable for some utility were preserved by chance. Look at the above quote again; ‘daily and hourly scrutinizing...rejecting what is bad and preserving and adding up all that is good’. In fact both daily and hourly scrutinizing

  shows intention. While rejecting, preserving and adding up all show purpose or control. These can only be the result of a mind and not the result of the throw of a dice.

  Therefore the question begs to be asked: Where does Natural Selection’s intention come from? It is also extremely bizarre to relate something as intentional or deliberate when chance is so central to the theory of atheistic macroevolution. Therefore intentionality leads more to a designer and does not go hand-in-hand with chance.

  When neo-Darwinists utilise an example of a computer to suggest that humans are no longer unique, it is wise to consider this question: Who created or designed the computer? Who designed or programmed the computer software? Thus humans retain their place as capable of complex, intelligent development
of their environment; we remain highly creative beings and as you will discover in the next section we are called to be stewards of creation.

  Summary Though many atheistic macroevolutionists believe that life happened by chance, the overwhelming evidence is that mathematically the probability of life happening by chance is nil. The philosophy of materialism states that we are caused by the cosmos, and thus are not unique or special. Darwin fuelled materialism equating mankind morally with animals. Because Natural Selection oozes with mind-like qualities such as intention or purpose the question must be faced: What mind is actually behind this intention of Natural Selection? Could it in fact be God? Design, chance, materialism and intention are not all compatible. While design and intention are harmonious like lovers, chance and materialism too are perfect for each other. Though chance has been claimed to be feasible, the evidence shows it has no foothold. In fact design and intention have more in common, leading us towards accepting in principle a designer and thus God.

  Notes

  1. See Doctrine Commission of the General Synod of the Church of England, We Believe in God (London: Church Publishing House, 1987), chapter 9. 2. Jacques Monod. Chance and Necessity. trans. A Wainhouse (London: Collins, 1972), p. 167.

  3. See Paul Davies. The Fifth Miracle: The Search for the Origin of Life (New York: Penguin Books, 1998), p. 5.

  4. See ibid., p. 15.

  5. Charles Colson and Nancy Pearcey. How Now Shall We Live (Illinois, Tyndale HousePublishers, Inc, 1999), p. 73 [refers to Stanley L Miller, From the Primitive Atmosphere to the Prebiotic Soup to the Pre-RNA World (Washington D.C: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), 1996].

  6. See I. L. Cohen. Darwin Was Wrong – A Study in Probabilities (Greenvale, NY: New Research Publications, Inc., 1984) , 205: See also Emil Borel. Elements of the Theory of Probability (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1965), p. 57.

  7. Fred Hoyle. The Intelligent Universe (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1983), p. 11.