Evolution : Darwinism , Intelligent Design and Creationism

To me , and perhaps to others as well , the most (note: not just one of the most , but the most) intriguing question one may ask , because we have all so very often inevitably pondered the very meaning of our existence , is the question regarding the mystery of life’s origin . Where did we come from ? How did we come into existence ?

Over a century ago , a British naturalist developed a theory that seemed adequate to address these questions . His book , the origin of species , revolutionized scientific philosophies regarding the matter . That man , as we all know , was Charles Darwin . He wasn’t the first to propose a theory to explain evolution but he was the first to offer a plausible naturalistic mechanism . Biological change over an extended period of time . A process he named natural selection . Darwinism was born . The most quoted example would be from his observation of seed-feeding finches during his stay at the Galapagos Islands . During seasons of plenty , all finches were capable of sourcing food for survival . However , extensive droughts meant that the only available source of food came from seeds enclosed within hard shells from the previous seasons . Thus , only finches with long and hard beaks as opposed to short and softer beaks were capable of survival . Over an extended period of time , this would cause the selectional advantage of long and hard beaks to be passed down to the following generation , eventually eliminating the ‘ weaker ‘ variation . Therefore , in a nutshell , Darwin proposed that all life was the eventual product of undirected natural forces . Time , chance and natural selection .

However , about 2500 years ago before this paradigm shift catalyzed by Darwin , philosophers believed that life was the product of a design and a plan . Namely , philosophers by the likes of Plato and Newton .

In 1993 , Professor Philip Johnson ( Darwin on Trial ) , gathered philosophers and scientists from different fields to reassess the question . They discussed and disagreed on many things but the one thing they shared was their dissatisfaction with Darwinism . As their conviction grew , they coined a new proposal , intelligent design .

Most people are under the wrong impression that intelligent design is directed at collapsing Darwinism . All that is implied is that Darwinism is sufficient to explain micro-evolution , as seen with the finch beaks . However , when it comes to macro-evolution , such as the evolution of finches themselves , Darwinism becomes fallible .

Everyone knows that the building blocks of all living things are cell(s) . Over the years , our knowledge of the cell has massively increased with the help of advancing technologies . A simple cell consists of a multitude of molecular machines . In our body , each function ; respiration , blood clotting , muscle contractions etcetera ; has corresponding mechanisms . Each of these mechanisms are composed of a massive amount of cells and functions . Take a moment to consider the implied number of specialized molecular machines . Let us now simply delve into just one single example of these machines .

Michael Behe ( Darwin’s Black Box ) , once saw the picture of a simple bacterial flagellum in a text book . Throughout his scientific career , all the way to his doctorate , Darwnism was something you assumed . As he stumbled upon a book that argued against Darwinism with scientific arguments he never knew existed and reflected back , it was clear that there was something more at work . He came up with the term ‘ irreducible complexity ‘ .

Consider something simple and non-biological . The mousetrap . The catch , the strong spring , the bent rod called the ‘hammer’ , the holding bar that keeps the hammer in place , and the platform which rests all the parts . All five very different parts . Each of these components are relatively useless as an individual . Yet , without any of these components , the mousetrap wouldn’t work . This means that every single part is essential . That’s irreducible complexity .

Let’s return to the bacterial flagellum . Similarly , it is composed of intricately arranged parts . Darwinism is based on functional advantage and the accumulation of ‘ good ‘ physical variation . Assuming that each part of the flagellum was assembled through history by chance , how did the parts survive natural selection ? Each of the parts would have been useless on it’s own . Why would natural selection keep them ?

Some argue that the components could have been borrowed from other devices within the bacteria . Co-option . However , when you trace each component , you will eventually reach the point where you have to account for something that arose from nothing . Granting the benefit of the doubt that we may not have discovered the history of the other components yet , there is still the question of the precise sequence of assembly and their instructions by chance , which evolutionists and co-option theorist try to ignore but which i will address later .

” If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous , successive slight modifications , my theory would absolutely break down ” Charles Darwin . It seems that even he himself foresaw his own predicament .

Darwin envisioned evolution to be imaged by the evolutionary tree also known as the phylogenetic tree where the branch of each living creature can be traced back to a common ancestor . However , he had little to say about the beginning of that tree he mapped . How did life evolve from non-living matter ?

In a letter to his colleague , he expressed the possibility that perhaps in some primordial pool , the first living matter was conceived from chemical elements collaborating with heat and electrical elements from the environment .

Dean Kenyon ( Biochemical Predestination ) addressed this . Let us dwell deeper from cells to a more molecular level . As cells are the building blocks of all living matter , proteins are the building blocks of all living cells . In fact , proteins are responsible for everything that happens within a cell except the storage of genetic material . The function of a whole protein is dependent on the intricate architecture of its individual parts . Dean was convinced that the properties of attraction that exist between chemicals were responsible for the derivation of life from non-living matter . Biochemical predestination . Five years after he published his book , he began silently doubting his own work . He was challenged to explain the formation of the first protein without genetic instruction . How did deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) arise ? He could answer neither . His conviction was shattered . Consider the implications . It’s like proclaiming that if you had a beaker containing the right proteins , over time , an organism would form itself without any help .

What was the source of the biological information in DNA ? Is it possible that the sequence of information originated by chance ?

Consider the probability of the event . Try dropping scrabble pieces to form a sentence on your table . Then let me remind you that the genetic information , just the simple sequence of the nucleic acids , for a single cell will fill hundreds of pages of text and that all of them must be in the correct order .

By definition , natural selection cannot happen before the first cell existed . Without genetic information , there would not be self-replication . Self-replication must exist before selection can happen for the next generation . Using natural selection to explain the origin of genetic material would be to assume the existence of the very thing you’re trying to explain .

The problem with Darwinism and the scientific world today is that it rules out intelligent design before the evidence has the chance to speak . Methodological naturalism . Where Darwinism must first be assumed . Anything foreign is automatically excluded .

Some call intelligent design as unscientific . What we fail to realize is that we make references to intelligence all the time . Consider hieroglyphics or the bush cut to shape like a giraffe in your neighbor’s lawn . We wouldn’t infer that the hieroglyphics were simply caused by chance erosion would we ? We recognize that they were crafted by intelligence .

What then are the properties which we consider to make these inferences ? William Dembski (The Design Inference) , whom i consider to be the einstein of the lot of intelligent design supporters , produced a rigorous explanatory filter . Probability and specification . Let’s take Mount Rushmore for example . For those of you unfamiliar with this , it’s the mountain in South Dakota carved with the four American presidents’ faces . First , we recognize that shapes on a mountain that actually mean something as improbable . Then again , any formation may mean something to anyone . Hence , any formation is highly improbable . However , we also recognize that the shape corresponds to something that actually already exists . A recognizable pattern…the faces of the presidents . Specification . That is how we recognize intelligent design . My favorite analogy that follows is one that included poker . The probability of the appearance of a royal straight flush is about 1 in 250 million . Anyone who plays poker should recognize a royal straight flush . Say someone gets it whilst you’re playing a game of poker one night . That’s acceptable . However , if during the same night , he or she gets the same hand consecutively , you begin to realize the possibility that chance isn’t the only factor in play .

Many argue that intelligent design is based on our gaps of knowledge in science . It is , however , based on accumulation of knowledge and the inference from such information . Probability and specification is equated as the required information . Information rich systems like those needed to build life simply cannot be explained by inadequate naturalistic causes .

Note that i have not even quoted a single bible passage so far . Intelligent design has profound religious implications , but it is not dependent on religious premises at all . When it does , it evolves into creationism…but that…is for another day .

For now , it is sufficient to ponder on this…returning to the basic origin of life , assuming that it is the transformation of non-living matter into living matter , where may i ask , did the non-living matter come from ?