edited by John Ashton
ISBN: 1 86436 443 2
'In six days: why 50 scientists choose to believe in creation'
At Macquarie University in Sydney several years ago, a public lecture was given on the evidence for the Biblical version of creation. A research scientist stood up and stated something along the lines that he did not believe that any scientist with a PhD would advocate a literal interpretation of the six days of creation. In reply, the meeting chairman offered the names of two well-known scientists who, he said, espoused belief in the biblical account. This incident stimulated me to research this book.
Why would educated scientists still believe in creation? Why wouldn't they prefer to believe in Darwinian evolution or even theistic evolution, where an all-powerful intelligence is seen as directing the evolutionary process? Could scientists believe that life on earth is probably less than 10,000 years old? How would they deal with the evidence from the fossil record and the ages suggested by the radioactive dating of rocks as millions and billions of years old? The essays in this book raise issues which are hotly debated among scientists and educators and they offer a different perspective on our approach to scientific education.
During the past century, the biblical story of genesis was relegated to the status of religious myth and it was widely held that only those uneducated in science or scientific methods would seriously believe such a myth. However, my experience in organising this book, is that there are a growing number of highly educated critically thinking scientists who have serious doubts about evidence for Darwinian evolution and who have chosen to believe in the biblical version of Creation.
In this book, 50 scientists explain their reasons for this choice. All the contributors have earned a doctorate from a State recognised university in Australia, USA, UK, Canada, South Africa or Germany. They include university professors and researchers, geologists, zoologists, biologists, botanists, physicists, chemists, mathematicians, medical researchers and engineers.
The articles in this book are not exhaustive. Space and publishing deadlines did not permit me to include contributions from many other scientists. The 50 scientists who contributed to this effort gave their personal response to this question: 'Why do you believe in a literal six day biblical Creation as the origin of life on earth?' No other requirements were specified. No one was asked to write on a particular topic or from a particular perspective. However, I have arranged the final papers in two sections that allow for a developing discussion from two key perspectives. The first, Science and Origins, is a selection of articles that deals with the scientific critique of evolution as well as the scientific basis for creation; the second, Religion and Origins presents a more philosophical approach to the question of evolution and creation. Having reviewed the discussions posed by these scientists, in the light of my own education and experience, I am convinced that a literal understanding of the Genesis account of creation is the most reasonable explanation out of all the current theories of how we came to be here.
John F Ashton
Sydney, Australia
My belief in the supernatural creation of this world in six days is summarised largely by the following points: Th theory of evolution is not as scientifically sound as many people believe. In particular, the problem of the origin of life is well stated by the question, 'Which came first, the chicken or the egg?' Every egg anyone has ever seen has been laid by a chicken and every chicken was hatched from an egg. Hence the first chicken or first egg which appeared on the scene in any other way would be unnatural, to say the least. The natural laws under which scientists work are adequate for explaining how the world function, but are inadequate to explain it origins, just as the tools which service an automobile are inadequate for its manufacture.
From my reading, i understand that the fossil record has failed to produce the intermediate forms of life required by evolution as transitions between the species.
Another problem, as I see it, for the non-creationist is the first law of thermodynamics which affirms the natural process of energy conservation. Energy cannot be created or destroyed by natural processes, but can only be converted from one form to another. Since matter is a form of energy (E=mc2 as stated by Einstein), natural sciences cannot account for the total energy, including matter, in the universe. This law consequently implies a role for the supernatural in the origin of total energy in the universe.
A New Examination technique?
One argument that I found particularly helpful came from information theory (Wilder-Smith 1981). A major difference between living and inanimate things is the power to reproduce. This is possible because of the genetic blueprint, the genes, that are contained within all cells of living things. Usually they are made up of molecules of DNA, and the identification of the structure of this molecule has been one of the great achievements of science in this century. DNA strands found in ribbon-like structures, chromosomes, are duplicated before cell division. These copies are passed onto succeeding generations, which can then develop the same form and function, anatomy, physiology, biochemistry as their ancestors. Three units of coding are the basis for DNA, just as the English language has twenty-six letters in the alphabet, and these letters are combined in various ways to mean different things when the code is translated. These units of coding in the genes provide the instructions to make strings of amino acids that are the building blocks of proteins. Many of these proteins are enzymes that catalyse biochemical reactions and make the other constituent of the cell.
The DNA double-helix is analogous to the paper and ink of my biology textbooks. Anyone who has sat down in front of a blank piece of paper in an examination will be aware of the need for something more than paper and ink in order to pass. We need ideas, concepts, plans, purpose, memory of lecture notes, mathematical equations - in other words, information - in order to complete the paper. Does the stuff of paper and ink contain these ideas? An accidental spillage of ink can leave an interesting pattern of dots, lines and circles on a piece of paper, but we do not see information there. Nor do we see it when a two-year-old decides to brighten up the wallpaper with some felt-tip pens! However, when we see writing on a piece of paper, we expect to gain information as we read it.
Why is this so? Unlike the accidental spill or the example of the two-year-old with the felt-tip pens, a person who used his intelligence to put information down was responsible for the writing of the paper. There is no difference between the accidental spillage of ink on paper and the paper with writing on it in terms of the materials used. However, information is present on one and not the other. Where does the information come from? Is it the property of the materials, the paper and ink? Many an examination student would wish so! The information is not a product of the paper or ink, but the thinking mind that has organised these two things. There is intention, purpose, design, and meaning riding on those straight lines, the curves and circles of ink that form the letters.
Take the example of a piece of paper with the words written in ink, "John passed maths". We could just as easily have conveyed the information by writing with our finger in the sand. Only one material, sand, is used here and yet the message is the same; the message is not part of the property of sand. We could pass on the message by talking. This would involve the vibration of a column of air in a particular sequence of patterns in the mouth and throat. The message would be the spoken form of English, but it is not a property of the vibrations, nor of the words themselves. These words just happen to code for the meaning in English. We could use sign language to convey the information - a different language, but the same message conveyed. Also, here no material would be involved, just the movement of hands. The information is not in the hands and face; it is transferred in coded form through the instructions for the contraction and relaxation of muscles and face.
I would like to go back to the illustration of the examination student again. If we have written half the examination paper and cannot remember the other key points, no amount of copying and re-wording what we have already written will give us more marks from the examiner. The student needs to recall more information from the brain. The same applies to the origin of the information that is coded in the genes. There is nothing special about DNA; it is just a collection of molecules as is paper and ink. DNA molecules can be strung out in a line, copied and still not contain information. It needs a thinking mind to design the cells of living things and then to commit that design in coded form to the DNA, so that each organism can function and reproduce itself. Beyond that, to make another organism with new and different structures needs the addition of further coded information. Copying out a recorded part of information will do no more for the plant or animal than it did for the unfortunate examination student halfway through his examination paper.
Failure of supporting arguments
During lectures and television presentations and in his book The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins, a leading proponent of evolution, has used computer examples to show the creative power of natural selection in generating new information. One demonstration involves the generation of a phrase on a computer screen of Hamlet's 'To be or not to be' (written without the gaps). This is done to supposedly simulate the appearance of a short portion of new genetic code. The correct number of slots is set out and then filled at random with letters from the alphabet. Letters are then randomly re-allocated to the slots until the correct ones appear at each position. In a short time, the correct phrase appears on the screen. Dawkins argues that over a long period of time it is therefore possible for the processes of evolution to generate all the information required to code for the new structures of novel species. He also used computer graphics to demonstrate the development of new animal shapes. He omits just one thing from this discussion: the information was already to hand in both examples.
In the first, the target phrase 'tobeornottobe' was in the memory of the computer and all that was required was a matching exercise. In the second, the design was already present in his own intelligent mind and he was controlling the process. In sharp contrast to his intention, he has provided a powerful demonstration of an intelligent designer at work.
I have found the arguments about the origin of information very useful, but there are many examples quoted where new features are said to have come about, for example, the peppered moth, evolution of tolerance to pollution, antibiotic resistance and sickle-cell anemia. In the peppered moth, large numbers of the dark form appeared in the age of heavy industry in the UK, but small numbers of this form have always existed (Kettlewell 1958). In the same way, populations of plants include those that survive better in polluted environments because of small differences in the structure of the plant and in its metabolism as discussed earlier. These variations are inherited in the genes. Planting a mixed bag of seed at a polluted site would mean that the more tolerant individuals would survive and the less tolerant die, or at best survive to grow as less healthy individuals and produce less seed. This is a clear example of natural selection acting on a pre-existing gene pool, in response to changing environment.
However, this sort of natural selection tells us nothing about the origin of the gene or genes for tolerance, whether it is a mutant form, or part of the variation within the species. It tells us nothing about the origin of that plant species. It is the equivalent to the selection of red smarties from a bag of mixed sweets; nothing new has appeared in the genes, no new information. Many other examples of such variation are known: winter or summer flowering in clover, variations between populations of yarrow in a transect across the Sierra Nevada mountain range in central California and between rice populations grown for successive generations at various latitudes in Japan (discussed in Bradshaw & McNeilly 1981). Now, is this evolution? No, it is not that understood by Darwin or any of the other present-day proponents of the theory, such as Dawkins (1986) and Simpson (1967). Why not? Because no new designs, no new organs have appeared. Here we simply have a re-working of what is already present. We could call such a re-working micro-evolution, but this is an unsatisfactory term because no amount of micro-evolution can add up to evolution proper, since nothing new, however 'micro' has been formed.
In other examples, changes do occur in the genes of individuals. Spetner (1997) in his book Not by chance, discusses details of changes leading to antibiotic resistance in bacteria, and it would be useful to summarise the points here. One example of resistance to antibiotics that involves changes in the genes is that of the antibiotic streptomycin. The molecule works by interfering with the manufacture of protein within the bacterial cell. This happens when the streptomycin molecule attaches itself to the specific part of the cell where the reaction to form a protein is taking place. This does not stop protein being made, but the streptomycin interferes with the results. The bacterium is now unable to put the right amino acid in the chain at this point; the wrong amino acid is included, and so the wrong protein is made. This wrong product cannot fulfil its task in the bacterium; the cell cannot grow, divide and multiply, and the infection disappears. When a bacterium becomes resistant to streptomycin, a mutation has occured in the DNA, so that streptomycin can no longer lock onto the site of protein manufacture and interfere with the process. The change could occur at a number of places in the gene, but will always have the same effect. What has actually happened to the bacterium is that there has been a loss of information in the genes. No longer does the DNA contain all the necessary information to make the manufacturing site the correct shape. The bacterium is not able to grow and multiply as effectively as before, but nevertheless has gained resistance to the antibiotic.
Similar changes have occurred in the case of sickle-cell anemia. This is a condition found in areas of the world where malaria is prevalent (Cavalli-Sforza & Bodmer 1971). The mutation alters the composition of the hemoglobin that carries the oxygen in red blood cells and as a consequence, the red blood cells change to become sickle-shaped. This means that the malarial parasite is no longer able to live and grow inside the red blood cells, and the individual with this altered gene does not suffer from the malaria. Again, this change has also occurred due to a loss of information. The ability to put together the right combination of molecules to enable the red blood cells to function efficiently has been lost. Instead an inferior form is manufactured in its place.
Those examples provide convincing evidence of changes without information being added to the genes of a living organism and in some cases the loss of information. In a recorded interview, Dawkins was asked to give examples of changes in organisms that have occurred by the addition of new information. He was unable to do so (Keziah 1997). As Spetner points out, 'the failure to observe even one mutation that adds information is more than just a failure to find support for the theory. It is evidence against the theory.'
The Probability of a New Species - Possible or Not
Another very powerful argument against evolution comes from the calculations of Spetner into the chance of one event of evolution occuring: the emergence of a new species. Many authors of books on the evolution controversy have touched on this issue in the past, but in this book Spetner uses numbers taken from the scientific literature as the basis for detailed calculations. He takes estimates of the chance of getting a mutation, the number of replications (births) in each step of the chain towards a new species and an estimated value of the number of steps necessary to get a new species. He assumes that at each step information is added to the genetic code and that the smallest change possible to the genetic code is advantageous. Both are unproved assumptions of enormous proportions in favour of the theory of evolution, as the author points out, but need to be made for the calculations. Then he estimates the chances that a typically advantageous mutation would occur and spread throughout the population. From this he went on to work out the chance of a new species evolving, assuming that only one potential copying error was of advantage at any one point. The possibility was found to be extremely small, and the chances against were extremely large. No evolutionist shown the detailed calculations has been able to refute them. Suggested alterations to some of the assumptions may increase the chances at some stages, but are totally insufficient to make the theory of evolution an event of acceptable probability.
Irreducibly Complex - It's All or Nothing
Another major challenge to my acceptance of neo-Darwinian evolution came through an awareness of the complexity of living things. At the biochemical level, I know of some of the complexities of metabolism of living things. I could look with amazement at the chart of biochemical pathways in cells even after several years of research work. The chart is the size of a large student poster and is covered with small print showing the various pathways tht synthesise the molecules necessary for the cell to function. Needles to say, the publisher updates it at regular intervals as more is learnt of biochemical processes in cells. Biochemical pathways are, however, very different from pathways that lead down the sides of a mountain in various directions; they are more like a network. Most pathways are highly integrated with other pathways, and the levels of certain manufactured products (metabolites) can inhibit or increase the activity of that pathway and often of other pathways, too. Certain products are synthesised that are needed in the pathways to make quite different products. All this forms an intricately balanced web of biochemical processes in the cell. It would be very difficult to intoduce a completely new pathway into the network, and this would be the sort of change that would be required in an organism that was evolving. More than that, it is very difficult to conceive of the gradual evolution of such a complex system. For any one part to be functional, many other pathways would have to be fully functional.
Behe (1996) considers that many biochemical systems are the product of intelligent design. His criteria are evidence for 'highly specified, irreducible complexity - the ordering of separate, well-fitted components to achieve a function that is beyond any of the components themselves'. He uses the example of a mousetrap as a simple analogy. On top of a piece of wood are fixed a number of items:
- A metal hammer will hold down and kill the mouse
- A spring will allow the metal hammer to move across the trap at speed and do the job quickly and efficiently
- A metal restraining bar holds the hammer back when the trap is set
- A catch sufficiently sensitive so that the slight pressure of a mouse sampling the food will release it
Each one of these parts is essential to the success of the trap. Without the hammer, the mouse would not be caught and could take the food with impunity night after night. Without the spring, the hammer and platform would not be able to act together as a vice to catch the mouse. Without the catch or the metal restraining bar, the trap could not be set for later action when the mouse arrived; it would be more likely to have a go at one of your fingers as you are attempting to set the trap! Without the piece of wood forming the base, the components could not be arranged in the correct positions to work with one another. All parts have to be of the correct size, mounted in the correct position, made of appropriate material and in working order. Otherwise it would be back to the hardware store for another trap!
If one part of the trap were missing, it would not work just occasionally - it would never do the job at all, or do the wrong job. To apply this principle to living systems, a partly evolved form is not a candidate for natural selection, because it is not yet able to perform the required function at all. Behe then goes on to demonstrate design in the natural world using several examples of irreducible complexity taken from biochemical processes and structures within cells. These include the cilium, a sub-cellular structure that 'looks like a hair and beats like a whip'; the process of blood clotting and intracellular transport. He also discusses the human eye, making the point that here there are a number of irreducibly complex systems, for example, the retina, tear ducts and eyelids. I would agree with Darwin when he wrote of his difficulty in understanding how the eye could have evolved, because he was aware that such a complex organ could not have originated in a few steps. In his words, the idea was 'absurd in the highest possible degree' (Darwin 1859).
Nevertheless, Darwin proposed beneficial changes leading to the development of the eye accumulated over several generations, each intermediate being beneficial to its possessor. However, since publication of The Origin of Species, much more has been discovered about the structure and function of the eye. Much is known about the physiology and biochemistry of vision itself, and developments in neurosciences have helped us to understand more about the processing of the visual image in the neurological pathways and the brain. Baker (Seeing and believing 1991) provides a readable account of the structure and function of the eye and a discussion of the even greater difficulties raised for the theory of evolution.
The Evidence Directs
My main arguments against evolution are well illustrated by the human eye:
- Where would the new information come from to provide the genetic blueprint for this new structure?
- How did the irreducibly complex systems within the eye come about. I would agree with Behe when he concludes that an intelligent designer is necessary to explain their origin. The changes necessary for the appearance of the eye are more complex than for a new species.
- The probabitity of this organ evolving by chance is therefore even more remote than those of a new species evolving, which Spetner estimates to be impossible anyway.
{I may transcribe the earlier part of Nancy's essay later, but you know me. I should have been a politician.
}
World Views
As a scientist, I look at the world around me, and observe engineering mechanisms of such remarkable complexitty that I am drawn to the conclusion of intelligent design being behind such complex order.
No scientist is entirely objective. We are always governed by our assumptions. If a scientist does not believe in God, then his starting point of atheism is bound to affect his judgements as he looks at the world around him. If his mind is closed to the possibility of a Designer, his own assumption will force him to adopt what to many will seem an 'unlikely' explanation for what he observes. (These matters of the philosophy behind the science of today are amplified in my book, Genesis for Today)
This is a longish chapter, in case I don't type it all out before lending the book, here's a few key points -
* Order and the Second Law of Thermodynamics -
* Entropy, Information and the Living World -
* Flight in the Natural World - Complexity all can observe - birds, insect, bats, pterodactyls, feathers etc - I really ought to type this bit up if nothin else.
* Hummingbirds
* Flying Insects
* Migrating Butterflies
* Combustion and the Bombadier Beetle
Testing
To most scientists in the world today, the theory of evolution is no longer just a theory but is regarded as fact. There are differences of opinion regarding the tempo, mode and mechanisms of evolution but the basic concepts of the theory have become an established paradigm. Even in the religious world, the old animosities between science and religion have been largely forgotten as an unfortunate history based on ignorance. The educational systems of the world propagate evolution by natural selection as the only feasible theory of origin, to the exclusion of all others, and alternative models are regarded with skepticism.
Natural selection in itself is not a scientific principle, as it is based on circular reasoning. By natural selection, less fit organisms are eliminated and the fitter organisms survive to propagate the species. Organisms thus survive the process because they are fitter, and they are fitter because they survive. Also, the process operates by elimination, not addition. In order for the fitter to survive, there must have been a less fit that did not survive. Furthermore, natural selection does not create features, adaptations, or even life; it merely selects for features that provide greater survival value. The features themselves must still come into existence by random chance processes or by design. Moreover, because the process operates by elimination, it must eventually lead to less and less diversity, which is precisely what we see in the fossil record and in the declining species diversity of our time.
The evidence for evolution is based largely on the fossil record and interspecific, as well as intraspecific, genetic, biochemical and morphological homologies. In addition, geological interpretation and radiometric dating provide the rationale for the long ages required for the evolutionary events to have taken place. However, each of these parameters is open to alternative explanations which, in my opinion, are equally plausible and happen to be in harmony with the biblical account. Evolutionary scientists argue that creationism is not a science, as it is based on a preconceived ideology, which excludes it from the realms of science. However if the facts fit the biblical paradigm, cannot it then be argued that the creation account could be right, or would 'right' be excluded on the grounds of having been preconceived?
In my own life, I have been confronted with this dilemma and have become convinced that the alternative view of origin by design is worthy of support. For most of my academic career, I was a committed evolutionist and presented the theory of evolution to my students as an established fact. My university training and subsequent scientific endeavours had exposed me exclusively to the evolutionary paradigm and this had moulded my thinking. It may well be asked: Why the change of heart? In my religious experience I came to accept the Word of God as the most trustworthy book I have ever read. This Word has power to change lives, to lift people up and to give hope. It makes one willing to listen, to compare notes; it challenges one to test its trustworthiness. 'Come, let us reason together', says the Word. My change of view regarding evolution was not instantaneous, not emotional, but the result of a long and often hard road in search of truth. I now believe that the available facts support the concept of origin by design.
Here's the final couple of paragraphs from Monty's contribution ...
During this time, I began to realise that the idea of evolution was at best a hypothesis and had not been proved. I became convinced (and still am convinced) that people believe in evolution because they choose to do so. It has nothing at all to do with evidence. Evolution is not a fact, as many bigots maintain. There is not a shred of evidence for the evolution of life on earth.
At the same time as I found I could reject evolution and not commit intellectual suicide, I began to realise that I could accept a literal creation and still not commit intellectual suicide. First of all, I realised that it made sense to believe that in the beginning God created, as this did not violate the laws of thermodynamics. I noted that modernday observations, as well as the evidence of the fossil record, indicate that both plants and animals reproduce after their own kind as stated in Genesis chapter one.
I also realised that there was no simple explanation for the evolution of the information content that is found in living systems. Contemplating the amount of information in living systems has caused two professors at my own university (Prof. Chandra Wickramasinghe and Sir Fred Hoyle) to make the famous analogy that if you believe the information content in living systems to be the result of chance, then you believe that a tornado can go through a junkyard and assemble a Jumbo Jet!
The moral consequences of a belief in evolution:
If no one created me, if I am just highly evolved pond scum, then surely I am my own authority. Who or what determines right or wrong? Isn't it just relative? Isn't it different for different people and changing as society evolves? If I can get away with something for my benefit (i.e. for my evolutionary advantage), if genes are 'selfish' as I have been taught, then why not push beyond the limits? Why care about the poor people, the old, the maimed, the victims in other countries? Why not abort the babies in utero, why not kill the old and useless, why not kill the dumb ones and also the unemployed if we have enough machines to do the labour?
If there are no absolutes (i.e. set by something outside man and not by man), then why not agree with one Australian philosopher (working at an Australian University) who proposes infanticide for excess children? How can one logically argue against this if man does indeed set his own rules? I know that at this moment this is against man's rules but man's rules change. Remember, a generation ago, abortion and euthenasia were both illegal and taboo subjects.
A belief in creation, on the other hand, implies that there are absolutes imposed on us by a Creator, to whom we are accountable. This fits well with what I feel and see.
Emotions:
We have all felt love. Is this an evolutionary artefact? Do I deeply love my children because I want my gene line to continue? Is that all there is to being a parent - survival of the species? Does my heart melt when I think of my wife simply because I want to propagate more and I want her to look after my two-legged gene bundles? When I witnessed the births of my children, did I cry because those babies meant my gene line would continue? I guess that you can try to believe that I was (and that we all are) tricked by evolution.
Alternatively, you can believe in a Creator who describes Himself as love and says that He made us in his image, able to discern right from wrong, and able to love both Him and others for no logical reason other than that is the way we were made. Yes, you can believe that your life has no higher purpose other than to propagate the species and then die, but in your heart and head, does that fit with the world you see?
As a boy growing up on a farm in Minnesota, I came to appreciate the Bible stories at home and at church. In spite of my mild case of dyslexia, I completed reading the entire Bible by about the time I graduated from elementary school. My faith in God was strengthened by numerous answered prayers.
When I entered graduate school in 1958 to work toward a PhD in chemistry, my faith in scripture was seriously challenged by my major professor. I wondered if it were possible that I had been wrong all my life and my professor right. He seemed very certain about his ideas and he wanted me to do research toward the development of his theory of biochemical evolution. Since I was skeptical of his theory, I was asked to witness each of the significant findings of another graduate student working on evolutionary research next to me in the lab.
As a scientist and a Christian, I have been forced to weight the evidence available from both science and the scriptures in an area in which experimental proof is impossible to achieve. After examining both sides of this issue for 40 years, I submit the following reasons why I have retained my faith in God as the Creator.
Chemical evolution, based on random activity of molecules, fails to adequately account for the origin of the proteins for even the simplest known free-living organism, Mycoplasma genitalium. The bacteria has one chromosome, a cell membrane but lacks a cell wall and has the smallest genome of any know self-replicating organism. It has 470 genes, which contain an average of 1040 nucleotide base pairs (bp). This implies that the average size protein coded for by these genes contains about 370 amino acids. The probability of forming, by random assembly method, one such average size protein molecule containing the amino acid residues in a required sequence is only 1/10451. If the earth were made of only pure carbon, it would contain only about 1050 carbon atoms, but more than 10451 carbon atoms would be needed in order to produce enough amino acids to form the proteins to achieve the probability of producing one protein molecule with the prescribed sequence. In other words, it would require an amount of carbon about 10401 times the size of the earth to achieve the probability of producing one required protein molecule with the specifications above. Realising that the probability of producing proteins by a random assembly method is exceedingly small, some have proposed that DNA was formed by chemical evolution first and then it was used to direct the synthesis of the protein. This trades one problem for another. The random assembly of a gene containing 1040 bp to code for a specific protein would be likely to require as much or more carbon than it would to make the protein directly by a random assembly method.
With a problem this great in forming one gene, imagine the problem of forming the 470 specific genes found in the one chromosome containing 580,070 bp: Mycoplasma genitalium. Michael Behe in his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box, uses the term 'irreducible complexity' to refer to such situations where all conditions must be met simultaneously in order for the organism to survive.
In spite of the excitement in the 1950's and early 1960's generated by research based on chemical evolution theory, the net result today is a clearer understanding of the magnitude of the problem of the origin of protein, DNA and life, without having found the answers. Since the only known method in nature for efficiently producing protein involves DNA, mRNA and tRNA interacting with proteins such as RNA polmerase, tRNA synthetases and ribosomal proteins, it seems reasonable to consider the possibility that all were formed simultaneously as part of intelligent design.
Even though there is general acceptance of the evidence for small genetic changes which may be referred to as microevolution, hard evidence for the formation of any new species by macroevolution is lacking.
Evidence for intelligent design is widespread in nature. For example:
a. The motorised rotating flagellum of some bacteria
b. Blood clotting and its control
c. The high degree of organisation within a typical cell
d. Cell division and its control
e. The human eye
f. The respiratory chain based in the highly organised mitochondria
g. The system for protein synthesis
h. The biosynthetic pathway in which acetyl CoA is the key compound
Acetyl CoA is derived primarily from fatty acids and glucose and can also serve as an intermediate in the conversion of excess carbohydrate into fat. Oxidation of acetyl CoA in the citric acid cycle results, through the electron transport system, in the storage of energy in the form of ATP for chemical syntheses or muscle contraction. The acetyl CoA can also serve as the starting material for a wide variety of products such as natural rubber, fragrance of lily of the valley flowers, oil of roses, menthol, oil of ginger, oil of celery, oil of cloves, carotenes, vitamins A, D, E and K, plus all the steroids, such as cholesterol, the female hormones progesterone and estradiol, the male hormone testosterone etc. This is a small sample of the wide variety of natural products derived from acetyl CoA.
Why don't we humans produce natural rubber in our bodies instead of about 50 kinds of steroids? The types of products, from this carefully regulated pathway are determined by the specific enzymes in that species which are present at that time. The predominant products from this pathway may vary with time for a given species. The delicate balance that exists in this pathway can be illustrated by the fact that women make their female hormone estradiol from the male hormone testosterone, which they also produce. This does not cause a problem unless a woman develops adrenal cancer, which increases the amount of adrenal tissue capable of producing testosterone as well as other steroids. The first symptom usually observed by a woman with adrenal cancer is that she suddenly has to shave every day and her voice lowers in pitch, due to the production of testosterone faster than her body can convert it to estradiol. It seems very unlikely that such an extremely complex pathway as this one, with all of its interconnecting processes and enzymes, could arise purely by chance without an intelligent designer. I see no compelling arguments based on chemical evolution or Darwinian evolution that make it more reasonable for me to believe in evolution than creation.
Just as scientific theories based on the interpretation of data obtained by observation of the natural world are never absolutely proven, likewise I can never prove the Genesis account of creation is true. I was not an eyewitness but, as a Christian I can, by faith, search for the testimony given by eyewitnesses. Who were those eyewitnesses of the creation events? God (Genesis 1:1), the Holy Spirit or spirit of God (Genesis 1:2), Jesus Christ the Word (John 1:1-14)
The writers of the Bible were under the inspiration of God (eyewitness) as they wrote and they were moved by the Holy Spirit (eyewitness). God's daily progress report during the creation week stated that 'it was good' or 'very good'. Christ (eyewitness), the Creator of all things, endorsed the Genesis creation report by quoting from it and chiding others for their ignorance of it. God wrote in stone that He had created in six days, and he is quoted twice in Exodus telling Moses to tell the Israelites that fact as well ... and I believe Him.
My belief in a literal six-day creation of the universe is based primarily on the teaching of the Bible and my understanding that this is God's Word and is true. This faith, however, does not close my eyes to scientific evidence; rather, it opens my eyes so that I can makes sense out of all the data. Two things that confirm my belief in creation are the clear evidence of design in nature, and the vanishingly small probabilities of life coming about by chance.
Evidence of Design
The clear evidence of deliberate design in living organisms strongly confirms our faith in God's Word. Psalm 104:24 states, "O Lord! How manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches'. God's creation clearly reflects the infinite wisdom which He used to design and create it. The orderliness of living things and their mind-boggling complexity are surely unmistakable indications that this creation did not come about by random & disorderly chance processes. There are many ways to illustrate that a simple examination of an object will reveal the presence or absence of design. One can easily appreciate that certain items are extremely unlikely to come about by chance operations acting over time.
When archaeologists come across a smooth, cylindrical clay structure with walls consistently about the same thickness, a flat bottom that allows the structure to stand upright, and an opening in the top, it is a sure sign to them that some kind of intelligent civilisation was responsible for producing the clay pot. It is such a simple deduction to make; it is obvious that an ordered structure such as a clay pot could not have come about by chance. One can see that even the smallest amount of order exhibited in a simple clay pot is almost completely beyond the reach of random processes. That is why archaeologists know that a clay pot is a clear signature of civilisation; orderliness is evidence of design.
Step back now and consider: how is this different from the formation of life from non-living chemicals? To be sure, there is a difference: the generation of a living organism from simple non-living chemicals is infinitely less likely to occur. Living organisms are so much more complex than a clay pot that an adequate comparison cannot be made. What person would want to believe that a clay pot arose by chance processes? Only a person bound and determined to exclude the possibility that civilisation may have been responsible for making the pot. One can appreciate that evolutionists are bound and determined to exclude God from the picture! It seems that they don't even ask whether the evidence is consistent with creation. They simply insist that all explanations for the existence of the universe must come from within the universe and not from God who stands above it. In the case of living organisms, as in the case of clay pots, the presence of orderliness gives the game away. Plainly, this orderliness could not have come about by chance - not even if chance were helped along by natural selection! It must have been arranged by an outside intelligence. Design needs a designer.
DNA1 evidence is often claimed to give support to the evolutionary theory; in reality, DNA illustrates God's handiwork of design in a powerful way. Let us consider the complexity of this important component of living systems in order to see how absurd it is to believe that life could come about by chance. DNA is the primary information-carrying molecule of living organisms. The beauty and wonder of this molecule can hardly be overstated when one considers its properties. Being the blueprint of living cells, it stores all the information necessary for the cell to feed and protect itself, as well as propagate itself into more living cells, and to cooperate with other living cells that make up a complex organism.
If the DNA of one cell were unravelled and held in a straight line, it would literally be almost one metre long and yet be so thin it would be invisible to all but the most powerful microscopes. Consider that this string of DNA must be packaged into a space that is much smaller than the head of a pin2 and that this tiny strand of human DNA contains enough information to fill almost 1000 books, each containing 1000
pages3 of text. Human engineers would have a most difficult time trying to fit one such book into that amount of space; one thousand books in that amount of space boggles the mind! For compactness and information-carrying ability, no human invention has even come close to matching the design of this remarkable molecule.
Amazing as the DNA molecule may be, there is much, much more to life than DNA alone; life is possible only if the DNA blueprint can be read and put into action by the complex machinery of living cells. But the complex machinery of the living cell requires DNA of if it is going to exist in the first place, since DNA is the source of the code of instructions to put together the machinery. Without the cellular machinery, we would have no DNA since it is responsible for synthesising DNA; without DNA we would have no cellular machinery. Since DNA and the machinery of the cell are co-dependent, the complete system must be present from the beginning of it would be meaningless bits and pieces.
In order to emphasise this co-dependence of the cellular machinery and DNA, let us examine some proteins (i.e. the machinery) that are directly involved in the conversion of the DNA blueprint into more proteins. Before we list the processes and the proteins associated with converting DNA information into proteins, we should emphasise the following points: (1) each and every step in the overall process absolutely requires protein(s) that are unique and extremely complex; and (2) these unique and complex proteins can only be produced by the overall process in which they themselves are critically involved.
The making of RNA4 from a DNA template is a critical first step in the process of protein formation. For RNA to be synthesised, no fewer than five different protein chains 5 must cooperate. Four of these proteins form the RNA polymerase complex and the last one tells the RNA polymerase where to start reading the DNA template. This enzyme complex must recognise where to start transcribing DNA into RNA; it must then move along the DNA strand, adding individual blocks6 to the growing RNA chain; and lastly, it must know where to finish the transcription process.
It is not enough, however, simply to make one kind of RNA; three different types of RNA are required in the process of making proteins, messenger RNA (mRNA), ribosomal RNA (rRNA), and transfer RNA (tRNA). Molecules of mRNA carry the information extracted from the DNA blueprint which encodes the protein to be synthesised; rRNA make up the critical component of ribosomes (discussed below); and tRNA is responsible for carrying individual amino acids to the site where they will be added to a new protein. Before tRNA molecules can serve their proper function, however, they must be charged with a suitable amino acid in order that it can be added on to a growing protein chain at the appropriate time. At least twenty different aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase proteins are necessary to attach individual amino acids to the corresponding tRNA molecules (at least one for each type of amino acid).
Once mRNA, tRNA and rRNA molecules have been synthesised, it is then necessary to translate the information from the mRNA into a protein molecule. This process is carried out by a huge complex of proteins called the ribosome. These amazing protein synthesis 'machines' contain multiple different proteins, together with various ribosomal RNA molecules all associated into two main subunits. In a simple bacterium, such as E Coli, ribosomes are composed of some fifty different proteins7 and three different tRNAs!
The reactions described above are only the core reactions in the synthesis of proteins; we have not even discussed the energy molecules that must be present for many of these reactions to proceed. Where is the energy going to come from to produce these energised molecules? How will the cell harvest energy unless it has some sort of mechanism for doing so? And where is an energy-harvesting mechanism going to come from if not from pre-encoded information located in he cell?
A quick summation will reveal that the process of converting DNA information into proteins requires at least 75 different protein molecules. But each and every one of these 75 proteins must be synthesised in the first place by the process in which they themselves are involved. How could the process begin without the presence of all the necessary proteins? Could all 75 proteins have arisen by chance in just the right place at just the right time? Could it be that a strand of DNA with all the necessary information for making this exact same set of proteins just happened to be in the same place as all these proteins? And could it be that all the precursor molecules also happened to be around in their energised form so as to allow the proteins to utilise them properly?
Needles to say, without proteins life would not exist; it is as simple as that. The same is true of DNA and RNA. It should be clear that DNA, RNA and proteins are must all be present if any of them is going to be present in a living organism. Life must have been created completely functional, or it would be a meaningless mess. To suggest otherwise is plain ignorance (or perhaps desperation). So, we truly have a 'which came first?' problem on our hands. I believe, of course, that none of them came first! God came first; He designed and then created all of life with His spoken Word. DNA, RNA and protein came all at exactly the same time. It is extremely difficult to understand how anyone could believe that this astoundingly complicated DNA-blueprint translation system happened to come about by chance.
{There are about 3 more pages - mainly under the heading of Meaningful Molecules could not have arisen by Chance ...}
Last Update: July 1st, 2001
Some Links
I had a quick ferret around in cyberspace on June 30 and here's a little sample of what I came up with:
Review of the book, including a sample chapter & Preface etc.
Does Irreducible Complexity refute neo-Darwinism?
Who's who in Creation/Evolution
Climbing Mount Improbable & Darwin's Black Box
Can evolution be the source of life in all its complexity?
A commentary on Spetner's Not by chance
CAN RELIGION AND EVOLUTION BE RECONCILED?
Review of 'Darwin's Black Box'
The evolution of my world view
Have you found the purpose of life?
Radio interview with four of the fifty
The revolution against evolution
Frequently Encountered Criticisms in Evolution vs. Creationism
Interdependence in Macromolecule Synthesis: Evidence for Design
What Are the Main Problems With The Theory of Evolution?
Creation, Evolution, and Occam's Razor
Here's a couple of results from the Google search engine. I have yet to fully explore all the sites listed -
john marcus evolution creation
Trillions of cells in the human body
I suppose if we wish to be even-handed & practise equanimity, we ought to provide a sampling of the 'opposite view' -
An alternate view on 'Darwin's Black Box'
Interesting debate, if slightly 'personal' at times.
Another 'interesting' exchange of views
{Just a personal observation, I find it interesting and often quite amusing that such heat can be generated by such a debate. Why as human beings did we evolve this tendency to get upset when encountering those individuals who happen to hold a different world-view from our own. Was it random chance, and if so then why don't we get equally upset at those who have leukemia or some other 'random' condition.
{Another delicious irony is the fact that, according to evolutionists, purely by random chance a species such as ourselves developed, which is capable of forming the idea/belief that its own existence is the result of random chance. No other species on the planet is capable of formulating such an idea. And they seem to live quite happily anyway.
}
}
