Paul Reese wrote:
I have been reading a book
entitled The Design Revolution, by William Dembski, and he has a very
firm scientific argument that the origins of species could only be the
result of an intelligent designer. William Dembski is a brilliant
mathematician and philosopher and dissects the subject of the origins
with impeccable logic.
William Paley, English theologian, advanced the idea that an
organism's complexity is evidence for the existence of a cosmic
designer. "If we find a pocket watch in a field," Paley
wrote in 1802, "we immediately infer that it was produced not by
natural processes acting blindly but by a designing human
intellect." Further, he reasoned, the natural world contains
abundant evidence of a supernatural creator.
Yet if that pocket watch failed to keep time, and upon examination we
discovered that one of the gears was improperly installed, what would
that tell us about the designer? Would we likewise implicate the
Creator when a child is born so crippled by genetic defects that it
cannot survive or live a normal life? Watches roll off assembly
lines that work flawlessly for years. Life, besides being more
complex, doesn’t function like clockwork.
In Michael Behe’s book,
Darwin’s Black Box, he states his case for
Intelligent Design (ID). Behe's argument is that certain features
in organisms are “irreducibly complex,” a disembodied creative force or
intellect has to do the heavy lifting. His mousetrap argument is
that all the systems must be assembled before the trap can catch
mice. How could natural selection pick out the components before
there was any advantage? The individual components by themselves
offer no advantage to an organism and would offer no beneficial advantage
to future offspring until all the components are in place and can work
together.
Behe presumes that each individual part of a system arises by itself -
that a segment of DNA codes for a particular protein that has one
function alone without interaction with other segments of DNA. His
picture of a sequence of unrelated genetic changes which eventually come
together to perform a specific task breaks down with new evidence.
DNA is capable of multi-tasking.
This article by Paul Silverman appeared in the May 24, 2004 issue of
The Scientist:
For more than 50
years scientists have operated under a
set of
seemingly incontrovertible assumptions about genes,
gene
expression, and the consequences thereof. Their mantra:
One gene
yields one protein; genes beget messenger RNA, which
in turn
begets protein; and most critically, the gene is deterministic
in gene
expression and can therefore predict disease propensities.
Yet during
the last five years, data have revealed inadequacies in
this
theory. Unsettling results from the Human Genome Project
(HGP) in
particular have thrown the deficiencies into sharp relief.
Some genes
encode more than one protein; others don't encode
proteins
at all.
These findings help refine evolutionary theory
by
explaining an explosion of diversity from relatively little
starting
material. We therefore need to rethink our long-held
beliefs: A
reevaluation of the genetic determinism doctrine, coupled
with a new
systems biology mentality, could help consolidate and
clarify
genome-scale data, enabling us finally to reap the rewards
of the
genome sequencing projects.
And so the idea that an organism must somehow put all the component parts
together piecemeal to form an operating system capable of functioning for
a specific purpose could be likened to putting together box cars one at a
time to form a train. What we are beginning to discover is that DNA
has the capability to put the entire train together complete with box
cars, engine, and caboose.
The prime difficulty with ID, however, is that it demands that God must
interact in the progression of life in order to bring about new species
or even new adaptive features in organisms. Can a portion of an
existing species become isolated and through purely natural procreation
become a distinct species on its own without divine intervention?
Is it necessary for the Creator to pull the switches and alter the DNA
code before anything worthwhile can happen?
This demand on the Creator has a downside. Evolution doesn't always
move in a positive direction. Genetic defects, which occur all the
time, that cause a creature to die before it can procreate are washed out
of the system. No harm to the gene pool. Genetic defects
which may be harmful later in life such as Alzheimer's or Huntington's
Disease are preserved in the gene pool because the harmful effects come
too late to prevent the genetic defect from being passed on to another
generation. So what was the Creator doing when these genetic
defects occurred? Windsurfing on Mars?
ID only looks at the upside. Positive changes are credited to the
personal acts of a loving Creator. So who or what is blamed for the
deleterious effects of certain harmful gene mutations? We
humans suffer from over 3,000 genetic diseases caused by genetic
defects. Natural causation doesn't point an accusing finger at the
Creator as ID does. Genetic changes occur naturally and natural
selection weeds out some of the imperfections and allows creatures to
adapt to a changing environment. Nice system. Let's give God
credit for devising it.
But if He did pull the switches as demanded by ID, well, He missed some,
or He pulled the wrong ones occasionally, or He pulled some the wrong
way. Promoting a Creator who pushes the throttle but sleeps at the
switch serves no useful purpose.
Furthermore, if God operated in the way that ID suggests, there is no
evidence of it. Not only is the Creator a bit clumsy at times, He
does it without leaving a trace. So He pulls the switches, right
ones and wrong ones alike, and makes it appear as if it all happened
naturally? Sorry, this scenario doesn't fit the God of the Bible
whose "way is perfect” (2 Sam. 22:31).
One last point. If the Creator continually acted in life processes,
who is to say that He doesn't act in physical processes? Do we need
to rethink the laws of physics to account for the intermittent actions of
a helpful Creator? Perhaps Boyle's law should read, "Under
conditions of constant temperature and quantity, there is an inverse
relationship between the volume and pressure for an ideal gas, God
permitting." School text book committees will love that
one!
We serve our Creator best by giving Him full credit for setting the
bounds and establishing the laws under which nature is free to
operate. God empowers nature, and nature orchestrates the
procession of life. In Genesis 1, God commands, “let the earth
bring forth” and “let the waters bring forth.” Personal action or
divine intervention not required. Further in Genesis, God
pronounces His creation “very good.” He did not say it was
perfect.
Dick Fischer -
Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org
Received on Mon Oct 18 00:39:20 2004