LIFE AND THE ABANDONMENT OF THE NATURALISTIC HYPOTHESIS

Is the evolution of life inevitable when the right circumstances collaborate? Astronomer Hugh Ross has warned us to not expect it, anywhere in the universe:

·       The probability of life originating naturalistically on a habitable planet is mathematically indistinguishable from zero. Since zero times any other factor or set of factors equals zero, then, from a naturalistic perspective, the number of civilizations besides our own that exist in the universe is zero. (Salvo Magazine, Winter 2016, 35)

Why might Ross have calculated that the chances of life occurring naturalistically as zero? Here are several considerations:

Biologist Michael Denton points out the immensity of the machinery involved in even the simplest forms of life:

·       “If a cell were magnified a thousand million times…in every direction we looked, we would see all sorts of robot-like machines…the task of designing even one such molecular machine would be completely beyond our capacity.”

Richard Kleiss observes that:

·       “The mathematical probability that the precisely designed molecules needed for the simplest bacteria could form by chance arrangements of amino acids is far less than 1 in 10 followed by 450 zeroes.”

This is just a matter of the building blocks and not even the cellular machinery. He adds that:

·       “The coded instructions contained in the DNA of a human cell would fill 4,000 encyclopedia-sized books.”       

Interestingly, there is no evidence whatsoever that a single protein or segment of DNA has ever been found to occur naturally. Kleiss maintains that these products need to be produced within a living cell, but the cell first needs these building blocks:

·       “To make DNA, you have to have DNA in the first place…This leads to the conclusion that cells could never have evolved, they simply had to have been created with the DNA code already in them!”

Consequently, the naturalistic hypothesis might have to be abandoned.

THE VANISHING HOPE FOR A NATURAL EXPLANATION

In There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, Antony Flew concluded that DNA required an intelligent cause:

* “It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.”

* “I now believe there is a God…I now think it [the evidence] does point to a creative Intelligence almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together.”

How does the atheist respond? The atheist might admit that there is no natural answer yet available but, eventually, there will be one.

However, there are many problems with this response:

1.     It is merely an expression of faith.

2.     There is no evidence that anything occurs as a result of natural laws or forces. These laws of science might instead be emanating from the mind of God.

3.     This model assumes, without evidence, that there is a conflict between a scientific- and a God- explanation. However, if the elegant, immutable, and universal laws of science originate with God, then science depends on God. In this case, science and God are in partnership. Therefore, every scientific explanation should also tip its hat in God's direction.

4.     Even if the laws of science are natural, each can only account for one limited action. For example, gravity can only attract. It cannot write poetry or fry an egg. It only works according to formula. However, there are many things for which formula cannot account - products of intelligence, like a book. DNA for another.
 

No wonder the world's leading atheist turned to theism.

DOES INTELLIGENT DESIGN (ID) QUALIFY AS SCIENCE?

According to Wikipedia, it does not:

• Intelligent design, by appealing to a supernatural agent, directly conflicts with the principles of science, which limit its inquiries to empirical, observable and ultimately testable data and which require explanations to be based on empirical evidence.

However, all scientists, IDers included, do science the same way, using the same methods. All observe, measure, quantify, and replicate findings. There is only one difference between IDers and non-IDers. Non-IDers (naturalists) insist that only natural explanations are allowable.

However, this is largely a philosophical issue. It asks these questions:

• “What underlies the objective scientific laws/forces and the resultant findings? Do these laws originate, operate, and continue immutably naturally or supernaturally (ID)? What is the ultimate source of causation and being?”

This question must be answered philosophically and not just scientifically. As such, ID is no less scientific than naturalism, neither of which can be directly observed or measured. Instead, they both represent pre-scientific considerations.

Nevertheless, science can and does ask the question of ultimate causation, even though it cannot be directly determined by measurement. It asks:

1. Where does life come from?
2. What is the origin of the laws of science? The fine-tuning of the universe? The universe itself with its Big Bang? Matter? Space? Time?

How then are these questions to be resolved?

In fact, some naturalists have forsaken their naturalistic understanding of the universe for partially scientific reasons. The now-deceased Antony Flew has been called the “foremost atheist thinker of the 20th century.” However, after 40 years of debating Christians, he surprised the world.

At a 2004 debate at New York University, Flew declared that he “now accepted the existence of a God” (Antony Flew with Roy Varghese, There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, p. 74). In that debate, he said that he believed that the origin of life points to a creative Intelligence:

• Almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together. It’s the enormous complexity of the number of elements and the enormous subtlety of the ways they work together. The meeting of these two parts at the right time by chance is simply minute. It is all a matter of the enormous complexity by which the results were achieved, which looked to me like the work of intelligence.” (75).

Did Flew have a religious experience that had biased him against a naturalistic explanation? He explained:

• I must stress that my discovery of the Divine has proceeded on a purely natural level, without any reference to supernatural phenomena. It has been an exercise in what has traditionally been called natural theology. It has had no connection with any of the revealed religions. Nor do I claim to have had any personal experience of God or any experience that may be called supernatural or miraculous. In short, my discovery of the Divine has been a pilgrimage of reason and not of faith. (93). 

However, Wikipedia claimed that:

• Intelligent design, by appealing to a supernatural agent, directly conflicts with the principles of science, which limit its inquiries to empirical, observable and ultimately testable data.

If this is how we determine what science is, then Naturalism also fails. No amount of testing will suffice to determine that the laws/forces of science originate and operate naturally and unintelligently.

Antony Flew: An Atheist who Looked at the Evidence

Antony Flew has been called the “foremost atheist thinker of the 20th century.” However, after 40 years of debating Christians, he surprised the world.

At a 2004 debate at New York University, Flew declared that he “now accepted the existence of a God” (p. 74). In that debate, he said that he believed that the origin of life points to a creative Intelligence,

·       Almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together. It’s the enormous complexity of the number of elements and the enormous subtlety of the ways they work together. The meeting of these two parts at the right time by chance is simply minute. It is all a matter of the enormous complexity by which the results were achieved, which looked to me like the work of intelligence.” (Antony Flew with Roy Varghese, There is a God: How The World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, 75).

Reviewer Lita Cosner points out that:

·       Flew was particularly impressed with a physicist’s refutation of the idea that monkeys at typewriters would eventually produce a Shakespearean sonnet. The likelihood of getting one Shakespearean sonnet by chance is one in 10690; to put this number in perspective, there are only 1080 particles in the universe. Flew concludes:

o   “If the theorem won’t work for a single sonnet, then of course it’s simply absurd to suggest that the more elaborate feat of the origin of life could have been achieved by chance.” (78)

Why was Flew influenced by this evidence and not the majority of atheists? Did he have a religious experience? He explained:

·       “I must stress that my discovery of the Divine has proceeded on a purely natural level, without any reference to supernatural phenomena. It has been an exercise in what has traditionally been called natural theology. It has had no connection with any of the revealed religions. Nor do I claim to have had any personal experience of God or any experience that may be called supernatural or miraculous. In short, my discovery of the Divine has been a pilgrimage of reason and not of faith.” (93).

Flew’s embrace of theism was driven by the evidence! Well, why doesn’t it drive others to the same conclusion? Here’s how the Apostle Paul explains it:

·       For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (Romans 1:18-20)

Flew might have agreed!