DOUG AX, BIOLOGY, AND THE BELEAGUERED THEORY OF EVOLUTION

Even from a biological perspective, evolution is unable to bridge the gap between reality and any naturalistic explanation of it. In his new book, Undeniable: How Biology confirms our Intuition that Life is Designed, Douglas Ax argues that “functional coherence,” like “irreducible complexity,” argues against gradualistic evolution. How? Ax argues that many coordinated biological components have to be in place before the organism can have an “adaptive advantage,” before a trait can confer any survival value or even survive. Ax provides the example of photosynthesis within a single celled organism:

·       The photosynthetic apparatus in relatively simple single-celled organisms called cyanobacteria has hundreds of molecular parts that are precisely positioned to enable the apparatus to gather photons from the sun and convert their energy into the chemical energy in sugar. The photosystem’s overall function depends on an extensive hierarchy of subfunctions, all “contributing in a coordinated way to the whole.” (Jonathan Wells, Salvo Magazine, #39, Winter 2016, 45)

Ax concludes that this “makes accidental invention fantastically improbable and therefore physically impossible,” and that these designs “can only come from deliberate, intelligent action.”

Biologist Jonathan Wells observes:

·       Natural selection has never been observed to produce anything more than minor changes within existing species, but higher forms of life contain many more inventions than we find in cyanobacteria. (45)

Ax concludes that because such inventions involve high levels of complex additions, explaining them is like the problem of explaining the origin of life:

·       “Because each new life form amounts to a new high-level invention, the origin of the thousandth new life form is no more explicable in Darwinian terms than the origin of life.”

Consequently, the problems seem to be overwhelming the beleaguered theory of evolution.

FROM WHERE DID OUR MORAL WIRING COME?

Virtually everyone now agrees that we are wired to know and to respond to moral truth. But from where did this wiring come? Many believe that it is merely the product of a mindless process – evolution. Others claim that this wiring must come from God, as the Bible asserts (Romans 2:14-16).

An atheist therefore asked:

·       "But what convinces you that morality has a supernatural origin?"

I listed some reasons that I thought might appeal to him:

1. Even when we deny that our moral wiring comes from God, we cannot act as if it's just the product of a mindless process. When someone cuts in line in front of us, we protest, “You have no RIGHT to do this.” This reflects the fact that we take this common moral law very seriously – more than just a biochemical reaction.

2. It contains beautiful design and harmony (ID). When I do something wrong, I feel badly. When I apologize, I feel relieved. When forgiven, I feel restored.

3. I now have a confidence that I had never before experience, knowing that even God forgives my sins.

4. Humanity uses the same avoidance techniques they use to avoid God as they do their troubling conscience. This suggests that there is a strong tie between God and conscience.

5. Conscience is so hard-wired into us that all of our attempts to silence it -- drugs, denying freewill, denial, moral relativism, evolution, masochism, good deeds -- have utterly failed. It would seem that a God does not want to let us out of His grasp or to give us an easy excuse for our misconduct.

6. When we live in accordance with our conscience, we live the fullest life, as the ancient philosophers have asserted.

When we deny that our conscience is God-given, we give room for moral horrors. Before his execution, serial killer, Ted Bundy, confessed how the rejection of God had affected his life:

·       “Then I learned that all moral judgments are ‘value judgments,’ that all value judgments are subjective [it just depends on how you think about them], and that none can be proved to be either ‘right’ or ‘wrong’…I discovered that to become truly free, truly unfettered, I had to become truly uninhibited. And I quickly discovered that the greatest obstacle to my freedom, the greatest block and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable “value judgment that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these ‘others?’ Other human beings with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal, a pig or a sheep or a steer? Is your life more to you than a hog’s life to a hog? Why should I be willing to sacrifice my pleasure more for the one than for the other? Surely, you would not, in this age of scientific enlightenment, declare that God or nature has marked some pleasures as ‘moral’ or ‘good’ and others as ‘immoral’ or ‘bad’? In any case, let me assure you, my dear young lady, that there is absolutely no comparison between the pleasure I might take in eating ham and the pleasure I anticipate in raping and murdering you. That is the honest conclusion to which my education has led me – after the most conscientious examination of my spontaneous and uninhibited self.” (“Christian Research Journal,” Vol 33, No 2, 2010, 32)

IF IT LOOKS DESIGNED, PERHAPS IT IS DESIGNED

Kyle Butt has written:

·       Richard Dawkins stated: “Living things are not designed, but Darwinian natural selection licenses a version of the design stance for them. We get a short cut to understanding the heart if we assume that it is designed to pump blood” (2006, p. 182, emp. added). Did you catch that? He said that things weren’t designed by any intelligence, but we can understand them more readily if we assume they were. http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1691

·       University of Chicago professor Jerry Coyne, in his book Why Evolution is True, wrote:  “If anything is true about nature, it is that plants and animals seem intricately and almost perfectly designed for living their lives” (2009, p. 1, emp. added).  He further stated, “Nature resembles a well-oiled machine, with every species an intricate cog or gear” (p. 1). On page three of the same book, he wrote: “The more one learns about plants and animals, the more one marvels at how well their designs fit their ways of life.” Atheist Michael Shermer, in his book Why Darwin Matters, stated: “The design inference comes naturally. The reason people think that a Designer created the world is because it looks designed” (2006, p. 65, ital. in orig.).

What are the implications of the appearances of design? Well, it suggests that these things might have actually been designed.

And why shouldn’t we believe what our senses tell us? Is it more reasonable to put our faith in the findings of an experiment? In this case, we are compelled to place our faith in the experimenter. However, in order to do this, we also have to also place our faith in our senses to read or hear about this “finding.” Doesn’t it make more sense just to believe in what our senses tell us directly?

Besides, have evolutionists or naturalists ever performed an experiment excluding God from the picture? No! Well, why then do we exclude Him? Perhaps we want to!

A RATIONAL ORDER IS NECESSARY FOR SCIENCE AND GOD IS NECESSARY FOR A RATIONAL ORDER

Is God a science stopper or science promoter? According to Regis Nicoll, retired nuclear engineer and physicist, God has inspired the quest to understand His ordered creation:

* Francis Bacon, Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, Johannes Kepler, and Isaac Newton were all men of faith whose faith gave them hope that scientific knowledge was attainable. Because the universe was the product of an Intelligence that made it intelligible to intelligent beings, they had confidence that man could discover something of the true nature of nature by careful observation and experimentation. 

They believed that God had created rational universe and welcomed human attempts to understand it. Nicoll continues:

* Kepler put it this way: "The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order and harmony which has been imposed on it by God and which he has revealed to us in the language of mathematics." 

While all scientists employ a similar methodology to unlock creation's mysteries, there are deeper mysteries to ponder, namely, the origin of creation and its knowable order:

* Similarly, Newton warned people inclined to infer a "Clockwork Universe" from his laws of motion and gravity that "gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."

According to Newton, God establishes, underpins, and sustains His creation with His elegant, immutable laws. If this is so, then every finding of science belongs to Him, and He should be acknowledged for every piece of knowledge that we gain. 

Nicoll adds that God has enabled us to do science because of the intelligible nature of His creation:

* Our ability to learn about the universe derives from the fact that it is governed by laws and exhibits a rational order and functional design that reflect purpose.

Is this the conclusion of blind faith? Certainly not, but a necessary inference from our observations of a rational order.

WHY ARE THERE ATHEISTS?

Most atheists will readily admit that there is no evidence against the existence of God. Why then do they deny God’s existence? For the same reason they also deny the existence of the Good-Tooth-Fairy, Bigfoot, and the Flying-Spaghetti-Monster – that there is simply no positive evidence for these!

But are these beings ontologically equivalent to a Being who can possibly account for the first cause, the existence of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe, consciousness, life, and the laws of science – things that naturalism is hard-pressed to account for?

ATHEIST RESPONSE TO THE ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN

What is the atheist response to the argument from design? One response is evolution. If things can evolve naturally, ID becomes unnecessary. However, there is no proof that ID might not have guided scientific “natural” processes.

Another response to design is non-design. The late Christopher Hitchens argued that we are confronted with more “non-design” and wastefulness than design. He cites the fact that 99% of biological species have gone extinct.

However, “non-design” – and it’s hard to prove that something is without a design - fails to directly address the evidence of design. For example, if I come home to my totally unkempt apartment to find that the kitchen has been perfectly cleaned and ordered, I shouldn’t say:

•                  I don’t have to account for the order of my kitchen because the three other rooms remain in total disorder.

Instead, I should still seek an explanation for my ordered kitchen.

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD REQUIRES EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE

The late atheist Christopher Hitchens had argued that extraordinary claims - namely the existence of God - require extraordinary evidence.

While this might be true, it must be weighed against another extraordinary claim - that everything sprung into existence uncaused out of nothing.

This observation leaves us with the unavoidable question - Which makes more sense: ID or naturalism?

HOW MUCH EVIDENCE OF DESIGN WOULD IT TAKE TO PROVE THAT THERE IS ACTUALLY A DESIGNER?

There will never be enough evidence for those unwilling to weigh it. However, some reluctantly acknowledge that the evidence has already arrived.

Albert Einstein admitted:

• "The harmony of natural law . . . reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."

Likewise, former atheist and astronomer, Alan Sandage, said:

• "As I said before, the world is too complicated in all of its parts to be due to chance alone. I am convinced that the existence of life with all its order in each of its organisms is simply too well put together. . . . The more one learns of biochemistry the more unbelievable it becomes unless there is some kind of organizing principle—an architect for believers. . . ." (Norman Geisler)

We do a good job distinguishing between what happens formulaically (according to the laws of science) and what's intelligently caused - poems, writing of books, a computer program, the Mona Lisa.

When observe life and all of it's systems necessary for even the most rudimentary forms of life, we observe the unmistakable product of intelligence. The fine-tuning of the universe, DNA, the elegance of the laws of science, and the mystery of consciousness all proclaim something far beyond formulaic causation.

How much more evidence is needed?

The Lie: Its Usefulness and its Cost

We resent laws and restrictions. They get in our way. Consequently, many understandably resented the orders to evacuate their homes prior to Sandy’s uninvited visit, and stayed put. However, many had to pay a price for their choice.

Many also resent the teachings of Scripture as an unwanted intrusion. We cringe with contempt when we hear about God’s judgment for sin. For instance, we have found that lying is a useful tool to achieve our ends, but it’s also something of which God disapproves:

• You destroy those who tell lies; bloodthirsty and deceitful men the Lord abhors. (Psalm 5:6)

“How intolerant and judgmental,” we conclude! However, there is strong evidence that when we rebel against God’s Word, we are actually rebelling against ourselves – our own nature and well-being:

• Being truthful can enhance your well-being, according to a new study from the University of Notre Dame in Indiana. Researchers found that those who told fewer lies during a 10-week period reported fewer mental health and physical complaints, like anxiety and back pain, and better social interactions. (AARP The Magazine, October/November 2012)

From this perspective, God should not be regarded as a cosmic-kill-joy, but a concerned parent who wants the best for us, even when it messes up our plans. Consequently, He issues teachings, doctrines and laws to regulate our behavior – even our words and thoughts – for our own good.

Perhaps more often than not, He doesn’t even need to directly punish us. We punish ourselves through our stubborn choices, as so many verses indicate:

• Since they hated knowledge and did not choose to fear the Lord, since they would not accept my advice and spurned my rebuke, they will eat the fruit of their ways and be filled with the fruit of their schemes. For the waywardness of the simple will kill them, and the complacency of fools will destroy them. (Proverbs 1:29-32)

The Creator needs not lift a finger against us. We will punish ourselves, because we have hardened our hearts against His counsel. Meanwhile, He continues to make His appeal:

• Wisdom [God] calls aloud in the street, she raises her voice in the public squares; at the head of the noisy streets she cries out, in the gateways of the city she makes her speech: "How long will you simple ones love your simple ways? How long will mockers delight in mockery and fools hate knowledge?” (Proverbs 1:20-22)

Interestingly, what is moral is also what is beneficial, at least in the long run. Why? Is this all part of a grand design?