Apicontent

Acknowledgments

Table of Contents

1. Back to the Beginning

2. What are the Odds?

3. Options for Origins

4. The Problem with Half an Eye

5. The Language of Our Cells

6. The Case of the Missing Link

7. The Human Enigma

8. Imagine the Designer

Did the Universe Have a Beginning?

Scientific discoveries revive the ancient belief in a beginning to the universe. If we could rewind the history of the universe, what would we discover about its origin and development? Did it really have a beginning, or was it always there?

The influential ancient philosopher Aristotle stated, “It is impossible that movement should ever come into being or cease to be, for it must always have existed. Nor can time come into being or cease to be.”

Meanwhile, the biblical book of Genesis famously starts off, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”

Which is it? Is the universe eternal—has it always been here? Or did it have a start at some point in time—did it have a birthday, so to speak? These are the two schools of thought that have enrolled followers since early times. (Actually, there was also a third school that postulated that the universe existed on the back of a giant sea turtle, but they’re mostly gone now.)

The seesaw of opinion has tipped one way or the other over time. But lately the weight of evidence has all been coming down on the side of the birthday universe.

In the old days when the Christian church dominated Western society, the creation of the universe was taken for granted. But slowly the scientific viewpoint pushed aside creation as well as the Creator. Now many scientists are thinking that the idea of a creation may not have been so far off from the truth as they thought. It’s looking like the universe had a beginning after all.

Remarkably, one of the first scientists to swing the pendulum of opinion back to the birthday-universe position was so entrenched in eternal-universe thinking that at first he refused to believe his own conclusions.

A GREAT BRAIN’S BIGGEST BLUNDER

When Albert Einstein developed his revolutionary theory of general relativity in 1916, his mathematical calculations pointed to an extraordinary conclusion—the universe was expanding. And since if you rewind the tape on any expansion, you get back to a point where it started, that meant the universe must have had a beginning too.¹

Einstein, however, was like most scientists of his day in that he believed in an eternal universe. Unwilling to accept a beginning to the universe, Einstein fudged the numbers in order to nullify the conclusion that the universe was expanding.

University of California astrophysicist George Smoot explains that Einstein’s main problem with an expanding universe was its implication of a beginning. A beginning pointed to a beginner beyond scientific investigation.² However, once experimental data proved that the universe really was expanding, Einstein admitted his error, calling it “the biggest blunder of my life.” ³

There’s a point worth considering here: if it could happen to Einstein, it could happen to anyone. Rarely is anyone completely objective when it comes to the issue of a Creator. While it is true that religious belief and philosophy became an obstacle for scientific inquiry in the days of Galileo, trends have changed. In the modern era, it has at times been a prejudice against the possibility of a cosmic designer that has kept many scientists from honest and open inquiry.

Thankfully, the truth generally comes out in the end and scientists begin to see the light. For Einstein and others, it was something called red shift that started the parade of evidence for a universe with a beginning.

REDSHIFTING THE BIG BANG THEORY INTO HIGH GEAR

In the late 1920s, the American astronomer Edwin Hubble noticed something unusual as he gazed into the heavens. It wasn’t a new planet or little green men waving at him from Mars; it was something both more tedious and at the same time more thrilling.

Hubble had been spending countless nights at the Mount Wilson Observatory, studying the stars and galaxies and especially the spectrum of color in the light they sent our way. He discovered that the light from most other galaxies was shifted to the red end of the spectrum, which indicated they were moving away from us.

Furthermore, the farther a galaxy was away from us, the more red-shifted its light was and, thus, the faster it was moving away from us. The only explanation for all of this was that space itself was expanding, causing all galaxies to move away from each other. In an expanding universe, from any point in space (including our own), it would appear that most stars and galaxies were racing away. And the farther away they were, the faster they would be racing.

There it was in the redshift: proof that Einstein had been right in the first place (before he fudged his formula) and that the universe really was expanding. Proof, in other words, that the universe was not eternal but had a beginning.⁴

And yet not everyone accepted the proof at first, including a scientist named Sir Fred Hoyle (former Plumian professor of astronomy at Cambridge University and founder of the Institute of Astronomy at Cambridge). Ironically, it was Hoyle who originally described the event as a “big bang,” meaning to mock the idea. The name stuck. (According to physics professor Brian Greene, the term “big bang” is actually misleading since there was nothing to explode and no space in which an explosion could take place.)⁵ But unlike Hoyle, many other scientists began coming over to the side of the newly named theory.

The world’s leading astrophysicist, Stephen Hawking, who has held the esteemed position of Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge, calls Hubble’s discovery of an expanding universe “one of the great intellectual revolutions of the twentieth century.”⁶ The discovery that the universe had a beginning has led to a new science called cosmology, which attempts to understand what happened at the origin of the universe, how it works, and what will happen in its future.

The new science led cosmologists to take another look at a seemingly mundane insight from the 19th century, the second law of thermodynamics.

A SECOND LAW OF FIRST IMPORTANCE

In addition to Hubble’s discovery, the second law of thermodynamics also predicts a beginning to the universe. You say you don’t know the second law of thermodynamics? Think again.

Let’s say you come into a room containing me and a bunch of your other pals, and you find a steaming cup of Starbucks coffee on the table. Being the thoughtful individual that you are, you ask, “Does this belong to anyone?”

To which I reply, “It’s been there for the last month.”

Well, you’d know immediately I was wrong or lying (probably lying). Why? Because the coffee wouldn’t still be hot if it had been there for a month; it would be room temperature.

That’s the second law of thermodynamics in action. This law states that everything continually moves from a state of order to disorder and that heat and energy dissipate over time. This is a law that has been verified by proof after scientific proof and has never been shown to be wrong.

Now let’s apply this law to the universe, just as cosmologists have. If the universe were eternal, it would have gone cold and lifeless long ago. The stars would have burned out. Planets would have broken up into clouds of dust. And even the black holes would have ceased vacuuming the universe of unsightly stars and planets.

When you see flaming suns and scorching meteors, in other words, you’re looking at a steaming cup of coffee that over infinite time would have long since gone room temperature. Since the universe is still full of pockets of heat and energy, it cannot be eternal. Who would have thought heat would be such a helpful clue? And that is just the half of it.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF TV INTERFERENCE

There is still another way that the measurement of heat help to prove that the universe is expanding. In the spring of 1964, two researchers at Bell Labs observed a persistent hiss while testing their microwave radiation detector. Regardless of which direction they pointed the antenna, the static was the same. (This is the same static as TV interference. The same static that was supposed to be gone when I paid $150 to have my satellite dish installed.) Those men, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, had discovered what scientists say is the echo from the birth of the universe.⁷

But how could scientists know for sure that the hiss they were hearing was actually an echo from the beginning of the universe? Mathematicians calculated that heat generated at the moment the universe began would have been enormous beyond comprehension. This heat would have gradually dissipated over the life of the cosmos, leaving only a tiny residual of about 3 degrees Kelvin (-270 degrees C).

Additionally, in order for galaxies to have formed by the explosion needed to have slight variations in the form of waves or ripples.

According to George Smoot, these ripples would result in very slight fluctuations in the predicted temperature and would reveal an identifiable pattern.⁸ Thus, if the temperatures matched up, the birth of the universe would be scientifically verified. Merely discovering the temperature to be 3 degrees Kelvin would not prove that the universe actually had a beginning, the fluctuations also needed to match.⁹

But how could we verify fluctuations so subtle?

THE GREATEST DISCOVERY OF ALL TIME?

In 1992, a team of astrophysicists led by Smoot launched the COBE satellite in order to verify the temperatures in space. The satellite would be able to take precise measurements and determine whether fluctuations in temperature existed.

The results stunned the scientific world. Not only was the three-degree temperature confirmed, but more importantly, the profiles of the fluctuations were discovered to be a match with what had been expected.¹⁰ Hawking called the discovery “the scientific discovery of the century, if not all time.” Smoot himself excitedly stated to newspaper reporters, “What we have found is evidence for the birth of the universe.” ¹¹ He also said, “If you’re religious, it’s like looking at God.” ¹²

Astounded by the news, Ted Koppel began his ABC Nightline television program with an astronomer quoting the first two verses of the Bible. The other special guest, a physicist, immediately added his quote of the third Bible verse: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. … And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light” (Genesis 1:1, 3).¹³

Evidence like that provided by the COBE satellite raises some intriguing questions, to say the least.

THE QUESTIONS THAT FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE

Einstein’s theorems based on his theory of relativity predict that the universe could not have begun without an outside force or Beginner.¹⁴ Since Einstein’s theory of relativity ranks as the most exhaustively tested and best proven principle in physics, his conclusion is deemed correct.¹⁵

Tests from an array of radio telescopes at the South Pole have confirmed the Big Bang to a still higher degree of accuracy than ever before.¹⁶ Background radiation measurements exceed 99.9% of what had been predicted.¹⁷ There are now more than 30 independent confirmations that the universe had a one-time origin.¹⁸

New telescopes such as the infrared Spitzer Space Telescope, launched in 2003, have opened up even bigger windows to our universe. They have prompted astronomer Giovanni Fazio, from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, to remark, “We are now able for the first time to lift the cosmic veil that has blocked our view.” ¹⁹

As a result of the accumulating evidence, the scientific community has long since begun asking questions about origins, such as the following:

• What was there before the Big Bang?
• Why did the Big Bang result in a universe enabling life to exist?
• How could everything originate from nothing?

Smoot ponders what was there before the beginning: “Go back further still, beyond the moment of creation—what then? What was there before the big bang? What was there before time began?” ²⁰ The same astrophysicist notes that “until the late 1910’s … those who didn’t take Genesis literally had no reason to believe there had been a beginning.” ²¹ The Genesis account of creation and the Big Bang theory both speak of everything coming from nothing. Suddenly the Bible and science agree (a discovery somewhat embarrassing to materialists). Smoot admits, “There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the Big Bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.” ²²

The evidence had begun to add up, and some scientists weren’t liking the sum.

TRYING TO AVOID THE BAD DREAM

A beginning to the universe was like a bad dream come true for materialists who wanted to believe everything had always existed. It brought scientists face to face with the logical conclusions that primary cause must exist. That argument is a simple logical syllogism:

1. Everything that has a beginning had a cause.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.

But admitting a cause leads to the next logical question: who or what is the cause?

Think about it for a minute. Since time, space, matter, and motion are all a part of the created universe, then before the beginning it was timeless, spaceless, and motionless.

What can happen spontaneously from this state of affairs? There’s nothing moving, there’s nothing colliding, there’s … well, nothing. Not even the potential for anything to happen.

The fact everything came from nothing has forced scientists to acknowledge that something outside of space and time, something very powerful and with apparent volition, must have acted to bring about the beginning. That is, there must have been an intelligent Designer of the universe. Some might go ahead and use the name God for this Creator.

Well, in certain academic circles, this line of reasoning simply won’t do. Thus it is that many materialists have looked for a way to prove that the universe didn’t have a beginning. Smoot remarks, “Cosmologists have long struggled to avoid this bad dream by seeking explanations of the universe that avoid the necessity of a beginning.” ²³

Sir Fred Hoyle (he who mockingly coined the term “big bang”) was one scientist who strongly opposed the concept of a beginning for the universe. In 1948 Hermann Bondi and Thomas Gold joined Hoyle in postulating that matter was in a continual state of creation. They called their idea the steady state theory, which was an attempt to show that the universe is eternal after all, even though the evidence had long been trending against such a view. However, the COBE discovery of background radiation was the fatal blow to the steady state theory.²⁴

Next came the oscillating universe theory. According to this concept, the universe explodes, contracts, and explodes again, eternally yo-yoing. This would be another way to permit a belief in the eternal existence of the universe. But the physics for this theory didn’t work.

More recently, some scientists, including Hawking, have begun considering the so-called multiverse theory. This theory accepts that our universe is finite, but it suggests that ours is just one of many universes. The whole multi-universe may be eternal, according to this theory, even though our particular universe is not. This theory is covered in more depth in another article in this magazine, but the key point to understand about it right now is that it has no evidence whatsoever to support it.

These theories fit neatly with the philosophy of materialism, whereas a beginning of the universe would raise the obvious question, who was there to start it? Professor Dennis Sciama, Hawking’s supervisor while he was at Cambridge, admits his reasons for supporting the steady state theory: “I was a supporter of the steady state theory, not in the sense that I believed that it had to be true, but in that I found it so attractive I wanted it to be true.” ²⁵

An origin of the universe meant materialists were suddenly faced with the questions that threatened their worldview.

A ONE TIME BEGINNING

Hoyle and other scientists fervently pursued alternative explanations to a one-time origin of the universe. Eventually, however, the evidence showed clearly that the universe had a beginning, and the Big Bang theory was proclaimed victorious. Ironically, it was evidence from Hoyle’s own research that helped confirm that the universe had a one-time beginning.

Today most cosmologists and physicists accept the Big Bang theory as the scientific explanation of how our universe began. In fact, scientists believe they can trace the history of the universe all the way back to 10-43 of a second. Prior to that point in the history of our universe, all of our current theories break down and science can see no further back. The very beginning of the universe remains a mystery.

Imagine rewinding the universe back to its beginning, a time when there were no stars. No light, matter, or energy. Not even space or time. Suddenly an enormous explosion erupted from this nothingness at a temperature exceeding a million trillion trillion degrees.²⁶ Time begins along with matter, energy, and space.

When a bomb ejects shrapnel into the air, both the bomb material and the space it blows into have already been there. However, in the beginning of the universe, neither space nor matter existed until the explosion. The space surface of the universe and the newly created matter came into existence.

According to the Big Bang theory, this explosion launched the entire universe, from the most distant galaxy to the most colorful nebula, to quasars flashing like beacons, to our own comforting sun and nearby planets, to you and me with our questions about where we came from and what it all means. Since man alone thinks about the meaning and purpose of life, the beginning—and the cause of that beginning—must be fascinating to each one of us.

The verdict is in on the question of whether the universe is eternal or had a beginning. The idea that everything in the cosmos originated out of nothing seems mythical, yet it is now mainstream science.

 Why is Only Earth Suitable for Life?

In his movie Signs, M. Night Shyamalan presents us with a priest (played by Mel Gibson) who has lost his faith. Through the death of his wife, the priest has come to the conclusion that life is random. He has decided that he will no long pretend to see God in the picture.

As Shyamalan zooms in his lens, he shows us that life is without focus: there is no recognizable pattern. But typical of Shyamalan, he turns the lens one more screw to the right, and at this magnification a pattern emerges. Gibson’s character is able to see the hand of a great designer lurking behind all that had seemed random. His wife’s dying words, his daughter’s obsession with water, his son’s asthma —everything served a larger purpose.

At the end Mel Gibson returns to the priesthood and makes a blockbuster called The Passion of the Christ. Well, not exactly, but his character comes full circle—from faith to skepticism and back to faith. Meanwhile, Shyamalan takes his audience on the same circuitous journey, exploring issues of design and higher purpose in the world.

In many ways the evidence for intelligent design of the universe has come full circle. When early humans looked at the heavens, they could not escape the concept of a creator. In fact, until the 1500s, most people believed in the ancient astronomer Ptolemy’s teaching, that Earth was the center of the universe.

But, in the 16^th century, Copernicus showed that Earth revolved around the Sun. Suddenly our planet seemed less special. Some astronomers looked out at the universe through telescopes and deduced a creator was unnecessary. Their argument for a materialist worldview was energized by the belief in an ordinary Earth.

Although the founders of modern astronomy strongly believed that the universe was the work of a cosmic genius, these later followers saw the cosmos as totally autonomous and independent of a designer. Copernicus, a strong believer in God, couldn’t have disagreed more with such an assumption, and would have taken exception to it.

In the 19^th century, this belief in an ordinary Earth became popularized as the “Copernican Principle.” This principle has become the bedrock for a materialistic view of the world. However, in the latter part of the 20^th century evidence began pouring in about the remarkable fitness of Earth for life.

Scientists have learned that only an exceptionally fine-tuned planet like Earth has  the necessary ingredients to harbor life. Additionally, our solar system and galaxy, as well as our entire universe, appear designed to support intelligent life.

The odds that such fine-tuning could have occurred by chance is not just unlikely–scientists say it is virtually impossible.

THEY DON’T CALL THESE NUMBERS ASTRONOMICAL FOR NOTHING

An article in U.S. News & World Report remarks, “So far no theory is even close to explaining why physical laws exist, much less why they take the form they do. Standard big bang theory, for example, essentially explains the propitious universe in this way: ‘Well, we got lucky.’ ” ¹

On Christmas Day in 2002, Jack Whitaker, of Scott Depot, West Virginia, got lucky, becoming the largest single-ticket lottery jackpot winner until that time in North America. His prize? A Powerball jackpot of $314.9 million. Over a hundred million other tickets didn’t match. What are the odds of that? (And what are the odds that within two years he would be robbed twice, face charges for attacking a bar manager, be sued for making trouble at a nightclub and a racetrack, and be arrested twice for drunk driving? Not nearly as unlikely as his Powerball winning ticket, but still true.)

If someone won even two such lotteries consecutively, we would all assume the results were rigged. And yet, when it comes to life existing in our universe, the odds are far more remote than winning a hundred Powerball lotteries consecutively.

Physicist Paul Davies comments, “The conclusion must be that we live in a world of astronomical unlikelihood.” ²

Donald Page of Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study has calculated that the odds against our universe randomly taking a form suitable for life is one out of 10¹²⁴, a number beyond imagination.³

To try and visualize the difficulty, imagine all the grains of sand on all the beaches on Earth. Then encrypt one grain with a special code known only to you, and randomly bury that grain on a beach somewhere on Earth. (Maybe enjoy a vacation in Maui while you’re at it).

The chance a blindfolded person would ever discover that one grain of sand on their first pick is one out of 10²⁰ (one chance in 100 billion billion.)

Now offer a reward to anyone who can find it on one pick, even though they don’t know which beach to scour, or how deep it is buried. But what if they did? Would anyone believe they discovered it by accident? Yet, scientists tell us that the likelihood of a Big Bang explosion resulting in a universe able to support life like ours is many times more improbable.

As we consider the odds for the fine-tuning of our universe, galaxy, solar system, and planet, let’s keep in mind just how extreme these odds really are. Not just one, but all of them require unbelievably precise fine-tuning. Can such precision be a result of anything other than design? Let’s take a look at why many scientists are asking this question.

A FINELY TUNED UNIVERSE

Dr. Robin Collins states in The Case for a Creator, “Over the past thirty years or so, scientists have discovered that just about everything about the basic structure of the universe is balanced on a razor’s edge.” ⁴ Over 35 different characteristics of the universe and its physical laws must be precisely fine-tuned for physical life to be possible.⁵ Following are six of those characteristics:

1. A large enough expansion rate. The birth of the universe had to begin with enough force, or life couldn’t exist. Stephen Hawking states, “If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size.” ⁶
2. A controlled expansion rate. Although the expansion rate had to be great enough for the universe to avoid a big crunch, if its outward force had been even a fraction greater, that would have been too much for gravity to form stars and planets. Life could never have been possible.⁷
3. Force of gravity. If the gravitational force were altered by 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent, neither Earth nor our Sun would exist—and you would not be here reading this.⁸
4. The balance of matter and antimatter. In the formation of the universe, the balance between matter and antimatter, and the excess of matter over antimatter, needed to be accurate to one part in ten billion for the universe to arise.
5. The mass density of the universe. For physical life to exist, the mass density of the universe must be fine-tuned to better than one part in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion (10⁶⁰).⁹ Thus, the mass contained in all dark and visible matter, including stars, is essential for the existence of our universe.
6. Space-energy density. The space-energy density of the universe requires much greater precision than the mass density. For physical life to be possible, it must be fine-tuned to one part in 10¹²⁰.¹⁰

According to the Big Bang theory, all of this minute fine-tuning was programmed into the initial conditions of the first microsecond of the explosion that began our universe. At that instant the rate and ratios of expansion, mass, density, antimatter, matter, etc., were set in place, eventually leading to a habitable planet called Earth.

In addition to the 35 different characteristics of our universe that must be just right for life to exist, our galaxy, solar system, and planet also needed to be exceptionally fine-tuned or we would not be here.¹¹

A FINELY TUNED GALAXY

Galaxies are formations of from millions to perhaps a trillion stars. Our own galaxy is called the Milky Way. It’s unknown how many galaxies the universe contains, but it may be around a trillion. Surprisingly, given the great number of these star groups, most galaxies are incompatible with life.

In order for life to exist in a galaxy, it needs to meet several criteria.¹² The following are just three of the fine-tuned characteristics a galaxy needs to support life:

• Shape of the galaxy. The Milky Way is spiral-shaped. Of the three types of galaxies—elliptical, irregular, and spiral— the spiral type is most capable of hosting human life.
• Not too large a galaxy. Our Milky Way is enormous, measuring 100,000 light-years from end to end. However, if it were just a bit larger, too much radiation and too many gravitational disturbances would prohibit life like ours.
• Not too small a galaxy. On the other hand, a stable Earth orbit that is necessary for life could not exist if our galaxy were slightly smaller. And a smaller galaxy would result in inadequate heavy elements, such as iron and carbon, essential to life.

Our Milky Way galaxy meets these and many other conditions essential for life. Most of the others do not.

When we focus in even closer, on our own star and its planets, the odds for life being possible become even more extreme.

A FINELY TUNED SOLAR SYSTEM

Copernicus’s theory that Earth revolved around the Sun, seemed to relegate our planet to an ordinary status in the universe. However, if Earth was the center of our solar system, as Ptolemy and 16^th century Catholic Church leaders had taught, we wouldn’t be here. None of them, including Copernicus, knew that in order for human life to be possible, Earth needs to revolve around a Sun that has just the right size, location, and conditions as ours does.

But that is not all. We need other planets such as Jupiter and Mars to act as defense shields, protecting us from a potential catastrophic bombardment of comets and meteors. We also need a moon of just the right size and position to impact our tides and seasons. Let’s take a look at just a few of the many conditions in our solar system that are just right for life.

The Sun’s distance from the center of the galaxy. Our Sun is positioned thousands of light-years from the center of the Milky Way, near one of its spiral arms.¹³ This is the safest part of the galaxy, away from its highly radioactive center.

The Sun’s mass not too large. If the mass of the Sun were a small percentage greater, it would burn too quickly and erratically to support life.

The Sun’s mass not too small. On the other hand, if it were smaller, its greater flaring would disrupt Earth’s rotation rate.

The Sun’s metal content. Only two percent of all stars have enough metal content to form planets. Too much metal in a star will allow too many planets to form, creating chaos. Our Sun has just the right amount of metal for planets to form safely.

Effect of the Moon. The Moon stabilizes the Earth’s tilt and is responsible for our seasons. If it weren’t there, our tilt could swing widely over a large range, making our winters a hundred degrees colder and our summers a hundred degrees warmer.

When astronomers consider our remarkable solar system, they acknowledge that if it was slightly different, advanced biological life would be impossible. But it is not enough to have the right universe, galaxy, and solar system for human life to be possible. The conditions of our home planet must also be fine-tuned to a razor’s edge.

THE MATH MIRACLE

Implicit in all of the scientific discoveries of fine-tuning in the universe is the foundational importance of mathematics to exploring the nature of the universe. Because mathematics is the lens by which we study the universe, we can miss the genius behind the lens itself!

Physicist Eugene Wigner, in a widely quoted paper entitled “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Physical Sciences,” notes that scientists often take for granted that the math they use to study and quantify the miracles of the universe is miraculous itself. Wigner states, “The enormous usefulness of mathematics is something bordering on the mysterious. …There is no rational explanation for it. …There is no rational explanation for it. …The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve.” ¹⁴

Such is the nature of mathematics that no one would claim to have invented an equation but only to have discovered or uncovered something that was always true. As the great scientist Johannes Kepler staed, “The great scientist Johnannes Kepler stated, “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 revealed to us in the language of mathematics.”

Even as we calculate the extreme precision by which the universe was designed, we are alerted to yet another contour of design in the universe the mathematical laws.

A FINELY TUNED PLANET

You may believe that aliens have sent life to Earth from a far distant galaxy (the premise of that memorable drama from 2004, AVP: Alien vs. Predator). You may believe that the government is hiding something outer spatial in Nevada’s mysterious Area 51. Or you may simply believe that there is undoubtedly intelligent life on other planets. In any case, we have all been raised on the assumption that, given enough time, intelligent life will spring up anywhere in the cosmos (with perhaps a few more eyeballs or reptilian features). Yet new evidence from cosmology is really saying the opposite.

The reality is that we live on an extremely rare planet perfectly positioned in an extremely rare solar system, ideally located in an extremely rare galaxy, within a highly improbable universe. Let’s look at our rare Earth.

Water. Earth has an abundance of water, which is essential for life. Mars once had water and therefore might have harbored life. But water is only one of many requirements for life.

Oxygen. Earth is the only planet in our solar system in which we can breathe. Attempting to breathe on other planets, such as Mars or Venus, would be instantly fatal, Mars having virtually no atmosphere and Venus having mostly carbon dioxide and almost no oxygen.

Earth’s distance from the Sun. If the Earth were merely one percent closer to the Sun, the oceans would vaporize, preventing the existence of life. On the other hand, if our planet were just two percent farther from the Sun, the oceans would freeze and the rain that enables life would be nonexistent.

Plate tectonic activity on Earth. Scientists have determined that if the plate tectonic activity were greater, human life could not be sustained and greenhouse-gas reduction would overcompensate for increasing solar luminosity. Yet, if the activity was smaller, life-essential nutrients would not be recycled adequately and greenhouse-gas reduction would not compensate for increasing solar luminosity.

Ozone level in the atmosphere. Life on Earth survives because the ozone level is within the safe range for habitation. However, if the ozone level were either much less or much greater, plant growth would be inadequate for human life to exist.

For life to exist, these, as well as many other conditions needs to be just right.¹⁵

ONE BLOOMING ROCK

University of Washington professors Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee conclude in their book, Rare Earth, that the conditions favorable for life must be so rare in the universe that “not only intelligent life, but even the simplest of animal life is exceedingly rare in our galaxy and in the universe.”¹⁶ This has led their readers to the conclusion expressed by the reviewer from the New York Times: “Maybe we are alone in the universe, after all.”¹⁷

If Ward and Brownlee are right, what does that mean to us?

Michael Denton, senior research fellow in human molecular genetics at the University of Otago in New Zealand, tells us why this remarkable fine-tuning has reopened the discussion on the importance of man in our lonely universe.¹⁸

No other theory or concept imagined by man can equal in boldness and audacity this great claim … that all the starry heavens, and every species of life, that every characteristic of reality exists for mankind. … And today, four centuries after the scientific revolution, the doctrine is again re-emerging. In the last decades of the twentieth century, its credibility is being enhanced by discoveries in several branches of fundamental science.

It seems ludicrous to claim that life exists on only one tiny speck in a universe of ten billion trillion stars. Yet, incredibly, Earth appears to sit alone in a hostile universe devoid of life, a reality portrayed recently in National Geographic:

If life sprang up through natural processes on the Earth, then the same thing could presumably happen on other worlds. And yet when we look at outer space, we do not see an environment teeming with life.

We see planets and moons where no life as we know it could possibly survive. In fact, we see all sorts of wildly different planets and moons—hot places, murky places, ice worlds, gas worlds—and it seems that there are far more ways to be a dead world than a live one.¹⁹

The incredibly precise numerical values required for life confront scientists with obvious implications. Stephen Hawking observes, “The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.”²⁰

Is the Universe a Product of Design or Chance?

The choices in accounting for our universe boil down to three: Chance, multiple universes, or design.

Scientists are looking at the extreme rarity of life in our universe and asking, “why are we so lucky?” At some point, you’ve got to step back from the facts and ask the question “So what does all this fine-tuning add up to?”

Example:

A university student who’s just trying to get a passing grade might be satisfied with loading up his short-term memory with the data he’s received. But a student who is actually planning to use this information in a career, or for personal enrichment, has to spend some time thinking about the subject’s actual meaning.

Same thing with the question of how quasars, Pluto, and you got here.

The evidences for the fine-tuning of the universe to permit life to exist on one medium-sized planet, third from the left, are mounting. Many scientists are speaking in theological terms about what they see as clear evidence for design.

If you were to survey the writings of leading scientists such as Hawking, Penrose, Davies, and Greene, you would find that there are three options being offered for our origins.

• The fine-tuning of the universe is merely a coincidence.
• There are other universes, improving the odds of life.
• The universe has been designed.

LUCKY YOU

Some materialists attribute the fine-tuning of the universe to chance. In Alpha & Omega, Charles Seife summarizes how some view the fine-tuning: “It seems like a tremendous coincidence that the universe is suitable for life.” ¹

Cosmologists Bernard Carr and Sir Martin Rees state in the journal Nature, “Nature does exhibit remarkable coincidences and these do warrant some explanation.” ² In a later article Carr comments, “One would have to conclude either that the features of the universe invoked in support of the Anthropic Principle are only coincidences or that the universe was indeed tailor-made for life. I will leave it to the theologians to ascertain the identity of the tailor.” ³

In other words, as a scientist, I don’t get into religion, so I assume it was all a lucky break. Scientists who subscribe to a materialistic world view simply can’t bring themselves to accept the intervention of an intelligent designer who orchestrated the creation of the universe. Therefore, faced with all the evidence for fine-tuning, they default to the position that it was all just a coincidence.

There is, however, a defense often raised by those who take the viewpoint that life, and the fine-tuning of the universe, are just amazing coincidences. It goes like this: Whatever shape the universe took, one could look at the sequence of events and say that it was just as unlikely that the universe should have developed in that way.

In other words, every state of affairs, from a certain viewpoint, has astronomical odds of its eventuating just the way it did. So why should we really be amazed that we won life’s cosmic lottery? Somebody had to.

Let’s consider how I lived out my day today as an example of this line of thinking:

What are the odds that I would have gone to the post office, as opposed to the grocery store or Blockbuster, and purchased 18 stamps instead of 20 or 30?

What are the odds I would have received a phone call, rather than an e-mail, from my friend Jeff?

What are the odds I would have eaten—today of all days—hot dogs for dinner, when I could have eaten so many other dishes that didn’t contain beef hearts?

By the time you get to the end of the day, the odds of my living out my day in exactly this way, as opposed to others, would be rather large. I could get to the end of the day and scratch my head in amazement at the chain of events that have led me to my current sprawled position on my sofa staring at my computer screen—Gee, what are the odds?

This is a neat magic trick done with odds, and the inventor of it has a bright career ahead of him as a pollster in politics. Calculating the odds for a particular sequence of ordinary events like my day’s circumstances after they occur is no different than predicting the winner of a race after it is over. But looking back on a finely-tuned universe and assigning probabilities of it having occurred by chance is totally different. The two scenarios are different as apples and oranges.

In order to calculate the odds against our being here, over a hundred parameters must be balanced on a razor’s edge. If just one of them was off by just a slight degree, you wouldn’t be reading this.

ADD-ON UNIVERSES

Most scientists don’t believe such odds could be a coincidence. So how do materialists explain odds that seem miraculous? If they don’t want to acknowledge an intentionally designed universe, they must come up with another scenario that would explain it all, or their materialistic premise is toast. So if you are trying to avoid the implication of a creator, you would want to construct a theory that would decrease the odds of the universe being miraculous.

If you want to avoid the implication of a creator, your tack would be fairly obvious: decrease the odds.

One way you can decrease the odds is to add in the ingredient of several billion years. One might imagine that the universe could plausibly bake up just about anything in that much time, but even the 13.7 billion years that cosmologists estimate for the age of the universe is way too short for life to have reasonably arisen by natural means.

Therefore, some scientists, such as Stephen Hawking and his Cambridge colleague Sir Martin Rees, have taken a different approach. They have speculated that our universe might be merely one of many universes, thus dramatically improving the odds for life in ours. Let’s listen to what Rees himself says concerning his motive behind the multi-universe theory:

If one does not believe in providential design, but still thinks the fine-tuning needs some explanation, there is another perspective—a highly speculative one.… It is the one I prefer, however, even though in our present state of knowledge any such preference can be no more than a hunch.…There may be many “universes” of which ours is just one.⁴

Rees and Hawking have persuaded many in the scientific community that other universes are possible, although highly speculative. According to Hawking, the multi-universe theory (also called the multiverse theory) would rule out the need for a designer.⁵

But is the search for other universes driven by science, speculation or a materialistic bias? Seife, a mathematician and journalist for Science magazine, explains what he believes to be the motivation behind the multi-universe theory: “Scientists tend to be uncomfortable with coincidences, and the many worlds interpretation gives a way out.” ⁶

Rees, a materialist, likes the multi-universe theory because it provides an alternative to providential design. The undeniable reality of fine-tuning has energized the multi-universe theory since it gives hope to the materialist that life could exist without a designer. But many scientists are raising their eyebrows at the speculative nature of the multi-universe theory, considering its premise to be flawed.

IMAGINARY TIME, IMAGINARY UNIVERSES?

Hawking bases his theory on a mathematical concept called imaginary time, which is merely a mathematical concept and doesn’t represent reality. By using imaginary time, Hawking is able to make it appear that the universe never had a beginning. Once again, scientists uncomfortable with a beginning are seeking ways to avoid it. Hawking explains the reason for their avoidance: “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.” ⁷

Albert Einstein used a different mathematical concept to remove the appearance of a beginning. Later, Einstein admitted it to be his “biggest blunder.” According to theoretical physicist Julian Barbour, Hawking’s use of imaginary time may also be a blunder. It has been “widely criticized” and has “technical problems.” ⁸

Most scientists are reluctant to endorse the concept of multiple universes because it isn’t based upon any evidence, and can only be theorized in imaginary time. Even its greatest advocates, Hawking and Rees, admit multiple universes can never be empirically verified. In The Elegant Universe, Brian Greene calls the multi-universe theory “a huge if.” ⁹

Physicist Paul Davies explains why materialists are so fervent in their attempts to validate the multi-universe theory.

Whether it is God, or man, who tosses the dice, turns out to depend on whether multiple universes really exist or not. …

If instead, the other universes are … ghost worlds, we must regard our existence as a miracle of such improbability that it is scarcely credible.¹⁰

Regarding the multi-universe theory, Davies remarks, “Such a belief must rest on faith rather than observation.” ¹¹

Since the multi-universe theory is based upon faith, most scientists regard it as merely a hypothesis rather than a true scientific theory. Yet it still is being argued as a valid theory by Hawking, Rees, and others who seek a materialistic explanation for our origin. Investigative reporter Gregg Easterbrook, an investigative reporter for the Atlantic Monthly concludes his research on the multi-universe theory by stating: “The multi-verse idea rests on assumptions that would be laughed out of town if they came from a religious text.” ¹²

Hawking and Rees should not be faulted for searching for a workable explanation; that’s what scientists do. But this issue raises a red flag, not on Hawking or Rees, but (perhaps) on a fundamental flaw of the scientific method. If it just happened to be true that God really was the cause of something, could science ever discover this truth? Wouldn’t science have to offer a materialistic explanation, no matter how unlikely, because the alternative is not an allowable option for them? This is, indeed, a problem, and it’s the issue that scientists who do see intelligent design in the cosmos are wrestling with.

HANDMADE UNIVERSE

In Bringing Down the House, author Ben Mezrich tells the story of six MIT students applying their skills in logic and mathematics to counting cards and other trickery, who travel to Las Vegas and make millions. They were able to swing the odds in their favor. After a series of winning streaks, they found themselves followed by house detectives who asked them to leave and never return.

How were they discovered? In one sense, they weren’t. No one actually ever caught them cheating, but the MIT students did do something that was a dead giveaway: they won. Repeatedly they beat the odds, and when the dealers and house detectives in Las Vegas observe someone repeatedly beating the odds, they suspect intelligent design: someone is not playing by the laws of random chance but by a carefully reasoned system, like card counting.

The fine-tuning in the universe is astounding and unimaginably improbable. It could be all coincidence or chance, or maybe there are multiple universes, raising the odds and probability of life, but a good detective would be wise to consider the distinct possibility that intelligent design lies behind the observable phenomena.

TO HUME IT MAY CONCERN…

It is primarily due to the arguments of 18th-century English philosopher David Hume that science has largely dismissed any argument for design in the universe.

As a materialist, Hume argued that the universe was a result of chance rather than of intentional design. He believed miracles were impossible because they couldn’t be subjected to scientific verification.

Hume’s arguments refuting intelligent design have been extremely effective in persuading scientists that all events in the world are from chance alone. Hume’s basic logic is as follows:

1. The world is ordered.
2. This is due to either chance or design.
3. It is very possible that the world came about by chance.

Hume had several other arguments against design, but according to mathematician William Dembski, he used faulty logic. “Hume incorrectly analyzed the logic of the design argument, for the design argument is, properly speaking, neither an argument from analogy nor an argument from induction but an inference to the best explanation.” ¹³ 

Although Hume’s influence on science has been pervasive, he lived in a day when astronomy was in its infancy and the prevalent theory favored an eternal universe. He wasn’t aware of the big bang theory that points to a beginner, or the design implications of fine-tuning.

The recently discovered fine-tuning of the cosmos has compelled even the most ardent materialists to consider the possibility of intelligent design. What is the best explanation for the fine-tuning? When Hawking first realized that the universe couldn’t be a mere coincidence, he related to a reporter, “The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like a big bang, are enormous. … I think clearly there are religious implications whenever you start to discuss the origins of the universe.” ¹⁴

Davies concurs. “It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe. … The impression of design is overwhelming.” ¹⁵

Some scientists, such as Hawking, are uncomfortable with the obvious religious implications. But cosmologist Edward Harrison speaks for others who respond to the evidence for the fine-tuning by clearly stating the obvious:

Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God. … The fine-tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design.

Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one. …

Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the … design argument.¹⁶

Few scientists believe the precise fine-tuning is merely a coincidence. While some hold to the multi-universe theory, most scientists believe such a speculative theory is beyond the boundaries of science. Many credible scientists have been persuaded by the evidence that our universe is not here by accident but rather is the intentional plan of a super-intelligent being.

Dr. Robert Jastrow is a theoretical physicist who joined NASA when it was formed in 1958. Jastrow helped establish the scientific goals for the exploration of the moon during the Apollo lunar landings. He set up and directed NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which conducts research in astronomy and planetary science. Jastrow wrote these thoughts that summarize the view of many scientists.

For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream.

He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.¹⁷

THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE

Astrophysicist Stephen Hawking cites the term “anthropic principle” when attempting to explain why the universe is so exquisitely fine-tuned for life. Hawking writes, “it seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the number that would allow the development of any form of intelligent life. …One can take this either as evidence of a divine purpose in Creation and the choice of the laws of science or as support for the strong anthropic principle.” ¹⁸ Hawking has advocated the strong anthropic principle solution of many universes in order to avoid the conclusion of a designer.

The anthropic principle is a fancy term for stating the obvious about the fine-tuning of the universe, i.e., if all the conditions in the universe weren’t perfect for human life to exist, we wouldn’t be here to ask the question of why it is so finely-tuned for life. What sounds like circular reasoning has led to a revival of the argument from design, which had lost its intellectual respectability among many scientists after Darwin.

One aspect of the anthropic principle is that it asserts that our place in the universe is special. This contradicts the general trend of science since Copernicus; that there is nothing special about Earth. (the Copernican principle) Many materialists who dislike the implications, squirm when discussing the anthropic principle, and it remains a controversial topic. But thus far, no scientist has been able to refute the fine-tuning evidence that supports its premise, and many believe it is simply a commonsensical way of saying life on Earth is special.

Was Darwin Right About the Eye?

Looking down at Greenland from 32,000 feet on my trip from Rome to Seattle, I heard a strange noise in the aircraft that sent my blood pressure soaring into hyperspace. Suddenly I began to wonder what would happen if one tiny part on the enormous Boeing 747 failed. Engines, hydraulics, air pressurization—all were complex systems that worked only when several interdependent parts functioned properly.

In vain I sought comfort in my airline pretzels, but comfort can never be found in low-fat foods. I kept thinking of all those dedicated employees (excuse me: “members of the Boeing family”) shown on the commercials who apparently love nothing more in life than a well-oiled 747 and who perpetually ponder my safety. But the nagging thought still popped into my head: “Just one faulty or missing part and I’d become part of the first bomb ever to be dropped on Greenland.”

In one sense, biological systems are like my Boeing 747: one missing or defective part and they won’t work. Here lies one of the major unanswered problems of biology.  How did highly complex, interdependent biological systems like the eye develop slowly over eons of time? They would never have worked until fully developed.

Let’s step back for a minute and think about all this.

Airplanes, automobiles, cell phones, computers, and other complex machines, can always be traced back to a designer. However, with biological systems, materialists (those who believe nothing exists outside of the material world) assume there is some natural process that created such systems.

The real issue here is whether or not a designer is behind such complexity. There are four possibilities:

1. A designer created biological complexity supernaturally
2. A designer created biological complexity through natural processes
3. A designer combined natural processes and supernatural means to create biological complexity
4. A designer doesn’t exist. Complexity came about naturally.

Materialists believe the latter. Scientists who advocate intelligent design generally agree that some super-intelligence is behind it all, even though they leave the nature of a designer to theologians.

Here we must look at the evidence to see which of the possibilities makes the most sense. To determine the best option, we need to look closer at complex biological systems to determine whether they can be explained by natural causes alone.

LOOKING AT THE EYE

The human eye is perhaps the best-known example of a complex system that couldn’t just pop up overnight. (“Say, Bill, what’s that thing growing on your face?” “I thought it was acne, but now that you mention it, I think I can see out of it.”)

With the eye we are not merely dealing with complexity, but with hundreds of separate parts that must work together in unison with incredible precision.

Those who study the inner workings of the eye say it operates much like a television camera, but is far more sophisticated. In fact, it is more sophisticated than any machine imaginable.

DARWIN’S BIG IDEA

Since the dawn of history, the eye and other complex biological systems had baffled materialists. How could they exist without a designer? However, that changed in 1859 when biologist Charles Darwin published his revolutionary, The Origin of Species. The big idea in Darwin’s book was that life in all its complexity came about by a process he called natural selection. In other words, according to Darwin, no designer is needed. Materialists were elated.

Darwin postulated that natural selection was totally responsible for the complexity of organs like the eye, addressing the issue in a special section entitled, “Organs of Extreme Perfection and Complication.”

In his special section, Darwin brilliantly argued that the eye might have developed in any number of ways. His reasoning was that even a partially developed eye would offer a creature some evolutionary advantage.

His explanation for the gradual development of such complex systems certainly had its critics, but by and large his ideas were embraced because they helped to explain a great deal of the observable phenomena of our world.

As the evolutionary movement grew, a great deal of evidence seemed to confirm Darwin’s theory, evidence similar to what you were taught in your high school textbooks. Adaptability, survival of the fittest, and other Darwinian tenets are clearly demonstrable within a given species. Materialist Richard Dawkins remarks of Darwin’s acceptance among most biologists, “Today the theory of evolution is about as much open to doubt as the theory that the earth goes round the sun….” ¹

As an atheist, Dawkins seems to applaud Darwin as the hero behind a purposeless world of chance. He writes, “Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection is satisfying because it shows us a way in which simplicity could change into complexity, how unordered atoms could group themselves into ever more complex patterns until they ended up manufacturing people. Darwin provides a solution, the only feasible one so far suggested, to the deep problem of our existence.” ²

Since Darwin’s theory was birthed in the mid-nineteenth century before the discovery of DNA and the intricacies of how life works at the molecular level, there was no scientific evidence to refute his claims. By the mid-twentieth century, Darwinism had gained widespread acceptance, but mounting evidence persuaded some scientists that his theory was incapable of accounting for life’s intricate complexity.

This led to a series of meetings where scientists from various disciplines attempted to hammer out a coherent and unified theory of evolution. The result was called the “evolutionary synthesis,” also known as Neo-Darwinism.

But as Dr. Michael Behe, associate professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, notes in his book Darwin’s Black Box, “One branch of science was not invited to the meetings [that produced the evolutionary synthesis], and for good reason. It did not yet exist.” ³ Behe is referring to his own field of study, biochemistry.

Behe’s field did not begin until later in the century, after the advent of the electron microscope. Yet biochemistry is perhaps the most critical of all the disciplines for this study because it analyzes life at the cellular level and observes the molecular foundations of living organisms.

If Darwin’s general theory of evolution is a valid explanation of how life can develop wholly apart from outside intelligence, then it must be demonstrated to be operating at the molecular level. But does Darwin’s theory hold up under such scrutiny?

A BETTER MOUSETRAP

Darwin once stated, “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.” ⁴ Behe’s book, in essence, says, “OK, Charles, take a look at these!” And goes on to cite a handful of examples of what he calls irreducible complexity.

By irreducible complexity, Behe means a single system of interrelated parts, where the absence or failure of any part causes the entire system to non-perform or abort. In the airplane example, it could be a missing wing, rudder, or a defective integral part of the hydraulic system. In the eye, it could be a defective or missing cornea, retina, pupil, optic nerve, etc. All must work in concert for the eye to see.

So how did each of these separate parts evolve together over eons of time? Could the eye have served any purpose without being complete? We are not merely talking about a half-developed eye, but the eye at all its various stages of development throughout hundreds of millions of years (according to Darwin). Darwin himself stated that his theory (that all life is a product of natural processes alone) stands or falls on its ability to explain how an incomplete organ like the eye can benefit a species.

Behe uses a mousetrap as a nonliving example of irreducible complexity. Five basic parts of the trap must work together in order for it to catch mice:(1) a flat wooden platform (2) a spring (3) a sensitive catch that releases when pressure is applied (4) a metal bar that connects to the catch and holds the hammer back (5) the hammer that serves as the instrument of death and cruelty for our harmless mouse.

Just picture an outboard motor on a boat and you get a pretty good picture of how the flagellum functions, only the flagellum is far more incredible. The flagellum’s propeller is long and whip-like, made out of a protein called flagellum. This is attached to a drive shaft by hook protein, which acts as a universal joint, allowing the propeller and drive shaft to rotate freely. Several types of protein act as bushing material (like washer/donut) to allow the drive shaft to penetrate the bacterial wall (like the side of a boat) and attach to a rotary motor. … Not only that but the propeller can stop spinning within a quarter turn and instantly start spinning the other direction at 10,000 rpms.⁵

A mousetrap needs each of these parts to kill mice. Each part works interdependently, and so a partially constructed mousetrap serves no function and is worthless.

Behe’s book focuses on a handful of examples, though he states that any biology book contains dozens of them. One of the examples he cites is the microscopic bacterial flagellum, which the bacterium uses as a miniature whip-like rotary motor to propel itself. The flagellum is a swimming device that works similar to a rotary propeller. It is described by Behe like this:

“Now that the black box of vision has been opened, it is no longer enough for an evolutionary explanation…each of the anatomical steps and structures that Darwin thought were so simple actually involved staggeringly complicated biochemical processes that cannot be papered over with rhetoric.” —Michael Behe, Professor of Biochemistry

The flagellum’s molecular motor requires 20 proteins, all working in synchrony, to function. Like the partially constructed mousetrap, the flagellum would be worthless and perish unless all 20 proteins were fully developed.

Dr. Robert Macnab of Yale University detailed the tiny molecular motor of the E. coli flagellum in a 50-page review, concluding that its development cannot be explained by Darwinian evolution. Labeling Darwin’s explanation an “oversimplification,” Macnab questions how a non-functional “preflagellum” could have evolved part by part with each being indispensable to its completed function.⁷

Another example Behe cites is what he calls “the intracellular transport system” found within cells. The magnified cell in Darwin’s day looked something like an opaque pancake jellyfish with a fuzzy-looking dark spot in the center called the nucleus. It all looked so simple. Only recently, under powerful magnification, have the mysteries of the cell begun to be unveiled.

Molecular biologist Michael Denton uses a similar metaphor to describe the cell’s complexity:

To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design.

On the surface of the cell, we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast spaceship, opening, and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity.⁸

But, again, it is not simply complexity; it is irreducible complexity. Going back to Behe’s illustration of the mousetrap, everything must be in place for the system to work. Missing just one component, the whole system is worthless. Behe remarks,

The point of irreducible complexity is…that the trap we’re considering right now needs all of its parts to function. The challenge to Darwinian evolution is to get to my trap by means of numerous, successive slight modifications. You can’t do it. Besides, you’re using your intelligence as you try. Remember, the audacious claim of Darwinian evolution is that it can put together complex systems with no intelligence at all.9

FINGERPRINTS OF A DESIGNER?

Several materialists have taken issue with Behe’s case for irreducible complexity, but none have adequately explained a process by which such complex organs and systems have evolved by mere chance.

Surprised at the sudden maelstrom caused by his book, Behe defends his position in The Boston Review. “The rotary nature of the flagellum has been recognized for about 25 years. During that time not a single paper has been published in the biochemical literature even attempting to show how such a machine might have developed by natural selection.” ¹⁰

In The Flagellum Unspun, Ken Miller argues against irreducible complexity, labeling Behe and other intelligent design advocates, “unimaginative.”

Dr. William Dembski rebuts Miller’s objection by stating, “The problem is not that we in the intelligent design community…just can’t imagine how those systems arose.…Darwin’s theory, without which nothing in biology is supposed to make sense, in fact offers no insight into how the flagellum arose.” ¹¹

James Shapiro, a biochemist at the University of Chicago, concurs, “There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.” ¹²

Darwin’s Black Box is a scientific book, not a theological one, but Behe has been joined by a growing number of scientists who claim they see the fingerprints of intelligent design within irreducibly complex biological systems. One of them, cosmologist Alan Sandage has remarked: “The world is too complicated in all its parts and interconnections to be due to chance alone. … The more one learns of biochemistry the more unbelievable it becomes unless there is some type of organizing principle—an architect for believers.” ¹³

EXTREME PERFECTION AND COMPLICATION, INDEED

We began this article by mentioning the objection of the human eye as it was raised and addressed by Darwin. For most people coming to grips with the implications of materialistic evolution, complex structures like the human eye are not simply a hard pill to swallow but rather a chicken bone stuck in the throat. Intuitively, we struggle to imagine how such a structure could slowly develop over time and what use a half-developed eye would serve.

A careful reading of Darwin’s explanation in “Organs of Extreme Perfection and Complication” reveals that he never answers the problem. In fact, regarding how the eye got started, Darwin stated, “How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated.” ¹⁴

Did Darwin really believe the eye evolved bit by bit over time?  Although his theory attempts to explain how it could have happened, many believe Darwin himself was unconvinced. Years after he had written his world-changing theory Darwin admitted to a friend, “The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder.” ¹⁵ Hmm…