Apicontent

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…

Does DNA Point to a Designer?

Was the language of DNA programmed by a designer–or by chance?

Consider for a moment the cathedral-like structure of a snowflake under a microscope. Look at the beauty. Look at the complexity. Look at the originality of each individual flake. Surely this is evidence for a grand designer in the universe.

Well, no, actually it’s not—no more so than the burned enchilada of a woman in Mexico that apparently revealed the image of Jesus (though in the photo it did kind of look like him).

Although crystalline forms of a snowflake are beautiful and impressive, designs of this type abound in nature, and natural processes can and do produce them.

Neo-Darwinists believe that natural selection and favorable mutations are the total explanation for the appearance of design in nature.

But what if complexity in nature is discovered that is not explainable by natural selection and chance mutations? What if, unlike our snowflake and enchilada examples, scientists discover a form of complexity that exceeds all human engineering and all sophisticated software programs? This raises an important question: How would we be able to detect intelligent design in nature if it actually exists?

OF CLOTHES DRYERS, MOUNT RUSHMORE, AND PRIME NUMBERS

The folks at SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) have done some thinking along the lines of what constitutes signs of intelligence. They are searching for extraterrestrial life, as opposed to God, but they have to deal with the same problem set. How would they recognize communication from outer space if they saw or heard it?

Some of their thinking is brought out in the movie Contact. In one scene, the character played by Jodie Foster spends the evening listening to her dryer (presumably Blockbuster was closed). But there is a method to her apparent madness. She is trying to train her ears so that she will be able to recognize intelligent radio signals from outer space, filtering out the zillion random signals produced by all manner of objects in the cosmos.

A clothes dryer produces a certain level of mechanical rhythm; its noise actually has a level of design, sort of like that of a snowflake. But that noise (especially when you have sneakers thumping around in there) represents a type of design that nonintelligence (that is, nature) can produce.

How can we tell the difference between design that occurs naturally and intelligent design?

Let’s say we’ve headed out to Vegas, and along the way, we come upon a bizarre rock formation. I say, “Hey, look at the erosion on that rock. It looks kind of like Richard Nixon when the Watergate tapes were made public.” You, on the other hand, think it looks like Vladimir Putin eating scrambled eggs. We agree to disagree, but we both note that the forces of erosion made something that looks a bit like a product of intelligent design.

Now, as we drive farther, we come to Mount Rushmore. Seeing it for the first time, I am amazed. I say, “Wow, look at the erosion on those rocks. It looks just like three presidents I recognize and some guy wearing glasses.” You rightly call me an idiot, not only because you know who Teddy Roosevelt is, but also because it is obvious by the way the stone is cut and the extraordinary degree of design that this is the product of intelligent craftsmen—ones who apparently have no fear of heights. But there must be a more scientific way to differentiate between these two levels of design: one that can be produced by nature and one that can’t.

Later on in the movie Contact, the scientists receive radio waves at the sequence of 1,126 beats and pauses. The sequence, they deduce, represents the prime numbers 2 through 101. It becomes doubtful that random radio waves could emit such a sequence, thus they presume they have made contact.

This is a more scientific way of differentiating between two different orders of design. It is commonly called CSI. This acronym has nothing to do with a popular TV show. It stands for “complex, specified information.”

CSI: THE UNIVERSE

Here is what you need to remember about CSI, or complex, specified information. Nature can generate information that is complex, and it can produce information that is specified, but it cannot do both.

The best way to understand this is to think of yourself as a computer programmer. (You might want to grab a large bag of potato chips and a six-pack of Coke to get into character.) I want you to write a program for the computer telling it to type random letters of the alphabet.

It should be fairly easy to write the program. Just instruct the computer to type keys at random and repeat the process infinitely. Now, occasionally the letters might make an interesting pattern, perhaps even type the word “Nixon” by accident, but it is clearly generating a design of complexity without any real specificity.

Now let’s switch it around. Let’s say I ask you to program the computer to type the word “the”. This is going to require specificity. You must specify, “Computer, type the letter ‘t,’ then ‘h,’ and then ‘e,’ and do this over and over again until your printer runs out of ink or your hard drive crashes.” This is specific, but it is not complex. You can program the computer in this case, like the previous one, with just a few lines of instructions.

Typing random letters or typing a simple word over and over is like the kind of design that natural processes can handle on their own.

Now let’s look at specified complexity. Let’s say I ask you to program the computer to write out a Harlequin romance novel and make the girl decide to dump the guy in the end. You would have to write a list of instructions for the computer larger than the book itself. You would have to specify, in the form of a command, every letter of every word.

Few people would have thought of Harlequin romances as specified complexity, but as you can see, they are. The commands to the computer are extremely complex and extremely specific. That’s the kind of detail we must demand if we are going to believe that there is intelligent design exhibited in the world.

PROBABLY INTELLIGENT

Seems simple enough, but at what point does something cross the threshold from the simple design found in nature to second-order design produced only by intelligence? Mathematician William Dembski illustrates the difference by having us visualize a rat trying to go through a maze.

In a simple maze, the rat can take one turn and escape from the maze. Even a dim-witted rat could take one turn and escape. But now imagine that the maze is extremely complex, possessing walls and requiring 100 precise turns to reach the point of escape. How likely is it that the little critter will quickly learn all the correct turns and escape? Impossible–unless we have one awfully bright rat.

So, when do we infer intelligence? According to mathematicians when the odds against an event occurring are 1 in 10150  or greater, it can’t be accidental.¹ In order to grasp such an astronomical number, consider that the odds against winning a Power Ball lottery with a single ticket is about 1 in 10⁸. Or trying to pick a solitary atom from all the atoms in the universe would be 1 in 10⁸⁰.

So, having cleared all that up, we come to the real question. Forgetting all the erosion and snowflake patterns, are there any examples of specified complexity found in nature pointing toward intelligent design? The short answer is yes. What follows, without getting into too much detail, is the longer answer. It uses the example of something each of us has heard something about: deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA.

A LITTLE STRAND CAN DO

DNA. That one complex molecule contains the complete blueprint for every cell in every living thing. In a sense, DNA is like a recipe where common ingredients are used to make different dishes. Only, instead of tasty dishes, DNA instructs cells to make flowers, whales, chickens, or people. (Hmm…so chickens aren’t tasty dishes?)

The genius of DNA lies not only in its complex coded instructions for life but also in its incredibly well-designed architecture, which allows it to contain billions of detailed instructions within a microscopic molecule. The amount of DNA that would fit on a pinhead contains information equivalent to that of a stack of paperback books that would encircle the earth 5,000 times!²

Our complete blueprint is present in each of our thousand million million cells. Think of an enormous building with thousands upon thousands of rooms, where each room houses a complete set of blueprints for the entire structure. (If these analogies are getting a little sterile for you, then you might want to imagine a series of beach houses—and imagine yourself sitting in one.) However, instead of merely thousands of rooms, our bodies contain trillions of cells, each with a complete package of DNA instructions.³

Each strand of DNA in our bodies consists of three billion base pairs of genetic information. These base pairs form a chain, which constitutes the entire human genetic code. Today the entire human genome has been mapped out. Even though humans are closest to chimpanzees in DNA sequencing, there are still some 40 million differences. (Except maybe with my friend Bob.)⁴

YOUR CELLS ARE TALKING

But just what is DNA, and how does it work? Although scientists are only beginning to unravel its mysteries, they know that DNA works much like a coded language. Microsoft chairman Bill Gates (apparently sizing up the potential to patent it and make it a part of Windows) discloses, “DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.” ⁵

When we think of sophisticated computer programs, we immediately realize that their coded software was intentionally designed. Materialists believe that DNA originated without any such intentional process. But is it possible that natural causes alone engineered DNA?

Prior to microbiologists’ discovery of the incredibly complex language of DNA, materialists had believed its origin was explainable by natural means. However, design theorists have now applied the mathematical discipline of CSI to the question of whether DNA is the result of intelligent design or was accidental in its origin.

Historian and philosopher Stephen C. Meyer comments on the intelligence required for coded languages: “Our experience with information-intensive systems (especially codes and languages) indicates that such systems always come from an intelligent source.” ⁶

In other words, like a code or language, DNA operates with specifically organized instructions. This is the CSI (complex, specified information) discussed earlier as the watermark of intelligent design.

When DNA directs the cell to make proteins, it first gives instructions to make amino acids. Then twenty different amino acids must precisely link up into a chain, folding into an exacting, irregular three-dimensional protein. The amino acids are like letters; their arrangement spells out the specific protein being made.

Proteins are truly amazing. MIT-trained scientist Dr. Gerald Schroeder explains,

Other than sex and blood cells, every cell in your body is making approximately two thousand proteins every second. A protein is a combination of three hundred to over a thousand amino acids. An adult human body is made of approximately seventy-five trillion cells. Every second of every minute of every day, your body and every body is organizing on the order of 150 thousand thousand thousand thousand thousand thousand amino acids into carefully constructed chains of proteins. Every second; every minute; every day. The fabric from which we and all life are built is being continually rewoven at a most astoundingly rapid rate.⁷

LIFE IN A TEST TUBE?

In the 1950’s, Harold Urey, a professor at the University of Chicago challenged his students to create life in a test tube. One of his students who tried, Stanley Miller was jubilant, when after enormous efforts he produced a few amino acids…the building blocks of proteins.

It all appeared so promising, but what Miller didn’t understand then was that without DNA, those amino acids would never be able to form proteins…the stuff of life. The initial euphoria faded once further discoveries revealed life’s incredible complexity.

Professor J.P. Moreland compares laboratory results with the complexity required to generate life: “…if life can be likened to an encyclopedia in complexity and information, the best we have done is to synthesize a compound which carries the complexity and information of the word ME. The jump from ME to an encyclopedia is so far and speculative that the relevance of progress so far is questionable.” ⁸

Meyer points out that the chemical codes directing the process attach themselves to the structure of the DNA molecule like letters on a chalkboard, but they do so without becoming organically involved with the board or the other letters. Therefore, he distinguishes the information content from the chemical bonding.

Furthermore, Meyer compares the sequencing of the amino acids to a language: “Amino acids alone do not make proteins, any more than letters alone make words, sentences or poetry.” ⁹

The fact that the arrangement of the letters is not the result of chemical bonding has driven Meyer to conclude that, without intelligence, DNA would never be able to turn amino acids into proteins. He writes, “The chance of each amino acid finding the correct bond is one in twenty; the chance of one hundred amino acids hooking up to successfully make a functional protein is one in 10³⁰.” ¹⁰

And to survive, the protein chain must be contained within an intricate cellular architecture. That means that the odds against a protein being manufactured randomly are astronomical. It would be easier for a blindfolded person to find one special grain of sand hidden on one of the world’s beaches than to have a protein appear by chance.

WHERE DID IT COME FROM?

Such complexity is so improbable that Meyer believes the DNA code cannot be the product of undirected natural processes. Furthermore, he reasons that DNA coding exhibits creative intelligence beyond random chemical bonds.

Perhaps this is why every attempt to create life has failed. Cambridge Professor of Evolutionary Paleobiology, Simon Conway Morris remarks on biologists’ efforts to replicate life in a test tube: “And yet, something is clearly missing: life cannot be created in the laboratory, nor is there any clear prospect of it happening.” ¹¹

How did a molecule with such complex coded instructions originate?  What natural process triggered a smattering of organic chemicals to come together and form the incredibly sophisticated double helix? Schroeder remarks, “And here’s that enigma. … It shows its head in a dozen different ways, the problem of how the entire process originally got started.” ¹²

Dembski, Meyer, and Schroeder are part of a growing number of scientists and mathematicians who have concluded that the DNA molecule is so complex that it couldn’t have spontaneously assembled itself.

In Probability 1, mathematician and evolutionist Amir Aczel summarizes the DNA dilemma: “Having surveyed the discovery of the structure of DNA … and having seen how DNA stores and manipulates tremendous amounts of information (3 billion separate bits for a human being) and uses the information to control life, we are left with one big question: What created DNA?” ¹³

An increasing number of scientists in other fields are also admitting that DNA’s complexity is not explainable by mere chance. Theoretical physicist Paul Davies affirms in The 5th Miracle,

The peculiarity of biological complexity makes genes seem almost like impossible objects. …

I have come to the conclusion that no familiar law of nature could produce such a structure from incoherent chemicals with the inevitability that some scientists assert.¹⁴

Biologist Michael Behe comments on the dilemma facing scientists who are wedded to a purely materialistic account of the origin of life, “In the face of the enormous complexity that modern biochemistry has uncovered in the cell, the scientific community is paralyzed.” ¹⁵

Agnostic Sir Fred Hoyle, when considering the enormous information requirement of life writes, “Were a refined theory available for estimating the information content of DNA it would, in our opinion, be immediately apparent from its overwhelming content that life could never have arisen on a miniscule planet like on Earth. It would be seen that, to match the information content of even the simplest cell, nothing less than the resources of the entire Universe are needed.” ¹⁶

DNA BY DESIGN?

Scientists have been stunned by the overwhelming probability against DNA forming by chance. It is one thing for intelligent scientists to manipulate chemicals under laboratory conditions, and it is quite another to attribute the origin of DNA to random action. Even the most ardent materialists do not claim to have explained DNA’s origin.

Amir Aczel questions his own materialistic belief by admitting that DNA is too complex to have arisen from natural processes. In a reflective mode, he asks,

Are we witnessing here something so wondrous, so fantastically complex, that it could not be chemistry or random interactions of elements, but something far beyond our understanding?¹⁷

DNA’s co-discoverer Francis Crick also considers DNA to be too complex to have arisen in a warm pond on early Earth. This highly regarded Nobel Prize–winning biologist concludes, “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to almost be a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.” ¹⁸

In spite of Crick’s assertion that DNA appears miraculous, he remained a materialist and began looking to outer space for the origin of life. (panspermia).

Having acknowledged the impossibility of DNA to originate naturally, some scientists have shifted their focus to RNA. Several biologists believe that DNA emerged from RNA. However, microbiologists who have analyzed RNA now believe it too “could not have emerged straight from the prehistoric muck.” ¹⁹

Not only is RNA prohibitively intricate, but it’s far more delicate than DNA, meaning it couldn’t cohere by itself even if it did come together by chance. Thus, the origin of life remains an unsolved riddle to scientists.

Aczel reasons that the complexity of DNA could not have arisen naturally on Earth, He asks, “Was it perhaps the power, thinking, and will of a supreme being that created this self-replicating basis of all life?” ²⁰  Like Crick, Aczel concludes that DNA must have arrived from outer space.

But according to Dembski, “Natural causes such as chance and law are incapable of producing CSI.” ²¹ Since these laws apply throughout the universe, one shouldn’t hold his breath about finding Klingons on Planet Qo’noS in the Beta Quadrant–unless a designer made DNA based life elsewhere.

So how did life on Earth originate? Is intelligent design worthy of consideration? Not according to Dawkins, Eldridge, Mayr, and a host of other materialistic scientists who are convinced it is an enemy of science.

Yet other leading scientists are willing to objectively look at the evidence. And new scientific evidence has pushed intelligent design to the forefront of the debate on origins. Even many hardened atheists have considered the evidence and admit the implications of design.

Antony Flew is one materialist who led the charge against an intelligent designer. Recognized by many as the world’s leading atheist for the past fifty years, Flew wrote over thirty books arguing against a creator.

But this formidable atheist took an honest look at DNA, remarking,

What I think the DNA material has done is show that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements together. The enormous complexity by which the results were achieved look to me like the work of intelligence.²²

Flew, who accepts Darwinian evolution, but doubts it can account for life’s origins, sees intelligent design as the best option to explain biological complexity. He made front-page news when he renounced his atheism, remarking,

I think the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it…It now seems to me that the finding of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.²³

Flew’s honesty is to be applauded, but materialists aren’t clapping. As the intelligent design movement gains momentum, many refuse to consider it as an option, dismissing it as “unscientific.” However, most thinking people want to hear the facts and draw their own conclusions. Like Flew, many who have honestly investigated the evidence, are in awe at what appears to be a super-intelligence behind life and all its intricate complexity.

Where are Darwin’s Predicted Fossils?

The discovery of DNA has revolutionized the world of forensic evidence. Cold case files have been reopened. Criminals who thought they had beaten the system have been belatedly prosecuted by a swab of saliva or body fluids forgotten about for decades. And in some instances, the new evidence has exonerated innocent prisoners.

Herman Atkins was just 20 years old when his life began to fall apart. He was imprisoned in January, 1986 for wounding three people in a shooting spree in South-Central Los Angeles. Prior to his imprisonment a “Wanted” poster had been widely circulated.

Later, at a sheriff’s substation, a 23-year-old rape victim glanced at a “Wanted” poster on a nearby table that showed a young black fugitive from Los Angeles. In court, she testified that she turned to her mother and said, “That’s him,” and pointed at the picture of Herman Atkins.

A clerk from an adjoining business where the attacker stopped briefly before the rape also identified Atkins. Based primarily upon these eyewitness testimonies, the jury found Herman Atkins guilty of rape and robbery. His sentence: 47 years, 8 months in prison. Atkins spent thirteen years, three months, and six days in state prison, but not for a crime he had committed. His cold case had been reopened, and the DNA evidence had revealed that Atkins was not the rapist. On February 18, 2000 he walked out a free man, the victim of mistaken identity.

Just as DNA has revolutionized criminal forensics, the work of paleontologists has shed new light on human origins. Being an honest man, Charles Darwin made no bones (pardon the pun) about predicting that the forensic fossil evidence would ultimately prove his theory right or wrong.

But just as experts can jump to the wrong conclusion with regard to criminal evidence, so in the world of paleontology, a tooth, jaw, or piece of skull has often created premature headlines of “Missing Link Found.” Paleontologist Michael Boulter summarizes the problem with identifying fossils correctly:

It’s very hard to piece together a few broken bones from a fossilized group of differentially aged primates scattered over a desert or cave floor and to be sure that they come from the same animal….It follows that the reliability of any description that attempts to recognize an actual species cannot be totally objective.¹

Boulter is alluding to the fact that, being human, most scientists look at a fossil through the lens of their own presuppositions. For example, those who wanted to make a case for humans descending from apes were quick to jump with joy over the supposed discovery of the “missing link” called Piltdown Man.  Featured in the London Times, New York Times, and various science journals, they made it a textbook example of the connection between apes and humans.  However, forty years later, in 1953, it was revealed as a fraud.

Frauds like the Piltdown Man are rare, and although objectivity is often lacking, there is actually a wealth of fossil evidence depicting the history of life on our planet.

So in order to see what the forensic evidence says about Darwin’s theory, we need to hear from paleontologists themselves about the evidence they have gathered during the nearly 150 years since he launched his theory. Our starting point is to clearly understand the predictions Darwin made regarding his theory and the fossils that should have resulted.

DARWIN’S TWO THEORIES

Charles Darwin was not the first to believe that life could arise by purely natural processes. In fact, the idea can be traced back as far as ancient Greece. And surely long before Darwin, people made the casual observation, “Hey, that guy kind of looks like a chimp.” But it was Darwin who gave the ideas intellectual teeth, or viability, through his observation and hypothesizing of several processes, including adaptation and natural selection.

Few people realize that Darwin’s theory of evolution predicts two different results: microevolution and macroevolution. We will look at microevolution first.

His micro-evolutionary theory states that variations within a species (cats, dogs, humans) can produce radical changes over time. He stated that sometimes these changes are accelerated by environmental conditions. For example, while on the Galapagos Islands, Darwin observed finches that had apparently grown slightly longer beaks during drought conditions. This confirmed his belief that creatures adapt to their environments.

Evolutionist Niles Eldredge explains the importance of adaptation to Darwin’s theory: “Adaptation is the very heart and soul of evolution. It is the scientific account of why the living world comes in so many shapes and sizes: how the giraffe got its long neck, why porpoises look so much like sharks … how birds fly.” ²

Darwin believed that overpopulation of a species creates food shortages, which result in a struggle for survival, with the strongest of the species winning out. Kind of like Survivor, the winners pass on their genes to the next generation, improving the species, so life advances by survival of the fittest.

The evidence for Darwin’s theory of change within a species is compelling. Bacteria do mutate and evolve. Cats, dogs, birds, and human beings all show evidence of variation predicted by Darwin. Some of us are tall, others short. Some thin, others…oops, better not go there.

The controversy surrounding Darwinian evolution is over his general theory of macroevolution. It states that over eons of time, all life evolved by the same process of natural selection. If true, then human beings are merely the end product of a long evolutionary chain. His belief in macroevolution is the reason Stephen Jay Gould was able to say that human beings are nothing more than “glorious evolutionary accidents.” ³

As we examine Darwin’s general theory of macroevolution, we need to recognize that most biologists believe it provides the only scientific explanation for human origins. Materialists use this argument to reject intelligent design, saying it is “unscientific.”

Biologists in general, have been far more reluctant to accept intelligent design as a valid option for the design evidenced in nature than their scientific counterparts in astronomy, physics, and cosmology. But that seems to be changing. In the face of stubborn opposition from the Darwinian paradigm, many biologists and paleontologists are now exposing Darwin’s predictions to the scrutiny of scientific investigation, willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads. So let’s see where it leads.

An increasing number of scientists are looking at the evidence from a common sense point of view. If macroevolution is right then it makes sense that the fossil record would prove Darwin right. So they begin by looking at the evidence that Darwin predicted would substantiate his claims. Darwin predicted that transitional fossil discoveries would eventually prove his theory right.

According to Darwin, these transitional fossils would provide ample evidence of gradual changes brought about by chance mutations.

The idea that one species could slowly change into another creates its own special problems, and because of these, Darwin championed the idea of favorable mutations. That is, the DNA of an organism would, on rare occasions, mutate favorably, which over time would lead to other favorable mutations, and the next thing you know, that ugly rat is now a cute little armadillo. Darwin assumed that life advanced over time from one-celled creatures all the way to humankind.

THE ROCKS TALK

We have observed examples of microevolution in which variations exist within a species. But there is little or no empirical evidence supporting Darwin’s claim of macroevolution—one species evolving into another species.⁴ More sophisticated creatures clearly do appear to arrive in later periods, but there remain yawning chasms (not mere gaps) between not only different species, but even between the highest orders of creatures, what are called phyla.

Why are the missing links essential to Darwin’s theory? Couldn’t gradual macroevolution have occurred without producing transitional fossils? Not according to Darwin. And certainly if countless species had undergone very gradual transitions from one category to another (for example, cats into dogs or fish into birds), then, according to Darwin, there should be countless fossils.

The abundance of transitional fossils should be demonstrable within all phyla and species, not merely a few. Certainly, there should be many millions of transitional fossils, since it is estimated that over a billion species have existed in Earth’s history. Again, we are not looking for microevolutionary changes of one type of bird evolving into another, or one type of horse evolving into another horse, etc.

Evolutionist Steven Stanley, a paleobiologist from Johns Hopkins, concludes in his book Macroevolution that, without the fossil evidence, “we might wonder whether the doctrine of evolution would qualify as anything more than an outrageous hypothesis.” ⁵ In other words, all the conjecture about whether Darwinian evolution is factual or not comes down to hard evidence.

Occasionally some researcher claims to have “evolved” a new species in the lab, but that is not evidence for Darwinian macroevolution. In fact, many such claims turn out to be bogus, or merely evidence for microevolution. In any case, the lab experiment involves intelligence, not chance.

For 150 years paleontologists have been busy digging, classifying, and looking for these transitional fossils in a worldwide hunt. Billions of fossils representing about 250,000 species have been scrutinized. What have the scientists discovered? Does the fossil evidence support Darwin’s theory of macroevolution? If it does, the missing links Darwin predicted should no longer be missing.

We commence our fossil search with the mysterious Cambrian period, an era geologists date at around 530 million years ago.

BOOM–LIFE

Seemingly out of the blue, complex life forms with fully developed eyes appeared during the Cambrian period. It has been called by some “biology’s big bang.”

Only fossils for simple life forms have been discovered from the time prior to the Cambrian period. Then, suddenly, the fossil record is shown to be teeming with more complex life forms than exist today. It is called the “Cambrian Explosion.”

Explosion is an apt term in this case. We see the period’s importance, for example, in the appearance of new phyla. Phyla are the broadest category of animals that exist. According to biologists, you are a member of a phylum that also includes gerbils and trout. The differences between phyla are even more extreme than the differences within them. For example, the slug family falls into a separate phylum from that of humans. (So feel the freedom to squish them.) In fact, organisms in different phyla are built according to entirely different body plans.

What paleontologists find in the Cambrian explosion is not simply the appearance of a few new animals but the appearance of 50 completely different body types without prior transitions or predecessors.

Darwin staked his entire theory on the belief that a species could never suddenly appear. He said, “If numerous species, belonging to the same … families, have really started into life at once, that fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection.”⁶

Yet complex body organs such as eyes suddenly appeared during the Cambrian period. The trilobite eye has dozens of complex tubes, each with its own intricate lens. Darwinian gradualism cannot account for the sudden development of complex organs such as the fully formed eye.⁷ Evolutionists are stumped because Darwin theorized that complex organs like the eye could only develop gradually over enormous periods of time, traceable to a common ancestor. Yet five totally different phyla with no hint of a common ancestor all suddenly popped into existence during the Cambrian period, each with fully developed eyes.⁸

T. S. Kemp, curator of the zoological collections at the Oxford University Museum of Natural History, is one of the world’s foremost experts on Cambrian fossils. When discussing the sudden appearances of new species, Kemp declares, “With few exceptions, radically new kinds of organisms appear for the first time in the fossil record already fully evolved. … It is not at all what might have been expected.”⁹

Certainly, new organisms with eyes developing quickly is not what Darwin had in mind when his theory defined natural selection as gradual changes over vast amounts of time. Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins—no friend to a belief in creation—affirms, “Without gradualness …we are back to a miracle.”¹⁰

Stephen Gould, a staunch advocate of materialistic evolution, sums up the problem for Darwinists: “We do not know why the Cambrian explosion could establish all major anatomical designs so quickly. … The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life.” ¹¹

Although the Cambrian explosion doesn’t disprove Darwin’s theory, it certainly does raise a huge question mark, and it has been a source of great frustration to materialists. But is the Cambrian explosion of suddenly appearing new species the only contradiction to Darwin’s theory of macroevolution?

The best examples evolutionists offer in defense of macroevolution are the Archaeopteryx (a bird with reptilian features), and the Tiktaalik roseae (a fish that appears to have been developing limbs). But these two debatable examples don’t explain the enormous gaps in the fossil record. Molecular biologist Michael Denton remarks, “Archaeopteryx was probably the best intermediate that Darwin was able to name, yet between reptiles and Archaeopteryx there was still a very obvious gap.” ¹² Darwin expected much more evidence to support macroevolution. This has led even the most ardent materialists to question Darwin’s prediction.

Gould’s colleague, Eldredge, frankly admits the failure of the fossil record to provide evidence for macroevolution, stating, “No one has found any such in-between creatures … and there is a growing conviction among many scientists that these transitional forms never existed.” ¹³

LIFE-FORMS IN A RUT

What the fossil record does show, according to paleontologists, is that most species don’t change but rather remain virtually the same for millions of years. They call this phenomenon stasis, which basically means you should not expect to grow a second head or third arm anytime in the foreseeable future.

Kemp forcefully summarizes the findings from the fossil record: “It is now indisputable that stasis … occurs in … probably a majority of cases of fossil species. … Equally, it seems beyond dispute that speciation [macroevolution] usually occurs so rapidly … that the process is below the resolution of the fossil record.”¹⁴

In other words, evolution rarely occurs, and when it does, it occurs so rapidly it leaves no fossil trail. Eldredge remarks, “No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen.” ¹⁵ But wait. Didn’t Darwin theorize that all of life gradually evolved? How do Darwinists respond to this embarrassing lack of evidence?

According to Gould, with silence: “It’s not evolution so you don’t talk about it.” ¹⁶ Gould, one of Darwin’s strongest advocates, also admits, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and notes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.” ¹⁷

Paleontologist Whitey Hagadorn has intensely studied fossils of the early marine animal communities, looking for evidence of transitions. He remarks, “Paleontologists have the best eyes in the world. If we can’t find the fossils, sometimes you have to think that they just weren’t there.” ¹⁸

GRADUATING FROM GRADUALISM

Eldredge discloses that the Darwinian paradigm is so strong that paleontologists refused to admit defeat by acknowledging gradualism as wrong. “Paleontologists clung to the myth of gradual adaptive transformation even in the face of plain evidence to the contrary… ” ¹⁹

Eldredge and his colleague Gould, however, responded to the lack of transitional fossils by developing a new theory called punctuated equilibria, a complete departure from Darwin’s basic premise of gradualism.²⁰

The punctuated equilibria theory contends that evolution, rather than being a gradual process, flourished quickly in small, isolated geographic regions, and then stabilized. But evolution was the exception and rarely occurred.

Gould and Eldredge have argued that a sudden jump from species to species is the only way to explain the missing transitional fossils. Denton contests their conclusions are difficult to believe. “To suggest that … possibly even millions of transitional species … were all unsuccessful species occupying isolated areas and having very small population numbers is verging on the incredible.” ²¹

Whereas Darwin’s theory required many millions of years, punctuated equilibria speculates that body forms evolved in hundreds of thousands of years, merely 100th of one percent of Earth’s history. There is no known mechanism that can work so fast.

Based upon the fossil evidence, the following conclusions can be drawn:

1. Cambrian fossils contradict Darwin’s theory.
2. Transitional fossils have failed to show up.
3. Most species don’t change.
4. Perplexed materialists are seeking non-Darwinian explanations.

Gerald Schroeder cites how micro-evolutionary examples are used by Darwinists as “proof” of macro-evolution: “…when the London Museum of Natural History, a bastion of Darwinian dogma, mounted a massive exhibit on evolution, occupying an entire wing of the second floor, the only examples it could show were pink daisies evolving into blue daisies, little dogs evolving into big dogs, a few dozen species of cichlid fish evolving into hundreds of species of—you guessed it—cichlid fish. They could not come up with a single major morphological change clearly recorded in the fossil record. I am not anti-evolution. And I am not pro-creation. What I am is pro-look-at-the-data-and-see-what-they-teach.” ²²

EVOLUTION WITH A PURPOSE?

Some scientists believe that the chemistry of life has been fine-tuned and that evolution was programmed into nature’s laws. Conway Morris of Cambridge University acknowledged as one of the foremost paleontologists of his time, has proposed a theory that combines design and evolution. Morris observes, “Far from being a random, directionless process, evolution shows deep patterns, and perhaps even a purpose.” ²³

In his book Life’s Solution, Morris makes a compelling case for inherent design in life. Morris suggests that life could not have been a mere product of time plus chance, as Darwin theorized. He sees design and purpose in biological structures, pondering:

Does evolution have a structure, an overall design, perhaps even a purpose? Orthodox opinion recoils from this prospect. Evolution, it is widely believed, is an effectively random process where almost any outcome is possible. … We, like all other life, are an evolutionary accident. But is this correct? In fact the evidence points in exactly the opposite direction.²⁴

Morris cites evidence of design patterns like the eye, that exist in unrelated phyla. How did each of these unrelated animal groups develop an eye, independent of one another? Morris believes there are common patterns built into nature’s laws. He calls his theory, convergence.

According to Morris, such common design patterns in totally separate phyla provide compelling evidence against Darwin’s theory of accidental naturalistic evolution. But is designed evolution really an option if there is little or no fossil evidence to support macroevolution?

Although, like Morris, many believe in some form of directed evolution, such theories don’t adequately explain the missing transitional fossils. Macroevolution, whether by design or by accident, still requires transitional forms. Yet the intense scrutiny of billions of fossils has failed to provide clear evidence for macroevolution other than a few debatable exceptions.

What, then, is the most plausible explanation for the missing transitional forms? There are really only three viable options:

1. Darwin was right about macroevolution. An abundance of transitional fossils will someday be found, or billions of transitionals were destroyed.
2. Darwin was wrong about gradualism.  Macroevolution occurred rapidly, explaining the missing transitions (punctuated equilibria or design).
3. Darwin was wrong about macroevolution. The fossils can’t be found because transitions never existed (design).

Paleontologists are not in agreement on which option is correct, but there is general agreement, with a few debatable exceptions, that the fossils that Darwin predicted would be discovered in abundance are truly missing. Materialists respond by showing fossil evidence of horses gradually evolving. But that is only microevolution.

They also try to depict human evolution by assembling fragments of hominid skulls. But the origin of Homo sapiens has been a source of frustration and controversy. (See Article 7)

As we have seen, Darwinist’s best example, the Archaeopteryx, is a debatable transition between birds and reptiles. If Darwin was right, there should be millions of his predicted transitional fossils forthcoming by now. That would end the debate.

DARWIN’S OWN VERDICT

In the case of Herman Atkins, DNA evidence proved that the original eyewitness testimony was flawed. Is it possible, that the combination of new evidence from molecular biology and the missing transitional fossils have revealed Darwinian evolution to be a flawed theory?  

Biologists Mae-Wan Ho and Peter Saunders speak for many scientists who seriously question the claims of Darwin’s theory:

“It is now approximately half a century since the neo-Darwinian synthesis was formulated. A great deal of research has been carried on within the paradigm it defines. Yet the successes of the theory are limited to the minutia of evolution, such as the adaptive change in coloration of moths, while it has remarkably little to say on the questions which interest us most, such as how there came to be moths in the first place.” ²⁵

Regardless of one’s views of Charles Darwin, the geological record seems to have confirmed his worst fears; missing transitions, and the sudden appearance of new life forms. What Gould called the “trade secret” of paleontologists, the missing transitional fossils points to the sudden appearance of new life forms, a phenomenon that Darwin said would be “fatal” to his theory of macroevolution.

Perhaps Gould’s colleague Eldredge said it best when he admitted, “There is a growing conviction among many scientists that these transitional forms never existed.” ²⁶ And so we are left with a fossil trail that raises the question: How did these new life forms, some with fully developed eyes, appear so suddenly?

Many scientists reflect the view of Dr. Jonathan Wells, holder of PhDs in theology from Yale, and biology from Berkeley, who states, “Does this mean that biologists should devote their energies to proving the existence of a designer? I think not. It simply means that biologists should trust their common sense…biologists would be better off following the evidence wherever it leads.” ²⁷

Are Humans the Result of Evolution?

Scientific evidence indicates human beings are a unique species that is far superior to any species existing today or in the past.

In the movie, Planet of the Apes, Astronaut Leo Davidson is on a routine reconnaissance space mission in the year 2029, when suddenly his pod cruiser is thrust through a wormhole. Not knowing where they were, or how many years had advanced, he and his crew crash-land their cruiser on a strange planet that appears devoid of life.  Suddenly they encounter an advanced tribe of intelligent talking apes who rule over a remnant of mute humans. Davidson’s other crew members are killed by their brutal rulers, but he escapes to a desolate area called the Forbidden Zone, an area the apes greatly fear.

In the end, Davidson discovers that he has actually landed on Earth in the year 3978.  And the Forbidden Zone is the desert-like remains from an ancient nuclear holocaust that wiped out humanity.  A remnant of the Statue of Liberty is discovered in the dust, along with other reminders of a civilization that once was.

The primary message is clear: human warfare and self-destruction enabled apes to evolve as the dominant species.  But there is another, more subtle message: humans and apes are linked by an evolutionary family tree. Although the movie is humorous and entertaining, the message reflects the Darwinian paradigm that we are merely accidental beings in a chance world.  

Actually, the entire Darwinian paradigm revolves around the theme that man is not unique, but rather just the end-product of a long evolutionary chain. The argument goes; that since we have bodies similar to apes, and since we share much of the same DNA, we must be related to them. Materialists cite this as proof that Darwin was right about us descending from lower forms of life.

It is not the purpose of this brief article to speculate on how life and the various species originated. A super-intelligent designer could have created life in a number of different ways, either using natural laws, or transcending them. In fact, some scientists such as Simon Conway Morris, and Richard G. Colling, believe in designed evolution, where all of nature was intricately and ingeniously planned to eventually create you and me. The issue we address here is what leading scientists have discovered about our origins. In other words, what does the evidence reveal about our species—are we simply advanced apes, or are we unique and distinct? If the latter is true, it would certainly add credence to the argument that we have been designed. 

LOOK! A HUMAN BEING

The fossil trail has revealed creatures that seem to resemble apes, but have some human-like features. These members of the ape family that scientists call hominids are clearly not human, but evolutionists believe they eventually became us. Evolutionists begin with the premise that life is merely one large family tree (or bush).

They are looking for a trail of fossils that confirm Darwin’s theory of macroevolution of our species. However, if evidence show that Homo sapiens appeared suddenly with qualities and traits distinct from all other forms of life, the possibility that we have been designed becomes apparent.

So have paleoanthropologists been able to bridge the chasm between what they call hominids and us, proving an evolutionary link?

We’ve all seen museum exhibits depicting slightly erect ape-like creatures that presumably became us. These exhibits and drawings in biology textbooks imply that there is solid fossil evidence to back up the claim that such fossils have been discovered. In fact, paleoanthropologists have uncovered pieces of bones and skull fragments from a variety of primates they consider human ancestors. Ardipithecus ramidus, the oldest of these, is dated at over 4 million years old.  Homo habilis and Homo erectus are depicted as more recent members of our family tree.   

It all looks and sounds so convincing. But what sounds like a solid argument for human ancestry unravels when the facts are made clear. Henry Gee, the chief science writer for Nature writes, “The intervals of time that separate fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent.” ¹

The problem is that paleoanthropologists are attempting to fill in an enormous puzzle with only a few fragments of bones and teeth that according to Gee, could be “fitted into a small box.” ² One of the most renowned evolutionists of the twentieth century, Stephen Jay Gould agrees with the difficulty, stating, “Most hominid fossils, even though they serve as a basis for endless speculation and elaborate storytelling, are fragments of jaws and scraps of skulls.” ³

Gould is not alone. Harvard zoologist Richard Lewontin also acknowledges: “when we consider the remote past, before the origin of the actual species Homo sapiens, we are faced with a fragmentary and disconnected fossil record.” ⁴ Yet, these fragments of jaws and scraps of skulls, no matter how sparse and disconnected, have revealed some insightful clues about the uniqueness of our species. Let’s dig deeper.

The first thing that strikes one as odd about Homo sapiens is their appearance on the stage of history. Despite the transitional drawings found in textbooks, intelligent, laptop-carrying man seems to have shown up rather abruptly.

Although small fragments of hominid bones have been discovered, there is a huge jump from such creatures to our own species. Naturalist Ian Tattersall (curator at the American Museum of Natural History) remarks in his book The Fossil Trail: “Something extraordinary, if totally fortuitous, happened with the birth of our species.” ⁵ Tattersall is referring to the suddenness with which humans appear in the fossil record.

Biologists are unable to explain why our species appeared so suddenly. Professor John Maynard Smith, Emeritus of Biology at the University of Sussex writes, “Something very puzzling happened….The fossil evidence is patchy, but it seems that hominids suddenly developed brains that, in terms of size, were much like ours.” ⁶ In other words, the jump from hominids to humans is unexplainable. No links have been discovered.

Most hominids had small, ape-like brains and no capacity for language. Then, suddenly in the fossil record, man appears with several unique features, including an enlarged brain capacity. Why are there no clear-cut links between hominids without language capacity and Homo sapiens?

SPEAKING OF SPEAKING…

The ability to speak distinguishes man from all apes and hominids. Although human beings have both the hardware and the software for language, hominids didn’t. They didn’t even come close.

According to noted evolutionist Ernst Mayr, humans have the ability to conceptualize, resulting in the development of art, literature, mathematics, and science.  Hominids and all other animals lack this unique human quality, and are only able to communicate by giving and receiving signals.⁷

But even if man suddenly developed the ability to speak, what evolutionary advantage brought about the change? This presents a huge problem for those who argue against a designer.

As he traces the history of our species, evolutionist Steve Olson spells out the problem. “Of course, language could not have come from nowhere. To speak, early humans needed particular vocal and neural mechanisms. But here a notorious problem arises. Any adaptations produced by evolution are useful only in the present, not in some vaguely defined future.” ⁸

In other words, for human speech to work, the brain structure, the tongue, the larynx, the vocal cords, and many other parts all need to be fully developed.

Some biologists have speculated that a mutation occurred allowing an individual to talk. But, according to Olson, such explanations “have always been suspect.”  In reality, science cannot explain why we are the only creatures with the ability to speak.

UNIQUELY HUMAN?

Man’s sudden appearance has scientists like Harvard scholar Lewontin pouring cold water on claims that a missing link between humans and apes has been discovered: Although he is an evolutionist, Lewontin acknowledges, “Despite the excited and optimistic claims that have been made by some paleontologists, no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor.” ⁹

The sudden appearance of man in the history of our planet has some scientists using the world “miracle.” During an interview with the French science monthly La Recherché, Marcel Schutzenberger was asked, “The appearance of human beings—is that a miracle?”

The outspoken French mathematician replied,

Naturally. And here it does seem that there are voices among contemporary biologists—I mean voices other than mine—who might cast doubt on the Darwinian paradigm that has dominated discussion for the past twenty years.

Gradualists and saltationists [people who believe in rapid species change] alike are completely incapable of giving a convincing explanation of the quasi-simultaneous emergence of a number of biological systems that distinguish human beings from the higher primates.

Schutzenberger was referring to several physiological differences between humans and primates for which no transitional fossils have been discovered.

He then concludes the interview with his view that there is no materialistic explanation for the sudden development of man: “The reality is that we are confronted with total conceptual bankruptcy.” ¹⁰

Even evolutionists like Mayr, who believe we descended from hominids writes: “Man is indeed as unique, as different from all other animals, as had been traditionally claimed by theologians and philosophers.” ¹¹

Along the same lines, Ian Tattersall remarks on the uniqueness of humanity: “Homo sapiens are as distinctive an entity as exists on the face of the Earth, and should be dignified as such instead of being adulterated with every reasonably large-brained hominid fossil that happened to come along.¹²

Of all hominids, only Neanderthal had a large brain. Yet, Neanderthal was a distinct species according to DNA studies.¹³ And, according to Olson they “seem not to have developed the fluent language that lets us wonder, adapt, and create.” ¹⁴

What has caused mankind to transcend the animal world and probe space, develop computers, discover DNA, and create art and music? What makes us unique? The answer came down to three pounds of lumpy gray matter floating around in our heads.

ONE HUMAN ANCESTOR?

So where did the human race originate, and does DNA confirm the uniqueness of our species? In Mapping Human History, Steve Olson traces the history of humankind through mitochondrial DNA samples throughout history, new and stunning insights regarding human ancestry have been forthcoming

1. Once human beings appeared on the scene, there is no evidence of evolution. Olson writes, “With the appearance of modern humans, the large-scale evolution of our species essentially ceased.” 15
2. Humans DNA is highly uniform compared with that of other species. Olson remarks, “What must count as one of the most profound biological insights of all time is the recognition of our remarkable similarity.” 16
3. Modern human beings originated and migrated from one area. Paleoanthropologist at Cambridge University, Marta Lahr, explains, “The bulk of the chronological and genetic data indicate a single origin of all modern humans.” 17
4. We have all descended from a single person. Olson pens, “The first time I heard this statement I thought it highly implausible. all 6 billion people on this planet descended from a single ancestor? Yet this is one of those wonderful scientific conclusions that is not only true but has to be true.” 18

This mitochondrial DNA studies have shown that Homo sapiens not only arrived suddenly and recently on planet Earth, but have all originated from a single ancestor.

THREE POUNDS OF LUMPY GRAY AMAZEMENT

So, what are we to make of the human brain? We generally associate complexity with intelligence. The more complex a building or machine, the more intelligence is required to engineer it. The human brain, for starters, contains 12 billion neuron cells intertwined with 100 trillion connections. To illustrate a number as large as 100 trillion, molecular biologist Michael Denton suggests visualizing a solid forest of trees covering half the United States. If each tree contains one hundred thousand leaves, the connections in a human brain would equal the total number of leaves in the entire forest.

Yet the brain’s connections are not mere intersections like those in a highway system, but rather are a highly organized network far exceeding the complexity of all the communication networks on planet Earth.¹⁹

Our memories (one billion trillion bits of them) are not isolated in one section of the brain but instead are intertwined throughout the network. “Each junction has the potential to be part of a memory. So the memory capacity of a human brain is effectively infinite.” ²⁰ Inside that three pounds of gray matter of yours is enough information to fill 20 million books (19 million if you aren’t that bright).

As we examine our universe, nothing else in it even remotely approaches the complexity of the human brain. Stephen Hawking compares the complexity of the human brain with most present-day computers and reveals the overwhelming superiority of our brains: “In comparison with most computers which have one central processing unit, the brain has millions of processing units … all working at the same time.” ²¹

Even if communication engineers could apply the most sophisticated engineering techniques known to humanity, the assembly of an object remotely resembling the human brain would require an eternity of time. Even then, they still wouldn’t know where to begin.²² The overwhelming processing power takes place within an area of our brains called the cerebral cortex, and it is here where the human enigma is most apparent.

THE MYSTERY OF CONSCIOUSNESS

The cerebral cortex is the area of our brains where, mysteriously, “matter is transformed into consciousness.” ²³ The cerebral cortex distinguishes human beings from all other animals. “Though the difference between the human genome and that of a chimp is estimated to be less than 1 percent, our cerebral cortex has ten times more neurons.” ²⁴ But that is not the total story. Mayr reveals, “The unique character of our brain seems to lie in the existence of many (perhaps as many as forty) different types of neurons….” ²⁵ And in spite of the DNA similarities, between humans and chimpanzees, there are still some 40 million differences.²⁶

Additionally, recent studies have shown that chimpanzees lack awareness of their own thoughts, a trait that appears to be uniquely human. ²⁷

Awareness of thoughts is something that is beyond our ability to create, even in the most sophisticated software programs. When chess Grandmaster Gary Kasparov was defeated by the IBM supercomputer, Deep Blue, the computer didn’t even realize it had won. Deep Blue lacked this self-awareness we take for granted. It is called consciousness, a mystery that has baffled philosophers and scientists for centuries.

Our awareness, with its manipulation of ideas, actually takes place in the prefrontal cortex.²⁸ It is here that we reason, ponder, imagine, fantasize, and seek answers to why we exist. This prefrontal cortex area in a human makes up a far larger proportion of the cerebral cortex than in any animal, and it is the most complex arrangement of matter in the universe.²⁹

If we could shrink in size and become spectators to the incredible activity in the innermost portion of the cerebral cortex, we might see something resembling a kaleidoscope of fireworks networking in all directions. Yet these electrical impulses are billions of organized patterns that result in our thoughts and imaginations. All of these thoughts intersect with our self-awareness.

While consciousness is at rest during sleep, the brain is still in action. “Even in sleep, the brain is pulsing, throbbing, and flashing with the complex business of human life—dreaming, remembering, figuring things out. Our thoughts, visions, and fantasies have a physical reality.” ³⁰

Nobody really understands consciousness or how we got it. Sir John Maddox, former editor-in-chief of the journal Nature, addresses the puzzle of consciousness: “Nobody understands how decisions are made or how imagination is set free. What consciousness consists of, or how it should be defined, is equally puzzling. … We seem as far from understanding cognitive processes as we were a century ago.” ³¹

For years materialists have tried to reduce humans to nothing more than a series of drives and instincts.

However, in reality, human consciousness chooses between the instincts, and it is as different and separate from them as the pianist is from the keys he chooses to play on the piano. The consciousness sits over and above our instincts, drives, and desires, and it chooses which it will act upon.³²

Thus, man can choose to disregard his own desire to survive for a higher purpose. Such an act of heroism works counter to Darwin’s survival of the fittest and is unexplainable by materialists. There seems to be something about consciousness that transcends self-preservation.

Another example of consciousness is the objectivity of the self—you distinguish yourself from your experiences. When stimulated, you distinctly feel that pain or pleasure is happening to you and that you are distinct from the experience causing the pain or pleasure. It is this objective awareness of our own thoughts that appears to be unique to human beings.

So difficult is the problem posed by our consciousness that Laurence C. Wood said, “Many brain scientists have been compelled to postulate the existence of an immaterial mind, even though they might not embrace a belief in life after death.” ³³

What process in natural selection could have led to human consciousness? Although evolutionists have taken a stab at it, no one really knows. Neither do scientists have an explanation for human imagination or creativity.

In human beings, the ability to simulate alternative future events appears to take place within our subjective consciousness.  Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins admits that nothing in Darwinian evolution accounts for it. Although Dawkins remains an ardent materialist, he writes, “Why this should have happened is to me, the most profound mystery facing modern biology.” ³⁴

Even leading evolutionist Stephen J. Gould recognized the inability of natural selection to explain the human brain. Gould admitted, “I don’t know why the brain got large in the first place. It certainly wasn’t so that we could paint pictures or write symbols.” ³⁵

DIFFERENT BY DESIGN?

Why did we get these incredibly complex brains with both the hardware and software for language? And according to evolutionists, our brains have remained unchanged. Mayr writes, “What is perhaps most astonishing is the fact that the human brain seems not to have changed one single bit since the first appearance of Homo sapiens….” ³⁶ And where did consciousness and acts of heroism come from? There seems to be no evolutionary explanation for any of these unique human qualities.

In his book What Evolution Is, Ernst Mayr argues that our species is the only one of over a billion species that resulted in exceptional intelligence.³⁷

So what are we to make of us? We create music and art. We dream and imagine. We endeavor to reach the stars, launching space shuttles and peering at the universe through powerful telescopes. And we wonder why we are here on this tiny speck called Earth. The enigma of man seems to point to something or someone beyond ourselves.