Once we have established that there is a transcendent first-cause - God, we establish that this God had a divine purpose for His creation. We observe that the universe and life were created by a divine Designer. This is evidenced by the fine-tuned physical laws and parameters that govern the universe, and the improbabilities of random processes and natural selection.
Darwin's theory of evolution addresses the survival of the species but does not adequately address the arrival of the species. Science strongly suggests that the arrival of all living creatures was the result of the intervention by a Creator God, not Darwinian macroevolution. If creation and life were indeed initiated by a Creator, then human life has meaning and purpose.
This conclusion is supported by the following truth claims.
Summary: There is a preponderance of evidence and arguments for design intelligence. The complexity, orderliness, and function of creation is not attributable to chance, but rather, the design intelligence of a Creator.
This claim is supported by the following evidence.
Summary: Through the use of science and mathematics we are able to reliably measure, quantify and validate the fine-tuned properties of the universe. These fine-tuned properties are comprised of cosmological constants, physical laws, and planetary properties.
When we think about life on Earth, we often take for granite the conditions necessary to support life. We do not give any thought to the oxygen we breathe, or the gravity that keeps our feet planted firmly on the ground, or countless other life-giving conditions.
With mounting concerns over global climate change, we are reminded that the physical factors that govern our planet are interrelated. It seems that a change in one factor such as the composition of the ozone layer has an effect on another factor such as atmospheric temperature, which in turn has an effect on another and so on.
What best explains the precise fine-tuning of the universe and Earth to support life? Are the cosmological constants, physical laws, and planetary properties the fortuitous result of chance? Or are they a purposeful result of the of a transcendent intelligence?
Scientists have determined that there are approximately 25 fundamental cosmological constants of physics that govern the universe [REF-PHY02] [REF-PEN01] [REF-RCO01]. Notable examples are the speed of light (c), and the gravitational constant (G).
These cosmological constants are used in physical laws which express the relationship between physical properties in the universe such as mass, velocity, force, and many other properties. These laws describe every aspect of our universe from gravity, to quantum mechanics, to electromagnetism, and to nuclear forces.
Scientist have confirmed that these cosmological constants are interrelated. This means that a single constant may be used by more than one physical law. For example, Newton's three laws of motion [REF-NEW01] and the law of gravity both rely on the gravitational constant (G). A change in the distance between two objects will affect both the force between the two objects and their velocity.
In addition to being interrelated, cosmological constants are invariant. This implies that the universe is in a steady state of equilibrium. This is evidenced by the orderly coalescence of the galaxies in our universe [COS-EV14].
While the cosmological constants govern the formation and sustainability of the universe, they do not describe the unique conditions needed to enable and sustain life on Earth. So, what are the conditions for life?
Astrophysicists at Reasons to Believe [REF-RTB01] build on the science of the cosmological constants of the universe to estimate the number of planetary factors necessary to enable life on a planet such as Earth.
Their findings suggest that there are approximately 322 planetary properties that enable carbon-based life on a planet. The complete list of factors and reference papers can be found at [REF-RTB03] and [REF-RTB02].
As with the cosmological constants of the universe, these planetary properties must also fall into a very narrow range of values and remain invariant.
These parameters of a planet, its planetary companions, its moon, its star, and its galaxy must have values falling within narrowly defined ranges for physical life of any kind to exist. [REF-RTB03]
Their estimates further complicate the argument of fine-tuning by chance. The likelihood of all 25 cosmological constants and 322 planetary properties having their precise value are frankly insuperable [MATH-EV15].
Perhaps the greatest of these physical laws is Newton's law of universal gravitation of the 17th century. It states that an object attracts every other object in the universe with a gravitational force.
Newton's law of gravity is expressed by the following formula.
In this formula, the forces of each object (F1, F2), masses of each object (m1, m2) and distance between each object (r) are related by the Newtonian constant of gravitation (G). The official value of G is 6.673889 x 10−11.
Researchers have determined that the slightest change in Newton's constant of gravitation would cause planetary bodies to either accelerate away from each other (weaker gravity) or collapse upon each other (stronger gravity). The same is true with the critical precision of all other fundamental constants.
This gravitation constant is used to calculate the gravitational forces in Sir Isaac Newton's law of universal gravitation (stated above) and in Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity.
In fact, this same constant of gravitation was used to land the Apollo 11 Lunar Module Eagle on the moon on July 20, 1969.
Even more fundamental than the cosmological constants, physical laws, and planetary properties is mathematics [REF-MATH02].
Mathematics is a precise system for quantifying time, space, and matter. It is based on a formal notation and set of rules that is free of ambiguity, unlike language which is subject to semantic interpretation. It is inherently true because it is fundamentally based on laws of logic. This principle in mathematics is referred to as mathematical logicism [REF-LOG01].
Mankind did not invent mathematics, but rather discovered it. A branch of mathematics known as mathematical realism states the mathematics is inherent in creation and exists independent of the human mind. Mathematics alone is the true reflection of reality, not what is conceived by the human mind. It is referred to by mathematicians as axiomatic or a self-evident truth.
Mathematics was referred to as a miracle by Eugene Wigner, Nobel Prize laureate in physics [REF-WIG01]. According to Wigner, mathematics is a "wonderful gift" from nature that enables physicists to quantify the laws of nature in an effort to make practical sense of the universe around us.
"The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it."
Needless to say, Wigner was awestruck by the accuracy and effectiveness of the language of mathematics endowed by the creator.
Through the use of science and mathematics we are able to reliably measure, quantify and validate the fine-tuned properties of the universe.
Together, these cosmological constants, physical laws and planetary properties represent what most call the fine tuning of the universe. This evidence ultimately raises the following questions. "Why is our universe fine-tuned? Is this the result of chance or the mind of a transcendent intelligence?"
Resources:
Summary: The odds of life on Earth by random chance are so astronomically high they are considered by many as highly improbable. By comparison, the odds of life on Earth are more probable under theism given the evidence.
When it comes to the precise fine-tuning of the universe, the notion of it occurring by random chance seems inconceivable.
What are the odds of the cosmological constants and planetary properties being precisely fixed at the moment of creation? Or were their life-enabling values established in advance of creation by a transcendent intelligence?
To answer these questions, we turn to a branch of Mathematics called Probability Theory [REF-PRB01].
Astrophysicists at Reasons to Believe [REF-RTB01] identified approximately 322 planetary properties that enable life on a planet [COS-EV16]. Essentially, their research quantifies and qualifies the set of initial conditions needed to enable and sustain life on Earth.
Reasons to Believe concludes,
Less than 1 chance in 10282 exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles. [REF-RTB02]
According to Reasons to Believe, the odds of all 322 planetary properties and 25 cosmological constants falling within their narrowly defined ranges by chance are 1 in 1x10282.
You do not have to be a mathematician to know that this is an astronomically low probability. It is no wonder that some mathematicians consider these odds to be statistically impossible [REF-BLW01].
To put these odds in perspective, there are only 1080 atoms in the known universe [REF-MAP01], [REF-WHI01], Therefore, the odds of 1 chance in 10282 is 3½ times more difficult than randomly selecting a singly marked atom in the universe the first time.
Another approach to determining best-likelihood is to compare the probabilities of each theory. This approach was originally proposed in 1998 by Robin Collins of Messiah College [REF-RCO06].
Collins asserts that the fine-tuning of the universe is best argued in terms of comparative probabilities [REF-RCO01]. His objective is to ascertain which theory is the most probable.
Using the simple illustration of Mount Rushmore in South Dakota, Collins asks if it is more probably that the carvings were the product of a weather event, or the product of an artisan. He intuits that the busts of the four presidents of Mount Rushmore is more likely the product of a skilled artisan who knew what each president looked like, versus a weather event that was devoid of both skill and foreknowledge.
Collins frames the fine-tuning argument as follows:
His argument is based on the theories of rationalism and empiricism. Rationalism teaches that knowledge is the product of logic and reason (rational thought). Empiricism teaches that knowledge is a product of sensory perception (empirical evidence).
What Collins is stating is that fine-tuning under theism is the most probable and logical explanation given the evidence, and therefore it is the most reasonable conclusion.
The odds outlined above pose a real challenge for scientists seeking to formulate alternative fine-tuning hypotheses. Given the magnitude of the probability space, any hypothesis that relies on chance to any degree will fall outside the realm of probability.
Based on the atheistic single-universe hypothesis, the probability of fine-tuning to support and sustain life is nothing short of a miracle.
Resources:
Summary: Multiple universes, or Multiverse, is the counter proposal to the Teleology argument. Adherents of Multiverse presume that if there are an exceptionally large number of universes, it is probable that at least one of these universes is conditioned for life. Unfortunately, this hypothesis is not supported by scientific evidence. Therefore, the single universe model under theism that emerged from a singularity is the only plausible explanation for our universe.
As we ponder the universe in terms of time, space, and matter, we marvel at how these three dimensions work together to enable our existence. Since we are familiar with these dimensions, it is hard to imagine any others.
However, some scientists believe that our universe consisting of time, space and matter is not the only form of existence. They imagine other universes that are comprised of different dimensions.
Andrei Linde, a researcher at Stanford, developed a hypothesis in 1982 that argues for multiple universes, ergo, billions of universes or possibly an infinite number of universes [REF-LIN01]. This hypothesis is commonly referred to as Multiverse.
Multiverse is the counter proposal to the Teleology argument [TEL-IS02]. The principal arguments for Multiverse are as follows.
There are various models that fall under the Multiverse hypothesis. The two most popular models are the Vacuum Fluctuation Model [REF-QUE01] and the Oscillating Big Bang model [REF-CBB01].
The Vacuum Fluctuation model argues that these universes were generated by quantum fluctuations in a pre-existing superspace. The product of these fluctuations is an exceptionally large - perhaps infinite - number of co-existing universes. Each universe has a different set of dimensions and physical characteristics.
Alternatively, the Oscillating Big Bang model argues that our universe is forever expanding and contracting in cycles. This model is comprised of two opposing events, commonly known as the Big Bang and the Big Crunch. The Big Bang is followed by an expansion (explosion) of time, space, and matter. The Big Crunch is followed by a contraction (implosion) of time, space, and matter. Depending on these bang and crunch events, some universes may be conditioned for life, and others may not.
One of the notable characteristic of the Oscillating Big Bang model is that the fundamental physical characteristics do not change across cycles. Hence, the same cosmological constants we currently observe, continue from one universe to the next.
The following arguments have been marshalled against the Multiverse hypothesis.
The same can be said about fine-tuning. How could the universe generator be so finely tuned that it produces viable universes? Where did that intelligence originate?
"...one principal obstacle is the Second Law of Thermodynamics which dictates that the entropy increases from cycle to cycle. If the cycles thereby become longer, extrapolation into the past will lead back to an initial singularity again, thus removing the motivation to consider an oscillatory universe in the first place."
Linde reasoned that our consciousness is a result of our unique fine-tuned universe, and that our consciousness is incapable of perceiving other universes that are fine-tuned to enable other type of consciousness.
With all these invisible universes and a lack of physical evidence to support their existence, Linde's Multiverse hypothesis would seem to require greater faith than to believe in theistic creation. At least theism is supported by scientific evidence, the fundamental laws of logic, probability theory, and many other rigorous disciplines.
Scientific evidence supports the single universe model that emerged from a singularity and is ever expanding. Therefore, it is more plausible to believe that our universe is fine-tuned under theism.
Resources:
Summary: The requisite properties that govern the expansion of the universe were built into the universe precisely at the moment of creation. Because design intelligence is an integral and inseparable part of creation, its origins must have been transcendent and pre-existent.
The expression "cart before the horse" is a figure of speech that refers to the improper order in which things are normally done. In this case, the cart precedes the horse because the cart depends on the horse for its power and direction. This figure of speech is often used to call attention to nonsensical ways of thinking.
In the same manner, a cause always precedes an effect because the effect depends on the cause for its efficacy. To think otherwise, would be contrary to reason.
The notions of order and dependency also apply to the design of the universe. If the universe exhibits design, then there must be a pre-existent creative intelligence and perhaps a designer.
Some scientists and philosophers have rejected this notion of a transcendent, pre-existent design and designer. Their main objections are summarized below.
Some scientists dismiss the assertion that the universe is designed. For example, Richard Dawkins writes,
"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." [REF-DWK01]
Dawkins disagrees with William Pailey's analogy of the Watch Maker [REF-WPY02] and the teleological argument for purpose. According to Dawkins, the complexity and orderliness we observe in nature is not design but merely coincidence or illusion.
Dawkins' notion of coincidence is consistent with the Weak Anthropic Principle [REF-ANTH01]. He reasons that our ability to observe a fine-tuned universe is a probable anthropic coincidence without the presumption of theism.
We have already demonstrated through the use of Probability Theory [MATH-EV15] that the fine-tuning of the universe could not have been the product of coincidence or chance. The odds against chance are astronomical. These odds are further compounded by the immense complexities needed the enable life.
Unlike living organisms that possess complex, genetic intelligence, atomic elements are devoid of intelligence. Consequently, the cosmos could not have guided itself to a fine-tuned state of equilibrium following the Big Bang. The Darwinian notion of natural selection cannot apply to the expansion of the expansion of the universe because atomic elements do not possess the formative power of selection.
Since many of the cosmological constants and physical laws of the universe have been proven to be invariant and required during the initial, inflationary period of the Big Bang [REF-SCT01], they must have been fixed at the time of creation. This strongly suggests that the constants and laws that governed expansion were hard-coded into the universe at the moment of creation.
In other words, the cosmological constants and physical laws of the universe could not have evolved.
A self-existent design, as with a self-extent universe, violates the Law of Causality [PHY-IS01]. We know by empirical observation that everything which exists has a cause. No exceptions to the contrary have been observed.
The notion of a self-existent, eternal universe has been proven by the scientific community in the last century to be false. Science demonstrated that the universe has a temporal beginning and is not eternal.
A self-created design, as with a self-created universe, violates the Laws of Causality and Non-Contradiction [PHY-IS02].
From the Law of Causality, we know that something does not come from nothing. From the Law of Non-Contradiction, we know that the universe would have had to exist before it existed in order to create itself.
Collectively, these laws demonstrate the absurdity of a self-created design.
The requisite properties that govern the expansion of the universe were built into the universe precisely at the moment of creation. Because design intelligence is an integral and inseparable part of creation, its origins must have been transcendent [COS-DS01]. We know this to true based on the Law of Causality which states that design intelligence could not have come from nothing.
Therefore, the only reasonable explanation for the existence of a fine-tuned universe is that design pre-existed in the mind of a transcendent being.
God brought time, space, and matter into being by divine edict according to Genesis 1. This is evidenced by the repeated phrase "God said, let there be" in verses 3, 6, 9, 14, 20, 24, and 26.
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. ... 3 Then God said, "Let there be" ... 4 And God saw that it was good. ... 31 Then God looked over all he had made, and he saw that it was very good! 2 So the creation of the heavens and the earth and everything in them was completed. Genesis 1:1-2:1 NLT
From this passage, we learn that God was the formative power and initiative behind creation. The design of the universe was premeditated by God. This further reinforces that God was the transcendent first-cause for creation [COS-DS01].
We also learn from this passage that the outcome of creation satisfied God's original design intent. This is evidenced by the phases "good", "very good" and "completed".
Essentially, all things created find their origin in God.
Resources:
When visitors to Georgia's Stone Mountain view the old confederate carving, do they attribute the carving to chance or the intentional work of a designer?
This dilemma has frustrated philosophers for millennia. Proponents of the Multiple Universe Theory argue that with the existence of multiple universes an infinite number of outcomes can occur by change [COS-EV17]. While, proponents of the Single Universe Theory argue that the Stone Mountain carving cannot be the result of natural processes, but the work of an intelligence designer.
In 1802, Christian apologist William Paley developed an argument for the existence of God in his work "Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity" [REF-WPY01]. He submits that the fine tuning of the universe is like a pocket watch in terms of its design [REF-WPY02]. Paley wrote that if a pocket watch were found on a trail, it would be most reasonable to assume that someone dropped it and that it was made by a watchmaker, not the result of natural process.
Could the universe which is marked by complexity, orderliness and function be the result of random chance and natural processes, or did the universe originate in the mind of an Intelligent Designer who guided the creation process to bring about a desired result?
Claims of purpose and design are substantiated by evidence from a wide variety of disciplines.
Through the use of Probability Theory, the odds of life on Earth by random chance are estimated. The odds of the 25 cosmological constants and approximately 322 planetary properties being within the required range to support life on Earth are much greater than randomly selecting a singly marked atom in the universe [MATH-EV15].
These claims are also supported by the Teleological Argument and the Anthropic Principle.
Teleology is the philosophical inquiry of purpose, intent, and function [REF-TEL01]. The term teleology is derived from the Greek words telos which means "end", and logos which means "reason". Essentially, teleology is the study of intended purpose.
According to the Encyclopedia Britannica description of teleology [REF-TEL02],
Human conduct is generally explained with reference to ends or goals pursued. Humans have often understood the behavior of other things in nature on the basis of that analogy, either as of themselves pursuing ends or goals, or as designed to fulfill a purpose devised by a mind that transcends nature.
Thomas Aquinas, one of the earliest apologist in the 13th century, framed the teleological argument as a syllogism. He argued
So, what do we actually observe in nature? Do we observe chaos and disfunction, or do we observe orderliness and function?
The unfolding of creation and life has been characterized by theists as a top-down process [REF-SCM01]. This process starts with a transcendent intelligence followed by a directed process of creation that implements a complex, purposive design.
Whereas materialists characterize creation is a bottom-up process. Through the processes of random mutation and natural selection, life forms appear over time. This process is purposeless and lacks any notion of pre-meditated design.
For millennia philosophers have tried to explain the relationship between the "just-so" parameters necessary to support life on Earth [REF-PEN01] and human consciousness. This fascination has brought about what is called the anthropic principle.
The Anthropic Principle [REF-ANTH01], proposed by the secular astronomer Brandon Carter in 1973, strongly suggests that the physical and cosmological parameters observed on Earth are constrained and interrelated such that carbon-based life can exist. His proposed principle implies that Earth was intentionally designed and expressly purposed to support human life, and more importantly human consciousness. This is known as the Weak Anthropic Principle.
This principle simply states that if the laws of nature were not fine-tuned, we would not exist. Therefore, because we are able to consciously observe our own existence and the fine-tuning of the universe, we know Earth was fine-tuned to enable human life.
The Anthropic Principle uses a line of reasoning called Abductive Reasoning. Abductive Reasoning implies that if something has occurred (the effect), then the precipitating event (the cause) must have occurred as well. Essentially, we make inferences about past causes from present effects.
In a restatement of his original Anthropic Principle, known as the Strong Anthropic Principle, Carter further implies that human life was a necessary outcome of the intentional fine-tuning of these cosmological parameters.
The implication of the Anthropic Principle is that human conditions are required in advance to support life. In other words, these anthropic conditions and life could not have evolved simultaneously.
The Anthropic Principle is best summarized in Ethan Siegel's statement,
"The universe really is finely-tuned, and our existence is all the proof we need" [REF-SIEG01].
The Anthropic Principle does not necessarily imply that because Earth is fine-tuned for life, that fine-tuning is the result of an intelligence or divine designer.
Although for some, the Strong Anthropic Principle is the strongest claim for design and purpose. It states that life and consciousness were a necessary outcome of our fine-tuned Earth. This is consistent with the biblical account claiming that mankind was expressly created to know and proclaim God.
I have raised you up for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth. Exodus 9:16 NIV.
A striking illustration of the Anthropic Principle can be seen in Amazon's latest announcement [REF-ANTH02]. In collaboration with its A.I. partner, Anthropic, Amazon plans to construct a purpose-built data center designed to emulate the intelligence and sentience of human consciousness. This facility will be singularly focused on enabling human-like cognition, powered by highly specialized A.I. chipsets, extensive fiber optic networks, and multi-gigawatt power systems— components deemed essential to replicating cognitive function at scale. When this data center is fully operational, it would be absurd for anyone to conclude that it is the product of an unintended design, but rather a well-crafted design with an intended purpose.
Nobel laureate Arno Penzias makes this observation about the enigmatic character of the universe.
"Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan." Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate [REF-PEN01]
Resources:
Summary: Needs Work!
This claim is supported by the following evidence.
Summary: Darwin's theory of evolution is a process of stepwise refinement characterized by the slow, incremental advancement of living organisms over long periods of time. Unfortunately, the fossil records during the early Cambrian period demonstrate that distinct phyla appeared suddenly without any record of intermediates. Moreover, this brief period was followed by a much longer period devoid of any macroscopic evolution or new phyla. Evolutionary paleontologists have been unable to demonstrate the efficacy of Darwin's theory of gradualism.
Charles Darwin founded his entire theory of evolution on two principles [REF-DAR01].
The first principle is the random mutation of living cells emanating from a universal common ancestry. According to Darwin, mutations are caused by changes in environmental conditions, migration patterns, food supply, and many other factors. Neo-Darwinists have since refined this principle and applied it to the micro-mutations of DNA after its discovery in 1953.
The second principle is the formative process of natural selection of living cells and organisms. This principle is perhaps the most important in that the survival of species depends on an organism's ability to adapt and propagate. We commonly refer to this as the "survival of the fittest" principle.
Darwin's theory of evolution is a process of stepwise refinement referred to as gradualism. Gradualism is characterized by the slow, incremental advancement of living organisms over long periods of time, ergo, billions of years.
So, how do the research findings of paleontologists align with the Darwin's theory of gradualism?
The Cambrian Explosion is an extraordinary biological event that occurred at the beginning of the Cambrian Period sometime between 541 million and approximately 530 million years ago. This abbreviated period was marked by the sudden appearance and proliferation of the major phyla that comprise the majority of today's animal species.
This extraordinary event was first documented by paleontologist William Buckland in the 1840s in his book Geology and Mineralogy Considered with Reference to Natural Theology [REF-BUC01]. Buckland's findings in the fossil records conflicted with Darwin's theory of evolution presented in the late 1850's.
Darwin remarked in his famous work On the Origin of Species [REF-DAR01],
"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer. The case at present must remain inexplicable, and may be truly urged (used) as a valid argument against the views here entertained."
"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and thus, perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged (used) against my theory".
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organism existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight medications, my theory would be absolutely break down."
Darwin's uncertainty stemmed from the limited research and technological advancements available during the mid-19th century. Significant breakthroughs in microbiology, genetics, paleontology, and geology had yet to emerge, along with transformative inventions like the electron microscope and DNA sequencer. The microscope, originally developed in 1590 AD, was the sole scientific instrument accessible to Darwin. The technological disparities of his time are depicted below.
Essentially, Darwin questioned the truth claims of his own theory for lack of evidence. Clearly, Darwin's Theory of Evolution was based on conjecture, not demonstrable evidence. He knew that the fossil records were incomplete and assumed that over time intermediate fossils would be discovered to fill in the gaps before and after the Cambrian period.
Buckland's findings were later confirmed in 1911 by paleontologist Charles Walcott. Walcott uncovered approximately 65,000 specimens at the Burgess Shale in British Columbia, Canada. The Burgess Shale is the earliest excavation of fossil deposits containing soft-part imprints from the Cambrian period. Other excavations from the Cambrian period have been since discovered.
What is remarkable about Walcott's findings is that there were no pre-Cambrian specimens found of equal complexity at lower strata. In other words, there is no evidence of intermediate specimens between the Pre-Cambrian and early Cambrian periods. This lack of evidence casts doubt on the efficacy of Darwin's theory of gradual mutation and natural selection. This lack of evidence further challenged Darwin's assumption that micro-evolution (survival of the species) could serve as a foundation for the plausibility of macro-evolution (arrival of the species).
In summary, the Cambrian period is marked by
This biological phenomenon of saltation and stasis is contrasted with Darwin's theory of gradualism in the figure below.
Notable Harvard evolutionary paleobiologist Stephen Jay Gould acknowledges that Darwin's theory of gradualism is inconsistent with the fossil record.
The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism." [REF-SJG01]
In 1972, he together with Niles Eldridge responded with a theory known as Punctuated Equilibrium [REF-SJG02]. This theory posits that Darwinian evolution occurred in the absence of gradualism. Gould and Eldridge postulate that gaps in the fossil recorded are best explained by an evolutionary process consisting of long periods of stasis punctuated by relatively short periods of rapid change.
The history of life is more adequately represented by a picture of 'punctuated equilibria' than by the notion of phyletic gradualism. The history of evolution is not one of stately unfolding, but a story of homeostatic equilibria, disturbed only rarely by rapid and episodic events of speciation." [REF-SJG03]
By speciation, Gould and Eldridge suggest that the emergence of new species is a result of rapid changes in environments of smaller populations of a species. In theory, the time for a mutation to become fixed is shorter in smaller populations, and changes in environment would precipitate change causing the species to adapt. This over time would generate novel phyla.
Unfortunately, there is no evidence of large pools of species in the Precambrian period necessary for the emergence of novel phyla using the selection mechanism espoused by Gould and Eldridge. Consequently, Punctuated Equilibrium has since fallen out of favor among evolutionary biologists. This leaves Neo-Darwinists once again with the burden of proof to substantiate evolutionary theories absent of gradualism.
It is fair to say that the Cambrian explosion poses a real enigma for Darwinian paleontologists. As science advances, they scramble to reconcile Darwinian theories with new findings. Clearly, the facts of modern science conflict with the so called "facts" of Darwinian evolution.
Resources:
Summary: Research in Population Genetics enables scientists to model genetic propagation in terms of mutation rates, population sizes and reproductive rates. Research in Genetic Engineering enables scientists to explore the viability of different combinations of amino-acid sequences. The outcome of these areas of research suggests that there is not enough time for Darwin's theory of random mutation to produce complex, distinct phyla that originated during the Cambrian Explosion.
In theory, Darwin's process of random mutation and natural selection can produce complex life given enough time. The question is how much time is required to produce complex organisms that are both viable and heritable? Essentially, what is the efficacy of the Darwin's process of random mutations?
Population Genetics is a field of study that is concerned with how genetic mutations propagate for a given species [REF-POP01]. It was pioneered by Sewall Wright, J. B. S. Haldane, and Ronald Fisher in the early 1900s. Their collective work in genetics, animal breeding and statistics formed the basis for early theories and models in Population Genetics.
Population Genetics models the propagation of beneficial genetic mutations over time. These models account for many factors, most notably mutation rates, population sizes and reproductive rates.
Collectively, these factors determine how well a species thrives and survives.
Taken together, the time to propagate a single generic change within a population may be extremely low.
This problem of genetic propagation is further complicated by the potential lack of viability and heritability of a single genetic mutation [REF-SCM01]. In general, a single mutation is not beneficial or viable, and therefore will not propagate successfully regardless of population sizes, reproductive rates, or conditions. Often times, multiple, coordinated genetic mutations are required to ensure viability and heritability of the species. This is certainly the case with the generation of new phyla which are genetically diverse.
The generation of new phyla using Population Genetics models troubled J. B. S. Haldane. With the invention of DNA sequencing in the 1957, Haldane questioned the speed of beneficial evolution necessary to produce new phyla [REF-HAL02] [REF-BAT01]. In his paper, The Cost of Natural Selection [REF-HAL03], Haldane asserted that there is insufficient time to bring about beneficial evolutionary change given the population constraints outlined above.
Haldane refers to this dilemma as the cost of generic substitution. Fundamentally, natural selection requires the substitution of genetic traits into a population. Those traits must increase over time and eventually prevail to ensure successful propagation.
Haldane's dilemma has been widely debated for the past 60 years.
Researchers have been unable to resolve Haldane's dilemma because they cannot agree
on the fundamental issues.
Many biologists such as George Williams assert that Haldane's dilemma will never be solved [REF-WIL01].
Mathematician David Berlinski refers to this problem of genetic mutation
as combinatorial inflation.
Combinatorial refers to the many possible ways nucleotides in a DNA sequence
are combined and arranged to produce
functional DNA, or amino acids in a protein sequence.
While inflation refers to the astronomical inflation in the combinations or arrangements given the
number of nucleotides found in DNA, or amino acids found in an average length protein.
In the 1960s, mathematician Murray Eden of MIT
estimated that the combinations of amino acids in an average length protein consisting
of 250 amino acids is 10325.
But do all 10325 combinations of amino acids produce viable, functional proteins?
According to molecular biologist Robert Sauer of MIT, the number of viable protein sequences is rare [REF-SAU01].
Using techniques to manipulate gene sequences developed in the late 1970s,
Sauer altered DNA sequences to produce proteins with different amino acid sequences.
After much experimentation, he estimated that the ratio of functional to non-functional amino acid sequences is
1 in 1090
for a protein of 100 amino-acids in length [REF-SCM01].
By comparison, there are an estimated 1080 atoms
in the known universe [REF-MAP01], [REF-WHI01].
Therefore, the odds of 1 chance in 1090
is equivalent to randomly
selecting a singly marked atom in the universe the first time.
Did the processes of mutation and selection have enough time to produce functional proteins? No!
When we compare man's "closest living relative" the chimpanzee,
we discover that the genome sequence is only 96% similar,
not 99% similar as previously estimated [REF-DEW01] [REF-DEW02].
According to David DeWitt of Liberty University, there are an estimated
40 million mutation events required to produce 125 million differences in the DNA sequences
that separate humans and chimpanzees.
This estimate accounts for all nucleotide substitutions, deletions, and insertions in the genomes for which the previous studies did not account.
Based on Population Genetics models, the genetic "distance" between the two species would require approximately 300,000 generations to become fixed in the population.
Given the factors that govern genetic propagation, there would not have been
enough time for this scale of evolution to occur (Haldane’s Dilemma).
These analyses illustrate the shortcomings of Darwin's theory of random mutation.
The search spaces are so astronomically large that is virtually
impossible to randomly select a viable protein sequence in
a reasonable amount of time to affect the necessary level of genetic change observed during the
Cambrian Explosion.
Resources: Summary:
Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is founded on the efficacy of
successive, point-mutations to produce viable, complex organisms.
Modern research has confirmed that individual point-mutation are unlikely to produce a selectable advantage to ensure
the propagation to future generations.
Rather, multiple, coordinated mutations are required to produce complex organisms that successfully propagate.
This is the only viable explanation for the vast differential complexities that separate phyla.
Microbiology was a nascent field of study when Charles Darwin published
On the Origin of Species in 1859.
The tremendous diversity of the microbial world was largely unknown.
Essentially, Darwin viewed the inner workings of an organism as a "black box".
Darwin assumed that biological research would eventually produce simply answers.
Because Darwin lacked the tools to study organisms microscopically,
his theories were based on observation of the macroscopic world and conjecture.
As such, his theories of the origin for life lacked the empirical evidence necessary to prove them correct.
Since the publication of On the Origin of Species,
many important breakthroughs have been made in the field of microbiology.
These discoveries have reshaped the ways in which scientists think about the inherent complexities of life.
Unfortunately for Neo-Darwinists, the more scientists plumb the depths of the microbial world,
the more complex things become.
Darwin's entire theory of evolution relies on the efficacy of
successive, micro-mutations producing viable, complex organisms.
Darwin wrote in On the Origin of Species [REF-DAR01],
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modification, my theory would absolutely break down." [REF-DAR01]
The underlying assumption Darwin makes is that
point-mutation (single mutation at a time) produces viable organisms,
and that the waiting time between viable point-mutations is low.
He further assumed that population sizes and reproductive rates were high enough to successfully propagate
beneficial mutations to future generations.
So, how does Darwin's assumption hold up to the findings of modern microbiology?
Over the past 150 years, scientists have made groundbreaking discoveries in the field of genetics,
most notably the discovery of DNA [REF-DNA01].
Modern research in genetics includes modeling, statistics, and a host of other disciples.
This has led scientists to better understand how complex organisms change over time
and determine the validity of Darwin's theories.
The idea of coordinated mutations was first explored by evolutionary biologist John Maynard Smith.
In a paper published in Nature, Maynard Smith
determined that individual mutations in genes and proteins did not always confer a selectable advance, and
therefore would not survive [REF-MAY01].
He also estimated that the waiting times for a beneficial selection would be exceptionally long.
He concluded that the chance of survival of coordinated mutations in genes and proteins is highly improbable.
More recently, microbiologist Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box,
posits that a complex organism or biological system could not have
evolved by point-mutation [REF-BEH01] [REF-BEH02].
He argues that organisms are inherently irreducibly complex.
Behe writes,
"By irreducibly complexity I mean a single system composed of several well-matched,
interacting parts that contribute to the basic function,
wherein the removal of anyone of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.
An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by slight, successive modifications
(i.e. continuously improving) of a precursor system,
because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition non-functional." [REF-BEH01]
Behe illustrates his theory using a simple mouse trap.
He argues that while a mouse trap consists of only six parts,
it cannot function if any one of the parts is missing.
All the parts of the mouse trap are essential and mutually interdependent,
and therefore must come about simultaneously for the mouse trap to function properly.
Like Maynard Smith, Behe also argues that not every successive mutation in a gene or protein is viable
and that multiple coordinated mutations are required to confer a selectable advance.
This implies that non-beneficial mutations cannot survive resulting in extended waiting
times for beneficial mutations to survive.
Behe, along with David Snoke, published a paper in Protein Science
in which they defined a model to simulate the evolution of proteins by successive mutation [REF-BEH03].
Applying standard Population Genetics principles, Behe and Snoke concluded that
either coordinated mutations require unreasonable waiting times that exceed the duration of life on earth,
or coordinated mutations require unreasonably large population sizes that exceed the number of organisms that have ever lived on earth.
They conclude that Neo-Darwinism is caught on the horns of a dilemma.
Behe's argument is also supported by Robert Sauer's research [BIO-EV02]
that estimates the ratio of functional to non-functional amino acid sequences is
1 in 1090 for a protein of 100 amino-acids in length [REF-SCM01].
Many research initiatives have been undertaken to undermine the research findings of Maynard Smith,
Behe, Snoke and others.
Still, the problem of waiting times remains the central issue that
counter-theories do not satisfactorily address.
Resources: Summary:
The Tree of Life is the quintessential hallmark of the Darwin's theory of evolution.
It purports to illustrate a seamless evolution of all living organisms from a single point of origin.
While it may illustrate the heritable relationship between species within a phylum,
it does not factually illustrate the heritable relationship between species across phyla.
In 1874, Ernst Haeckel artistically rendered Darwin's origin Tree of Life depicting the evolution of man.
What is appealing about this image is that it evokes a sense of
simplicity regarding Darwin's theory of the
common ancestry of all living things.
It instills confidence in evolutionary biology as if to proclaim,
"Biologists have finally figured out the evolutionary lineage of man".
This prevailing confidence in evolutionary biology was further reinforced by Richard Dawkins in his
best-selling book The Greatest Show on Earth.
"We observe the whole pattern of anatomical resemblance throughout all living
kingdoms." [REF-DAW01]
So, what is the rationale for such confidence in what Dawkins calls the seamless
evolution and remarkable resemblance of all living kingdoms?
Given the absence of Precambrian intermediates [BIO-EV01],
how do biologists credibly bridge the genetic and anatomical discontinuities between phyla?
Paleontologists have spent the past 160 years studying fossils in search of clues that would enable them to
reconstruct the evolutionary history of phyla and species.
The process they use to identify this historical Tree of Life is called Phylogenetic Analysis [REF-SCM01].
Phylogenics is the study of the evolutionary history and relationships among individual organisms or groups of organisms.
The end goal of phylogenetics is to identify, name and classify all living organisms into a taxonomic tree
showing the heritable relationships among organisms.
In 2006, the notable molecular biologist Antonis Rokas from Vanderbilt University
compared fifty genes across seventeen taxa.
He found that deriving a complete and accurate Tree of Life remains an elusive goal even after 160 years
since Darwin published Origin of Species [REF-ROK01].
He and his colleagues conclude that there is no genetic relationship between phyla.
"The phylogenetic relationships among most metazoan phyla remain uncertain.
We obtained large numbers of gene sequences from metazoans, including key
understudied taxa.
A 50-gene data matrix does not resolve relationships among most metazoan
phyla. Despite the amount of data and breadth of taxa analyzed,
relationships among most metazoan phyla remained unresolved." [REF-ROK02]
What Rokas and his team found is that there are no clear links between the genetic composition
of each phyla - no transitional intermediates. It is as if phyla are so distinct, they are unrelated.
Therefore, they could not have emanated from the single point of origin.
They emerged rapidly, without any trace of evolutionary history.
Another approach that is taken to construct the Tree of Live is to compare anatomical
features such as body plans and key physical characteristics.
This approach also yields results that are inconsistent and inconclusive [REF-WIL02].
Taxonomy requires animals to be classified in only one phylum, but it is unclear from the
fossil record how to truly classify some animals that are comprised of
traits that span multiple phyla. For example, bats are mammals that fly,
and whales are mammals that live underwater.
Like bats and whales, many species do not fall exclusively into a single phyla.
While many heritable traits appear within a phylum,
there are virtually no heritable traits that appear across phyla.
This begs the question.
What is the origin of phyla in the course of evolutionary history?
Could it be that the formation of phyla was the result of supernatural means, not natural means?
This would to be a plausible explanation for the sudden appearance of phyla in the fossil record.
Despite numerous attempts to formulate an accurate, credible, and singular Tree of Life,
paleontologists have been unable to formulate a single ancestry devoid of
conflicts to account for the origin of phyla.
Resources:
The appeal of Darwinian evolution is at first glance conceptually intuitive and logical.
We observe the power of microevolution all around us in the biological world.
It seems natural then that the process of evolution should apply to macroevolution -
the creation of all distinct life forms.
Darwinian evolution is also a convenient alternative to theism.
For many, it explains how life emerged without the guidance of an all-powerful, intelligent god.
Over the past 150+ years, evolution has become the most popular theory for the origin of life,
so much so that it is regarded as fact.
In the United States alone, an overwhelming 81% of adults believe humans evolved [REF-MAC01].
As the evolution debate continues, the ultimate question is "can evolution be
substantiated by scientific evidence?"
More specifically, could the earliest life forms have evolved to the levels of distinction and complexity we observe
in the fossil record in a mere 5-6 million years?
Given enough time anything is possible.
Unfortunately, Neo-Darwinists must explain the process of evolution, and more specifically the
emergence of phyla, in the brevity of time.
Given the lack of supporting evidence, this is an insurmountable task.
Within the taxonomic system of classification,
phyla represent the highest rank of distinction within the
Animalia
kingdom [REF-TAX01] [REF-KGM01].
Within each phylum, organisms are similar in terms of body plans (physical features) and genetics.
Across phyla, organisms are highly dissimilar in terms of body plans and genetics.
The central question in this debate is the emergence of phyla from a single point of origin.
What evidence can be brought to bear on the efficacy of Darwin's theory
that complex and distinct life forms emerged in a mere 5-6 million years.
The following evidence, or lack thereof, demonstrates the implausibility of Darwin's theory
of evolution.
Many secular scholars are concluding that the numbers do not add up [REF-HOV01].
Seemingly, time is not on Darwin's side.
While the emergence of phyla cannot be explained by natural means,
perhaps it can be explained by a combination of natural and supernatural means.
Perhaps the earliest Cambrian creatures
found their origin in the formative power of God.
Resources: Summary:
Scientists in many fields recognize the connection between complex information and intelligence.
The mere presence of complex biological information such as DNA and epigenetics strongly suggests
the involvement of an Intelligent Designer. This claim is supported by the following evidence. Summary:
Peering into Darwin's "black box" has been an eye-opening experience for Neo-Darwinists.
With recent discoveries in microbiology and genomics, scientists realize that constructing a plausible
evolutionary theory is becoming more and more difficult.
With the discovery of genetic and epigenetic information in the 20th century, one can only imagine what new layers of complexity
will surface in years to come as biologists plumb the depths of our unfathomable biological world.
Peering inside Darwin's "black box" has been regarded by many as a mind-blowing experience.
While Darwin's view of the microbial world was rather simplistic and comprehensible,
the structure of the genome is anything but simple and comprehensible.
In the past 150+ year, the field of microbiology has exploded with information.
Research in biological information and body plan development has made tremendous strides forward
in the fields of genetics [REF-GEN01] and epigenetics [REF-EPG01].
As scientists continue to peer into Darwin's black box, they realize that any
notion of a simple and comprehensible understanding is receding.
The longer and deeper they look, the more complex things become.
In a recent roundtable discussion, mathematician David Berlinski
painted a daunting picture of the state of scientific inquiry.
"Every time we look there’s an additional layer of complexity that emerges.
Emergence of the complexity is hard to explain because we are continually
behind the curve every time we look.
The goal of constructing a plausible evolutionary theory is receding, becoming more and more difficult." [REF-HOV01]
Berlinski refers to this emerging complexity as combinatorial inflation because the number of
combinations inflates dramatically as the number of characteristics in the sequence grows [BIO-EV02].
Essentially, the complexities of life are exponentially greater the Darwin could have imagined.
Metaphorically speaking, biological inquiry is like "peeling an onion".
The discovery of the structure of DNA in 1953 by James Watson and Francis Crick was a milestone in the field of molecular biology.
The double-stranded helix or twisted ladder of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) formed the basis of our understanding on how
genetic information is stored.
Their discovery rapidly gave way to other ground-breaking discoveries in heredity, protein synthesis, and cell reproduction.
With the evolution of DNA sequencing tools [REF-PACB01],
microbiologists have been able to understand and quantify biological intelligence.
What they found in the last 60+ years is astounding.
Every cell contains DNA genes in its nucleus.
This is known as the nuclear genome.
For humans, the nuclear genome is comprised of approximately 3,200,000,000
nucleotides pairs each consisting of two nucleic acids - Adenine (A), Thymine (T), Cytosine (C), and Guanine (G).
These nucleotides pairs are ordered into two connected strands to form a double helix. [REF-GEN01].
In 1990, an international committee known as the Human Genome Project was formed to sequence the
human genome. It was not until 2003 that the committee was able to accurately specify the complete
human genome [REF-HGP01].
Later in 2012, Cas Kramer and a group of scientists at the University of Leicester decided to print out the human genome [REF-UOL01].
The result was a 130-volume set color-coded by chromosome.
Each page was printed on both sides in 4-point font, with approximately 43,000 characters per page.
Each character represented a nucleotide base from the genetic alphabet A, T, C, and G.
Another analogy widely used to visualize the amount of biological information is the printed copy of the Encyclopedia Britannica.
For example, the amount of genetic information contained in a single dubia amoeba is equivalent to 1,000
printed sets of the Encyclopedia Britannica.
Amazingly, the dubia amoeba genome contains 670,000,000,000 nucleotide pairs.
This is 200 times greater than the human genome! [REF-DWK01]
During the mid-20th century biologists discovered that certain proteins act on DNA
to determine how genes are decoded and used by cells [REF-SCM01] [REF-EPG01].
These epigenetic proteins represent additional biological information that govern the production of cells in the development of a body plan.
This additional information is
epigenetic and is not contained in the genome.
The main functions of these epigenetic proteins are
to contextually decode DNA during the production of the different cells in the body plan and
arrange and assemble the new cells into different body parts.
These proteins also govern the sequence of cell and body plan production over time as the animal
matures from an embryonic organism into full adulthood - a process is known as morphogenesis.
In 2003, MIT Press publish a collection of theoretical essays that describes the various types of
epigenetic information [REF-MUL01].
This landmark publication legitimized epigenetics in the biological community as well as raised questions
about its nature and origin.
More recently in 2015, the Nobel Prize was awarded to three chemists for their decades of DNA research [REF-NOB01].
Tomas Lindahl, Paul Modrich, and Aziz Sancar discovered that certain molecular systems
within the cell are responsible
for monitoring and repairing damaged DNA.
These findings suggest that DNA is highly interdependent with other biological mechanisms,
and at the same time, these biological systems are dependent on DNA for reproduction.
This implies that both DNA and these supporting molecular systems must have come into existence
simultaneously.
Essentially, this theoretical research calls into question the inadequacy of genetic information as it relates to developmental biology (vs. evolutionary biology).
These questions illustrate the deeper complexities of living organisms.
Many have likened biological intelligence to computer technology.
Using this analogy, DNA is equivalent to computer data that specify the composition of body plans.
While epigenetics is equivalent to computer algorithms that decode DNA to reproduce, sequence, and arrange body plans.
With the discovery of genetic and epigenetic information, one can only imagine what new layers of complexity will
surface in years to come as biologists plumb the depths of our unfathomable world.
Continued research will eventually unpack the mysteries of cognition, intellect, instinct, and the very essence of life itself,
only to reveal that creation is far more complex than we can possibly imagine.
Michael Denton in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis acknowledges what most people intuitively know to be true.
"The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object
could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable event.
Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle." [REF-DEN01]
This unfathomable complexity poses a formidable challenge to Neo-Darwinists as they attempt to postulate credible theories to explain the
intricacies of life.
The more we discovery, the more the evidence challenges the orthodox Darwinian position.
Resources: Summary:
Neo-Darwinists account for the creation of biological intelligence (DNA) through
spontaneous generation or chemical evolution.
Spontaneous generation refers to the sudden appearance of the original DNA by a random chemical reaction.
While chemical evolution refers to the gradual emergence of the original DNA by a guided chemical reaction.
In the final analysis, the probabilities produced by both methods are innumerable and therefore impossible.
DNA is the codebook for life.
It specifies the precise composition of every cell in a living organism.
Neo-Darwinists account for the creation of biological intelligence through
spontaneous generation or chemical evolution.
Spontaneous generation refers to the sudden appearance of the original DNA by a random chemical reaction.
This process relies on chance to bring about a viable DNA strand much like a chemical Big Bang.
The problem with spontaneous generation is that the chance of generating a viable DNA is next to impossible given its size.
Chemical evolution refers to the gradual emergence of the original DNA by a guided sequence of chemical reaction.
This process relies on some form of selection or bias (e.g. environmental conditions) to bring about a viable strand of DNA.
The problem with chemical evolution is that DNA does not possess the formative power to select because it is not a living organism.
Once created, these original DNA could evolve over time through the normal Darwinian processes of mutations and natural selection.
As with the sudden appearance of phyla during the Cambrian explosion [BIO-EV01],
the challenge for Neo-Darwinists is how did the first, original DNA emerge?
As we examine the DNA double helix, we recognize it is intricately organized into an ordered set of chromosomes, genes, and codons.
This organization makes it possible to select a specific gene from a specific chromosome for protein synthesis.
In the chart above, genes are subdivided into codons which are each comprised of a sequence of exactly three nucleotide pairs.
Genes contain special codons called promoters and terminators which demarcate the start and end of genes.
Genes are transcribed in the cell's nucleus into messenger RNA or mRNA.
mRNA is passed into the cell's body where the special enzyme called the ribosome translates the sequence of codons of the mRNA into
a chain of amino acids to synthesize a protein. [REF-CELL01]
What is important to realize is the order and composition of each codon in the gene is critical in the production of the specific chain of amino acids.
If any one of the codons is deleted or substituted with a different codon, or if a codon is added to the sequence, the resulting protein will be rendered inviable. [BIO-EV02]
According to the fossil records, the first organisms appeared on Earth around 3.8 billion years ago.
These organisms were simple, single-celled microbes referred to as prokaryotes.
The DNA of prokaryotes consists of a single chromosome that is comprised of approximately
160,000 to 12,200,000 million nucleotide base pairs depending on the species [REF-DNA02].
By comparison, the human genome is comprised of 24 chromosomes and approximately 3,200,000,000 nucleotide pairs.
This estimate is based on the findings of the Human Genome Project [REF-HGP01].
To illustrate the improbability of DNA being spontaneously generated by random chance,
we employ a branch of mathematics called combinatorics.
Combinatorics enable us to quantify the number of possible permutations of the sequence of nucleotide pairs in a strand of DNA.
A nucleotide pair consists of two of the following nitrogen-containing bases: adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine (C), or guanine (G).
Because A and T always bond together, and C and C always bond together,
there are four possible pairings of nucleotide bases, AT, TA, CG, and GC.
A simple permutation of a codon consisting of a sequence of three nucleotide pairs, yields a possibility of 64 unique sequences (4 x 4 x 4 = 64).
So, the chance of selecting the AT-AT-AT sequence from all possible sequences is 1 in 64, or 1.5%.
For estimation purposes we assume prokaryotic organisms possess DNA that is similar in size and complexity to the first, original DNA.
When we permute all possible combinations of the simplest prokaryote DNA comprised of 160,000 nucleotide pairs,
we multiple 4 times itself 160,000 times.
The resulting number of permutations cannot be calculated because it is considered infinite.
Therefore, we conclude that the chance of selecting the simple prokaryote DNA sequence randomly the first time is impossible.
Based on the approximate size of the human genome consisting of a sequence of 3,200,000,000 nucleotide pairs,
we can safely assume infinite permutations and an impossible chance of random selection the first time.
According to Oxford University astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, the estimated chance of complex life by evolutionary process is 1 in 1040,000.
To illustrate the chances of producing DNA by spontaneous generation, we turn to Hoyle's analogy of the Boeing 747.
"A junkyard contains all the bits and pieces of a Boeing-747, dismembered and in disarray.
A whirlwind happens to blow through the yard.
What is the chance that after its passage a fully assembled 747, ready to fly, will be found standing there?
So small as to be negligible, even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole Universe." [REF-HOY01]
"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado
sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein …
I am at a loss to understand biologists’ widespread compulsion to deny what seems to me to be obvious." [REF-HOY03]
In this analogy, Hoyle's focused exclusively the millions of hardware components that comprise a Boeing 747.
Notably missing from his analogy are the millions lines of software that control all its hardware components.
When we compare the Boeing 747 to the human body, we can equate the lines of software with the human genome in terms of size.
Additionally, the human body has the capacity to self-heal and self-replicate, something absent in the Boeing 747.
Therefore, we conclude that the complexity of the Boeing 747 pales in comparison to the complexity of the human body,
Hoyle is certainly caught in the horns of a great dilemma [REF-HOY02].
As an evolutionist, he recognized that the emergence of DNA and life by evolution was impossible given its complexity.
This angst is best captured in the statements by George Wald, Harvard University biochemist and Nobel Laureate.
"One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible.
Yet here we are, as a result. I believe in spontaneous generation." [REF-WALD01]
"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose.
One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God.
There is no third possibility.
Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others.
That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God.
I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God.
Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution." [REF-WALD02]
In an ongoing effort to find a plausible explanation, Fred Hoyle, Francis Crick, Stephen Hawking, and others concluded that the only way such
complex life could have suddenly appeared on earth is for it to come from another planet.
This theory known as panspermia which postulates that complex life-forms must have been
transported to earth by some interplanetary object sometime during the Pre-Cambrian or Cambrian periods [REF-PAN01].
While this theory may seem remotely plausible, it does not explain how complex life-forms came about on alien planets.
They are simply avoiding the fundamental question on the origin of life.
Unlike spontaneous generation, chemical evolution relies on a sequence of chemical reactions to gradually bring about the original DNA.
These reactions rely less on random chance.
Instead, these reactions are guided by precipitating factors such as environmental conditions
or other favorable conditions conducive for perpetuating formative chemical reactions.
Richard Durrett, professor of mathematics at Duke University,
specified formulae for estimating the probability of DNA sequence evolution based on several theoretical models [REF-DUR01].
Durrett's formulae have been cited by hundreds of other researchers in an effort to estimate the probabilities of DNA evolution.
While these and many other models improve the overall probability due to guidance,
they continue to produce estimates that are well outside the realm of feasibility.
Regardless of model, it is unlikely to generate viable DNA, epigenetics, proteins and multicell organisms, must less
complex and distinct body plans since the dawn of life some 3.8 billion years ago.
In the final analysis, the probabilities produced by spontaneous generation and chemical evolution methods
are innumerable.
Resources:
Circular arguments are very subtle and convincing. We fall for them all the time.
To be caught unwittingly in a circular argument
is to be duped into thinking that a conclusion is valid
while in fact the opening clause of the argument is nothing more than a restatement of the conclusion.
Circular arguments are a restatement rather than a proof.
They are a form of tautology.
Here are a couple of circular arguments pertaining to the Christian faith.
Circular Argument 1:
The Bible is true, so you should not doubt the Word of God.
This first circular argument rests on a prior acceptance that the Bible is true.
To establish that God's Word is trustworthy, we must first prove the Bible is true.
Circular Argument 2:
God does not act to end human suffering, so he must not be a caring, benevolent god.
This second circular argument assumes that God's inaction toward alleviating human suffering proves God is
not disposed to doing good.
To prove this conclusion false, we must establish that God is most assuredly capable of
alleviating human suffering but chooses not to at this point in human history.
This leads us to consider the question, is the biological intelligence for life (DNA and epigenetic information)
the result of the process of natural selection or is it the product of a Divine Designer?
Where does it find its origin?
At its core, Darwin's theory of evolution is a circular argument as it relates to the underlying intelligence
required for cell reproduction.
Based on the universal principle of natural selection, we are duped into thinking that everything just evolved somehow.
The basic argument is that since evolution depends on
natural selection which depends on cell reproduction which
depends on some underlying intelligence or mechanism to support reproduction,
then this intelligence or mechanism must have come about by some form of evolution in
order for Darwin's theory to work.
For most people, this sounds reasonable.
At the time Darwin established his theory in the mid-1800's, cells were merely regarded as "black boxes".
Until the discovery of the structure of DNA in 1953 by James Watson and Francis Crick, biologists had no idea
what was involved in cell reproduction and the importance of genetics.
With the discovery of DNA and epigenetic information, the assumption that everything just evolved is no longer valid
despite what Francis Crick said.
"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed,
but rather evolved."
Francis Crick cited by William Dembski, Science and Design.
To prove this argument is a fallacy, we establish the following two facts.
First, only living organisms can naturally select because they are capable of affecting change and reproducing.
Second, DNA is not a living organism and cannot reproduce. It is simply a sequence of nucleotide pairs.
From these facts we conclude that DNA is incapable of evolving as Darwin's theory would imply.
So how did the original biological information come about?
How did this chain of nucleotide pairs organize itself into an ordered set of codes to
precisely define the blueprint of each species?
Aside from the process of natural selection, we are left with three possibilities for the creation of the initial biological information.
It is implausible to assume that biological intelligence originated by spontaneous generation or chemical evolution [BIO-EV09] [BIO-EV10].
Biological intelligence is both unfathomable and innumerable.
This sentiment is best expressed by Francis Crick in his book Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature.
"An honest man, armed with all he knowledge available to us now,
could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the comment to be almost a miracle,
so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.
But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the
earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions.
The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth’s surface too diverse,
the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow
us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago,
especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against." [REF-CRK01]
To assume we can theorize with any degree of certainty about something we have only begun to understand is naive.
Before we can answer the question why something exists, we must fully understand what exists.
Failure to understand the true nature of life will ultimately undermine the credibility of any theory about the origin of life.
The concept of biological intelligence coming from an alien planet is preposterous [BIO-EV09].
This theory assumes a number of conditions that cannot be tested empirically and have not been observed in the fossil and geological records.
It is contrived.
Moreover, panspermia does not answer the question of the origin of life.
It evaded the question all together by suggesting that adding
a couple of billion years to the age of another carbon-based planet justifies the
plausibility of either spontaneous generation, chemical evolution, or some other cause for the origin of life.
Because of the implausibility of the previous two explanations, we are left with the explanation that relies on the
intellectual intervention of a transcendent god.
This conclusion is based on the following assertions:
Therefore, biological intelligence must have pre-existed the genesis of life itself.
It existed in the mind of a transcendent god before the foundation of creation.
Resources: Summary:
The Darwinian processes of mutation and selection are described as semi-random processes which
were greatly influenced by environmental conditions.
Because of the regularity of patterns and properties of design found throughout creation,
it is reasonable to believe that life was intentionally designed and formed by an Intelligent Designer. This claim is supported by the following evidence. Summary:
Creation is marked by fundamental patterns of design.
They appear in all facets of creation.
Notable patterns include Fibonacci's Golden Rule, symmetry, and interdependency.
Because these patterns are ubiquitous in nature, they speak of a single Intelligent Designer who finds joy in creating constancy, order, and purpose.
In 1977, Christopher Alexander, a British architect and design theorist, influenced the building industry with the notion of reusable designs [REF-ALEX01].
His concepts quickly spread to all corners of the building industry, as well as numerous other industries.
The idea of reusable design patterns meant that common design elements could be standardized across all applications.
His catalogue of reusable design patterns included window systems, door systems, wall systems, and other common architectural elements.
Essentially, reusable design patterns codified the best design practices in the building industry.
They made it easier for architects to design buildings by stitching together proven architectural elements.
We observe numerous patterns of design in creation.
This begs the question, "Is it possible for these patterns of design to emerge randomly in creation?
The cosmological constants and physical laws that govern creation are universal [COS-EV16].
They can be observed on earth and in the furthest reaches of outer space.
For example, the constants and laws of gravitational attraction apply between the proton and electrons in an atom, and between planetary bodies.
They do not vary from location to location. Nor do they vary with different types of matter.
The Fibonacci sequence is perhaps the quintessential example of design patterns in the natural world [REF-FIB02].
Fibonacci numbers appear often enough that they warrant our attention.
The Fibonacci sequence consists of the following numbers: 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, and so on.
Each number in the sequence is the sum of the proceeding two numbers.
The ratio between any two consecutive numbers is always 1.618!
This ratio is commonly referred to as the Golden Rule or Golden Ratio.
The range of examples that conform to the Fibonacci Golden Rule is astounding.
Here are some examples [REF-FIB01].
The important thing to note about Fibonacci numbers is that they broadly span all facets of creation
from solar systems, to planetary systems, to living systems.
This fundamental principle of numerology is ubiquitous throughout all creation.
Other notable patterns in nature include trees, fractals, voronoi, and tessellations [REF-PAT01].
In addition to patterns of design, creation is marked by various design properties.
This includes such properties as symmetry, duplication, uniformity, simplicity, and others.
Symmetry is a property involving organization.
With symmetry, an object can be divided into two or more pieces that are identical.
For example, the human body can be divided into two halves that are a mirror image each other.
This is known as bilateral symmetry.
Similarly, a starfish can be divided around its center into five identical pieces.
This is known as pentagonal symmetry.
Most biological object have some form of symmetry.
Duplication is a property involving composition.
For example, many organs in the human body are duplicated.
Humans have two arms, two eyes, two ears, two livers, and so on.
Similarly, all starfish have five arms.
Many designs from the engineering community are influenced by patterns found in the natural world.
This is because natural designs have proven over time to be practical, reliable, and robust.
Why reinvent the wheel?
In our highly independent culture, we rarely acknowledge our dependence on others.
That is not the case with physical systems.
Most, if not all, systems in creation are highly interdependent.
Each subsystem cooperatively depends on the other subsystems for survival.
This is certainly the case with all astronomical systems and biological systems.
The best example of this principle is the human body.
The circulatory system consisting of the heart, arteries, and veins, greatly depends on all other systems to function properly.
It depends on the nervous system to electrically stimulate the heart muscles to pump blood.
If depends on the respiratory system to provide oxygen to the heart muscles.
It depends on the digestive system to provide amino acids to nourish the heart.
If any one of these systems fails, the circulatory system fails as well.
In addition, each system is dependent on all other systems.
Life on earth is dependent on the physical planetary properties such as gravity, atmosphere, and solar energy.
In turn, our earth is dependent on our solar system,
our solar system is dependent on the universe, and so on.
Essentially, all creation is in a state of equilibrium [COS-EV16].
Clearly, creation is marked by patterns of design.
They are all around us.
We observe them with the telescope, the microscope, and the naked eye.
What is remarkable about these patterns is they transcend all creation.
This points to a single source, namely an Intelligent Designer.
Resources:
Randomness is defined as a lack of pattern or predictability.
Pattern has to do with uniformity. Predictability has to do with determinism.
In either case, resulting structures and events are at the mercy of chance.
Evolutionists commonly relate the concept of randomness to the processes of mutation and selection.
They imply that these two tenets of evolutionary theory are to some extent random.
The extent to which these processes are random is subject to debate.
So, what is the role of randomness in the evolutionary process?
Why is life not more diverse than what we observe?
Why are there not hundreds of varieties of humans?
Why do humans only have two eyes and not four eyes?
Would not having two eyes on both the front and back of our heads be a selectable advantage for survival?
Conversely, why is there so much uniformity and regularity of design patterns in the natural world?
What explains the origin of symmetry, multiplicity, and other fundamental properties?
Many regard microevolution as synonymous with macroevolution because of the common term "evolution".
Nothing can be further from the truth.
According to evolutionists, macroevolution is characterized by large scale changes such as the appearance of major taxonomic groups.
Whereas, microevolution is characterized by small scale changes such as the appearance of species or species refinement.
From these definitions, it is easy to misunderstand macro- and microevolution as sort of a phase one and two in the overall evolutionary process
resulting from major and minor mutations, respectively.
In actuality, microevolution is the process of adaptation to the environmental conditions in which the species lives in.
Species must adapt in order to survive.
Adaptability is one of the many abilities inherent in living creatures much like reproducibility (self-replicating) and recoverability (self-healing).
Most would agree that microevolution is evident in the fossil record.
However, macroevolution is not evident in the fossil record [BIO-EV01].
Among creationists and evolutionists, the pivotal disagreement is about the arrival of the species, not the survival of the species.
In the natural world, the processes of mutation and selection are heavily influenced by a variety of environmental conditions.
Often, these conditions guide mutation and selection to converge onto an optimal outcome.
Evolutionists refer to this as convergent evolution [REF-EVO02].
Evolutionists observe convergent evolution when similar anatomical features are created among diverse species
that were not present in the common ancestors of the species.
An example of convergent evolution is the anatomical features of sharks and dolphins.
While sharks are fish and dolphins are mammals, they both evolved into body types that are streamlined to swim efficiently underwater.
This evolutionary process has more to do with their aquatic habitat than it does with their genetic lineage.
The same is true to bats, butterflies and bird.
In theory, their wings evolved due to their need to fly.
The takeaway of convergent evolution is that it enables species to adapt and optimize to the environment in which they live.
It does not speak to the arrival of a species, nor the fundamental properties of a species such as symmetry, multiplicity, design patterns, etc.
These properties are not influenced by environment.
Patterns of design appear in nature with such regularity we take them for granite.
For example, we observe that all mammals have two eyes and we assume this is normative.
Any mammal that does not have two eyes is considered abnormal.
Patterns and properties of design appear to be more uniform and invariant than mutational features resulting from the influence of environmental conditions.
For example, symmetry found throughout the animal kingdom did not evolve.
Patterns and properties of design are present throughout all creation independent of environmental conditions.
They are fundamental to the design of the species.
Environmental conditions cannot account for the widespread symmetry and duplicity found in creation.
Because of the ubiquity and uniformity of design patterns and properties across all creation,
it is reasonable to believe that life was intentionally designed and formed by an Intelligent Designer.
This notion of intentional design was first articulated by mathematician and philosopher William A. Dembski in his book The Design Inference [REF-DEM01].
He referred to it as specified complexity - a design indicative of intelligence.
Based on his definition, specific refers to a design that was defined with intentionality before creation.
Complexity refers to a design that is so intricate that it rules out the formation of life by random or semi-random means.
Together, this two principles best explain the origin of life we observe in the world around us.
Resources: Argument:
If life originated in the mind of God, then life has intrinsic purpose and value.
This is because life is rooted in the divine purposes and infinite value of God.
Conversely, if life simply evolved by random mutations and natural selection, then life is devoid of intrinsic purpose or value.
It is the difference between the intended and unintended arrival of life.
This dichotomy is best argued by R. C. Sproul in his book Now, That's a Good Question!
Question: Is man the product of a purposive act of divine intelligence, or is man a cosmic accident?
In other words, am I a creature of dignity or a creature of cosmic insignificance?
This notion of nothingness is echoed by humanist Ernest Nagel's famous quote "Human destiny is an episode between two oblivions".
According to Nagel and the American Humanist Association, human values are derived from human supremacy in the animal kingdom, not from a divine god. [REF-AHA01]
According to Genesis 1, God brought all living creatures including man into being by divine edict.
This is evidenced by the repeated phrases Then God said, "Let ...".
20 Then God said, "Let the waters swarm with fish and other life. Let the skies be filled with birds of every kind."
21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that scurries and swarms in the water, and every sort of bird—each producing offspring of the same kind.
24 Then God said, "Let the earth produce every sort of animal
25 God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals.
26 God said, "Let us make human beings in our image, to be like us.
Genesis 1:26-30 NLT
From this passage, we learn that God took the initiative to create.
The process of creation was directed by both God's design intelligence and formative power.
It did not come about by some random process that fortuitously resulted in complex life forms.
We know that this is possible because God demonstrated his
supernatural, formative power by creating the universe [COS-DS01].
While many are fixated on how life was formed, few acknowledge that it was God who was formative in creating life.
The means or process of creation is secondary.
The fact that God initiated the creative process is primary.
As we peer through the lens of modern science, we observe that God's handiwork in creation is evident.
Specifically, we acknowledge the following facts:
Therefore, the universe and life were created by a transcendent, pre-existent intelligence for a divine purpose.
According to Genesis 2:7-19, all living creatures including mankind were formed from the "dust of the ground".
The Hebrew verb yatsar translated as formed in Genesis 2:7, means to fashion or shape.
This implies that all living creatures were composed of organic materials commonly found on earth.
This may also imply that mankind was patterned after other mammals.
The biological similarities between mankind and chimpanzees are a manifestation of common design and substance, not common descent.
Regarding descent, mankind was exclusively created in the image of God.
The Hebrew verb tselem translated as image in Genesis 1:27, means likeness.
Since God is spirit, this implies that mankind was created with a spiritual nature that is patterned after the moral character of God.
Reword: Therefore, mankind has the unique capacity among all living creatures to relate with God on a spiritual level and exercise a moral conscience.
Because of this likeness to the Creator, mankind possesses an intrinsic value that surpasses the earthly materials from which they are made.
This value is rooted in the infinite value of God himself.
God has endowed mankind with a divine purpose.
As with all creation, mankind exists for the sole purpose of glorifying God.
This principle is taught throughout the Bible.
The heavens proclaim the glory of God. The skies display his craftsmanship.
Psalm 19:1
For everything comes from him and exists by his power and is intended for his glory.
All glory to him forever! Amen.
Romans 11:36
Christ is the visible image of the invisible God.
He existed before anything was created and is supreme over all creation, for through him God created everything
in the heavenly realms and on earth.
He made the things we can see
and the things we can’t see -
such as thrones, kingdoms, rulers, and authorities in the unseen world.
Everything was created through him and for him.
Colossians 1:16
There are variety ways we glorify God.
We acknowledge God's power, wisdom, and sovereignty over creation.
We extol God for his attributes such as holiness, love, mercy, and grace.
We entrust God with our lives and after-lives by living dependent on him.
We honor God with our lives by obeying his moral precepts.
Lastly, we honor God by exercising our God-given dominion over his creation (Genesis 1:26).
In stark contrast, humanists' highest goal is human happiness [REF-AHA01].
This view of mankind's value is highly subjective.
Arguably, this worldview is flawed based on the Law of Non-Contradiction [PHY-IS02].
God has demonstrated his formative power in creation.
He was involved in specifying the design of the universe and life.
He was involved in breathing life into all living creatures.
He was involved in creating mankind in his likeness so that we would be able to commune with him on a spiritual basis and glorify him.
Ultimately, God endowed mankind with a divine purpose for living.
Resources: Copyright@2025 Mainstream ApologeticsCombinatorial Inflation
Dissimilarity of Man and Chimpanzee Genomes
Observations
Evidence 2.2.3: Coordinated Mutations and Irreversible Complexity (BIO-EV03)
Darwin's Big Assumption
Coordinated Mutations and Irreversible Complexity
Observations
Evidence 2.2.4: Lack of Universal Common Ancestral Tree (BIO-EV04)
Comparison of Molecular and Anatomical Traits
Hypothetical Precambrian Phyla "Branch Points"
Observations
2.2.5 Claim: Life Finds its Origin in a Formative Power of God (BIO-IS01)
In the Fullness of Time
Summary of Key Evidence
Observations
Claim 2.3: Blueprint for Life Originated in the Mind of an Intelligent Designer (BIO-IS02)
Evidence 2.3.1: Unfathomable Biological Complexity (BIO-EV10)
Peeling the Onion
Genetics
Printed Human Genome - University of Leicester
Epigenetics and Beyond
Observations
Evidence 2.3.2: Spontaneous Generation & Chemical Evolution of DNA Not Possible (BIO-EV09)
Complex Organization of DNA
Permutations of Nucleotide Pairs
Hoyle's Dilemma
Chemical Evolution
Observation
2.3.3 Claim: Blueprint for Life Originated in the Mind of an Intelligent Designer (BIO-IS02)
... or, You should trust God's Word because the Bible is true.
... or, God is uncaring and unbenevolent because he does not end human suffering.
Formation of Biological Information by Natural Selection - A Fallacy
Biological Information Came About by Spontaneous Generation or Chemical Evolution
Biological Information was Transported to Earth from an Alien Planet
Biological Information Originated in the Mind of an Intelligent Designer
Claim 2.4: Patterns and Properties of Design Arose by Non-Random Causes (PHIL-IS02)
Evidence 2.4.1: Design Patterns Found Throughout Creation (PHIL-EV02)
Universality of Cosmological Constants and Physical Laws
Fibonacci and the Golden Rule
Examples of Fibonacci Numbers in Nature
Symmetry, Duplication and Other Notable Design Properties
Highly Interdependent Systems
Observations
2.4.2 Claim: Patterns and Properties of Design Arose by Non-Random Causes (PHIL-IS02)
Macro- and Micro-Evolution
Randomness and Evolutionary Theory
Design Patterns and Evolutionary Theory
Observations
2.5 Closing Argument: Universe and Life Were Created for a Purpose (TEL-DS03)
(P1) The universe is incredibly fine-tuned to enable life on earth [TEL-IS02].
(P2) The arrival of life was initiated by the formative power of God [BIO-IS01].
(P3) The blueprint for life originated in the mind of a Divine Intelligence [BIO-IS02].
(P4) The ubiquity and uniformity of design patterns and properties speak to the specificity of a Divine Designer [PHIL-IS02].
(C) Therefore, the universe and life were created by a transcendent, pre-existent intelligence for a divine purpose.
Answer:
If I just sort of popped into being or emerged from the slime and I'm destined for annihilation,
I can only fantasize that somehow in between those two poles of origin and destiny I have meaning and significance and dignity.
Obviously, if I came from nothing and go to nothing, I am nothing under any objective analysis.
Creation and Life were Initiated by God
Evidence of Creation by God
Uniqueness of Humanity
Creation was Purposed for the Glory of God
Observations