Does the Origin and Evolution of Life Suggest Design
When Darwin proposed the theory of evolution, he envisioned that the process was continuous. He believed that the complexity and diversity of life could be explained by numerous slight modifications to existing species. His whole theory hinges on the idea that nature will preserve beneficial variations (natural selection) and thereby guide evolution creating new and more complex animals and plants.
"If it could ever be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." - Charles Darwin
Over a century later, science has yet to show that complex organs can be formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, and many scientists do not think that this is important. To understand why, it is first necessary to examine the assumptions on which science is based. Science is based on two assumptions called axioms.
Observable axiom: scientists can accurately observe reality, and then propose theories and laws to explain their observations.
Naturalistic axiom: everything can be explained by the laws of physics, chemistry, biology and mathematics.
Axioms are self-evident assumptions. Without the observable axiom, science cannot function properly. If scientists cannot observe reality or if they observe it incorrectly, then all scientific theories are suspect. Fortunately, this axiom is self-evident to most.
The naturalistic axiom is different in two respects: 1) it is not self-evident to 90% of the population 2) science can function properly without it because unlike the observable axiom the naturalistic axiom can be tested.
Today science does not understand how life originated. The better science understands the nature of the problems associated with the origin of life the more mysterious lifeâs origin becomes. Today, every theory concerning the origin of life suffers from the same problem.
The probability of life originating is so small that the extreme age and size of the universe cannot offset the poor odds. The most popular theory concerning the origin of life proposes that life arose as a perpetual motion machine (see chapter 10). Yet physics clearly states that perpetual motion cannot exist.
Joyce and Orgel describe the situation best with the following quote:
" It must be said that the details of this process remain obscure and are not likely to be known in the near future."
- The RNA World, p72-73.
This dilemma places science in an awkward position. The naturalistic axiom forces science to only consider origin of life theories that do not require a supernatural explanation. Yet these theories continue to fall short and do not explain how life originated. Because evolutionists are unwilling to abandon the naturalistic axiom, they must make one final assumption. They assume that one day science will unravel the mystery of lifeâs origin.
Unfortunately, many evolutionists are unaware that they have made this assumption. Thus, they continue to claim that evolution is a proven fact when in reality they have only assumed that it is true.
This third assumption obviously has far reaching consequences because with this assumption, evolution cannot be disproved.
Any observation that evolution does not explain is simply ignored. This places the theory of evolution on a pedestal. The theory cannot be disproved because science has already made the assumption that it is true. Furthermore, this assumption also explains why scientists are in no hurry to apply Darwinâs proposed test to evolution.
Most scientists simply do not see the need to prove that a complex organ can form through a series of numerous, slight, continuous modifications. They have already assumed that evolution explains the origin of complex organs. Why test something that must be true?
What is Intelligent Design?
Intelligent design is based on the observable axiom. The theory does not assume that the naturalistic axiom is true, but rather attempts to verify the axiom, and it accomplishes this with indirect logic.
Consider the problems with lifeâs origin. The probability of a living system evolving on the earth or anywhere in the universe can be calculated, and if this probability is so small that the vast size and age of the universe cannot overcome the poor odds, then design should be inferred. The goal of this book is to perform the above calculations and to show that the design inference is justified.
Unlike evolution, intelligent design can be disproved. Suppose tomorrow that one scientist unravels the mystery of lifeâs origin, and that another demonstrates that a complex organ can be explained by the laws of physics, chemistry, biology and mathematics. When and if this happens, the theory of intelligent design will be disproved.
Intelligent design like science requires one final assumption. The theory assumes that science will not solve the mystery of lifeâs origin. In the 1950s, this would have been a very dangerous assumption. Most scientists would have argued that they were just beginning to understand the nature of the problem and that they had not had time to solve it. Fifty years later, such arguments are weak. Not only has science had ample time, but the solutions have become more elusive with time. As the years pass, the probability of science finding a solution will continue to fall, and the design inference will continue to become stronger as indicated by the height of the bars in the figure below.
Evolution or Intelligent Design Theory
Intelligent Design and Creationism
Creationism is a broad term that can mean many different things. Many creationists believe that the earth is only 5000 years old and that it was created in six 24 hour days. Others believe that the earth is 5 billion years old and that life was created slowly as time passed or in spurts separated by large expanses of time. Creationism is different from intelligent design because it is based on the existence axiom.
Existence axiom: God exists.
This axiom separates intelligent design from creationism in an important way. If science explains the mystery of lifeâs origin, most people will still believe in God. So unlike intelligent design, creationism cannot be disproved.
Evolution and the Origin of Life
The design inference in this book is only drawn from the origin of life and the evolution of the very first genes and proteins. Others have attempted to infer design from the evolution of new classes of animals. This book stays away from this practice because the inference is weak. While evolutionists assume that naturalistic laws can explain how a bird evolved from a reptile, many intelligent design advocates seem to just assume the opposite. Neither side has introduced accurate mathematical models or computer simulations to describe such an evolutionary transition. Life is definitely very good at evolving. It has developed techniques that create new information by re-arranging and shuffling existing information. Furthermore, the DNA of a bird is not that different from that of a reptile. These factors weaken the design inference.
In my opinion, it is illogical to invoke design for the origin of life and then assume that the designer played no part in the rest. Thus, this book will focus on the origin of life and the evolution of the first genes and proteins. These two events clearly imply design.
http://theory-of-evolution.net/introduction/intelligent-design-creationism-evolution.php