Reading: Physical Evidence of the Creator (Dr. Feddes)

Antony Flew was one of the world’s leading atheists. While teaching at Oxford and other universities, he wrote many articles and books arguing against belief in God. He took the atheist side in many public debates. But after decades of making a case for atheism, Flew gave up. He said that he must “go where the evidence leads.” The evidence pointed to a Creator of enormous intelligence and power.

What changed his mind? “Recent scientific discoveries,” explained Flew. New knowledge of cell complexity and genetic coding persuaded Flew that life required intelligent design. Even the simplest cell is so complex that it’s almost impossible to see how the first living thing could have emerged by chance. Flew said, “What I think the DNA material has done is show that intelligence must have been involved.”

Intelligent Design

Each human cell contains enough DNA information to fill at least 1,000 books of 500 pages each. Could such information be encoded and transmitted by an accidental process? If you found a library containing half a million pages of information, would you assume it was all written by accident without any intelligent author? It would take a huge leap of faith to believe such a thing.

Francis Crick won a Nobel Prize for his discoveries in the structure of DNA. After studying genetic codes, Crick did not think that random evolution could ever produce DNA from scratch. So did he conclude that God was involved? No, instead he said that perhaps aliens from outer space sent primitive life forms to earth in a spaceship, and things evolved from there. For him, almost any theory would be better than admitting that God is real. Still, Crick knew the information embedded in DNA had to originate with some kind of superior intelligence, although his commitment to atheism kept him from crediting that intelligence to God.

Living cells are marvels of design. Molecular biologist Michael Behe writes, “The cell is essentially a completely automated factory, so all assembly has to be done by highly sophisticated robots, not by magic.” If a single cell can be compared to a factory with robots, imagine the complexity of a body made up of billions of cells and the kind of information needed to produce such a body.

Behe speaks of “irreducible complexity.” By this he means something that can’t even begin to work until all of its parts are present and working together. Behe uses a mousetrap as an example. You can’t take part of a mousetrap, such as the wooden base, and catch a few mice, then add a spring and catch a few more, add a hammer and catch a few more, and so on. The mousetrap needs to be designed and built with each part in place and connected to the other parts before it can catch its first mouse. In the same way, an irreducibly complex system in the body must be assembled all at once before it can do its job. It can’t appear gradually, piece by piece.

An example of this is the eye. The eye has a lens, an adjustable focus, light sensors, a variable diaphragm which controls the amount of light, and so forth. No part can do its job unless the other parts of the eye are also present. Charles Darwin’s evolutionary theory claimed natural selection as the force that drives evolution without any designer. However, living things that evolved only some parts of an eye would have no adaptive advantage over their relatives. The various parts of an eye would be useless in natural selection until all parts were present and working together. Darwin himself wrote, “When I think of the eye, I shudder. To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection seems absurd in the highest degree.”

Darwin didn’t know the half of it. In his time, little was known about biochemistry. The more we discover about what’s inside the organs and cells of living things, the more complex and intricate the design turns out to be. It’s easier to believe that mousetraps evolve by accident than to believe that complex organs and cells and biochemical processes evolved by accident. Even the simplest living cell requires over 200 complex enzymes. British scientist Sir Fred Hoyle estimated the likelihood of those 200 enzymes being produced and combined by chance as 1 with 40,000 zeroes behind it. Hoyle said that life popping into existence by chance was as improbable as a tornado blowing through a junkyard and producing a jet aircraft.

Could living things come from dead matter as the result of a purposeless process? Has anyone ever observed such an event? Never. In fact, scientists have completely discredited spontaneous generation, the notion that living things spring up from dead matter. It never happens. Scientists and educators know this. Yet some cling to their faith that somehow, long ago, spontaneous generation did take place, that dead matter did somehow produce living things. Scientists have run all kinds of experiments, trying to produce a living cell from non-living material. They’ve spent a great deal of research, time, and money trying to show how it could happen. They still haven’t succeeded.

But just suppose they eventually did succeed. Suppose they somehow produced a living cell from dead matter. What would that prove? That life is an accident, with no creator or intelligent designer? Far from it! Obviously, any life form that resulted from many decades of work by thousands of scientists would be the product of intelligent design, not proof that life evolved by accident. Meanwhile, no such experiment has worked. If so many brilliant scientists still haven’t been able to produce even the simplest life form from non-living matter, doesn’t it make sense to conclude that it would take someone with power and intelligence far greater than ours to design and create the fantastically complex forms of life that we see on our planet?

Atheist Faith Commitment

You might get the impression from some experts and educators that if you stick to facts and evidence, you won’t believe in God. If you’re smart, you’ll realize that the world and all its creatures come from a natural process, not from a Creator. The National Association of Biology Teachers issued a statement declaring that all life arose by an “unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable, and natural process.” A widely used biology textbook insists, “Evolution is random and undirected... without either plan or purpose.” A leading encyclopedia states that natural selection is “automatic, with no room for divine guidance or design.”

This is not a conclusion based on evidence; it is a faith commitment. It takes a lot of faith to believe that the universe and everything in it came into being without a Creator. With evidence of design and complexity all around them, atheists trust in the miraculous powers of chance, and they take a leap of faith. By faith they believe that nothing produced something, randomness produced design, dead matter produced life, mindlessness produced minds, and blind accident produced eyes. Their faith ignores all evidence to the contrary. Their commitment is absolute.

Atheist scientist Richard Lewontin freely admits that his rejection of a Creator is not based on evidence. It’s where he starts. Before considering any facts or evidence, Lewontin rules out all “supernatural explanations of the world.” He admits that scientists who deny God sometimes clash with common sense, but he still sides with their atheistic approach. Why? “Because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” By materialism he means the belief that “we exist as material beings in a material world, all of whose phenomena are the consequences of material relations among material entities.” Even before we study any evidence, we must rule out God and make an up-front commitment to materialism. “That materialism is absolute,” Lewinton explains, “for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” Some schools and universities might give students the impression that if a scientific theory denies the Creator, the denial is based on evidence. But it’s not based on evidence; it’s based on a prior commitment to materialism and an absolute refusal to consider the Creator.

Atheist evolutionists can’t deny that living things give a strong impression of design. Atheist Richard Dawkins says, “Biology is the study of things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” Atheist George Gaylord Simpson says, “An eye, an ear, or a hand is a complex mechanism serving a particular function. It looks as if it had been made for a purpose. This appearance of purpose is pervading in nature.” Atheist Francis Crick says, “The cell is thus a minute factory, bustling with rapid, organized chemical activity.” These atheists don’t claim, “Nothing looks as if it had been designed.” They see many things that appear to be designed.

If you look at a watch, the sensible conclusion is that a watchmaker designed it. So when you see far more intricate designs in creation, what should you conclude? Richard Dawkins writes,

All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics... Natural selection, the blind, unconscious automatic process ... which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind.

Notice the wording. Dawkins says “all appearances to the contrary,” so he admits that his faith in the blind forces of physics goes against what looks like obvious design. He speaks of the “apparently purposeful form of all life,” thus admitting that his faith in a purposeless process goes against what seems apparent. He rejects purpose and design, not because he can’t see it, but because he refuses to believe what he sees. His faith commitment to atheism matters more than observed evidence. Dawkins insists, “Even if there were no actual evidence in favor of the Darwinian theory, we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories.” Regardless of whether the theory fits the facts, it fits his faith commitment to atheism.

Natural Causes?

Atheist scientists admit that cells, organs, and bodies operate as interconnected, complex systems and appear to be designed. But appearances are deceiving, they say, and what appears to be designed can all be explained as the result of random, undirected evolution. Not only can it be explained that way; it must be explained that way. No other explanation may even be considered. Intelligent design, they say, is an unscientific concept, unworthy to be researched by scientists or discussed in schools.

Picture a crime scene. A dead body is found with a knife in its chest. The knife is covered with the killer’s fingerprints. The victim’s hand is still grasping a clump of hair pulled from the head of the killer during a struggle. Investigators are told to gather the evidence and to explain what happened. But they are also ordered ahead of time to rule that this person died of natural causes. They are not permitted to investigate whether another person might have caused the death by some sudden action. Their only job is to explain how natural causes produced the death and the knife in the chest. They are not allowed to speak of homicide or to search for a killer. Even if they find someone whose fingerprints match those on the knife and whose DNA matches the hair in the victim’s hand, the investigators are not allowed to explore whether this person killed the victim. The death must be explained by natural or accidental causes.

Those are the naturalistic, materialistic, atheistic ground rules for looking at the created world. God’s fingerprints are all over the created world, and evidence of who created the universe is in our grasp as surely as hair in the hand of a crime victim. But any God-talk is declared “unscientific.” No matter how exactly physical processes fit mathematical formulas, it is forbidden to speak of a Genius who designed matter in mathematical patterns and gave us minds to do math. No matter how much information is encoded in DNA, it is forbidden to speak of intelligence behind the information. No matter how ridiculous it is to say that something came from nothing, that life sprang from dead molecules, that mind emerged from mindless matter, this is the position of secular scientists and educators. The Creator must not be mentioned. Everything comes from natural causes.

Not everyone is willing to play by their rules, however. Scientists in the intelligent design movement look at DNA information or at a bacterial flagellum and see design. The intelligent design movement isn’t revealing a secret unknown to ordinary people. It is merely stating the obvious, using more technical language and in-depth analysis. Any parent looking at a baby’s face can see divine design. Any child looking at a starry sky can see divine design. Intelligent design scholars just explore deeper levels and use more careful reasoning to help scientists admit what is already obvious to almost everyone else: the universe, the earth, and living things appear to be products of divine design.

Looking at DNA, cells, and bodily organs and then crediting these things to random forces and gradual change is like looking at Mount Rushmore and crediting it to wind erosion rather than a sculptor. Mount Rushmore certainly looks like someone carved in stone the faces of presidents Washington, Jefferson, Roosevelt, and Lincoln. Are we to think that any resemblance of the rock to those presidents is accidental? Are we to think that any stories about a sculptor designing the faces on Mount Rushmore must be nothing but myth? No, say intelligent design thinkers, it’s obvious that Mount Rushmore was designed and shaped with a purpose, and it’s also obvious—even if we try to suppress the truth—that life was designed and shaped with a purpose.

The world is brimming with marvels that enchant little children and astound learned scientists. Underlying the almost magical qualities of various creatures are mechanical designs that display God’s mind-boggling wisdom. Can anyone imagine the intelligence of the divine designer of DNA who packed such incredible amounts of information into such a small space? Can anyone fathom the power of the Lord who brought into being living creatures and vast galaxies without having any raw material to start with except his own boundless power? Can anyone grasp the artistic genius of the God who dreamed up all the different creatures with no prompting or pattern but his own creativity?

Mice and Music

God’s creation displays something of his wisdom, power, and glory, but God himself remains invisible to us. This does not make him unreal. It just means that he is not part of his creation. God made all things, but he transcends the things he has made. Physical evidence points to God, but God himself is not physical. God is spirit, and we should not expect to find him as just one more item in the physical universe.

British author John Young told a parable about a community of mice. These mice lived in a place that opened into a music room with a grand piano. Sometimes, through the door of their home, they could hear beautiful music coming from the piano. They sighed in amazement at the beauty of the music. Soon, however, the mice got into a disagreement.

Some said, “There couldn’t be music like that without a musician.” But other mice said, “Nonsense. There is no musician.” Still others were agnostics: “We’ll never know whether there is a musician or not. Now get on with sharing the cheese.”

One day, when the music began to play, a particularly bold and curious mouse decided to venture into the music room and see for himself. He scurried across the floor and scrambled up the shiny black leg of the grand piano. He peered into the piano for a few moments, and then hustled back home to the other mice, breathless with excitement at his discovery: “I have seen how music is made. I saw many tiny hammers striking tight wires. But I saw no musician.”

The atheist mice nodded and smiled with satisfaction. The agnostics shrugged and continued eating their cheese. Those who had believed in a musician were disappointed. At least they knew the truth now, but life seemed a lot less interesting.

The mice think their question has been answered. They know a bit more about hammers and wires, and they think they know everything. They know something of the way a piano makes music, and they think they’ve proved that nobody designed the piano and that the piano can play itself. Of course there’s no designer or musician inside the piano, but does that mean he doesn’t exist? No, it just means that the musician is not part of the piano.

When we look at creation, we don’t see the Creator, but does that mean he doesn’t exist? No, it just means he’s not part of his creation. We don’t see him, but the designs of creation are clear evidence of a Designer, and the music of creation is clear evidence of a Musician. If it takes great mechanical skill to make a piano and if it takes great artistry to play a piano well, then what shall we say of God’s mechanical skill in designing the intricate structures of the universe and his artistry in making his universe sing with such splendor?