Dear Theophilus, 

Darwinists often come back at criticism offered in their direction with the retort: what better explanation have you got that is scientifically credible? If some supernatural agency is admitted, where will it stop before descending into superstition? Darwinists believe the universe is a closed system of cause and effect. Fundamentally, what we are told is that to question naturalistic evolution is nonsensical because evolution is the only game in town and until a better proposal is offered, Darwinism has to be held as the fundamental explanation of the development of our world. To some scientists, recognition of the supernatural at all is equivalent to superstition. In a supreme example of irony, scientific naturalists claim that the cosmos can be understood by a rational mind only, if it was not created by a mind but by random, chance movements of matter. The creative power of mutation and selection can never be demonstrated but is thought to exist by necessity because of the absence of alternative better explanations.

In Darwinism, if contrary evidence is offered it can be ignored or it can be incorporated into an adhoc explanation. Thus, when the fossil records are shown to be much weaker than is normally thought, and when the actual evidence of the fossil records is problematical, various attempts, imaginative but unsubstantiated objectively, have been attempted to explain the matter. It is stated that fossils cannot be found because they have been destroyed, intermediate forms which show the transition from one species to another are unstable and therefore unlikely to be discovered, and so on. However, whenever adhoc explanations are used, this shows the weakness of a theory or explanation. An illustration of this was the early attempt be Neils Bohr to describe the inner structure of atoms. A model was developed on the lines of the solar system with electrons orbiting in well-defined paths around a positively charged nucleus (the center of the atom). But this model experienced difficulties at virtually every step. And what was attempted was to change one part of the model, and then another and another, and so on. Eventually it became obvious that the theory had to be totally abandoned in favor of a totally new approach, suggested by quantum mechanics. Maybe that is what is needed in biology - a totally new model describing how life began and developed, a model that is more daring and that is more in keeping with all that we know about living systems.

One of the problems with having a rigid position is that it may blind us to actual data. For example, those who hold onto Darwinist explanations of evolution don't look for evidence that would contradict common ancestry because their philosophical position is that this evidence cannot exist. Darwinists define common ancestry, that going back far enough we all come from the same ancestor, whatever that may be, as a fact derived from structural similarities that are evident in comparing various species. Case closed, alternative explanations are not entertained, and nothing more is said about this.

One of the central problems for evolutionists is the determination of the mechanism for the origin of life. A good number of the major chemicals involved in life have been identified and are available for experimentation. Yet, scientists are no closer to synthesizing life and some have resorted to wild explanations, as we saw in the previous letter, for the origin of life. The realization is starting to develop that biological systems such as cells are very complex and a strictly naturalistic beginning of life, based solely on the properties of molecules, seems to be a far-fetched and unlikely proposition.

The explanations given by Darwinian theory are imaginative but they lack specificity. Thus, for example, Darwin explained the evolution of the eye, a fairly complex organism, by pointing to species with different levels of vision and different modes of seeing. Very tiny creatures, for example, may simply have a group of pigmented cells which enable differentiation between light and dark. In certain starfish the matter progresses a step further and they have indented pigment cells which enable the organism to determine the direction from which the light comes. And so on it goes, as various species are referred to show more and more complex eye systems, illustrating a spectrum of development. But, showing an example such as this and saying it could have developed in this fashion is quite different from showing that it did happen in this manner. And this is the problem - Darwinism fails to show that what it claims did happen.
There is something else which is bothersome about this approach. It smacks of nineteenth century science, where man's limited capacity to grasp things is used as the final judge of what can and cannot happen. What twentieth century science, particularly in physics, has shown is that nature is a lot more strange than we thought and nice picturable models of how things are, have been shown to be quite inaccurate. Thus light is neither particle nor wave, and yet in some way it exhibits properties of both particles and waves. It is this quality of strangeness about the universe that has come to the fore in twentieth century physics. And it is the absence of this quality in biology, in the theory of evolution, that indicates that there is some better explanation awaiting to be discovered for the origin of life and the development of various species.

Now, we must address the rebuttal from evolutionists: what better explanation can you give for the origin of life?

What is an important clue for us is something that we have learned and which has changed the picture that existed in the nineteenth century. We have learned that organisms such as the cell are a lot more complex and this complexity is interrelated within the cell. What this means is that if one piece is missing, its effect is not isolated but has a domino effect which then causes problems throughout the whole of the structure. What this seems to go against, is the possibility of a piece-meal building up of the organism. This kind of outdated view is out of court in the light of what we know of the biochemistry that goes on in cells. An analogy will explain better what it is I am trying to say. Suppose that I am rotating a series of letters on twenty one adjacent circles, each circle containing all of the letters of the alphabet. What I am trying to achieve is a sentence to the effect that "life is a bowl of cherries". Now, as I spin all of the circles, certain of the letters come up and certain letters are missing. But, for the message to be meaningful, all of the letters have to come up. But, the evolutionists would say, why can't you keep the correct letters that have come up and spin the rest so as to get at the message that you are looking for? It is as if some mutations are saved and used in the building up of new features which will result in a new creature. However, this is unlikely because the mutations are only effective and useful when the organism is completed. Until then, they are just changes, intermediates with no contribution to make to the organism, and why should they be retained? In all likelihood, they would be destroyed as useless mutations that confer no benefit for the survival of the organism. This step-wise transformation, which looks very nice when different organisms are placed beside each other to show progressive changes, does not work when it comes to the actual mechanism of transformation within an organism. There are simply too many interconnected parts that affect each other and a change in one of the components brings in such changes that it becomes an indomitable task to change, for example, pigmented cells into the wonderful organ called the eye. It may be advisable to remind Darwinists that one does not become pregnant by small increments - either you are or you are not pregnant. Either you have a complete eye or you don't. A half of an eye or a quarter of an eye will simply not do.

The evidence that has been gathered thus far for the complexity of biological organisms calls for design, which in turn, implies intent, purpose, goals, direction. Design is not some general statement but can be made fairly specific. For example, if separate components have to be ordered, that is, meshed together so as to complement each other, to accomplish a function beyond that of an individual component, then there is a possibility of design being involved here. And the message that comes through in studying biological systems is that design is there. This is not unscientific and not a descent into superstition because, although we may talk about design, and see its effects, we do not talk about the identity of the designer. And after all, design with a purpose in mind is not that strange a concept. Biochemists do this in their everyday work.

In fact, we can state a general principle: if biological structures can be totally explained in terms of natural laws, then claims of design in these instances are weak. If naturalistic explanations fail, then this suggests design. But if there is design, then there must be a designer. This is where the limits of science can again be underlined. The identity of the designer and the purpose of the design are questions which are outside the domain of science. Introducing design as one of the considerations in scientific explorations does not mean that science has become weaker or watered down. There is still a role to be played by science but science now is less dogmatic, less pompous about its claims, and more open to different views and explanations. One of the goals that this new science would have would be to develop strict rules for judging whether design is called for or not, leaving the matter of the designer to religion and theology.

So, from a theological and scientific point of view, what kind of model can we reasonably propose? The evidence for matter developing and changing, somewhat akin to evolution, seems to be fairly strong. But this development is not totally random, nor does it go without intervention. Life seems to be a property added to matter and does not strictly obey the laws of nature. And with humans, there is more life added - there is the image and likeness of the designer. This kind of view is compatible with what nature exposes to us and only bigotry and dogmatic atheism would have difficulty with this position.

Goodbye for now,

Bar-Abbas

Return to Index