The 10 Things You Should Know About the Creation vs. Evolution Debate (17 page)

Our universe is finely tuned for the possibility of human
life." Numerous highly improbable factors have to be precisely
in place in a balanced fashion for the survival of life on earth.
Without any one of these factors, life would not be possible.
As one scholar put it, "almost everything about the basic structure of the universe... is balanced on a razor's edge for life to
occur."" Indeed, "one could think of the initial conditions of
the universe and the fundamental parameters of physics as a
dart board that fills the whole galaxy, and the conditions necessary for life to exist as a small one-foot wide target: unless the
dart hits the target, life would be impossible." 52 Life has emerged
on earth because the dart in fact "hit the target."

To give an illustration of one aspect of this fine-tuning, if
the rate of expansion of our universe were any different, life on
earth would not be possible. 53 As Hugh Ross explains it,

If the universe expanded too rapidly, matter would
disperse so efficiently that none of it would clump
enough to form galaxies. If no galaxies form, no stars
will form. If no stars form, no planets will form. If no
planets form, there's no place for life. On the other
hand, if the universe expanded too slowly, matter would clump so effectively that all of it, the whole universe
in fact, would collapse into a super dense lump before
any solar-type stars could form.54

Further, if the strength of gravitational or electromagnetic
attraction were different, life on earth would not be possible."
If our moon were significantly larger, the gravitational pull of
the moon would be greater, and this would cause tidal waves
to engulf the land.56 Likewise, if earth had more than one moon,
the oceans would be unstable. If earth were significantly closer
to the sun, the heat would increase such that life could not
survive on earth. Our atmosphere has just enough oxygen for
creatures to be able to breathe. In short, everything about our
earth and the universe seems tailor-made for the existence of
human life (and other life-forms).

Are these and a host of other similar factors the result of a
random cosmic coincidence, or was an intelligent Designer
involved? Many today believe the evidence for an intelligent
Designer is undeniable, for the specified complexity evident in
our universe is undeniable.

• Robert Jastrow, author of God and the Astronomers, writes:
"If the universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence.
It is my view that these circumstances indicate the
universe was created for man to live in. `57

• Astronomer Frederick Hoyle came to the conclusion that
"a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as
with chemistry and biology."58 Indeed, a superintellect
has fine-tuned our universe for the existence of life.

• Astronomer George Greenstein, after observing the apparent design in the universe, asked if it is possible that we have "stumbled upon scientific proof for the existence
of a Supreme Being."59

In view of the deluge of evidence for intelligent design in
the universe, naturalism as a philosophy is in freefa1L60 "Freefall"
is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as "rapid uncontrolled decline."" This decline is obvious in the conclusion of
biophysicist Dean Kenyon, who suggests that the more scientists learn about molecular biology and the "chemical details
of life," the less likely is a "strictly naturalistic" explanation for
origins.62 An increasing number of scientists are concluding that
the universe appears to be designed because it is designed."

A theory that strongly challenges evolution and the naturalistic philosophy that undergirds it will understandably receive
a chorus of objections from the evolutionist camp. The more
common objections include (1) intelligent design gives up on
science, (2) intelligent design is unscientific, (3) the need for
design improvements disproves a divine intelligent Designer, (4)
the problem of evil disproves a divine intelligent Designer, and
(5) scientific theories cannot involve miracles. Interestingly, some
young-earth creationists have also voiced a few objections.' In
what follows I will briefly address these objections.

The Objection. Hardline evolutionists claim that intelligent
design theory gives up on science. They say that theories like
intelligent design "stifle further inquiry by attributing what may
not yet be understood to an unknowable cause."2 As one physicist put it, "intelligent design is a shorthand for interjecting God,"
and God should not be interjected in any scientific studies.'

As well, many scientists who are theists believe that any
suggested design theory should be kept separate and distinct from science, even though they themselves may believe in a Designer.
The primary concern is that if they are not kept separate,
researchers may be tempted to insert the "Designer solution" at
any point in scientific inquiry where no scientific answer is readily apparent. A "God of the gaps" fills in the holes of missing
scientific information.'

Answering the Objection. Intelligent design theorists do not
believe in intelligent design simply because of "gaps" in our
knowledge. Rather, they believe in intelligent design because
evidence for design is empirically detectable by using a welldefined scientific method that focuses on contingency,
complexity, and specification (see chapter 8).s Just as a forensic detective would infer an intelligent cause of a crime he was
investigating by using scientific techniques, so design can be
rationally inferred in the universe by using scientific techniques.
Intelligent design theory is not dependent upon religious views.

In a lecture delivered at the American Museum of Natural
History, Michael Behe commented:

Some of my critics have said that design is a religious conclusion, but I disagree. I think it is wholly
empirical, that is, the conclusion of design is based on
the physical evidence along with an appreciation for
how we come to a conclusion of design. To illustrate
how we come to a conclusion of design, let's look at
the following. [At this point a cartoon slide is shown
to the audience depicting an explorer caught by a roped
foot trap.] This is a Far Side cartoon by Gary Larson
showing a troop of jungle explorers, and the lead
explorer has been strung up and skewered. Now, everyone in this room looks at this cartoon and you immediately realize that the trap was designed. But how do
you know that? How do you know the trap was
designed? Is it a religious conclusion? Probably not. You
know it's designed because you see a number of very specific parts acting together to perform a function;
you see something like irreducible complexity or specified complexity.'

Instead of "giving up" on science, intelligent design theorists say they thoroughly utilize scientific methodology. Far from
being grounded in a gap in knowledge, intelligent design theory
has grown out of our scientific knowledge of irreducibly complex
cells and organs.

Another point bears mentioning. Turning the tables on
evolutionists, Behe urges, "We have to watch out that we don't
have what we might call, say, a naturalism of the gaps as well.
And that is the idea that what we can't explain today, well, we
know that natural unguided processes did it somehow, but we'll
figure how that was done later. "7 Touche!

The Objection. Some evolutionists argue against intelligent
design theory by pointing out that results cannot be measured,
counted, repeated, and/or tested. If one cannot measure, count,
repeat, or test results, one cannot be involved in science." One
evolutionist objects, "Their arguments don't lead to anything
that's empirically investigable."I Another argues that "the scientific method of testing hypotheses requires observation," and
intelligent design cannot be "demonstrated clearly through a
laboratory test."'°

Answering the Objection. Repetition is impossible in a number
of areas of scientific study. Many scientists presently believe in
the big bang theory, but this event happened (allegedly) only
once, so no one was there to observe it firsthand, no one was
there to take measurements, and we certainly have no way of
repeating the event in a laboratory so that it can be tested over
and over again. Yet no one balks at including the big bang theory
within the realm of science.

Likewise, simply because we cannot repeat in a laboratory
the fossilization process of ancient life-forms does not exclude
paleontology from the realm of science. Simply because we
cannot repeat the inscription on the Rosetta Stone does not
exclude archaeology from the realm of science." Simply because
no one observed a so-called extinct common ancestor does not
exclude evolution from science. Likewise, simply because we
cannot repeat the work of the original intelligent Designer in
a laboratory does not exclude intelligent design from science.
The reality is that science is far more than repetition.

As for "testability," a scientific testing process includes examining theories against new evidence and theoretical insights. This
was how Darwin tested and then dismissed the design arguments of William Paley. In this same sense, Darwin's theory has
been tested and found wanting by the new evidence of intelligent design theory. '2

The Objection. Evolutionists such as Stephen Jay Gould have
argued that because certain biological designs fall short of some
idealized optimum, they have no divine intelligent Designer
behind them." In other words, because we can imagine ways
to improve a particular design means the structure in question
was not designed. Surely a divine intelligent Designer would
have done a better job.

Answering the Objection. This line of argumentation is faulty.
I might look at a particular model of a car and think of various ways the car could have a better design, but that does not
mean the car itself did not come from the hands of a designer.
I might look at the floorplan of a house and decide that the
plan could be better in some ways, but that does not mean the
floorplan did not come from the hands of an intelligent designer.
Biological structures in the universe are no different. Just because someone might imagine how a structure might have had a better
design does not mean the structure did not come from an intelligent Designer.

Further, we might think we have a better design in mind
for a humanly designed structure, but upon talking to the
designer, we might discover some important variables we had
not previously considered that cast the design in a different (more
favorable) light. For example, I might think that a computer
casing would have a better design if it were much smaller. But
then the engineer that designed it might inform me that the
larger size better accommodates the cooling system for the
components in the computer that generate heat. This new information adjusts my thinking so that I now know my idea is not
necessarily a better design.

In the same way, we may think we can come up with better
designs for molecular structures or for complex organs, but variables may be involved that we know nothing about and that
the intelligent Designer is fully aware of. Maybe we do not know
as much as we think we do. And besides, how do we know
whether our suggested change would actually make a structure
better? Introducing a new element might result in some malfunction we had not anticipated.

The Objection. Perhaps the most weighty objection raised
by evolution enthusiasts relates to the existence of evil in the
world." In this view, the presence of so much horrible evil in
the world proves that the world was not created by an intelligent Designer.15

Charles Darwin once said, "I cannot persuade myself that
a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created
the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding
within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that the cat should play with mice." Darwin thought there was just "too much
misery in the world" to accept the idea of design in the universe."
His writings reflect an intense philosophical struggle with the
problem of pain and evil in the world. The death of his daughter Annie in 1851 further soured him against believing in an
intelligent Designer. Darwin's anger and grief over this tragedy
played a role in his eventual renouncing of the Christian faith.
He struggled with how an omniscient and omnipotent God
could allow such bad things to happen to good people.

Answering the Objection. At first glance, this argument may
seem convincing. But a look at the facts illustrates that the existence of evil is compatible with the existence of an all-good,
all-knowing, and all-powerful Designer. Because this objection
comes up so often, and because it is a more potent objection,
I will devote more attention to it.