More Thoughts on Science, Faith, and the Origins of Life

I’ve been truly fascinated by the scientific community lately. Undoubtedly, this is entirely the result of my Theology and Science class I’m taking this term. For what it’s worth, here are a few more thoughts on the topic…

Not too long ago I engaged in a debate regarding the role of faith in scientific endeavors. Paul Davies, a self-proclaimed atheist from Australia, wrote an article for the NY Times claiming that at a certain level, all scientific research is faith-based. Although Davies did reference a number of Christian-specific issues to make his point, I feel that his examples were more for convenience/familiarity than anything else. Many of his references could just as easily used examples from any number of other world religions that insists on faith as a central tenant. In short, his argument boiled down to this thesis: all science is, at a certain level, based solely on faith. This faith has to do with certain presuppositions that everyone brings into a particular situation. With regards to science, simply the act of engaging in science at its most basic level requires faith that we can indeed “discover” something about a particular thing. The logic continues in that way…

But now, what are the implications this has for the origins of life?

Not too long ago a remarkable discovery was made: the flagellum motor. Flagellum are single-cell organisms that play an important role in “creation” and reproduction of life. If you were to look at one, what you would see is something that looks like a blob of material darting around from here to there within our bodies. What propels them is nothing short of an extremely miniaturized outboard motor (a la aluminum fishing boat).

The problem with the currently accepted and seldom scientifically challenged theory (evolution), is that there is no explanation for the development of such an intricate piece of “machinery.” In order to explain the existence – which is impossible to deny on scientific grounds (especially since there exists undoctored photographic evidence) – one must account for the development of the inseparable parts that make up the motor. They cannot be genetically reduced beyond what they already are. The parts of the motor are made of proteins, which in turn are made of amino acids, all arranged in a particular way so as to do their job.

Let’s look at this in reverse for a moment: amino acids link together to create proteins. Proteins combine to create cells. Cells combine to create living organisms.

Now, amino acids, if not linked together in precisely the correct way, results in nothing more than genetic jiberish – in other words, if not combined/linked in the right order, absolutely nothing will happen; no proteins of any sort or quality, which means no cells of any sort or quality, and therefore no life of any sort or quality. Furthermore, amino acids do not posses inherent “knowledge” regarding the order in which they must combine/link to create a certain life-form; they require the guidance and direction of DNA.

Roughly defined, DNA is the most foundational piece of all life that exists (to the best of our knowledge, of course). More accurately, DNA is worthless if not provided with the 20 or so different varieties of amino acids. Conversely, amino acids can’t do squat without the direction of DNA. Basically, DNA and amino acids are co-dependent upon one another in order to produce life of any sort.

Everything I’ve mentioned so far is proven science – look it up, do the research yourself…whatever…

The term coined to describe all this by a Dr. Behe (author Darwin’s Black Box) is irreducible complexity. Currently, I am unaware of any religious affiliation on the part of Dr. Behe. Yet, one bit of criticism he received regarding the publication of his book accused him, his research, and his writings as being “religiously motivated.”

With that rather lengthy introduction, here’s where my concern/critique begins…

Pure science is to be performed in a “sterile” environment – that is, when a new issue is researched or studied, in order to ensure the most accurate results possible, the researchers must put aside all non-scientifically proven pre-conceived notions they may possess in an attempt to observe and understand their findings as they are, without bias. (As a personal note, I believe it is absolutely impossible for such an ideal to actually exist – we all bring something to the table – big or small – prior to engaging in scientific research) This is where I think Davies is dead-on.

While most scientists mean well, too many bring certain biases to the table. Regarding the origins of life on earth, they all too often filter everything they find through the lens of evolution or intelligent design (ID); people see what they want.

What we often find to be the case, is research – and lots of it – that actually does point to ID. The problem is that many hold to a presupposition that believes that everything must have a natural explanation. In reality there is no scientific basis for maintaining such assumptions. However, if extensive research is conducted and continually leads to a point in which ID actually is the only logical/reasonable explanation, that conclusion will be rejected despite the evidence. Many would rather resort to taking the position, “Our research leaves no other logical conclusion aside from ID, but on the grounds of my personal philosophy, I cannot accept that position and will therefore conclude that we simply lack the scientific ability to figure this out.”

As a Christian, I want to nuance the phrase “my personal philosophy.” Their personal philosophy is that there cannot possibly be an intelligent designer (i.e. God). This is, in fact, a presupposition that has a tremendous effect upon how one views and interprets the research. (I also have a tendency to think the reason one would so adamantly reject the reality of God is because they desire instead to be their own god – by rejecting God, they reject a personal responsibility to submit to some higher authority, therefore ensuring their freedom to live however they want. There is no meaning or purpose to life, there are no consequences – good or bad – for their actions, and therefore, total freedom to live however they want on their own terms).

The reality is that it is biologically and chemically impossible for DNA to evolve from some lifeless thing. There is a certain intelligence that exists within DNA itself that cannot be traced to anything prior to it. And likewise, DNA itself cannot produce life without the help of amino acids. Irreducible complexity…

Many have attempted to disprove these theses. Some have written highly respected text-books on the subject – textbooks used at some of the nation’s most distinguished universities – only to be forced upon further research to recant their original conclusions.

This is not an attempt on my part to disprove evolution and scientifically argue for a young Earth. Personally I find the concept of a young Earth rather impossible given the abundance of scientific research concluding otherwise. Rather, this is an attempt on my part to lay out the real, irrefutable scientific evidence to date in which the simplest and most reasonable explanation really is ID. Whether or not that intelligent being worked through evolution is a non-issue at this point. The evidence is clear, natural science affirms the existence of an intelligent designer for all life.

Filed under: Apologetics, Christianity, Evangelism, Intelligent Design, Ministry, Philosophy