Design Arguments – General
Design arguments for the existence of God are not logical deductions but inferences based on observation. Consider, for example, you are walking through a field and come across a pocket watch. You will automatically assume that the watch had an intelligent designer and maker due to the distinct characteristics of the watch as compared to things that arise from natural processes. William Paley famously makes this argument in his Natural Theology:
“But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place … the inference, we think, is inevitable: that the watch must have had a maker; that there must have existed, at some time, and a some place or other, an artificer or artificers who formed it for the purpose which we fine it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction and designed its use.”[i]
This conclusion that the watch had an intelligent designer seems like common sense. But a rigorous empirical test for intelligent design exists and considers an object in terms of contingency, complexity, and specificity.[ii] An object is contingent if its existence cannot fully be explained by natural laws. An object is complex to the extent that it is unlikely to have come about by random chance. An object has specificity if the pattern of contingent and complex factors must have been specified ahead of time. An object that has contingency, complexity, and specificity is said to have “specified complexity” and can be reasonably inferred to have an intelligent designer.
Consider the pocket watch example. We know of no natural laws that would result in a pocket watch being created without the help of an intelligent designer. The pocket watch is therefore contingent. The pocket watch is also highly intricate, consisting of finely calibrated gears, springs, and other mechanisms that are extremely unlikely to have been created due to random chance. The pocket watch is therefore complex. Finally, all of the elements of the pocket watch work together to keep accurate time, which is a goal that mush have been specified before it was designed. The pocket watch therefore has specified complexity and can reasonably inferred to have an intelligent designer.
Does the universe have specified complexity? This question can be examined on both the macro scale of galaxies and the micro scale of biological cells. The following sections will look at the macro design argument of cosmological fine tuning and the micro design argument of irreducible complexity.
Design Arguments – Cosmological Fine Tuning
This section will address whether the macro-universe as we scientifically understand it is best explained by an intelligent designer. As such, it will contain some scientific material that may be obscure to some without a scientific background. But a detailed scientific understanding of all aspect of cosmological fine tuning is not necessary for its use in Christian apologetics, especially since apologetic engagement will rarely involve scientific specialists. Furthermore, the science behind fine tuning is so compelling that simply making this argument to scientific specialists can be very effective even if their understanding of the material is much broader and deeper than yours. Walter Bradley (a PhD science professor) writes:
“One of the remarkable discoveries of the past twenty years is that a functional universe suitable for complex, conscious life requires that the many universal constants in nature must be very nearly what we now know them to be … scientists now know that relatively small changes in any of the universal constants produce a dramatically different universe that is not hospitable to life of any imaginable type.”[iii]
The universe as we know it is scientifically understood based on fundamental laws of nature, fundamental constants that appear in these laws, and the initial conditions of the universe at the time of the “big bang.” Although the fundamental laws of nature are beautiful to mathematicians and scientists and can be used as a design argument for an intelligent creator, they are ultimately explanations of observed data and will therefore not be further discussed here as they require higher mathematics. It is, however, sufficient and effective to base cosmological fine-tuning arguments on fundamental constants and initial conditions.
An important initial condition of the universe is its initial expansion rate. If expansion was just slightly faster, the universe would have expanded so fast that it would have been effectively empty before planets capable of sustaining life could have formed. If expansion was just slightly slower, the universe would have collapsed upon itself before planets capable of sustaining life could have formed. Stephen Hawking writes:
“If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million, million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size. On the other hand, if the expansion rate at one second had been larger by the same amount, the universe would have expanded so much that it would he effectively empty now.”[iv]
Now consider the strength of the four fundamental forces of nature: gravity, electromagnetism, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force. If the force of gravity were changed by one part in ten thousand billion billion billion, a planet that could support intelligent life could not have formed. If the electromagnetic force were slightly stronger or weaker, atomic bonds could not form and therefore the complex molecules required for life could not exist. A change in the strength of the weak nuclear force by about 1 part in 10,000 relative to the strength of the strong force would have prevented supernova explosions which allow heavier elements to find their way to planets. Without these supernova explosions key heavy elements would be unavailable for life. If the strong nuclear force were ten percent weaker, the only element in the universe would be hydrogen. If the strong nuclear force were four percent stronger, the lifetime of stars would be too short for life to develop on associated planets. These examples only scratch the surface of cosmological fine-tuning. “There are literally hundreds of examples of fine tuning that seem to be essential to enable the universe to have that many features that are essential for complex, conscious life.”[v]
In terms of design inference criteria, fine tuning is strong evidence that the universe (1) cannot fully be explained by natural laws; (2) is extremely unlikely to have occurred through random chance; and (3) must have been designed ahead of time in order for intelligent life to occur. The universe therefore has specified complexity and it is reasonable to infer that it has an intelligent designer.
Many atheist scientists are very uncomfortable with this conclusion but admit that the fine tuning of the universe could not be a result of random chance. They have therefore suggested a variety of alternatives to an intelligent designer. The most popular of these are the anthropic principle, God-in-the-gaps criticism, and multiverse theory.
The anthropic principle (also known as the observation selection effect) essentially says that we should not be surprised that we observe a universe that is fine-tuned for intelligent life because we would not be here to observe the universe if this were not the case. Although true, the anthropic principle is not an explanation. Consider jumping out of the tenth story of a building that is on fire and surviving the fall. You are only able to observe that you are still alive because you survived, but this does not explain why you were able to survive. The anthropic principle, if incorrectly applied, would have you believe that surviving the fall shouldn’t be surprising since you are alive to observe your survival. But being alive does not serve any explanatory function whatsoever, as it also does not with regards to the fine tuning of the universe.
God-in-the-gaps is a general criticism of ascribing divine explanations to gaps in scientific knowledge. Accordingly, these divine explanations will inevitably be replaced as scientific knowledge advances. Randy Isaac describes this type of criticism as follows:
“Arguments for the existence of God that are based on design often specify an aspect of our natural world that cannot be explained by our current understanding of the laws of nature. Such a gap of knowledge is construed as evidence for the existence of a supernatural being. Critics of this approach label these arguments as “God-of-the-gaps” fallacies that diminish the case for a Creator God as the gaps are filled in with increasing knowledge. Confident that all such gaps will someday be filled via the scientific method, many people reject design arguments for God. However, gaps of knowledge do exist in nature and the scientific community acknowledges that many cannot be filled, even in principle.”[vi]
With respect to fine tuning, God-in-the-gaps assumes that science will eventually develop a “theory of everything” that shows how all of the fine-tuning could not be otherwise. Although God-in-the-gaps criticism may have some validity with respect to specific phenomena, it somewhat misses the mark with regards to fine tuning. This is because the fine-tuning argument is based on what we know about the universe rather than what we do not know. Isaac writes:
“Naturalistic knowledge leads us to infer the existence of the supernatural Creator not because of its inherent limitations but because of the very possibility of such knowledge. The exquisite beauty and elegance of the portion of the universe that we can explain, whether by simple observation or by Maxwell’s equations or Schrödinger’s equations, overwhelmingly display the power and glory of God to everyone.”[vii]
Highly educated physical scientists are generally not stupid. Most are fully aware of the weaknesses of the anthropic principle and God-in-the-gaps criticisms with regards to cosmological design arguments in favor of an intelligent designer. An increasing number who are committed to their atheism are therefore ascribing to a multiverse theory. Multiverse theory assumes that there are a large number of universes, potentially infinitely many, each with their own physical laws and fundamental parameter values. Although physical laws and fundamental parameter values conducive to intelligent life are extremely rare for a specific universe, it is much more likely to occur in one of many universes. But the multiverse theory is pure speculation, is unsupported by any evidence, and is not even capable of being supported by evidence. The multiverse theory is theoretically unverifiable, cannot make any testable predictions, and is therefore best described as a religious belief of secular atheism. Douglas Groothuis sums this situation up well, “The many universes multiverse theory is nothing more than metaphysical speculation, and very poor speculation at that … It is invoked without logical basis simply to avoid a Designer.”[viii]
Design Arguments – Irreducible Complexity
A system is irreducibly complex when it consists of multiple parts where the removal of a part will prevent the system from functioning. This definition can refer to any system, but in apologetics is most often applied to biological molecular machines. An irreducibly complex biological system is strong evidence that random mutations, natural selection, and evolution cannot explain all of biology. Darwin himself admits as much, writing “If it could 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. But I can find out no such case.”[ix]
Although irreducible complexity in molecular machines is, in itself, a neutral scientific concept, it challenges the Darwinist worldview that undirected natural selection and evolution can explain all biological phenomena. To be clear, irreducible complexity does not claim that natural selection does not explain anything or even many things, just that it cannot explain things with irreducible complexity. This is a direct challenge to those of whom Darwinism is effectively a secular atheistic religion and is therefore viciously attack by this group. Douglas Groothuis explains how the Christian apologist must understand Darwinism:
“But Darwinism is far more than a biological theory. It is integral to the secular worldview of the Western intellectual elite that wants to marginalize religious faith as having no claim on knowledge. The natural sciences and humanities are dominated by this naturalistic and secular worldview, and so they either ignore Christian claims or attack them forthrightly. Disputing Darwinism is, therefore, central in dislodging this secularist mindset that affects so much of elite intellectual life.”[x]
Darwinism as the term is used today refers to the natural selection of characteristics that are conducive to survival and reproduction. If something has traits that help it survive and reproduce, these traits are more likely to be passed down to future generations as compared to traits that do not help it survive and reproduce. Different traits occur due to random mutations of the genetic code, leaving no room for God to play any part in the process. It should be emphasized that Charles Darwin had no knowledge of microbiology or DNA when formulating his original theory, but random genetic mutations are now an integral part of evolutionary theory. This theory is technically called neo-Darwinian synthesis but will simply be referred to as Darwinism hereafter.
Before examining the challenge of irreducible complexity to Darwinism, it should be noted that Darwinism is an incomplete and unverified theory. Darwinism predicts that all evolutionary changes must happen gradually over long periods of time and that these small changes can eventually result in large aggregate changes and the corresponding origination of new species. The fossil record contradicts this prediction. Instead of species gradually appearing over long periods of time, the fossil record shows that living species are very stable for long periods of time, followed by the emergence of many new species over relatively short periods of time. This pattern of species formation is called punctuated equilibrium and is strong evidence against speciation due to the accumulation of small genetic changes over long periods of time. Furthermore, the origination of a new species has never been observed. Animal breeders have been modifying species by breeding desirable traits for thousands of years. With respect to dogs, this has resulted in everything from the chihuahua to the Great Dane. These two breeds are certainly very different, but they are still the same species.
The concept of irreducible complexity as it relates to molecular machines became a massive scientific debate after the 1996 publication of Michael Behe’s book Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.[xi] Behe is an American biochemist, professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, and obtained his PhD in biochemistry from the University of Pennsylvania. Behe contends that irreducibly complex biological systems cannot result from random genetic mutations and natural selection, similar to the opinion of Darwin himself. Behe describes the cellular issue of irreducible complexity as follows:
“So it appears that irreducibly complex biological systems would present a considerable obstacle to Darwinian evolution. The question then becomes, are there any irreducibly complex systems in the cell? Are there any irreducibly complex molecular machines? Yes, there are many. In Darwin’s Black Box, I discussed several biochemical systems as examples of irreducible complexity: the eukaryotic cilium; the intracellular transport system; and more.”[xii]
The molecular machine example of irreducible complexity that has become best known to non-specialists is bacterial flagellum. This system is the equivalent of the propulsion system for a boat with an inboard motor. Bacterial flagellum allows cells to move through power generated by a rotary chemical motor similar to an electric motor, complete with a rotor and a stator. The stator is held in place at the bottom by an MS ring and at the top by an LP ring. A rod extends through the LP ring into a bent hook, which spins with the motor and rod. A filament extends out of the hook, resulting in a screw drive geometry when the hook spins. Furthermore, the entire bacterial flagellum system has a complex control system that instructs the motor when to spin in the forward direction, when to spin in the reverse direction, and when to not spin.
The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex since it consists of many parts that would prevent the bacterial flagellum from functioning if not present. Without the stator and/or the rotor, there would be no power source. Without the MS and L rings, the stator would not stay in place when the rotor spins. Without the rod, power could not be transferred to the hook. Without the hook, screw-drive like propulsion could not occur. And without the filament, converting the rotary motor power to linear propulsion would be impossible. As such, incremental changes due to natural selection cannot explain the existence of bacterial flagellum.
Some Darwinists have speculated that component parts in a system that is irreducibly complex could have evolved independently. For the bacterial flagellum, this would involve the independent evolution of the stator, the rotor, the rings, the rod, the hook, the filament, and the control system. Even if this incredibly unlikely scenario were true, it still does not solve the problem of irreducible complexity. This is because an intricate assembly process is required to integrate all of the parts into a working system, and this assembly process could not have evolved independently. Behe explains:
“Studies have shown that 30-40 proteins are required to produce a functioning flagellum in the cell. About half of the proteins are components of the finished structure, while the others are necessary for the construction of the flagellum. In the absence of almost any of the proteins—in the absence of the parts that act as the propeller, drive shaft, hook, and so forth—no functioning flagellum is built … The information for assembling a bacterial flagellum, however, (or, indeed, all other biomolecular machines) resides in the component proteins of the structure itself. Recent work shows that the assembly process for a flagellum is exceedingly elegant and intricate. If that assembly information is absent from the proteins, then no flagellum is produced. Thus, even if we had a hypothetical cell in which proteins homologous to all of the parts of the flagellum were present (perhaps performing jobs other than propulsion) but were missing the information on how to assemble themselves into a flagellum, we would still not get the structure. The problem of irreducibility would remain.”[xiii]
There are currently no viable evolutionary explanations for irreducibly complex biological machines. But atheist scientists simply assume that such an explanation must exist since irreducible complexity points to an intelligent designer, which is dismissed as impossible by these people. Franklin Harold, a former professor of biochemistry and molecular biology sums up this position by writing, “We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”[xiv] Note that the secular position is that intelligent design as an explanation of irreducible complexity should be rejected “as a matter of principle,” not because of any fact-based argument. Furthermore, recent cellular research has revealed numerous other issues beyond irreducible complexity that cannot be explained by Darwinian evolution. Jerry Bergman writes:
“[P]rogress in the area of cell biology research in the last decade has made the problem much worse that Behe claimed. Examples include the revolutions in epigenetics, protein folding, splicing variations that produce many gene transcripts from one gene, the ENCODE research project,[xv] revelations about the “guardian of the genome” (the p53 protein), the telomerase systems, chaperones, histone regulation, and even recent discoveries about mitosis and meiosis functions.”[xvi]
And so, Darwinian evolution is a reasonable explanation for adaptive modification within species, but not for much more. Its popular representation by atheist scientists as an explanation for all biological phenomena is simply a secular religion being presented as science, which it is not. These same atheist scientists attack irreducible complexity and an intelligent designer as a possible explanation as Christianity invading science and a violation of church and state. Well, let the science lead where it may, and it has led to the strong conclusion that irreducibly complex biological systems cannot be explained by Darwinian evolution.
[i] William Paley, Natural Theology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1803/2009: 1-4.
[ii] The design inference test of contingency, complexity, and specificity was originally developed by William Dembski in his book The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities (1998).
[iii] Walter Bradley, “The Fine Tuning of the Universe: Evidence for the Existence of God?” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, Sep. 2018: 152.
[iv] Stephen Hawking, The Theory of Everything, Beverly Hills, CA: New Millenium, 2002: 104.
[v] Walter Bradley, “The Fine Tuning of the Universe: Evidence for the Existence of God?” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, Sep. 2018: 157.
[vi] Randy Isaac, “From Gaps to God,” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, Sep. 2005: 230.
[vii] Ibid., 233.
[viii] Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith, 2nd ed., Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2022: 248.
[ix] Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, New York, NY: PF Collier & Son, 1859/1909: 194.
[x] Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith, 2nd ed., Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2022: 277.
[xi] Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, 1st ed., New York, NY: Free Press, 1996. The second edition was published in 2006.
[xii] Michael Behe, “Irreducible Complexity Obstacle to Darwinian Evolution,” Ch. 19, Debating Design From Darwin to DNA, William Dembski and Michael Ruse, eds., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004: 2.
[xiii] Michael Behe, “Irreducible Complexity Obstacle to Darwinian Evolution,” Ch. 19, Debating Design From Darwin to DNA, William Dembski and Michael Ruse, eds., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004: 3-4.
[xiv] Franklin Harold, The Way of the Cell, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001: 205.
[xv] ENCODE stands for the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements. It is a public research project with the goal of building a comprehensive parts list of functional elements in the human genome.
[xvi] Jerry Bergman, “Evolution and irreducible complexity,” Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, vol. 22, no. 1, 2010: 97.
Leave a Reply