INTELLIGENT DESIGN EVIDENCE
Special Evidence: Origin of Life
Special Evidence: Origin of Life
|
Darwin did not provide any explanation for the origin of the first replicating life form
necessary for his theory of origin of species to work. That is, Darwinism is a
naturalistic explanation for the origin of species that assumes a replicating life form
to start the process.
Origin of life from non-living sources is termed abiogenesis or chemical evolution
[1] and scientific hypotheses that seek explanations for a first replicating life form
suitable for Darwinian processes must postulate an unintelligent, deterministic
physical cause for the first complex strand of DNA or other biologically active
material.
Atheists, evolutionists and Darwinists who seek to provide an explanation for
unguided, unintelligently caused abiogenesis face the problem of proposing how
the extremely unlikely occurrence of life could appear or evolve from purely
unintelligent physical causes. By any account (and there are many such accounts,
made by creationists and evolutionists alike), the probability of such an occurrence
by any known natural causes over any postulated time period is so low as to make
the occurrence practically impossible.
By way of example of the probabilistically impossible odds of abiogenesis, consider
the May 31, 2007 paper published by Eugene V. Koonin of the National Center for
Biotechnology Information. Peer reviewed and published in Biology Today [2],
Koonin calculated the probability of the most simple life form arising by natural
processes, with the following conclusion:
That is, the chance of life occurring by natural processes is 1 in 10 followed by 1018
zeros. Koonin's intent was to show that short of postulating a multiverse of an
infinite number of universes, the chance of life occuring on earth is vanishingly
small, and we can understand the practical import to be that life by natural proceses
in a universe such as ours to be impossible.
Other prominent evolutionists agree that naturally occuring life from non-life is
impossible. Evolutionist and theoretical physicist Paul Davies, for example,
considers random self-assembly of proteins to be “a nonstarter”.[3] Davies
recognizes that life as we know it requires hundreds of thousands of specialist
proteins, not to mention the nucleic acids; the number of amino acids sequenced in
a small protein is 10^130 (written as one followed by 130 zeros). According to
Davies, such an improbable sequence that is best explained by unconventional
theories such as life has always existed. That is, there was no origin of life, because
life is eternal, “spread around the universe … without having originated anywhere in
particular”.[4]
Davies also argues for a yet-to-be-discovered natural law, one that could be capable
of abiogenesis:
proposed explanations, Davies concluded, “If you have found the foregoing
argument persuasive, you could be forgiven for concluding that a genome really is a
miraculous object. However, most of the problems I have outlined above apply with
equal force to the evolution of the genome over time” [6]
Likewise, Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick (who along with James Watson,
determined DNA’s molecular structure), considered the chance synthesis of even a
small protein of 200 amino acids so improbable that he concluded that “the great
majority of sequences can never have been synthesized at all, at any time.” [7]
Sir Fred Hoyle, British AstronomerFinally, consider Sir Fred Hoyle, an atheist
astronomer who nevertheless reached the conclusion that the universe is governed
by a greater intelligence. In 1978, Hoyle described Charles Darwin's theory of
evolution as wrong and claimed that the belief that the first living cell was created in
the "sea of life" was just as erroneous. Together with Chandra Wickramasinghe,
Hoyle stated:
"universal probability bound" at 10^150 (1 in 10 followed by 150 zeros). [9]
Clearly, then, to an objective observer of the material evidence, the fact of life's
existence, knowing that it must have a genesis, or a beginning, holds little in the way
of evidence for naturalistic, unguided, unintelligent processes of nature.
Origin of life, therefore, is prima facie evidence of intelligent agency, and is at
minimum sufficient observational evidence to support a reasonable scientific
inferrence of intelligent design.
Footnotes:
1. Chemical Evolution: the hypothesis that the appearance of life from non-living materials
occurred via Material Causes alone.
2. The cosmological model of eternal inflation and the transition from chance to biological
evolution in the history of life
3. Paul Davies, The Fifth Miracle, The Search for the Origin of Life (New York: Simon & Schuster,
1999), p. 91).
4. Ibid., pp. 247-49.
5. Ibid., p. 259.
6. Ibid., p. 120.
7. Francis Crick, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981) p. 51-2).
8. Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Where Microbes Boldly Went, New Scientist,
vol. 91 (August 13, 1991), p. 415.
9. William Dembski, The Design Inference, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), sec.
6.5.
necessary for his theory of origin of species to work. That is, Darwinism is a
naturalistic explanation for the origin of species that assumes a replicating life form
to start the process.
Origin of life from non-living sources is termed abiogenesis or chemical evolution
[1] and scientific hypotheses that seek explanations for a first replicating life form
suitable for Darwinian processes must postulate an unintelligent, deterministic
physical cause for the first complex strand of DNA or other biologically active
material.
Atheists, evolutionists and Darwinists who seek to provide an explanation for
unguided, unintelligently caused abiogenesis face the problem of proposing how
the extremely unlikely occurrence of life could appear or evolve from purely
unintelligent physical causes. By any account (and there are many such accounts,
made by creationists and evolutionists alike), the probability of such an occurrence
by any known natural causes over any postulated time period is so low as to make
the occurrence practically impossible.
By way of example of the probabilistically impossible odds of abiogenesis, consider
the May 31, 2007 paper published by Eugene V. Koonin of the National Center for
Biotechnology Information. Peer reviewed and published in Biology Today [2],
Koonin calculated the probability of the most simple life form arising by natural
processes, with the following conclusion:
- The requirements for the emergence of a primitive, coupled replication-
translation system, which is considered a candidate for the breakthrough
stage in this paper, are much greater. At a minimum, spontaneous formation
of: - two rRNAs with a total size of at least 1000 nucleotides - ~10 primitive
adaptors of ~30 nucleotides each, in total, ~300 nucleotides - at least one
RNA encoding a replicase, ~500 nucleotides (low bound) is required. In the
above notation, n = 1800, resulting in E <10-1018.
That is, the chance of life occurring by natural processes is 1 in 10 followed by 1018
zeros. Koonin's intent was to show that short of postulating a multiverse of an
infinite number of universes, the chance of life occuring on earth is vanishingly
small, and we can understand the practical import to be that life by natural proceses
in a universe such as ours to be impossible.
Other prominent evolutionists agree that naturally occuring life from non-life is
impossible. Evolutionist and theoretical physicist Paul Davies, for example,
considers random self-assembly of proteins to be “a nonstarter”.[3] Davies
recognizes that life as we know it requires hundreds of thousands of specialist
proteins, not to mention the nucleic acids; the number of amino acids sequenced in
a small protein is 10^130 (written as one followed by 130 zeros). According to
Davies, such an improbable sequence that is best explained by unconventional
theories such as life has always existed. That is, there was no origin of life, because
life is eternal, “spread around the universe … without having originated anywhere in
particular”.[4]
Davies also argues for a yet-to-be-discovered natural law, one that could be capable
of abiogenesis:
- [E]mergent laws of complexity offer reasonable hope for a better
understanding not only of biogenesis, but of biological evolution too. Such
laws might differ from the familiar laws of physics in a fundamental and
important respect. Whereas the laws of physics merely shuffle information
around, a complexity law might actually create information, or at least wrest it
from the environment and etch it onto a material structure.[5]
proposed explanations, Davies concluded, “If you have found the foregoing
argument persuasive, you could be forgiven for concluding that a genome really is a
miraculous object. However, most of the problems I have outlined above apply with
equal force to the evolution of the genome over time” [6]
Likewise, Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick (who along with James Watson,
determined DNA’s molecular structure), considered the chance synthesis of even a
small protein of 200 amino acids so improbable that he concluded that “the great
majority of sequences can never have been synthesized at all, at any time.” [7]
Sir Fred Hoyle, British AstronomerFinally, consider Sir Fred Hoyle, an atheist
astronomer who nevertheless reached the conclusion that the universe is governed
by a greater intelligence. In 1978, Hoyle described Charles Darwin's theory of
evolution as wrong and claimed that the belief that the first living cell was created in
the "sea of life" was just as erroneous. Together with Chandra Wickramasinghe,
Hoyle stated:
- Precious little in the way of biochemical evolution could have happened on
the Earth. It is easy to show that the two thousand or so enzymes that span
the whole of life could not have evolved on the Earth. If one counts the
number of trial assemblies of amino acids that are needed to give rise to the
enzymes, the probability of their discovery by random shufflings turns out to
be less than 1 in 10 to the power of 40,000.[8]
"universal probability bound" at 10^150 (1 in 10 followed by 150 zeros). [9]
Clearly, then, to an objective observer of the material evidence, the fact of life's
existence, knowing that it must have a genesis, or a beginning, holds little in the way
of evidence for naturalistic, unguided, unintelligent processes of nature.
Origin of life, therefore, is prima facie evidence of intelligent agency, and is at
minimum sufficient observational evidence to support a reasonable scientific
inferrence of intelligent design.
Footnotes:
1. Chemical Evolution: the hypothesis that the appearance of life from non-living materials
occurred via Material Causes alone.
2. The cosmological model of eternal inflation and the transition from chance to biological
evolution in the history of life
3. Paul Davies, The Fifth Miracle, The Search for the Origin of Life (New York: Simon & Schuster,
1999), p. 91).
4. Ibid., pp. 247-49.
5. Ibid., p. 259.
6. Ibid., p. 120.
7. Francis Crick, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981) p. 51-2).
8. Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Where Microbes Boldly Went, New Scientist,
vol. 91 (August 13, 1991), p. 415.
9. William Dembski, The Design Inference, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), sec.
6.5.
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |