Is there design in nature?

You are out on a walk. You see a stick leaning against a tree. You observe the stick and the tree. From your observation, can you conclude that it is an evidence of intelligent activity? Perhaps not. Branches often break from trees, and sometimes lean against a tree. Such an event does not require any special explanation. Of course, a person might have placed the stick against the tree for a purpose, but there is no need to invoke this explanation if a more “natural” explanation is available.

But suppose you find three sticks leaning against each other in such a way that removal of any one stick would cause the other two to fall to the ground. Such a “tripod” could not be the result of a gradual accumulation of sticks. All three sticks must have been placed simultaneously. Is it reasonable to suppose that this could happen by chance? The probability of such an event happening by itself is unreasonably low. An intelligent person must have arranged the sticks for a purpose that may or may not be evident.

The key to understanding design

What distinguishes between intelligent design in the tripod arrangement as contrasted with the leaning stick? Perhaps two features: complexity and functional interdependence. The complexity of the “tripod” is represented by its three parts. Its functional interdependence is seen in the fact that none of the parts can be removed without destroying the tripod. A structure that is composed of three or more parts, all of which must come into relationship simultaneously, is best interpreted as the result of intelligent design. Although it can always be argued that such a structure could have originated by chance, such an interpretation would stretch the credulity of most people.

Can such an argument be reasonably extended to nature? If so, do we see evidence in nature of intelligent design?

The argument from design

For centuries the idea that nature resulted from intelligent design was accepted without question or controversy. The Scriptures affirm that God can be seen in nature. For example, listen to the psalmist: “O Lord, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth! When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers..., what is man that you are mindful of him?” (Psalm 8:1, 4, 5 NIV). Perhaps Paul makes the strongest case in Romans 1:19 and 20, where he argues that the evidence of God in nature is so clear that no one has an excuse for denying His existence, power, and sovereignty. For many authors, the evidences of design in nature point to the Creator God of the Bible. William Paley is a case in point.

Paley and the argument from contrivance. Paley claimed1 that nature is full of features that show evidence of design. He called them “contrivances,” and compared them to human-made devices or machines. Paley’s argument can be phrased as: The existence in living organisms of features that function like mechanical devices to achieve some purpose are evidence that they were created by a Designer.

Paley’s most famous illustration is a watch. Suppose you found a watch, having never seen one before. Would it not be obvious that the watch had been crafted and was designed for a purpose, even if the purpose was not understood? Likewise, many features of living organisms function as machines. If we recognize the activities of a designer when we observe mechanical devices, we can also recognize the activities of a designer when we observe similar features in living organisms. According to Paley, nature exhibits the properties of design, leading us to recognize the God of nature.

Charles Darwin and the argument against design. Early opposition to Paley came from Charles Darwin. Darwin admitted that even though he was “charmed” by Paley’s arguments, he could not blame God for designing all the evil in nature.2 Darwin proposed that God was so far removed from nature that He did not intervene and was not responsible for the state of nature. In effect, Darwin claimed that nature was not designed, and therefore did not point to a designer. He proposed that unassisted natural processes were sufficient to explain the adaptive features of living organisms, through the process of natural selection. Apparently, Darwin would rather have God good but in the distance than close to us and evil. Most of us would probably agree. But was Darwin’s argument from natural selection valid?

Darwin himself identified a method by which his theory might be refuted. In Chapter 6 of his book, the Origin of Species,3 Darwin stated: “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.”

Darwin claimed he could find no such cases, but others have made the opposite claim.

Arguments for design

Clearly, the argument from design is not valid if nature is not designed. Darwin shifted the focus of the debate to whether nature is truly designed. Thus, our interest focuses on the argument for design.

The argument from “irreducible complexity.” Michael Behe of Lehigh University in Pennsylvania is one of the current leaders of argument for design.4 He bases his argument on what he calls “irreducible complexity.” For an illustration, he uses an ordinary mousetrap composed of a platform, a bait pan, a lever, a “guillotine,” a spring, and some staples. The parts of the mousetrap work together to perform a function—catching mice. Let the mousetrap represent an organ that had evolved from some simpler ancestral structure. What would the ancestral structure look like, and what function would it have? How could a mousetrap be simplified, yet retain any function? Imagine removing any one of the components of the mousetrap—the resulting structure would have no function at all. The mousetrap is irreducibly complex. If any such example could be found among living organisms, Darwin’s theory would “absolutely break down.” According to Behe, the cilium is one such example.

A cilium is a small hair-like structure that moves back and forth in a fluid medium, providing a method of swimming in certain one-celled organisms. Cilia are also present in our respiratory tracts, and their movements help remove particles from our lungs. At least three parts are required for active movement: a part that moves; a link to an energy supply; and an “anchor” to control the position of the movable part. In the case of a cilium, the moving part is composed of molecules of tubulin; energy for movement is supplied through the activities of molecules of dynein; and the parts of the cilium are held together by molecules of nexin. Without any one of these, the cilium has no function. Thus the cilium appears to be irreducibly complex.

As one might expect, those who are philosophically committed to evolution refuse to accept the argument from irreducible complexity. However, this rejection is based on philosophical, not empirical grounds, as evidenced by the total lack of demonstration of evolutionary claims.

The argument from improbability. Some circumstances seem so unexpected that one suspects there must be something more than chance involved. Most scientists are willing to attribute a result to chance if it could be expected to occur by chance as often as five times in 100 trials. Some scientists will lower the acceptable odds to one chance in 1,000 trials, depending on the nature of the event. But there are limits to what anyone will reasonably accept as the result of chance. If the probability of an event is exceedingly low, it is reasonable to suppose that it did not happen as the result of chance. If the event also seems to have a purpose, it is reasonable to suppose that the event was guided by an intelligent mind.

Darwin admitted that he “shuddered” when he thought of the problem of the evolution of the human eye. He tried to make a case for the evolution of the eye by pointing to a variety of less-complex eyes in other animals, and suggesting that they might represent stages through which a more complex eye might have evolved. However, it is not clear that he convinced even himself. The evolution of the eye would require an elaborate series of improbable events that most people would consider unlikely to occur without a designer.5

The argument from mystery

Many arguments for design have been based on a lack of understanding of a particular process. Before the mechanism for the circulation of the blood was understood, one might have been tempted to claim that blood circulation was a mystery beyond our understanding, and this in itself was evidence for the workings of a superior intellect. Problems arose when the mechanism was discovered, seemingly making God no longer necessary. Examples such as this have led to a general suspicion of any type of argument for design. Such “arguments from mystery” contain two features: ignorance of the mechanism of a particular phenomenon, and an appeal that the phenomenon is a mystery beyond our understanding. Hence we have the “god-of-the-gaps” argument.

The argument from irreducible complexity should be contrasted with the argument from mystery. The first is based on two principal features: the system must have an identified function, and the components of the system must be known and identified. Thus, this is an argument from knowledge, and is completely different from the argument from mystery.

Examples of design in nature

Many examples of design in nature can be described, but we shall note a few here.

The existence of the universe.6 The existence of the universe depends on a precise combination of finely balanced physical constants. If any of several were different, the universe could not exist. For example, if the electromagnetic force were slightly greater, atomic nuclei would not exist. Other physical constants include the values of the gravitational constant and the strong and weak nuclear forces.

The appropriateness of conditions on earth for the support of life.7 The earth differs from other planets in ways that permit life to exist. If any of these conditions were not present, life as we know it could not exist on earth. For example, the earth’s atmospheric composition is unique among planets in our solar system.

The existence of life. Life requires both proteins and nucleic acids. Neither of these materials is found in the absence of life. Both must be present in order for life to exist. For example, protein production requires the presence of both protein enzymes and nucleic acids.

Unique genes are found in certain groups of organisms. Different groups of organisms have different genes that are not found in other groups. New genes require new information. It seems highly unlikely that new information can generate itself through random processes, even if starting with an extra copy of a gene. Additional discoveries are needed to help clarify this point.

The human mind. The human mind appears to be exceedingly complex, substantially beyond what is necessary for natural selection. The mechanism for certain types of mental activity seems beyond our ability to understand. For example, science has no good explanation for human self-awareness or for our capacity for language and abstract thinking.

Other examples of design include the existence of the genetic code, the process of protein production in living cells, the process of nucleic acid production in living cells, the senses, gene regulation, the complex chemistry of the photosynthetic pathway; sex, etc. While some conjectures have been offered as to how these features might have arisen without intelligent design, the proposed processes seem so highly improbable that intelligent design seems more plausible to many scholars.

Counter-arguments against design

Several objections have been raised to the argument for design. We will briefly note four types:

Pseudo-design.8 Patterns may form as the result of natural processes, with no need to invoke an intelligent designer. For example, a snowflake has an intricate pattern, but no one suggests that God especially intervened to create this pattern. Rather, the pattern can be explained in terms of physical processes and molecular properties. Complex, non-linear systems frequently exhibit unexpected properties that “emerge” naturally without any intelligent input. However, the complexity of the required initial conditions, such as the necessary existence of a computer, seems dependent on a designer.

Natural selection can be considered a type of pseudo-design argument. If organisms can be modified by natural processes to fit their environment, there is no need to propose that God specially intervened to design them. A serious weakness of this argument is that it presupposes a structure to be modified. Recent advances in molecular biology have revealed the existence of levels of interdependent complexity far beyond the expectations of those who developed the theory of evolution. The problem of the origins of biological structures appear to provide a powerful argument for design.

Defective design.9 Many features of nature appear to be flawed. It is sometimes argued that an intelligent creator would do a better job of designing nature. Some examples of allegedly defective design include the “thumb” of the giant panda and the structural arrangement of the retina of the eye of vertebrates. However, no one has shown that these structures function poorly, removing the basis for the argument. Furthermore, imperfections are not unexpected in a world that was designed by God, but has been corrupted by the activities of Satan.

Imposed design.10 Humans like to organize observations into patterns that may be artificial. An example would be seeing familiar shapes in the clouds—there is nothing real that needs an explanation, except perhaps to wonder why people do such things. Most scientists reject this argument, since the practice of science depends on the existence of real patterns to be explained. All observers agree that nature at least appears to be designed.

Evil design.11 Many features of organisms seem “designed” for killing or causing disease or pain. The malarial parasite is an example. It does not seem right to blame God for designing the causes of death and disease. On the other hand, if God did not design the “evil” things of nature, why claim that He designed the “good” things of nature? The presence of evil in nature does not refute the argument for design, but may raise questions about the nature or character of the designer. The biblical explanation is that this world is the battleground between two designers, a Creator and a corrupter. The result is that nature sends a mixed signal; both good and evil are present.12

Conclusion

The “argument for design” was widely ignored in the century after Darwin, in part because knowledge of living systems was so incomplete that the gaps could be filled in with imagination. As biological knowledge has increased, the argument for design has been revived and expressed in more sophisticated ways, such as the argument from “irreducible complexity.” The existence of certain features that could not survive in intermediate stages is evidence of a Designer. It is also evidence of a Designer God who created by special intervention—Creation—and not through a continuous process such as evolution. The argument from irreducible complexity is an argument that supports an interventionist, discontinuous creation.

According to Paul in Romans, nature is clearly designed, but not all are open to recognize the Designer. Nature can be properly understood only in the light of God’s special revelation in the Scriptures. Guided by the Bible, we can join with the psalmist in praise to the Creator: “The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims His handiwork. . . . Their voice goes out through all the Earth, and their words to the end of the world” (Psalm 19:1, 4).

by L. James Gibson (Ph.D., L.L.U.)

Acetylcholine and muscular contraction

Without doubt, one of the leading evidences of which we are created and that we do not come from lengths and improbable, even impossible evolutionary processes is the amazing complexity of the human body. As all we know, unfortunately still there are scientific colleagues who create in fantasies and myths like the gradual evolution of the species, as well as in the operation and almost fortuitous assembly of all components and parts.

Today we will be reviewing some of the events that are related to the muscular contraction, and as the necessary factors for the correct operation of our machinery are several, which is an undeniable evidence of being the work of a Creator and not of fairy tales and speculative processes. Between these events we can find:

1. Action potential of motoneuron
2. Depolarization of motoneuron terminal
3. Ca 2+ enters motoneuron terminal
4. Acetylcholine (ACh)released into synaptic cleft
5. Ach diffuses across synapse
6. Acetylcholine binds to receptors
7. Depolarization of muscle end plate
8. Action potential in muscle
9. Liberation of Ca 2+
10. Increased intracellular Ca 2+
11. Actin and Myosin binds
12. Production of muscular tension because of filaments
13. Cross bridges pivot
14. Muscular relaxation

So, after all to drive of our muscles it does not seem as simple as before we believed no? In short, the totality of our capacities and our actions, physical, as mental and as much spiritual (related to God), is a fundamental part of the complete development of our being, and is ours to have to make a correct and suitable use of our faculties, like good administrators of our bodies.

“What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.” (1 Corinthians 6:19,20)

“For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.” (Psalm 139:13,14)

Coal: How Did It Originate?

We may well call it black diamonds. Every basket is power and civilization." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Call it black diamond. Call it basket of power. Or call it coal. It is one of the most useful natural resources found in the earth. It's composed of vegetable matter, modified by heat, pressure, catalytic activity, and decay. But how did the vegetable matter originate? The question has long been a point of controversy. The majority of those who have studied coal believe that it is derived from natural organic accumulations such as peat bogs, marshes, and swamps that became buried. A minority suggests that some, if not most, coal developed from plant material transported from elsewhere.

In the 1700s and early 1800s, students of the earth largely held that coal came from plant materials buried during a major catastrophe (Noah's Flood). These individuals pointed to evidence suggesting that the formation of coal did not resemble any modern processes. They observed that modern bogs, swamps, and similar areas are not comparable to coal seams in lateral extent, depth, and composition.1

Catastrophic burial or gradual accumulation?

With the rise of uniformitarianism,2 scientists began to explain all geological phenomena by observable processes. Charles Lyell, who promoted the uniformitarian principle, visited some of the coal regions, both in Europe and North America.3 He and other researchers noted the association of upright petrified trees with seams of coal. They argued that coal could not be the product of burial during a worldwide catastrophe because the growth of trees associated with coal beds required too much time (Figure 1). This observation and argument were important factors in shifting opinion about the origin of coal from that of rapid accumulation and burial of plant debris to processes of gradual growth, accumulation, and burial.

Whichever view one finds most convincing-catastrophic burial or gradual accumulation--depends somewhat upon the paradigm with which one approaches the subject. Since the author and most of the readers of this article hold a worldview influenced by the Bible, we will concentrate more on evidences that support biblical history. However, some of the arguments for growth and gradual accumulation must be examined also.

Most coal is clearly composed of vegetable matter such as tree trunks, branches, bark, leaves, needles, and macerated plant debris. Carboniferous coals (usually the harder kind) are composed of ferns, club mosses, horsetails, and other plants not classified with the seed-bearing plants (evergreen and deciduous trees and flowering plants). The softer coals (usually higher in the geological column) are mostly the product of buried evergreen and deciduous trees. Because coal reveals that it is composed of plant remains, the plants must have grown where the coal is now located (autochthonous) or they must have been transported to the present location of the coal beds (allochthonous).

Questions from coal beds

Perhaps the first obvious question one might ask is, "Does a coal bed resemble a buried peat bog or marsh?" To answer that question we need to know something about bogs and marshes. A peat bog is usually composed of a special type of moss (Sphagnum). There may be other plants associated with the peat, but the dominant plant is Sphagnum moss. A marsh or swamp may have a greater variety of plant types--mostly the kinds of plants that thrive in wet environments. For peat bogs, the answer to the above question is a clear "No." Most coal is clearly not buried peat.4 For a swamp or marsh, the answer is not so clear, especially for the Carboniferous coals. Many of the plant types found in these coal beds are extinct.5 We cannot be certain that they preferred a wetland habitat. Study of modern relatives of those plants indicates that most of them were not swamp dwellers. The Cretaceous to Eocene coals were derived mostly from forest trees. Some trees such as the cypress often grow in swamplands today, but many of the others could not survive in such an environment.

Another obvious question is, "Do modern wetland environments provide an adequate model for the great deposits of coal?" For this question the answer is more definite, and was used by early geologists to support their Flood hypothesis. Although a few swamps and marshes cover large areas, for example the Dismal Swamp of Virginia, in the U.S.A., many coal seams are much more extensive. The Pittsburgh bed covers parts of the states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia, U.S.A., an area of 5,000 square kilometers, and averages a little more than two meters thick. The Appalachian coal basin extends over some 180,000 square kilometers. The extent of minable coal runs into the thousands of millions of tons. The Powder River basin of Wyoming, U.S.A. (30,000 square kilometers) is calculated to have nearly 22 billion tons of minable coal. The Latrobe Valley in Australia is estimated to be able to yield 70 billion tons of coal. The depth or thickness of coal beds is even less comparable with modern organic accumulations.

Problems for accumulation theory

Under more detailed examination, problems for the autochthonous theory arise. Some coals contain animal remains, usually sea animals.6 One common example is Spirorbis, a small coiled tubeworm less than 5 mm in diameter (Figure 2). The presence of a sea worm in peat or swamp beds that are considered to be autochthonous does not fit well into a uniformitarian hypothesis. To avoid this problem, Spirorbis is said to have lived in a freshwater environment during the Carboniferous period even though it is commonly found throughout the geological column and in modern oceans attached to corals, mollusks, and seaweeds.7 Obviously, a marine worm mixed with coal is an argument for the sea being involved in the formation of coal.

Coal often shows detailed preservation of the original organic debris. If coal were the product of plant accumulations in bogs and marshes, some degree of decay would be expected. Sometimes exquisite fossils of fern fronds and leaves are located directly below the root systems of standing petrified trees (Figure 3). If the trees truly grew where they now stand, any organic remains such as leaves or fern fronds would have decayed during the time required for the growth of the trees and before burial and petrification.

One of the strongest arguments for coal being plant debris buried in place comes from the "roots" (Stigmaria) of the upright petrified trees associated with the coal. These are giant clubmosses with trunks a meter in diameter and up to 35 meters high. The Stigmaria, usually several centimeters in diameter and sometimes many meters in length, support numerous "rootlets" (appendages) that penetrate into the sediments (Figure 4). They can be likened to a giant bottle brush in appearance. The radiation of these appendages into the sediments is considered to be evidence of their being in growth position.8

Controversy over the nature of the "roots" of Stigmaria has waged ever since the study of coal began, but as yet no clear consensus has developed. Modern clubmosses (small trailing plants seldom over a meter high) have underground creeping rhizomes similar in structure to the Stigmaria of the giant clubmosses. But if the Stigmaria of these clubmosses are underground creeping rhizomes, where are the true roots? None have been found with these fossil giants. Perhaps these Stigmaria served the function of true roots as well as propagating more shoots.

Although superficially the Stigmaria with their spreading appendages look as if they are in their position of growth, certain details suggest otherwise. Usually, the Stigmaria are isolated pieces unconnected with the base of any tree. Yet even these pieces show the appendages spreading out into the sediments. The trunks of the large upright petrified clubmosses are hollow and filled with sediments. Occasionally, pieces of Stigmaria were washed in with the muds and sands that filled the hollow stumps.9 In these cases also, the appendages radiate outward from where they are attached in spiral rows to the Stigmaria. Apparently, the appendages were sufficiently stiff to prevent collapse when buried in the mud and sand. Perhaps the shale beds were slurries of mud in which the pieces of Stigmaria with appendages were carried. Or the Stigmaria and appendages along with fine sediments settled out of a muddy suspension of water. If pieces of severed Stigmaria were transported by water or mud, they might show a preferred current alignment. This has been reported at two locations in Nova Scotia, Canada, and in Holland.10

Although the problem of the Stigmaria and radiating appendages cannot be fully solved, a study of Stigmaria supports arguments for transport just as well as for growth in position.

Changing plant debris into coal

The process of changing plant debris into coal has been of interest for many years. Laboratory experiments have succeeded in changing plant tissue into coal in a year or less.11 Timbers used in ancient coal mines that have been re-entered in modern times are sometimes coalified. A recent important discovery has been the role of clay as a catalyst for the coalification process.12 If clay was a necessary ingredient for changing plant material to coal, a worldwide flood would better explain the source of clay than would a uniformitarian wetland environment.

The amount of vegetable matter necessary to produce a meter of coal is estimated to be somewhere between 5 and 20 meters, depending upon the hardness of the coal. Modern accumulations of plant remains (as in a peat bog) are seldom deeper than 10 to 20 meters. According to this formula, a 20-meter-deep bog would produce one to four meters of coal. Many coal seams are much thicker than that. Coal beds 30 meters thick are not uncommon. Some are more than 100 meters thick, and Australia contains one over 240 meters thick! The accumulation of vegetable matter 1,200 meters or more thick (5 x 240) needed to produce such thick coal deposits is astonishing, even when considered in a Flood model. However, unusual as it may be, a catastrophic accumulation of plant remains in a sinking basin is easier to visualize than the formation of in situ bogs of such dimensions.

Successive layers of coal separated by a few centimeters to a few meters of sediment are common. If these beds are autochthonous, the successive development of bogs or marshes one above another over ages of time is required. Bog and marsh environments require special conditions. The repeating of such conditions time after time to produce numerous successive levels of coal in the same location is unrealistic (Figure 5). The geologic processes that brought about the burial of one layer of vegetable matter would likely erase the conditions needed for the production of another bog in the same location.

The repeated transport and deposition of mats of floating plant flotsam and their subsequent burial provides a more reasonable explanation. Recent research suggests that tides, with their daily rise and fall of water, could be involved in the repeated transport and deposition of suspended plant debris.13

In the Indiana basin, I have observed rhythmic deposits (considered to be the result of tidal action) associated with the typical features of Carboniferous coal-bearing sediments. However, daily tidal fluctuations would deposit mud too rapidly to permit the growth of plants. Their presence in such deposits requires transport. Observations of floating trees reveal that with sufficient time and water many will float and sink upright.14

The catastrophic burial of plant debris and its subsequent change to coal is not accepted by most coal geologists. However, the dominant "peat bog" theory presents problems that have remained unanswered for more than a hundred years. A Flood model for the formation of coal answers some of these problems and provides a scientifically reasonable explanation for the origin of the vast quantities of coal that exist worldwide.

Harold G. Coffin (Ph.D., Univ. of Southern California)

Notes and References

1. Among the first to advance the diluvial origin of fossils and sedimentary strata was Nicolaus Steno (1630-1687). In his time these were novel suggestions. Other notable deluge geologists who followed him were John Woodward (1667-1727), and Jean-Andre Deluc (1727-1817).

2. The uniformitarian interpretation of earth history established especially by James Hutton and Charles Lyell attempts to apply present rates of geological processes to the past. For instance, average rates of erosion and sedimentation seen occurring today were assumed to be satisfactory models for understanding past similar processes.

3. Charles Lyell, "On the Upright Fossil Trees Found at Different Levels in the Coal Strata of Cumberland, Nova Scotia," Proc. Geol. Soc. London 4 (1843), pp. 176-178.

4. Wilfrid Francis, Coal, Its Formation and Composition (London: Edward Arnold Publishers Ltd., 1961).

5. A. C. Seward, Fossil Plants (New York: Hafner Pub. Co., Inc., 1898-1919, 1963).

6. Sergius Mamay and Ellis L. Yochelson, "Occurrence and Significance of Marine Animal Remains in American Coal Balls," U. S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Papers 354-I (1961), pp. 193-224.

7. Harold G. Coffin, "A Paleoecological Misinterpretation," Creation Res. Soc. Quart. 5 (1968), p. 85. Spirorbis (phylum Annelida) has a trochophore larva. Several other phyla also have species with trochophore larvae. No species with trochophore larvae have been found in fresh water.

8. W. E. Logan, "On the Character of the Beds of Clay Immediately Below the Coal-Seams of S. Wales," Proc. Geol. Soc. London 3 (1842), pp. 275-277. This interesting note by Logan was one of the first to point out the abundance of stigmaria and appendages in the underclays below coal seams. Logan proposed that this clay was the soil on which the coal-producing plants originated and the stigmaria and appendages represented roots still in situ. Research since then fails to support that these clays are soils. See Leonard G. Schultz, "Petrology of Underclays," Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 69 (1958), pp. 363-402.

9. Richard Brown, "Section of the Lower Coal-Measures of the Sydney Coalfield, in the Island of Cape Breton," Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc. London, 6 (1850), p. 127. While doing research in the Nova Scotia, Canada coal beds, I also documented two examples of pieces of stigmaria inside hollow stumps. See Harold G. Coffin, "Research on the Classic Joggins Petrified Trees," Creation Res. Soc. Annual (1969), pp. 35-44, 70.

10. N. A. Rupke, "Sedimentary Evidence for the Allochthonous Origin of Stigmaria, Carboniferous, Nova Scotia," Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 80 (1969), pp. 2109-2114; W. F. M. Kimpe and A. A. Thiadens, "On the Occurrence of Coal Raft Above and Rhizome Inclusions in Seam Finefrau B, South Limbourg, Holland," Proc. Third Inter. Cong. of Sedimentology, Groningen-Wageningen (1951), pp. 167-173.

11. John Larsen, "From Lignin to Coal in a Year," Nature 31 (March 28, 1985), p. 316.

12. R. Hayatsu, et al., "Artificial Coalification Study: Preparation and Characterization of Synthetic Macerals," Organic Geochemistry 6 (1984).

13. "Blame it on the Moon," Scientific American, February 1989, p. 18.

14. Harold G. Coffin, "The Puzzle of the Petrified Trees," College and University Dialogue 4:1 (1992), pp. 11-13, 30-31.

Is there design in nature?

You are out on a walk. You see a stick leaning against a tree. You observe the stick and the tree. From your observation, can you conclude that it is an evidence of intelligent activity? Perhaps not. Branches often break from trees, and sometimes lean against a tree. Such an event does not require any special explanation. Of course, a person might have placed the stick against the tree for a purpose, but there is no need to invoke this explanation if a more “natural” explanation is available.

But suppose you find three sticks leaning against each other in such a way that removal of any one stick would cause the other two to fall to the ground. Such a “tripod” could not be the result of a gradual accumulation of sticks. All three sticks must have been placed simultaneously. Is it reasonable to suppose that this could happen by chance? The probability of such an event happening by itself is unreasonably low. An intelligent person must have arranged the sticks for a purpose that may or may not be evident.

The key to understanding design

What distinguishes between intelligent design in the tripod arrangement as contrasted with the leaning stick? Perhaps two features: complexity and functional interdependence. The complexity of the “tripod” is represented by its three parts. Its functional interdependence is seen in the fact that none of the parts can be removed without destroying the tripod. A structure that is composed of three or more parts, all of which must come into relationship simultaneously, is best interpreted as the result of intelligent design. Although it can always be argued that such a structure could have originated by chance, such an interpretation would stretch the credulity of most people.

Can such an argument be reasonably extended to nature? If so, do we see evidence in nature of intelligent design?

The argument from design

For centuries the idea that nature resulted from intelligent design was accepted without question or controversy. The Scriptures affirm that God can be seen in nature. For example, listen to the psalmist: “O Lord, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth! When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers..., what is man that you are mindful of him?” (Psalm 8:1, 4, 5 NIV). Perhaps Paul makes the strongest case in Romans 1:19 and 20, where he argues that the evidence of God in nature is so clear that no one has an excuse for denying His existence, power, and sovereignty. For many authors, the evidences of design in nature point to the Creator God of the Bible. William Paley is a case in point.

Paley and the argument from contrivance. Paley claimed1 that nature is full of features that show evidence of design. He called them “contrivances,” and compared them to human-made devices or machines. Paley’s argument can be phrased as: The existence in living organisms of features that function like mechanical devices to achieve some purpose are evidence that they were created by a Designer.

Paley’s most famous illustration is a watch. Suppose you found a watch, having never seen one before. Would it not be obvious that the watch had been crafted and was designed for a purpose, even if the purpose was not understood? Likewise, many features of living organisms function as machines. If we recognize the activities of a designer when we observe mechanical devices, we can also recognize the activities of a designer when we observe similar features in living organisms. According to Paley, nature exhibits the properties of design, leading us to recognize the God of nature.

Charles Darwin and the argument against design. Early opposition to Paley came from Charles Darwin. Darwin admitted that even though he was “charmed” by Paley’s arguments, he could not blame God for designing all the evil in nature.2 Darwin proposed that God was so far removed from nature that He did not intervene and was not responsible for the state of nature. In effect, Darwin claimed that nature was not designed, and therefore did not point to a designer. He proposed that unassisted natural processes were sufficient to explain the adaptive features of living organisms, through the process of natural selection. Apparently, Darwin would rather have God good but in the distance than close to us and evil. Most of us would probably agree. But was Darwin’s argument from natural selection valid?

Darwin himself identified a method by which his theory might be refuted. In Chapter 6 of his book, the Origin of Species,3 Darwin stated: “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.”

Darwin claimed he could find no such cases, but others have made the opposite claim.

Arguments for design

Clearly, the argument from design is not valid if nature is not designed. Darwin shifted the focus of the debate to whether nature is truly designed. Thus, our interest focuses on the argument for design.

The argument from “irreducible complexity.” Michael Behe of Lehigh University in Pennsylvania is one of the current leaders of argument for design.4 He bases his argument on what he calls “irreducible complexity.” For an illustration, he uses an ordinary mousetrap composed of a platform, a bait pan, a lever, a “guillotine,” a spring, and some staples. The parts of the mousetrap work together to perform a function—catching mice. Let the mousetrap represent an organ that had evolved from some simpler ancestral structure. What would the ancestral structure look like, and what function would it have? How could a mousetrap be simplified, yet retain any function? Imagine removing any one of the components of the mousetrap—the resulting structure would have no function at all. The mousetrap is irreducibly complex. If any such example could be found among living organisms, Darwin’s theory would “absolutely break down.” According to Behe, the cilium is one such example.

A cilium is a small hair-like structure that moves back and forth in a fluid medium, providing a method of swimming in certain one-celled organisms. Cilia are also present in our respiratory tracts, and their movements help remove particles from our lungs. At least three parts are required for active movement: a part that moves; a link to an energy supply; and an “anchor” to control the position of the movable part. In the case of a cilium, the moving part is composed of molecules of tubulin; energy for movement is supplied through the activities of molecules of dynein; and the parts of the cilium are held together by molecules of nexin. Without any one of these, the cilium has no function. Thus the cilium appears to be irreducibly complex.

As one might expect, those who are philosophically committed to evolution refuse to accept the argument from irreducible complexity. However, this rejection is based on philosophical, not empirical grounds, as evidenced by the total lack of demonstration of evolutionary claims.

The argument from improbability. Some circumstances seem so unexpected that one suspects there must be something more than chance involved. Most scientists are willing to attribute a result to chance if it could be expected to occur by chance as often as five times in 100 trials. Some scientists will lower the acceptable odds to one chance in 1,000 trials, depending on the nature of the event. But there are limits to what anyone will reasonably accept as the result of chance. If the probability of an event is exceedingly low, it is reasonable to suppose that it did not happen as the result of chance. If the event also seems to have a purpose, it is reasonable to suppose that the event was guided by an intelligent mind.

Darwin admitted that he “shuddered” when he thought of the problem of the evolution of the human eye. He tried to make a case for the evolution of the eye by pointing to a variety of less-complex eyes in other animals, and suggesting that they might represent stages through which a more complex eye might have evolved. However, it is not clear that he convinced even himself. The evolution of the eye would require an elaborate series of improbable events that most people would consider unlikely to occur without a designer.5

The argument from mystery

Many arguments for design have been based on a lack of understanding of a particular process. Before the mechanism for the circulation of the blood was understood, one might have been tempted to claim that blood circulation was a mystery beyond our understanding, and this in itself was evidence for the workings of a superior intellect. Problems arose when the mechanism was discovered, seemingly making God no longer necessary. Examples such as this have led to a general suspicion of any type of argument for design. Such “arguments from mystery” contain two features: ignorance of the mechanism of a particular phenomenon, and an appeal that the phenomenon is a mystery beyond our understanding. Hence we have the “god-of-the-gaps” argument.

The argument from irreducible complexity should be contrasted with the argument from mystery. The first is based on two principal features: the system must have an identified function, and the components of the system must be known and identified. Thus, this is an argument from knowledge, and is completely different from the argument from mystery.

Examples of design in nature

Many examples of design in nature can be described, but we shall note a few here.

The existence of the universe.6 The existence of the universe depends on a precise combination of finely balanced physical constants. If any of several were different, the universe could not exist. For example, if the electromagnetic force were slightly greater, atomic nuclei would not exist. Other physical constants include the values of the gravitational constant and the strong and weak nuclear forces.

The appropriateness of conditions on earth for the support of life.7 The earth differs from other planets in ways that permit life to exist. If any of these conditions were not present, life as we know it could not exist on earth. For example, the earth’s atmospheric composition is unique among planets in our solar system.

The existence of life. Life requires both proteins and nucleic acids. Neither of these materials is found in the absence of life. Both must be present in order for life to exist. For example, protein production requires the presence of both protein enzymes and nucleic acids.

Unique genes are found in certain groups of organisms. Different groups of organisms have different genes that are not found in other groups. New genes require new information. It seems highly unlikely that new information can generate itself through random processes, even if starting with an extra copy of a gene. Additional discoveries are needed to help clarify this point.

The human mind. The human mind appears to be exceedingly complex, substantially beyond what is necessary for natural selection. The mechanism for certain types of mental activity seems beyond our ability to understand. For example, science has no good explanation for human self-awareness or for our capacity for language and abstract thinking.

Other examples of design include the existence of the genetic code, the process of protein production in living cells, the process of nucleic acid production in living cells, the senses, gene regulation, the complex chemistry of the photosynthetic pathway; sex, etc. While some conjectures have been offered as to how these features might have arisen without intelligent design, the proposed processes seem so highly improbable that intelligent design seems more plausible to many scholars.

Counter-arguments against design

Several objections have been raised to the argument for design. We will briefly note four types:

Pseudo-design.8 Patterns may form as the result of natural processes, with no need to invoke an intelligent designer. For example, a snowflake has an intricate pattern, but no one suggests that God especially intervened to create this pattern. Rather, the pattern can be explained in terms of physical processes and molecular properties. Complex, non-linear systems frequently exhibit unexpected properties that “emerge” naturally without any intelligent input. However, the complexity of the required initial conditions, such as the necessary existence of a computer, seems dependent on a designer.

Natural selection can be considered a type of pseudo-design argument. If organisms can be modified by natural processes to fit their environment, there is no need to propose that God specially intervened to design them. A serious weakness of this argument is that it presupposes a structure to be modified. Recent advances in molecular biology have revealed the existence of levels of interdependent complexity far beyond the expectations of those who developed the theory of evolution. The problem of the origins of biological structures appear to provide a powerful argument for design.

Defective design.9 Many features of nature appear to be flawed. It is sometimes argued that an intelligent creator would do a better job of designing nature. Some examples of allegedly defective design include the “thumb” of the giant panda and the structural arrangement of the retina of the eye of vertebrates. However, no one has shown that these structures function poorly, removing the basis for the argument. Furthermore, imperfections are not unexpected in a world that was designed by God, but has been corrupted by the activities of Satan.

Imposed design.10 Humans like to organize observations into patterns that may be artificial. An example would be seeing familiar shapes in the clouds—there is nothing real that needs an explanation, except perhaps to wonder why people do such things. Most scientists reject this argument, since the practice of science depends on the existence of real patterns to be explained. All observers agree that nature at least appears to be designed.

Evil design.11 Many features of organisms seem “designed” for killing or causing disease or pain. The malarial parasite is an example. It does not seem right to blame God for designing the causes of death and disease. On the other hand, if God did not design the “evil” things of nature, why claim that He designed the “good” things of nature? The presence of evil in nature does not refute the argument for design, but may raise questions about the nature or character of the designer. The biblical explanation is that this world is the battleground between two designers, a Creator and a corrupter. The result is that nature sends a mixed signal; both good and evil are present.12

Conclusion

The “argument for design” was widely ignored in the century after Darwin, in part because knowledge of living systems was so incomplete that the gaps could be filled in with imagination. As biological knowledge has increased, the argument for design has been revived and expressed in more sophisticated ways, such as the argument from “irreducible complexity.” The existence of certain features that could not survive in intermediate stages is evidence of a Designer. It is also evidence of a Designer God who created by special intervention—Creation—and not through a continuous process such as evolution. The argument from irreducible complexity is an argument that supports an interventionist, discontinuous creation.

According to Paul in Romans, nature is clearly designed, but not all are open to recognize the Designer. Nature can be properly understood only in the light of God’s special revelation in the Scriptures. Guided by the Bible, we can join with the psalmist in praise to the Creator: “The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims His handiwork. . . . Their voice goes out through all the Earth, and their words to the end of the world” (Psalm 19:1, 4).

L. James Gibson (Ph.D., Loma Linda University) is the director of Geoscience Research Institute. Address: Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, California, 92350, U.S.A. E-mail: jgibson@accmail.llu.edu.

Notes and references

1. W. Paley, Natural Theology (Houston: St. Thomas Books, 1972. Reprint of 1802 ed.). Paley’s argument has recently been discussed by J. T. Baldwin, “God and the World: William Paley’s Argument from Perfection Tradition: A Continuing Influence,” Harvard Theological Review, 1985, pp.109-120.

2. See N. C. Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation (University of Chicago Press, 1979), Chapter 7. For example, Darwin stated that he could not believe in a God that made cats to play with mice, or that designed tiny parasitic wasps to eat out the insides of a caterpillar.

3. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 6th ed. (New York: Penguin Books, 1958).

4. M. J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box (New York: The Free Press, 1996).

5. For a recent discussion of eye evolution and design, see D. E. Nilsson and S. Pelger, “A Pessimistic Estimate of the Time Required for an Eye to Evolve,” Proceedings, Royal Society of London, 1994, B 256:53-58. For a response to this paper, see J. T. Baldwin, “The Argument From Sufficient Initial System Organization as a Continuing Challenge to the Darwinian Rate and Method of Transitional Evolution,” Christian Scholar’s Review 24 (1995), pp. 423-443.

6. For further discussion of this point, see J. D. Barrow and F. J. Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986).

7. For a popular-level discussion of this from a somewhat mystical non-Christian viewpoint, see J. E. Lovelock, Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987); for a more conventional discussion, see R. E. D. Clark, The Universe: Plan or Accident? (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1961).

8. For an extreme argument of this type, see R. Deaconess, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: Norton and Co., 1986). Other examples include the argument of emergent complexity, such as S. Kauffman, The Origins of Order (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993). For an evaluation of Kauffman’s book, see J. Horgan, “From Complexity to Perplexity,” Scientific American 272:6 (1995), pp. 104-109.

9. An example of this argument is in S. J. Gould, The Panda’s Thumb (New York: Norton and Co., 1980).

10. A classic statement of this argument is D. Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779), (New York: Penguin Books, 1990).

11. For example, see D. L. Hull, “The God of the Galapagos,” Nature 352 (1991), pp. 485-486. See also Chapter 8 in P. J. Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984).

12. For a biblical approach to this problem, see John T. Baldwin, “God, The Sparrow, and the Emerald Boa,” College and University Dialogue 8:3 (1996), pp. 5-8.—Editors.

Turkish and Chinese explorers found Noah’s Ark

HONG KONG - A GROUP of Chinese and Turkish evangelical explorers said Monday they believe they may have found Noah's Ark - four thousand metres up a mountain in Turkey.

The team say they recovered wooden specimens from a structure on Mount Ararat in eastern Turkey that carbon dating proved was 4,800 years old, around the same time the ark is said to have been afloat.

'It's not 100 per cent that it is Noah's Ark, but we think it is 99.9 per cent that this is it,' Yeung Wing-cheung, a Hong Kong documentary filmmaker and member of the 15-strong team from Noah's Ark Ministries International told AFP.

The structure had several compartments, some with wooden beams, which were believed to house animals, he said. The group of evangelical archaeologists ruled out an established human settlement on the grounds that one had never been found above 3,500 metres in the vicinity, Yeung said.

Local Turkish officials will ask the central government in Ankara to apply for UNESCO World Heritage status so the site can be protected while a major archaeological dig is conducted, Yeung added.

The biblical story says God decided to flood the earth after seeing how corrupt it had become, and told Noah to build an ark and fill it with two of every animal species. After the flood waters receded, the Bible says, the ark came to rest on a mountain. Many believe that Mount Ararat, the highest point in the region, is where the ark and her inhabitants came aground. -- AFP

Dates calculated from "molecular evolution" do not match those in the fossil record

Fossil evidence indicates that ancient bacteria, Archea (Archaebacteria) have existed on the earth for at least 3.5 billion years (1). A study published in January, 1996 examined the origin of life through molecular evolution of "protein clocks" (2). A total of 531 sequences of the genes of 57 metabolic enzymes from 15 phylogenetic groups were plotted based upon the known divergence dates in the fossil record. The seven divergence points of these phyla were plotted verses the time of divergence, resulting in a straight line (r = 0.94, where r = 1.0 is a perfect fit).

The line indicated the origin of life occurred ~1.5 billion years ago, even though there is definitive evidence for life at 3.5 billion years ago. Drs. Mooers and Redfield attempted to explain the discrepancy with various alternatives (3). They suggested that the molecular evidence may be misleading. However, to reconcile the data, much of molecular biology would have to be discarded. They also suggested that the fossils chosen for use in the Doolittle et al. study may have been misdated. They discounted this possibility, since the fossil record of these creatures has been confirmed by numerous investigators in numerous studies. They suggested that there might have been a slower rate of amino acid substitution in early life forms. However, these creatures, being bacteria, have generation times of minutes, compared to later creatures, which have generation times of days to years. They concluded, "This idea has no basis in theory."

Mooers and Redfield then suggested that the results might be explained by multiple substitutions at the same site, thus underestimating divergence times. However, Doolittle et al. tested departure from the standard model and found that this had little effect upon divergence times. The model, in fact, predicts a divergence between the plants and the animals/fungi at one billion years ago, which many scientists would think was too long ago. The only conclusion Mooers and Redfield could come up with was that present day Archea are examples of convergent evolution and are not directly descended from the ancient Archea. They propose the original Archea arose, diversified, died and arose again two billion years later. The alternative theory, that God, the Creator, does not necessarily work through a protein clock, was not discussed.

References

1. Schopf, J.W. 1993. Science 260: 640-646.
2. Doolittle, R.F., D.-F. Feng, S. Tsang, G. Cho, and E. Little. 1996. Determining divergence times of the major kingdoms of living organisms with a protein clock. Science 271: 470-477.
3. Mooers, A.O. and R.J. Redfield. 1996. Digging up the roots of life. Science 379: 587-588.

Solar System Finite Age ?

The fact that radioactive isotopes are present in the materials from Earth, the Moon, and meteorites strongly suggests that our Solar System has a finite age. Can this age be calculated? Potential minimum and maximum ages for the formation of our Solar System may be obtained through an analysis of radioactive isotope ratios, parent:daughter ratios, and missing radioactive isotopes. For example, uranium-238 has a half-life of 4.47 billion years. Observing the limitations mentioned in the article, Radioisotope Age: Part II, which does not permit age calculations beyond 7-10 half-lives, we may conclude that the presence of uranium-238 in the Solar System implies a maximum age of about 4.5 billion years for its postulated consolidation. This figure is further refined by analyzing the uranium-235:uranium-238 ratio, which implies a maximum age of about 5 billion years.
Using the same method of analyzing parent:daughter ratios, paying attention to cases where daughter isotopes are found and parent isotopes are clearly absent, a minimum age can be obtained for the consolidation of the Solar System as proposed by the scientific community. For example, samarium-146, with a half-life of about 100 million years, is not found in naturally occurring deposits. However, its stable daughter product, neodymium-142, is found there. A 10 half-life calculation would therefore set a minimum age for consolidation of about one billion years. Thus, this process brings us to the interesting conclusion that the radiometric age of the planets, moons, and meteorites of our Solar System may range between one and five billion years.
What are the implications of such an ancient Solar System? How does this impact our view of the Creator? First, it is clear from Scripture that God is Creator of all things and, since He is God, i.e., eternal, the timing for the creation of matter does not really affect our understanding of His nature. It does have an impact on our understanding of the first two verses of Genesis which state:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters (NIV).

Some people believe that "In the beginning" refers to the first day of creation week and they conclude that the entire universe was created very recently. Others believe that the first day of creation week is not actually referred to until Genesis 1, verses 3-5:

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening and there was morning — the first day (NIV).

Either position can be supported from Scripture. What we know and understand at present about isotopes in our Solar System suggest that the inorganic material is old. New information and new interpretations may alter this conclusion in the future. An awareness of these options helps Christians working in the sciences to develop concepts and models about our origins.