Let Us Reason

by Robert DiSilvestro

Do we Christians simply attack current ideas on life's origins, or do we actually have some evidence that God started life? That question has been posed to me and others who speak on origins issues. To deal effectively with this question, we must understand three assumptions that are often concealed in the question.

The first assumption is that any contention for God's role in life's origins must be theological, not scientific. The reason is that any concept about God can neither be verified nor falsified. Supposedly, scientific concepts must be subject to these two possibilities. However, when considering origins issues, the terms verifiable or falsifiable always apply in a limited, not absolute sense. We simply cannot go back and see what happened.

Therefore, models evoking supernatural involvement cannot be excluded using the verifiable/falsifiable criteria any more than any other model.

The second assumption states that even if science can consider that God started life, no direct evidence for this idea exists. In essence, one can argue against the idea that life started by random natural processes, but that's not really arguing for God. I reject this assumption based on two lines of reasoning. The first line defines the options for explaining life's origin. Either God started life or it arose from undirected natural processes. What other options can there be? Therefore, arguments against random natural processes are arguments for God. Some people introduce the option of life from other planets, but that only shifts the options of divine origin or random processes to another planet. Furthermore, for reasons often noted by Hugh Ross, life coming from outer space seems rather unlikely.⁽¹⁾

An analogy illustrates my point that arguing against random processes to explain life's beginning is the same as arguing for God. Let's say I am deciding whether a pattern in the sand is due to random natural forces or an intelligent, personal creator. I am walking along the beach and see the words "Go Ohio State Buckeyes." I would immediately assume that an intelligent designer was behind this. Although I would do this without much thought, suppose someone asked for my reasoning. My answer would be as follows: A. Wind and water don't form structures as precise as letters; B. If a few letters somehow formed, the chances of getting them in one place, at one time are minute; C. Even if the letters did form together, the spacing and linkage in the sentence are not consistent with random processes; D. Even if random processes could accomplish A-C, random process would mix letters from different alphabets, face the letters in different directions, and bunch them in various patterns; E. Finally, the meaning of my sentence is too complex to be expected to form randomly.

I doubt that anyone would say that A-E merely argue against random formation, and not for an intelligent designer. In essence to argue against the former is to argue for the latter. I can use the same reasoning to ascribe the origin of life to an intelligent designer. To have life, we need long molecules, like proteins or RNA, that are very much like sentences. The building blocks of sentences are letters; the building blocks of proteins or RNA are amino acids or certain bases, respectively (though the proteins may also contain some metals, carbohydrates, and lipids as "punctuation marks"). To make sentences, protein, or RNA, the building blocks must be formed and linked according to certain criteria. My hypothetical sentence in the sand meets this criteria for sentences, but the following would not:

a  tcl ^*    #bµ   cdut dSS

   rghaa      a

This is not a sentence because some symbols are not letters, some letters are backwards, there is more than one alphabet, some letter spacing is improper, some letter connections are diagonal rather than linear, and the letter order doesn't give a message that makes sense. Similarly, amino acids, which are like letters, must be formed and linked together properly to make proteins, which are like sentences. To make a functional protein, amino acids must be linked properly to make proteins, which are like sentences. To make a functional protein, amino acids must be linked properly (peptide bond). The amino acids can't be mixed with just any molecule that's not an amino acid. The amino acids also cannot be linked with certain amino acids which are not part of the protein forming "alphabet." Furthermore, the individual amino acids must be in the right molecular direction (the L-isomer). Finally, the amino acids must be in an order that makes "sense" in that it confers some function to the protein. As it turns out, the ratio of amino acid sequences producing functional proteins, compared to those that don't, is incredibly small.⁽²⁾

This same type of description would also apply to formation of an RNA molecule. I would just substitute nucleotide bases for amino acids. IN the case of either protein or RNA, I can use the same A-E types of arguments for personal design as I made for my sentence in the sand. The protein version is as follows: A. There are tremendous problems with hypothesizing that natural forces can form and preserve the right amino acids; B. Even if they could be produced and preserved, the chances of getting them all in one place at one time are minute; C. Even with right amino acids in one place, random processes would neither consistently produce the right bonds, nor exclude the wrong ones; D. Even with A-C, random processes mix amino acids appropriate for proteins with others, and mix D- and L-isomers; E. Finally, random chance cannot consistently form amino acid sequences that "make sense" (give functional proteins).

The evidence validating my A-E arguments for proteins, or similar ones for RNA, has been described elsewhere.^(3-4) My point here is that is these arguments are reasonable, then there is evidence against random processes. And, as with the sentence in the sand, intelligent design is the only other alternative. Some people will claim natural selection as an alternative. However, natural selection is about preservation of structures once life is present, not about creation of life. Natural selection would not erase any of my A-E arguments.

Above, I mentioned that two lines of reasoning support God's intervention in the origin of life. The second line is that the general conditions needed for life's development point to design. This rationale actually goes beyond just arguing against random processes. For example, consider the universe which holds life. According to the big bang theory, the universe's matter, time, and energy came from no time, matter, or energy. This marvel is outside the natural laws of science. The most reasonable explanation for the big bang is that an intelligent creator, who exists outside physical limitations, made the universe.⁽¹⁾

Other requirements for life include natural laws, physics constants, and astronomical properties of the earth and the universe. The so-called anthropic principle states that these factors must fit within incredibly narrow limits to support life.⁽¹⁾ Since we are here, obviously these factors are within these limits. This suggests that a personal designer fine-tuned the universe.⁽¹⁾ In a sense this is again arguing for design by arguing against random processes, but it also goes beyond that. Previously, in the case of the formation of protein or RNA, I was dealing with whether or not preexisting natural processes can explain certain phenomena. In the case of the anthropic principle, I am dealing with the origin of natural processes themselves. Hence, I am arguing that for natural processes to be so precise, they had to be created by someone.

The third assumption implies that one cannot argue for a role for God in life's origins because our natural data is incomplete. In other words, the skeptics say: "Give up more time and we'll work out a natural explanation." Actually, this is a faith statement because there's no guarantee that new data will help the case for natural causes. Thus, some individuals use a softer version of the "more data" position. They'll say: "We need more data before we can make any hypothesis about the origin of life." The credibility of this response depends on what information we already have. Many scientific ideas are accepted as reasonable, even though more data can still be gathered. I feel that my arguments above, and the noted references, already provide a lot evidence for God's role in starting life. Therefore, I feel the burden is on those on the other side of the issue to provide reasonable doubt.

To use an analogy, suppose someone tells me he is the best player on his basketball team. Even if I never have a chance to see him play, I have ways to corroborate his claim-newspaper reports, conversations with fathers of other players. Although there are some differences between my analogy and origins issues, there are two important similarities. One, a conclusion is made without first hand observations. Two, the evidence, though incomplete, is still substantial enough to render a reasonable judgment. In summary, contending that God created life is not inherently unscientific and is supported by currently available evidence.

References

Dr. DiSilvestro, a Ph.D. in biochemistry, serves as an associate professor at The Ohio State University in Columbus.