Reflections: By chance or purpose?

By Dave Tiessen

Did you know that within the world of science there is significant debate happening around something many of us were taught as kids in our school science classes and have assumed ever since to be true?

I am not very scientifically fluent so please bear with my attempt to explain what I’ve heard.

Several years ago I took one of the teens from our church out for a milkshake pastoral visit. He made it very clear he no longer had any need or use for religious faith because he now knew that creation began with the big bang and Darwin’s discovery of evolution explained everything we need to know about the origin and development of life, thereby disproving the existence of God.

It seems to me this teen, like so many of us, had learned his lessons well and imbibed what the scientific world has largely believed and taught.

As I understand it, incredible scientific progress since the 1950s has begun to raise serious questions about this simple Darwinian world view. This is not to dis Charles Darwin (1809-1882) – he was a brilliant biologist/naturalist who contributed greatly to the advancement of science. But Darwin did not know then what we know now.

In those days it was assumed that the cell was more or less a glob of jelly. Thus it wasn’t a huge stretch to postulate that life began when various chemicals in the environment came together to form a simple gelatinous cell from which the rest of life eventually evolved over billions of years. 

Darwin did not know that every cell is actually a finely tuned machine filled with various amino acids and many component working parts all directed by a complete strand of DNA. 

And every different form of life has its own unique DNA with its own unique life structure built on the unique way its cells work together to compose the whole.

This is one locus of the significant debate going on around us. Given the astounding intricacy of the cell some scientists and mathematicians have taken a second look at the simple Darwinian evolutionary hypothesis and are saying it is scientifically and mathematically implausible.

First, it is now obvious that the building block of life – the cell – could not have begun with some primal mixing of chemicals because it is a complex working machine far more than just a combination of substances. Cells do not just happen out of the blue – they come from somewhere.

Secondly, the math doesn’t work. Formerly it was thought that the billions of years of the Earth’s history provided ample time for the process of evolution to produce all the different kinds of life on Earth. Obviously I don’t get the math, but many very learned people who do have come to the conclusion that this is impossible – there simply was not enough time for random evolutionary change to result in the plethora of life forms we observe.

Moreover the fossil record simply does not show evidence of evolution producing transitionary life forms – ie. one species of animal evolving into a different species. In fact fossils show certain periods of history where there are sudden, out-of-the-blue appearances of many new species.

Thirdly, some scientists, recognizing the miracle of DNA – a complete blueprint for the life of an organism located in every cell – are suggesting that it is not rational or logical to believe that it is the end result of the random process of evolution. DNA is just too perfect to have happened all by itself. 

We’ve all heard the cute suggestion that if you take a room full of monkeys with keyboards and give them enough time they will produce a Shakespearean play. This is the logic assumed by evolution – anything can happen given enough billions of years.

These scientists are challenging that claim: there is no evidence to say monkeys will ever by chance produce Shakespeare, nor that random survival of the fittest could ever craft the perfection of the DNA molecule. 

Some scientists call DNA the longest word in the world, ie. the longest intelligible communication ever. They suggest, whenever we happen upon a rational, intelligible communication – eg. a book, an equation, an ancient cave drawing, a strand of DNA – we quite rightly assume it was composed by a rational mind. Thus the centrality of DNA in creation strongly points in the direction of some kind of purposeful intelligence guiding the development of life on Earth.

Thankfully the current debate has also caused more scientists to admit that it was never scientifically legitimate to claim that the big bang and evolution proved a creator God does not exist. That is a question beyond the ability of science to prove or disprove.

At the same time in the current debate more scientists are recognizing it is quite scientifically legitimate to say that the magnificent beauty, intricacies and precision of the world around us, especially the miracle of DNA, very much point us in the direction of recognizing all this would be impossible without a powerful creator to make it happen.

It seems good science calls us to expand our thinking beyond the simplistic evolutionary truisms of our childhood science classes and give a wondering second look to the idea of a creator God.