Chance or Intelligent Design

I have these debates/conversations with my collegues all the time. I have had no faith, ’found’ faith, lost it again and now I find myself unable to deny the evidence before me.

I have conducted a thorough examination of the scriptures since 1989, and have been trying to reconcile science and the Bible since 2003. In particular, I’ve been studying biology since 2003. My wavering faith is not so much that an invisible, all powerful being is difficult to believe in; it’s more that if he DOES exist, how can he stand idly by and watch the corruption, hate and violence we see today? And I have issues with the Genesis account of the deception of Adam and Eve. But that is neither here or there.

My conclusions or not based on blind faith. They are always based on what I can see, observe and examine. If there is tangible evidence of an intelligent creator, it resides in the living cell.

Researchers have learned that in order for a cell to survive, at LEAST three different types of COMPLEX molecules must work together-DNA, RNA and proteins. Few scientists would assert that a complete, living cell just suddenly formed by chance from a mix of inanimate chemicals.

Many scientists feel that life could arise by chance because of an experiment conducted in 1953. Stanley L. Miller was able to produce some amino acids by discharging electricity into a mixture of gases that was THOUGHT to represent the atmosphere of primitive Earth. And since then some amino acids have been found in a meteorite. But does this mean that ALL the basic building blocks of life could easily be produced by chance? New York University’s Professor of Chemistry Robert Shapiro stated that “Some writers have presumed that ALL life’s building blocks could be formed with ease in Miller-type experiments and were present in meteorites. This is NOT the case.”

Consider the RNA molecule. It’s constructed of SMALLER molecules called nucleotides. A nucleotide is a different molecule from an amino acid and is slightly MORE complex. Shapiro says that “no nucleotides of ANY kind have been reported as products of spark-discharge experiments or in studies of meteorites.” He further states that the probability of a self-replicating RNA molecule randomly assembling from a pool of chemical building blocks “is so vanishingly small that its happening even ONCE anywhere in the visible universe would count as a piece of exceptional good luck.”

In 2009 scientists at the University of Manchester, England, reported making some nucleotides in their lab. However, Shapiro states that their recipe “definitely does not meet my criteria for a PLAUSIBLE pathway to the RNA world.”

Then what about proteins? They can be made from as few as 50 or as many as several thousand amino acids bound together in a HIGHLY specific order. The average functional protein in a SIMPLE cell contains 200 amino acids! Even in THOSE cells, there are THOUSANDS of different types of proteins. The probability of just ONE protein containing only 100 amino acids could ever randomly form on Earth has been calculated to be about ONE chance in a million billion.

Researcher Hubert P. Yockey goes further. “It is IMPOSSIBLE that the origin of life was ‘proteins first.’” RNA is REQUIRED to make proteins, yet proteins are involved in the production of RNA! Now, what if, despite the incredibly small odds, both proteins AND RNA molecules did somehow miraculously appear by chance in the SAME place and at the SAME time? How likely would it be for them to cooperate to form a self-replicating, self-sustaining type of LIFE?

Dr. Carol Cleland, a member of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Astrobiology Institute states: “The probability of this happening by chance seems astronomically low.” She continues, “Yet, most researchers seem to assume that if they can make sense of the independent production of proteins and RNA under natural primordial conditions, the coordination will SOMEHOW take care of itself.” And regarding the current theories of how these building blocks could have arisen by chance, she says: “NONE of them have provided us with a very satisfying story about how this happened.”

Just think of the challenge facing researchers who feel life arose by chance. They have found some amino acids that also appear in living cells. In their laboratories they have, by means of CAREFULLY DESIGNED and DIRECTED experiments, manufactured other, more complex molecules. Ultimately, they hope to build all the parts they need to construct a simple cell.

QUESTION: If the chemicals in the experiment represent the Earth’s early environment and the molecules represent the building blocks of life, WHOM or WHAT does the scientist who performed the experiment represent? Does he represent blind chance, or an intelligent entity?

This would be like a scientist taking NATURALLY occurring elements, transforming them into steel, plastic, silicone and wire, and constructing a robot. He then programs the robot to be able to build copies of itself. What does this prove? At best, that an INTELLIGENT entity can create an impressive machine.

If it takes an INTELLIGENT entity to create and program a lifeless robot, what would it take to create a LIVING cell, let alone a HUMAN?

Along the same vein, if scientists ever DID construct a cell, they would accomplish something truly amazing-but would they prove that the cell could be made by accident? If anything, they would prove the very opposite!

To believe that even a “simple” cell arose by chance from non-living chemicals requires a HUGE leap of faith. 

What requires greater faith? To believe that the millions of intricately coordinated parts of a cell arose by chance, or to believe that the cell is the product of an intelligent mind?