Discuss!

It depends on what you mean by ‘evolution’. The word needs serious unpacking. I believe in evolution of life from bacteria to humans. That is seen in the fossil record. What I do not accept is the neo- Darwinist solution to this. We also know that micro-evolution (Darwin’s finches, peppered moth) is a fact that we understand, but Darwinism fails completely to understand macro-evolution. We should be concerned and sceptical about this: firstly because, as stated in answer to the first question, it is anti-theistic and secondly because it is based on poor science.
There is a fear factor here. Christians want to appear bona fide proper scientists and they associate ID with young earth creationism (a myth that some atheists love to propagate). ID has nothing to do with the age of the earth nor with literal interpretations of Genesis. This fear of association with quack science is very real, but in my experience is due to lack of understanding of what ID is about. We all want the truth, but we will not achieve this with closed minds and fearful hearts.
There is also a peer pressure factor: many academics in our universities scoff at ID and dismiss it out of hand. It is very interesting to listen to why they do so – it is nearly always with ignorance of what ID actually is and generally with a dismissive association with young earth creationism. Always be sceptical of any belief system or scientific theory that does not allow challenge. That of course includes ID theory.
The majority of Intelligent Design (ID) theorists do not deny some form of ‘evolution’ from bacteria to humans over billions of years. ID looks at the universe and has found clear evidence of design and purpose. I hope we will discuss specific examples. Detection of design is a valid scientific enterprise, used in many branches of science from forensics to archaeology. Because this clashes with Darwinism should not concern us. We are fearfully and wonderfully made. (Ps 139:14). To say then that we can find no evidence for design in nature is frankly denying our belief in a God who made us.
Above all we should be concerned and sceptical because of the science itself. I hope we can discuss the detail of this in the forum. This includes looking at the fine tuning of the universe, the beginning of life, the Cambrian explosion, macro-evolution, the appearance of humans, morality, beauty, consciousness and the inadequacy of mutations plus natural selection to achieve the specified complexity and the irreducible complexity of life. We need to describe what is meant by these terms in the discussion and look at examples. You then have to decide if this is positive evidence for design or mere ‘God of the gaps’ imagination. Let us not be amongst those who are without excuse (Rom 1:19-20).

A healthy skepticism is vital for exploring truth. What the Bible reveals about human nature, created and fallen, demands that we examine our beliefs with humility. Evidence and reason must be in the forefront of our thinking. That means constantly examining scientific theories in the light of new evidence or a new way of seeing the evidence. This approach is valid in both scientific and Biblical studies. Tribal loyalty to long cherished interpretations of Scripture or scientific theories does no favour to the truth and certainly not to the Scriptures that are so precious to us.
Usually science progresses through modification of theories which are seldom rejected outright. The old idea that the physical world was made up of Earth, air, fire and water was replaced by modern atomic theory but it still resonates with our idea of solid, liquid, gas and energy.
In the case of evolution the old evidence from paleontology etc. was confirmed more recently by Gnome research. This is not just a further accumulation of evidence but a whole new line of evidence that neatly dovetails into what was previously known. Life has evolved. There can be no doubt about it. How it evolved is another matter, but mutation and natural selection clearly plays a big part. There is ever increasing evidence that shows how big changes can occur more rapidly than expected. However, we should be skeptical about the packaging of the scientific evidence, noting how the ideological agenda of those who believe in God or gods and those who believe there is no supernatural can skew the way the evidence is resented. Which resonates better with a rational mind – the atheistic idea that it all just happened with no mind behind it at all, or the theistic approach of ascribing the mathematical framework of the whole of the material world to the work of a Creator, who has never abandoned his creation?
More specifically, I see no reason why a Christian should be concerned about the idea that life has evolved from simple forms over many millions of years. I see no Biblical evidence to oppose this idea. Indeed, there is much in the Bible that should cause us to expect the creation to be far more wonderful than any of us has yet imagined. The beauty and complexity of the physical world, especially that part endowed with life, makes the scientific endeavor exciting and, for the Christian, an encouragement to worship the Creator.

Our contributors have responded clearly to the first two discussion questions. There is strong agreement that the natural world provides pointers to there being a mind and an intention behind the universe and our existence within it. However, the views diverge over the matter of evolution. Antony has made it clear that he believes evolution does not accommodate any sense of a divine purpose. Alan, for reasons outlined below has a different view of how one can combine theism with the orthodox evolutionary narrative in contemporary science. Ed.

We are agreed on the need for healthy scepticism.
In his final 2 sentences he says he sees no reason why a Christian should be concerned about the idea that life has evolved from simple forms over many millions of years. We are also agreed about this, always remembering that the word ‘evolution’ is a slippery one. Do you mean the current Darwinian paradigm of evolution or is something else going on?
Alan has not yet addressed the main issue concerning us in this discussion. That issue is whether we can see any evidence of design. I am assuming he refutes any evidence of design when we look at biology and perhaps the entire universe. Can he clarify this? What about the evidence of fine tuning in cosmology; information theory (the work of William Dembski in particular); the minimum requirements needed for the first replicating cell; the Cambrian explosion; the fossil record which shows that Darwin’s gaps have not gone away; the evidence that mutations cannot create new molecular systems (I refer readers to Michael Behe’s book ‘The Edge of Evolution’); the irreducible complexity of many molecular systems - clearly described in David Swift’s ‘Evolution under the Microscope’ Ch 7. What also of the appearance of super complex new structures and circuits in the brain over a very short time, from Australopithecus afarensis to ourselves in a very tiny number of individual hominids?
There are many peer reviewed articles supporting ID: https://www.discovery.org/m/2018/12/ID-Peer-Review-July-2017.pdf
It is not my intention to overwhelm Allan or anyone with piles of evidence nor that I wish him to respond to every point I put forward. We do need, however, to get stuck into some of the details.
Like Alan, one of my heroes is James Clerk Maxwell. He did make it quite clear however in his writings that naturalism is false and that molecules have qualities that imply design by God (Nature, Vol V11, No 204 (Sept 25, 1873). Therefore, he supported ID arguments from the observation of molecules.
We do however need to be careful about mentioning great scientists who do or do not support our view. What matters is scientific evidence and we will need to go there now.

As we concluded the earlier discussion on the question about ‘the value of believers trying to understand the processes God’s creative processes’, a number of issues remained to be addressed. One of these, not unexpectedly, focused on the appropriateness (or not) of using the word ‘design’ in relation to a range of wonderful phenomena, including the fine tuning of the universe and many others. Antony challenged Alan on this. Is he actually opposed to the use of the word ‘design’ ?If so, why?
In his response below Alan makes his view clear. But he is wary of the term ‘Intelligent Design’. He moves on to challenge Antony on an issue which Alan realises is central to the Intelligent Design (ID) position: the belief that at times God steps into the creative processes going on in the natural world and makes some specific adjustments to them or ‘designs’ a key aspect of it. The ID argument is that some things are self evidently so intricate and complex (often the term ‘irreducible complexity ’ is used) that they must have been specifically designed for their purpose. Alan now wishes to challenge Antony on that central point. And with that, for sure, we are in the heart of the debate.

I wholly agree that the physical creation (animate as well as inanimate) gives ample evidence of being the work of an intelligent mind for the purpose for which it was created. That is design by an intelligent mind. ID has no monopoly on design. By any definition of the word design, it is clear from what I’ve already posted that I believe the universe was designed, and designed in such a way that those made in the image of God can see it. “The heavens declare the glory of God” Psalm 19.
This includes “the fine tuning of the universe, the beginning of life, the Cambrian explosion, macro-evolution, the appearance of humans, morality, beauty, consciousness”. What we can explain, in rational terms (not rationalistic but rather the thinking apparatus we were endowed with by our Creator), is a clear pointer to the wisdom of the Creator.
Antony Flew, the celebrated defender of atheism who changed his mind in 2004 said, “Science spotlights three dimensions of nature that point to God. The first is the fact that nature obeys laws. The second is the dimension of life, of intelligently organized and purpose-driven beings, which arose from matter. The third is the very existence of nature.” I would not choose to express it myself in such words, (e.g. nature obeying laws could imply an autonomous Nature choosing to obey prescriptive laws), but I would agree that, without God, it is very difficult to try to explain these three areas: the universe is very mathematical; the existence of self-conscious beings; and why there is something rather than nothing.
I have also made it clear that I believe God continues to uphold the universe, interacting with it in ways that break into his normal pattern as seen in the laws of physics, doing things from time to time that are powerful signs of his activity, i.e miracles. His sovereignty over his creation makes prayer possible as well.
Where we will differ, Antony, is how we interpret any extra biblical claims that God is doing something that breaks with his chosen pattern of upholding the created order. I would like to explore with you two aspects to this.
Firstly, is there any Biblical teaching that would require us to believe that God interjects specific creative acts spread out over millions of years. By that I mean God directly creating from nothing certain specific living organisms rather than bringing about new forms life by an evolutionary process.
Secondly, can you explain how you can be sure that anything scientifically observed in the record of living creatures is “irreducibly complex” (please explain the term)? I understand this is the core belief of ID that separates it from evolutionary creation. It is the assertion that there are structures in the world of living creatures that could not have arisen through the normal outworking of the laws of physics in the DNA of living creatures. How can you be sure of that, and what implications does this belief have for our conviction that the all wise and all powerful Creator brought into being a universe that “was good”, not in need of tweaking at later stages?
For the moment I would prefer to avoid using the phrase, “Darwinian paradigm of evolution” as I know it means something different for you than what it means for me. For you the atheism that is often associated with it is an essential part of it. For me that atheism is additional packaging that I totally reject.

Thanks, Alan for your response. It has been very good to discuss these things and I am grateful for your thoughtful statements. I have to say I am genuinely surprised now that you agree (in your first paragraph) that there is ample evidence of design in the universe and in biology. To me you are therefore, on the face of it, an advocate of ID. Are you saying that there is evidence but no scientific evidence? There seems real confusion here. As scientists, can we not see anything at all that leads to a design inference? Let me now try to answer your two questions:
I have already answered, under the other section in this forum, the erroneous idea that ID somehow implies that "God interjects specific creative acts" or that he is "tweaking" his creation somehow. I hope you and others will read my comments there. This is a red herring that is too often brought up. I do not therefore need to give any biblical evidence for it because neither of us believe that is how God acts. We both have agreed that we actually do not know how "All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made." John 1:3.
You also ask what I mean by 'irreducibly complex'. There are hosts of examples and I am just giving one (the first life) below. Essentially it means that we see systems or structures in life that cannot have arrived by gradual accumulation of parts over time. These systems can only work to the advantage of an organism if they are complete. There are no possible precursors that could have any selective advantage. The cell is replete with them. Irreducible complexity is not the "core belief" in ID. It sits along with other evidence such as the information in DNA which I mention below.
The earliest organisms were bacteria, probably arising about 3.5 billion years ago.
The plasma membrane of the bacterium is essential, consisting of a double layer of lipid molecules and with over 50 different proteins embedded in it to regulate the ion transport in and out of the cell, as well as to recognise different proteins in its environment, to take in nutrition and excrete waste. The membrane is coded for in the DNA and the DNA cannot exist without the membrane. In other words, to have DNA and the membrane is irreducibly complex.
The famous Miller-Urey experiment done last century is paraded as forming, abiotically, a few amino acids and some precursors of DNA. When the correct atmosphere is used (they used an incorrect mixture at first), there is only one amino acid produced (Lysine) and no DNA or RNA precursors. Even if one can get all the amino acids abiotically this would be with both left and right-handed molecules. Life uses only left-handed ones and one cannot separate a mixture of both.
Neither RNA nor DNA have ever been made in a laboratory abiotically. The nucleotides needed would also have been both right and left-handed in any prebiotic soup or thermal vent. This would cause them to bind together preventing any chain forming.
DNA replication in the 'simplest' bacterium, uses many different specialized enzymes. The enzymes themselves (they are proteins) are coded for by the DNA. Also, DNA cannot survive or continue without sophisticated proof-reading proteins and gene editing proteins. All these of course are coded for in the DNA. More irreducible complexity.
To make proteins requires mRNA to read the genetic information, to migrate into the cytoplasm to the ribosome (consisting of RNA and many different proteins) and then by a wonderful process link up with tRNA which holds the amino acids. Enzymes are used to then form peptide bonds to link the amino acids in a chain. To form a peptide bond without an enzyme is uphill thermodynamically – requiring precise energy input. Formation of a peptide bond is a condensation reaction that releases water, something that is unlikely to occur abiotically in a water environment.
Functioning proteins are highly unlikely sequences of amino acids which need to fold precisely to have any use. A protein macro-molecule cannot have any use without many other proteins being present as well (the interdependence of macro-molecules is key in a functioning cell).
The information in DNA is of the 'semantic' type. In other words, it is meaningful. It is far more complex than any computer software. No other such information in the world can exist without a designer. Norman Nevin (Late Emeritus Prof of Medical Genetics, Queens University Belfast) was president of the Centre for Intelligent Design until his death in 2014. He wrote of the 'design logic' in the information in DNA and RNA. See in: https://www.c4id.org.uk/Articles/484763/DNA_RNA_and.aspx
And as Karl Popper wrote: "What makes the origin of life and genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the code cannot be translated except by using certain products of its translation."

Editor’s Final Comment

As with any complex subject with multiple issues, it is important to deal with them systematically. The editorial input is, we hope, a helpful part of the process. First let’s take stock pf where we are in the dialogue.

We emerge from this early discussion:
– with agreement between the contributors that creation shows evidence of the mind of a creator and that we cannot claim anything close to omniscience about the process
– with Alan’s outline of what he sees as solid evidence for the evolutionary process at the ‘micro’ and ‘macro’ levels (This issue of evidence will feature regularly as we proceed)
– seeing the need to distinguish between ID and the more general perception of design in nature. This is very important clarification. Many Christians are confused as to why one can be a believer and not be signed up to ID - and even be opposed to its premises. Alan, for example, has made it clear that he has a strong sense of God’s continuous involvement in creation but that he opposes certain perceptions and premises within ID, which has its own specific ways of interpreting the word ‘design’ alongside a set of beliefs about evolutionary science. Those difference lie at the heart of this debate and future discussions will elucidate
– hearing the ID claims that evolution is anti-theistic and that it is based on ‘poor science’ . (See the first of Antony’s posts above) He argues in his most recent post that there are some biological entities which cannot be explained by the normal evolutionary procedure of development one step at a time
– aware of ID claims that ‘ if you introduce purpose (in an evolutionary context ) you will be in serious trouble with guardians of the theory.’ (See Antony’s opening post.)

So much to discuss and much of it fundamental to this debate. So.... what issue should be addressed first? In collaboration with Alan and Antony we will next discuss evolution and the question of whether or not it is compatible with the idea of purpose (final bullet point above). Other issues, including others mentioned above, can be addressed later. Please now follow the ongoing discussion in the context of the next question on evolution and purpose. Ed.