Science Article

September 1999

THE ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN
By William Browing

Perhaps one of the oldest and best arguments against gradualistic evolution (Darwinism) is the so-called  “Argument from Design.”  I gained an early interest in ‘design’, as I studied creationist materials that pointed to the marvelous design in living things, as powerful evidence for special creation, such as the Bombardier beetle and the incredible complexity and order of the DNA code.  It gave me great satisfaction to explain to my evolutionist friends that the sonar capabilities of bats rival the signal processing capabilities of our most advanced digital radar processing systems.  But my interest was piqued after a conversation with Professor Richard Lumsden of ICR, a biological scientist with major research contributions.  I asked Dr. Lumsden, “Of all the scientific evidences, which do you believe is the strongest single evidence against evolution?”  Without hesitation, he responded, “Design in living things.”  He mentioned the explosion of knowledge going on in the field of microbiology.  He further surmised that soon scientists, creationists and otherwise would have to acknowledge that the multifunctional complexity and integration of living cells could not possibly happen by chance.  Later, I came across Dr. Lumsden’s article in the CRS Quarterly (1), which discussed the history of the Argument from Design and its latest twist, Richard Dawkins’ book titled the “Blind Watchmaker.”  Dr. Lumsden takes the Argument from Design to new heights, as summarized below.

A Complex Design Requires a Designer

Evolutionists contend that life is a random accident of purely natural causes.  They have a big problem:  nowhere is sophistication more apparent than in the intricate construction of living things.  As we look at diagrams of animal and plant cells, we see that living beings are highly complex, organized designs, consisting of many integrated parts which support life.  Back before the time of Darwin, William Paley in 1802, in noting the integrated complexity of life, challenged the scientific world as follows:

“If you stumble across a watch while crossing a heath, you must ask, ‘How did it get there?’  One would quickly conclude (from the preciseness and intricacy of its works), that the watch is conclusive evidence of a watchmaker, who comprehended its construction and designed its use.”

We can recognize the work of the watchmaker by seeing the purpose, order, and interdependence of its parts.  Following the watchmaker analogy, Paley went on to extol the structure and function of the human eye, as an instrument for vision.  He noted that, similar to a telescope, light enters the lens through the pupil and is focused on the retina, where special photo-receptor cells, called “rods and cones”, sense the light and communicate with the brain through the optic nerve--an elegant design. (Some eyes are capable of sensing a single photon, the smallest impulse of light.)  So, Paley declared that the eye surely must have had an Intelligent Designer.

The human eye perplexed Darwin.  He realized radical innovations such as the eye would require generations of organisms to slowly accumulate beneficial changes in a gradual process.  Unfortunately, gradual development of the human eye appeared to be impossible, since its many sophisticated features seemed to be interdependent.  Darwin stated, “To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”  Somehow, for evolution to be believable, Darwin had to convince the public that complex organs could be formed in a step-by-step process.  He attempted to do this, not by discovering a real pathway, but by pointing to modern animals with different kinds of eyes ranging from simple to complex, and suggesting that the evolution of the human eye might have involved similar organs as intermediates.  However, these intermediate animals have never been found, and they never will, because. . .

Prov. 20:12:  The hearing ear and the seeing eye, the Lord has made both of them.

Richard Dawkins, an Oxford professor and leading evolutionist, says Paley's telescope analogy of the human eye is false, because natural selection has no vision or forethought--it is purely an accident of nature.  “Sooner or later the eye would have developed from photosensitive organs of lower organisms--it was inevitable.”  Dawkins claims natural selection controls the outcome of chance random mutations--it plays the role of the Watchmaker--a  “blind watchmaker”  (Thus his book by that title (2) ).  Dawkins’ quote is that of a scoffer, who denies God as Creator.  This fulfills Peter’s prophecy of the end times,

II Peter 3:3: There shall come in the last days scoffers walking after their lusts, and saying "where is the promise of his coming?"

These scoffers are evolutionists that deny both the Creation and the flood of Noah.  Dawkins says in his book, that before Darwin, anyone that denied God was Creator must have felt unsatisfied, since there was up ‘til then no other explanation.  But Dawkins now believes:  “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually-fulfilled atheist.”  But we know that nothing fulfills an atheist.

Colossians 1:16:  For by Him were all things created that are in heaven and earth; all things were created by Him and for Him, and by Him all things are held together.

Because God created us to be in fellowship with Him, no atheistic philosophy such as evolution will satisfy anyone.

Dawkins goes on to say, “The eye must have evolved,” because of what he calls “imperfections” in biological structure.  The rods and cones (photoreceptors) face backwards, towards an opaque pigment layer at the back of the eye.  Light first strikes a tangle of neurons before reaching the photoreceptors.  “Surely an omniscient Creator would not have gotten the layout of the human eye so confused”-- as Dawkins arrogantly contends is the case for the micro-anatomy of the retina.  This so-called “argument from imperfection,” based on the presumed awkwardness of certain designs, is claimed by evolutionists to be evidence for evolution.  Steven J Gould, the nation’s most prominent evolutionist and a Harvard paleontologist, says,  "The proof of evolution lies in its imperfections that reveal history."  This view is expounded in his “panda principle”.  (The panda’s thumb, not a true digit, is a bone protruding from the wrist, complete with muscles to hold bamboo.)  Believing that natural selection reinforces “good” random changes, Gould would expect to see designs in nature that are non-optimum, or not the way a sensible engineer would choose.  Therefore, he believes that imperfections are evidence of random chance evolution of animals.  (The Panda Principle has been successfully refuted by creation scientists (3).)

According to Lumsden, biochemists that really understand the way the eye works know that it has the best possible design!  Lets look at the details.  The eye is only weakly sensitive to direct light compared to lower intensity light.  God designed our eyes to see at night, so facing forward is not an advantage.  With this design, the photoreceptors receive lower intensity light when the incoming light is bright, making the eye sensitive to low light.  The neuron layers that overlie the rods are translucent—there is no evidence of distortion.  In fact, this backward looking design approach prevents scattering of light from external surfaces and confusion of the image.  This ingenious design also serves to filter ultra violet light (harmful rays).  The Creator knows best!  If the rods faced forward, the pigment layer at the back of the retina, which supports it biochemically, would have to lie between the photoreceptors and the incident light, and therefore the receptors would be blocked by the opaque pigment epithelium.

The Biological Wheel

Tools give evidence of intelligence.  A skilled investigator readily distinguishes tools (manmade artifacts) from natural objects in an anthropological dig.   If we were to ask the anthropologist how he knew the rock he just recovered was an arrowhead, he would argue that there are obvious signs of intelligence.  Indications of manufacture (chipping, beveling, etc.) and function show that the arrowhead has a purposeful design.  A purposeful design gives testimony to its designer.  Thus, tools having been designed and constructed are recognized as evidence of an intelligent cause.

The penultimate invention of mankind is the wheel.  Suppose we found a wheel buried on Mars?  If so, no one would assume it just happened. The SETI project would be vindicated--evidence of extra-terrestrial intelligent life would have been found.  Well, if finding an inert wheel on Mars shows intelligence, how about finding powered wheels as components of a biological system?  Would that show intelligence?

Bacteria are thought to be evolutionarily more primitive than plant and animal cells.  But when it comes to cell movement, they are complex.  The bacteria have external filaments, called flagella that they use as paddles to swim around.  These filaments don’t bend like the cilia in our lungs--they rotate, and miraculous micro-miniature motors produce the rotation!

The flagellum propels a bacterium tens of micrometers per second (about 10-30 body lengths/sec) in water!  (Jogging humans accomplish about one body length per second, while the cheetah achieves approximately 13 body lengths, in air.)  Counter-clockwise rotation propels the bacterium in a straight line.  Reversing to a clockwise rotation causes the bacterium to tumble and change direction.  Upon microscopic examination, we find a group of wheels and flanges mounted on an axle and turning on bearing surfaces requiring no lubrication.  The mechanism is complete with a proton flux motor, a transmission that reduces the 10,000-rpm motor speed to about 600-rpm, and a universal joint that converts rotor motion to paddle motion.

Evolutionists have not explained how the flagellum could originate by mutation and natural selection.

I Cor. 1:27:  But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise,  that no flesh should glory in His presence.

Michael Behe, in his recent book "Darwin's Black Box" (4) cites the flagellum as an example of what he calls "irreducible complexity," a design which could not possibly have developed through a sequence of small, gradual steps, because of its overall functional integration and complexity. Behe states, "It is the requirements of the structure-function relationship itself that block Darwinian-style evolution."

Even Darwin knew that his theory of gradual, small changes was no good unless it explained complex organisms.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive slight modification, my theory would absolutely break down." -Darwin

The biological wheel (flagellum) settles the question-- Darwin's theory has broken down. We must credit God with the invention of the wheel, and accept it as conclusive proof for Intelligent Design in living things.

References

1. Lumsden, Richard. "Not So Blind a Watchmaker," CRS Quarterly, Vol. 31, p.13, June 1994.

2. Dawkins, R. "The Blind Watchmaker," New York: Norton & Co., 1986.

3. Woodmorappe, J. "The Panda Thumbs its Nose...", Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, V. 13 (No.1) pp.45-48.

4. Behe, Michael. "Darwin's Black Box," New York: The Free Press, 1996.