DNA and Intelligent Design

APOLOGIA
By Hendrik van der Breggen

(The Carillon, March 26, 2009)

DNA and Intelligent Design

Here is an argument for an intelligent designer.

Premise 1: According to Bill Gates (of Microsoft fame), “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software we've ever created.”

Premise 2: We know (from experience) that the human mind—an intelligent cause—is the source of the highly-sophisticated computer software thus far created.

Premise 3: We know (also from experience) that explanations which appeal to non-intelligent causes have much trouble explaining the origin of life/DNA.

Conclusion: Therefore, as culture commentator Charles Colson points out (via rhetorical question): "If Windows XP points to Bill Gates, how much more do the marvellous complexities of DNA point directly to God, the great Intelligent Designer?"

The truth of the third premise is a surprise for many non-scientists, so consider the following credible sources as a sub-argument for it.

Francis Crick (co-discoverer of the structure of DNA): "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have to be satisfied to get it going." (1981)

Klause Dose (Mainz Institute for Biochemistry): "More than 30 years of experimentations on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussion on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance." (1988)

Leslie Orgel (Salk Institute for Biological Studies, comparing the question of life’s origin to a mystery novel): "We are very far from knowing whodunit." (1998)

Paul Davies (theoretical physicist turned origin-of-life investigator): "[S]cientists are currently stumped...The problem of how and when life began is one of the great outstanding mysteries of science." (1999)

Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross (reporting on the International Conference on the Origin of Life): "Some 45 years of well-funded investigation have led to one dead end after another. The same intractable problems still remain, with no glimmering of resolution in sight." (1999)

Nicholas Wade (New York Times science-writer): "Everything about the [naturalistic] origin of life on Earth is a mystery, and it seems the more that is known, the more acute the puzzles get....The [naturalistic] genesis of life on earth…remains an unyielding problem.” (2000)

Antonio Lazcano (president of the International Society for the Study of the Origin of Life): “Life could not have evolved without a genetic mechanism….Precisely how the first genetic machinery evolved also persists as an unresolved issue.” (2006)

Back to our main conclusion: I think Colson may be overstating the case about DNA pointing directly to God. Nevertheless, it seems to me, DNA’s code/language constitutes at least some good evidence of intelligent design which can be used, quite reasonably, as part of a larger cumulative case argument for God’s existence.

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is assistant professor of philosophy at Providence College, Otterburne, Manitoba.)

Does God exist?

APOLOGIA
By Hendrik van der Breggen

(The Carillon, March 12, 2009)

Does God exist?

Advertisements on the sides of buses in Calgary, Toronto, and elsewhere read as follows: THERE’S PROBABLY NO GOD. NOW STOP WORRYING AND ENJOY YOUR LIFE. Although I respect my atheist neighbours and friends, and although I will defend their right freely to express their worldview positions without fear of persecution—as I hope they would do for me—I nevertheless disagree with their position (their position about God, that is; not the bits about worry and enjoyment).

I think the evidence favours God’s existence. In defence of my position, here is a sketch of a cumulative case argument from science, ethics, and history (to be further defended in subsequent Apologia columns).

First, a clarification is in order. A cumulative case argument consists of a collection of sub-arguments that, individually, may not provide strong or decisive support for a conclusion, but jointly do—just as one strand of string may not be strong enough to lift a heavy load but several interwoven strands are.

Okay, here are the sub-arguments (also sketches thereof).

1. Various findings from science point to God.

The big bang posits a beginning of the universe. This, together with the principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause, strongly suggests that the universe has a cause. Moreover, this cause, because it is the cause of all matter/energy, space, and time, would be physically transcendent (i.e., immaterial), temporally transcendent (i.e., eternal), and very powerful (perhaps all powerful).

In addition, the exquisite fine-tuning of the universe’s conditions for life suggests that the aforementioned cause is highly intelligent. Also, life’s blueprint—DNA’s code/language—smacks of an intelligent cause.

Furthermore, the fact that the universe operates according to mathematical/rational principles and the fact that our minds can understand many of these deep principles (a feat immensely beyond what is needed for mere survival)—these facts make good sense on the view that a rational Mind created both the universe and us.

2. Our experience of morality points toward God.

That all people have real worth (and so shouldn’t be murdered, tortured, or otherwise abused) is well explained by the doctrine that people are made in God’s image.

Also, the fact that we have free will to make moral (or immoral) choices makes sense on the hypothesis that God gave us the mental capacity/freedom to choose (or reject) the good.

3. Several historical facts point to God.

Shortly after Jesus’ death, various individuals and groups of individuals claim to have seen, touched, and conversed with the resurrected Jesus in various locations over several weeks. Also, the lives of these individuals were transformed into an irrepressible witness to Jesus’ bodily resurrection.

Because of what we know about dead bodies, a resurrection, if it happened, would be best explained as supernaturally caused. This means (especially in view of the previous evidence suggesting God’s existence) that Jesus’ actual resurrection shouldn’t be ruled out prior to historical investigation. The result: Jesus’ miraculous—i.e. God-caused—resurrection is strongly suggested by, plus makes good sense of, the historical evidence.

Therefore, bus ads or no bus ads, it’s reasonable to think that God—the God revealed by Jesus Christ—exists.

For further reading on God’s existence (for believers and non-believers), I recommend Chad Meister’s Building Belief (Baker 2006) and William Lane Craig’s Reasonable Faith (Crossway 2008).

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is assistant professor of philosophy at Providence College, Otterburne, Manitoba.)