You know I wonder at the constant argument on this question. It almost suggests that the creationists are desperately afraid they are wrong and so continue to make these arguments hoping to gain adherents. If one needs to believe in creationism to protect their faith, then they should do so. They are in a tiny minority of course, and that is no proof either way. The rest of the world will continue to abide by its faith in God or not as the case may be and science will continue to investigate the known reality. Now if you want to talk about what is taught in school, I’ll argue with anyone all day. I draw the line there, science is science, faith is faith,. and they fit together nicely as long as we keep it straight which is which.
My suspicion is that proof for something like intentional design can be compiled in much the same way as a very adept criminologist can compile a case to prove “someone” committed a crime based upon available evidence.
At some point it is possible for a criminal investigator to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that an act was premeditated, intentional and could not have been the result of “accidental” causes – it must have been planned to occur and the evidence supports that conclusion. By analyzing the connections between various facts of the case it is possible to ascertain with high probability, approaching certainty, that an act had to be intended, by an intelligent agent of some kind, to take place.
I suspect in similar fashion the connection between events in evolution can be analyzed as to the probability of their occurring with and without intent.
One important consideration is motive. Why has life on earth, for example, tended to increased complexity? To ensure survival?
We have two suspects: 1) an intelligent designer of some kind and 2) inchoate, lifeless matter
Matter, in and of itself, has no preferential inclination for survival or for form of any kind. To matter itself, survival means nothing – the form matter takes bears no qualitative consideration. Matter has no motive or reason for “wanting” life to happen or to be sustained.
Intelligence, however, does.
An anecdote: you walk up to a skyscraper with an orthodox material evolutionist. This scientist proceeds to explain that the transparent material in the structure is a crystallized form of the chemical compound silica, which is made from the elements oxygen and silicon. The metal infrastructure is made from high grade steel composed of iron and carbon formed by extrusion. The concrete floors are a mixture of gravel, sand, water and cement.
The scientist could go on and on explaining the composition and makeup of each constituent in the building and how these are held together and how the building remains standing due to its form and the structural properties of each of the constituent parts. The scientist can explain all the mechanisms by which the building can remain standing, the “how” of the building, how it must remain standing because of the structural members, but s/he does not give the reason why it is there and why it has the form it does. An important question since the building has the apparent purpose of housing human beings.
When you pursue the “why” question, the atheist scientist merely dismisses you by claiming that the answer to why is explained by the physics of how matter holds together. The existence of humans in the building is mere coincidence and irrelevant to the structure of the building.
I submit, this is precisely what an evolutionary biologist is doing but with a much more sophisticated structure - life on earth. S/he is providing information as to the derivative connections between different forms of life, similar to the way the scientist above provides information on the formation and structure of the materials in the building. The scientist may use chemical bonding and the laws of physics to explain how the substances in the building are able to achieve their form and stay upright. The biologist is using “evolution,” “survival of the fittest,” mutation and other models to explain the overall derivative structure of life.
However, just like the building has an undeniable “purpose” of housing human beings, a purpose which has determined the form of the building, indeed the actual existence of the building, life on earth has the unmistakable form that has lead to “housing” human intelligence. The form and, indeed, the existence of evolution itself has lead directly to the “housing” of intelligent human life. Is it not, therefore, reasonable to surmise that evolution has been designed, like the skyscraper was designed, to “house” human beings? Reasonable to ask the question of “why” either of these structures exist?
Why does evolution exist on Earth? A theist has a theory. An atheist claims no additional contention needs to be made. This would not be acceptable when analyzing the existence of a building, but why is it with a much more complicated structure leading to the existence of human beings?
No one would imagine that just because concrete can be formed from sand, gravel, cement, etc. and steel can be formed from iron and carbon, that these substances would just, without cause, form a “skyscraper.”
It seems to me that that is precisely what atheist biologists are asking us to do: to look backward through all the “biological” building blocks of life on earth and, just because all the genetic connections are in place, and lead to human life, we are to assume they merely shaped themselves, without cause, by randomly determined mechanisms, into the huge diversity and heirarchy of life on earth ending in human existence.
Odd piece of reasoning, that.
