Cricket returns to America?

 

On the willful credulity of Darwinists.

 Deconstructing Belief in Evolution

Eric Hedin

In a recent Evolution News article on the sophisticated engineering marvel of insect wings, David Coppedge finds another source of wonder — the willingness of the Caltech researchers to extol these wonders. Coppedge concludes with a droll acknowledgement of evolutionary origin: 

They will wax eloquent over the sophistication of some biological wonder, only to spoil the awe with a claim that it evolved by blind, material processes.

What causes otherwise intelligent and perceptive researchers to relegate stunning examples of biological design to the vaporous agency of evolution? Of course, we know about the conformity pressure of the scientific academy, with the threat of exclusion for crediting design to a designer. But there’s more to it than that. Even in private conversation, many researchers hold to the reality of naturalistic evolution as the efficient cause to form all the complex, functional elements of living organisms, from the macroscopic level down to individual biochemical reactions within the cell.

A Blithe Assumption

Although much has been written about the information barrier that natural processes face in attempting to ratchet up the functional complexity of living systems, it seems that many scientists blithely assume nature’s prowess extends to the generation of countless living wonders. Why is this? In our common human experience in the world, do we see examples of natural forces molding matter into complex, functional arrangements? 

In our investigation of how the natural world informs our thinking, the origin and development of living organisms constitutes the case in point. So, we shouldn’t exhibit examples from the realm of biology to support the contention that natural forces can increase the information content of a system by increasing functional complexity. Poignantly, however, this is just what the theory of evolution does. Its claims ignore the restrictions of the laws of physics. Evolution’s tenet of the survival of the fittest appeals immediately to our ego, gratuitously affirming that humans have attained consciousness, self-awareness, intelligence, morality, and ultimately, a technologically advanced civilization because we are the fittest and have survived.

In a more objective sense, we find agreement with evolution’s predictions that the record of living forms on Earth shows a general trend from simpler forms to more complex forms of life. But a theory’s validity is not measured simply by predictive success; its underlying assumptions must also conform to scientific reality. Moreover, it could be argued that life’s history is the opposite of the expected outcome of survival of the fittest, where fittest is usually taken to mean greater success at producing offspring. Without a doubt, the simplest life forms have always out-produced more advanced life forms in the arena of reproduction.

Considering Hurricanes

But let’s get back to examining nature for any non-living examples of complex, functional outcomes arising from combinations of the forces of nature acting on non-organic matter. Several years ago, a young biochemist suggested to me that hurricanes, with their rotational structure and wind-speed gradients, constitute an observable example of a natural artifact exhibiting complexity. However, this example falls short of the information content of even a single cell. 

While a “hurricane” has a macroscopic structure, its microscopic components (molecules found in our air) are randomly arranged. Contrast this with a cell: not only does a cell have a macroscopic structure, but its microscopic constituents are tightly constrained to specific arrangements. A hurricane is not in the least destroyed by flying an airplane through it (I don’t recommend trying this), but a cell’s functionality would be irreparably damaged by inserting a microscopic needle into the cell and breaking up its internal molecular structure. No matter how long you wait, the molecules within the cell will not reform after they have been broken up.

Could it be that part of the reason many scientists accept that evolution is true is that they have not been taught the limitations of natural forces to increase the functional complexity (and thereby the information content) of an unorganized arrangement of atoms? For, producing a living cell is almost an atom-by-atom process. 

Human construction projects proceed by intelligently interconnecting macroscopic arrangements of atoms, with each component of what we’re building (whether it’s a skyscraper or a cell phone) consisting of trillions upon trillions of atoms. We know that natural forces could not possibly succeed in manufacturing any of our technological products, but when it comes to the molecular scale, we disregard this wisdom and assume that natural forces can manufacture a living cell that far exceeds the complexity of any artificial product. 

We don’t directly perceive how the electric force between atoms causes chemical reactions to proceed, and by virtue of that ignorance, we might imagine their abilities to be practically unlimited. We also have some conception of the vast numbers of atoms in a chemical soup, so perhaps we conclude that any lack of systematic productive prowess is made up for by the brute force of rapidly repeated efforts. Again, ignorance bewitches us, since not many scientists, and very few non-scientists, are aware of the magnitude of the combinatorial options for producing the large, functional biomolecules of life. Even with the large number of random attempts in a chemical soup to form a specific, functional molecule, the number of ways to go wrong always mounts up exponentially to defeat production of the necessary outcome.

Another Factor — Openness

One other factor comes into play that rivets some people to the evolutionary viewpoint: openness, or the lack of it. The only way someone can change his mind is to have a willingness to examine the relevant evidence objectively. Not just to scrutinize it for a way to bolster presuppositions, but to be willing to evaluate it as possibly supporting the deconstruction of one’s viewpoint. This willingness to face reality is important no matter what position we hold. 

In the pursuit of truth, freedom is ultimately at stake. Believing a falsehood may be comfortable — temporarily. The issue with evolution may not matter if we are just “accidents of nature,” having no future or hope beyond the grave. But one of the strong truths at stake in the debate over evolution is our ultimate significance as more than animated matter. For us as designed beings, at least in my view, the outcome of our belief may have an impact for eternity.