Evolution versus Intelligent Design?

The article below was written in response to the request: "Can you compare and contrast the Theory of Evolution vs. the Theory of Intelligent Design?"

First off, there is no inherent conflict between the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Intelligent Design, so it is difficult to compare and contrast or set up a “versus” between two things that are not at odds.

Perhaps it would be better to compare or contrast Undirected vs. Directed Evolution. Undirected Evolution (pure naturalism) states that evolution is a purely blind chemical process with no ultimate goals or supervising principles. Directed Evolution (Intelligent Design) states that evolution has been guided by a supervising agency with goals.

When evaluating these two paradigms (models) we have to look at evidence in the following fields: Biology (primarily DNA), Probability Mathematics, and Chemistry (and physics to a lesser degree, but only in the sense of time and those features which support chemical activity), and finally Paleontology (fossil record).

When we look at Biology (DNA), we are astounded by the sheer complexity and total volume of genetic information encoded into the nuclear material of cells. As the famous Atheist, Richard Dawkins, recently admitted:

“You contain a trillion copies of a large, textual document written in a highly accurate, digital code, each copy as voluminous as a substantial book. I’m talking, of course, of the DNA in your cells.”

The problem for those who accept Undirected Evolution (pure naturalism) is that they must account for the random, unguided assimilation of more complex information than contained in thousands of books written by “intelligent” authors. As Dawkins admitted, the digital information encoded in DNA is both a storage mechanism (codons of nucleotides) and it is a language that can interpret that information. BOTH are required simultaneously.

There is a (1) LANGUAGE of DNA (syntax, letters, words, punctuation, etc) and then there is (2) the actual, physical, SYMBOLIC INFORMATION stored in the nucleotides embedded in our double-helix. You have to have BOTH (1 and 2) in order for DNA to function (it is analogous to the “which came first: the chicken or the egg?” conundrum). The rules and syntax and guiding principles of DNA (it’s LANGUAGE) must ALREADY exist in order to interpret the physical encoded information that is actually there. But, even a child can see the inherent paradox.

The language of DNA is useless without any actual information to process, and yet the information itself (about 3.1 billion nucleotides in the human genome) is only a series of meaningless bits of chemistry without the necessary language of DNA to interpret and act upon them.

For instance, imagine that I wrote the 5 physical letters HELLO on a piece of paper with a pencil. There are 5 letters physically written with graphite on paper (similar to nucleotides “written” on the double-helix). BUT, unless you have the English language in your mind when looking at those letters (LANGUAGE), those 5 letters are worthless, useless INFORMATION. To a person who only understands Mandarin or Arabic, those 5 letters are meaningless. They are only “functional” if the person using them has the built-in language of English to aid in the processing of that encoded, symbolic information.

This is the unanswerable and insurmountable barrier to the model of Undirected Evolution. Those who espouse this model have to admit, that at the very outset of the basis of all life, is a system that cannot be arrived at without a level of intelligent planning and design that is orders of magnitude even beyond our own. Since the digital, encoded information in our DNA was discovered several decades ago, it has taken thousands of scientists, utilizing supercomputer processing to try and unravel the mysteries and intricacies of DNA, and yet we are only beginning to grasp the various mechanisms and principles that are contained within the molecule of life. New discoveries are being made regularly.

Those who espouse Undirected Evolution have to account for the existence of the (1) LANGUAGE OF DNA (which are the rules, letters, words, punctuation, etc) that is IMMATERIAL (it does not exist physically in the cell) and (2) the INFORMATION stored in the genome. BOTH must exist for any processing of the “written” and “encoded” digital information that Atheist Richard Dawkins spoke of. Even if the genetic information was there (3.1 billion nucleotides) to create “you” — without the LANGUAGE of DNA to process and interpret and utilize that information, there could be NO YOU. Imagine trying to read this page if you did not know English…no reading of any meaningful sort would ever occur (and you are an intelligent being who is capable of complex thought processes, and yet you still would not be able to decode this page unless you had the language of English in your mind).

You see, the decoding of the genetic information (“reading”) does not follow pure, chemical necessity. There is nothing chemically that forces the cell to interpret the codons and then use them to symbolically account for a 20-Amino Acid “look up table” to then begin the process of protein synthesis. There are precise parameters (principles), exactly like a language, that supervises this process. And since there is no natural law or chemical process that can create language (with syntax, letters, words, punctuation, etc) then one must logically concede that an intelligent source has led to (at least) the formation of the DNA information storage-and-retrieval-and-processing system. This conclusion can be arrived at using nothing but empirical science (DNA) and logical reasoning.

So, Intelligent Design (Directed Evolution) is considered by many to be a scientific and logical necessity. It is not a “religious trick” or “metaphysical sleight-of-hand” as its detractors insist, but rather, the logical consequence of an unbiased evaluation of readily available facts.

Secondly, to account for genetic change (“evolution”) over time, those who espouse Undirected Evolution have to rely on the fuel of random mutations to drive the engine of change (remember, Natural Selection can only function based upon material to act upon, and this material is random by nature). Once we apply mathematics (the frequency of mutation occurrence) and probability mathematics (the chance of a “beneficial” mutation) to the number of estimated organisms in a species over the amount of time estimated, we are left with a statistical improbability that defies any rational justification.

Added to that, recent studies of HUMAN DIRECTED Evolution (where researchers have simulated hundreds of thousands of generations of various species in an attempt to force change over time), the results have been stunning and yet not surprising. The researches find that even HUMAN Directed Evolution yields only marginal change, within very precise boundaries. Simple changes can be forced, but these do not BUILD upon each other to create new systems or new features. Simple changes, such as color, size, and the ability to consume various materials can be forced, but left alone, these populations inevitably return to a norm that does not continue to change to build upon any of these changes.

Finally, the other area of evidence to consider is the fossil record itself. Unfortunately for those who espouse gradual change (molecules-to-man) models of Undirected Evolution, the fossil record provides little verification. Instead of a tidy “tree of life” starting with a single ancestor and branching out into various sub-categories of life, we find what is more properly defined as BUSHES of life. We have different groups who experience (1) sudden appearance (2) basic stasis (little change) (3) then Extinction. This basic obstacle is freely admitted by famous evolutionary paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould:

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our text- books have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record…”

So, in conclusion, once we examine the Biological evidence (DNA—both an immaterial LANGUAGE and SYMBOLIC INFORMATION), Mathematics (frequency of mutations, improbability of beneficial change (even allowing Natural Selection), and HUMAN Directed Evolution experiments), Chemistry (there is no chemical necessity to drive the formation of a genetic language or in processing of the genetic information), and Paleontology (the fossil record which indicates abrupt appearance, relative stasis, then extinction) one is logically and empirically driven to consider a more reasonable DIRECTED Evolutionary model (Intelligent Design).

Consider the scientific model involving Intelligent Design (Directed Evolution):
(Science looks at available phenomena and then makes educated hypotheses to attempt to explain the phenomena).

1. We find highly complex life capable of intelligence

2. Question: Did this life arrive by purely naturalistic (unintelligent processes) or by intelligent processes?

3. If it arrived by purely naturalistic processes, we should be able to account for that series of processes along purely chemical lines of evidence.

4. If life arrived by intelligent processes, we should be able to find evidence of that intelligent engineering in the physical makeup of the creature.


HYPOTHESIS:

To account for this highly complex, intelligent, life, we would expect to find a highly complex, intelligently engineered mechanism to account for the existence of this highly complex intelligent life.

RESULT OF RESEARCH:

In the field of Biology (DNA) we discover an irreducibly complex (both a language and encoded information) system with all the necessary features of a functional language (syntax, letters, words, punctuation, etc).

In the field of Probability Mathematics, we discover that random mutation (even allowing Natural Selection) is inadequate to account for the volume of biological function and diversity. This is confirmed by research attempting to simulate hundreds of thousands of generations of forced evolution to bring about substantial change, which results in marginal adaptation and often reversion to previous norms over time. The only basis of mutations as the driving force of actual Evolution would be Directed Mutations at a level of understanding much higher than current human knowledge.

Finally, Paleontology provides evidence of sudden appearance and a lack of gradual transition (which is best predicted in a model of Intelligent Design).

So, scientifically and logically, Directed Evolution (Intelligent Design) is not only an alternative to Undirected Evolution (pure naturalism), according to empirical research and logical reasoning, it is the only acceptable and tenable model to account for known phenomena. It is not pseudo-science, it the logical consequence of unbiased scientific investigation. Just as Forensic Science can point to intelligent (murder) vs. natural (accidental) causes of death (through examining evidence and utilizing logical reasoning), we can also apply these same principles of inference and induction/deduction to arrive at the logical conclusion of Intelligent Design when we examine the evidence without presuppositional bias.

I will let scientist (Astrophysicist) Sir Fred Hoyle have the last word:

"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature."