In the blue corner we have Richard Dawkins, representing the atheists. In the red corner we have John Lennox, representing the heavyweight designers. Here’s why they have been fighting for ages. Dawkins says simple life just ‘happened’ on Earth then evolved into the complex beings we are today. Lennox on the other hand believes there is strong evidence of design behind life.

As Science Progressess…

The more evidence science uncovers, the more difficult it appears to explain life as a random event followed by random mutations over time. Life, and the cosmos, and everything else seems to be designed.

And here’s the essence of it. If something appears designed, it could be. And if you think there is some criteria for determining if something is designed or not, you’d probably be right. You know your iPod is designed don’t you, and that’s a billion times simpler than the simplest biological cell.

Incompatible Scientists and Christians?

Up until Darwin’s day, faith in God granted many eminent scientists the freedom to explore whatever evidence they uncovered.They weren’t doing so to prove God’s existence, they did what they did because they loved science and wanted to delve deeper into the amazing world they were in.

Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Galileo, Newton, Faraday, Kelvin, Planck and Einstein were all Christians and their faith was a major asset.

So the current conflict between people like Dawkins and Lennox is not actually about the science at all, it’s a conflict of worldviews.

On one side you have the material scientists who will only accept things that fit their naturalistic thinking, and on the other people who are more willing to look at the science wherever it takes them. Nobody is completely objective, but it does seem strange that many atheist scientists will dismiss the work of others in case it does lead to a compelling case for the existence of an intelligent agent.

When Darwin was writing Origin of the Species, there was strong influence to publish in order to ‘kick God out of science’. And that’s was Origin did very successfully. However, had Darwin known what we know know about the cell, it would have been highly unlikely that he would have published the book.

Tell Them God Did It.

What really gets Darwinists hot under the collar is the question of who’s the designer. However,  ID people aren’t that bothered about discovering the nature of the designer but looking at whether design is the best inference from the evidence they are uncovering. If on one side, the ID people are Christians, they probably have a good idea of the nature of the designer already – and they are not using the science to prove the existence of God.

The Indisputable, Utterly Definite, Without Question Nature of Evolution.

At least that is what people like Richard Dawkin want you to believe. Don’t dispute the facts – you’ve heard them all your life so they must be true! Sadly, that’s not always the case, as with the Earth being at the centre of the Universe, or the Earth’s crust being solid (not tectonic plates). Both were established views, widely held, until someone came along and saw evidence that suggested otherwise. And those guys who questioned things had a really hard time from those with the established  view. And that’s how it is today, the ‘facts’ are being questioned and those that don’t like it are getting annoyed, and at times, nasty.

So What is Evolution?

Ah. First problem, the evolution that people think is utterly fact doesn’t actual have a consistent definition. Do people mean simply change over time (micro evolution) or evolution’s ability to create big jumps with new species (macro evolution)? Few people are even aware there’s a difference. Secondly, nobody really disputes change can happen over time. My neighbours cat is very different from mine. There’s big cats, small cats, cats that poo in your garden and those that would eat a small dog if they could. But they are all cats. Dogs are dogs. Mice are mice. Whilst there is a huge variation within the species, some would say adaptations through breeding or natural processes are easily explained. A mutation that gives sheep longer wool in a place that is cold means it is more likely to survive and pass on that advantageous gene. Single mutations like this are easy to understand, but the sheep will remain a sheep and wont turn into something else. But it is debatable whether this type of small change over time has the creative power to turn a monkey into a human, or an animal that cant see into one that can.

Anyway, in addition to the process of natural selection mentioned, evolutionary theory also believes that all living things have a universal common ancestor. You and me, and everything else, came from a single, probably really simple blob. However, we now know that even the simplest blob of life would need to contain at least 27 different proteins, each with several thousand amino acids, laid down in a particular way. Else, the blob of life wouldn’t work. So the ‘soup’ that people thought was the origin of life needed to arrange all these bits in a particular way, along with all the bits and pieces to make life digest, reproduce,  move, etc. Even people like Dawkins agree the chances of this happening is zero, which is why there are alternative ideas including aliens (of course, produced by evolution, a Dawkins favourite).

So a theory based on a starting point that makes little scientific sense is not a good place to base an entire worldview, but that is what has happened. In fact, Darwinism is a worldview first, that leads people to try to fit the evidence to it. ID however, tries to look at the evidence and make the best inference from it. That’s not to say there are not dodgy people on both sides, including religious nutcases and mad scientists. They are out there so be warned!

Some Questions

If we all come from a common ancestor, there should be great amounts of evidence this is the case. Secondly, the science that guides simple life to complex should be easily understood, or at least some fairly hefty theories to help explain it (and the fact that it contravenes the first law of thermodynamics). However, in both cases, the evidence when examined closely doesn’t produces as compelling case as one would expect.

Anyway, here’s some questions:

1. What are the chances of inorganic chemicals clumping together to form a simple cell capable of evolving into what we are today?
2. DNA contains massive amounts of information, how could this be formed since complex information rarely comes about from random chance?
3. How could new information be added to DNA as the organism gets more complex? Alternatively, how could DNA get more complex to facilitate more complex organisms?
4. Does the fossil record show the gradual change of simple to complex, or does it show species bursting into existence, not changing much over long periods of time, then disappearing again?
5. Many bits of our bodies are similar to those in other species (like the femur in our leg, the way our eyes work). Does this show that we came from the same ancestor or could it be evidence for sharing a common designer?
6. With the huge amounts of research going on, does it appear that the current thinking on evolution is sufficient to explain the evidence that is being uncovered?
7. In debates between Dawkins and Lennox, who do you think wins? Who do you think is the nicer of the two?

It’s a fascinating battle and I’d love to hear from anyone with any views.

-Martin