SOME
might assume that a scientifically-minded person would
pick
“evolution” and that a religious person would pick “creation.”
But
not always.
Rama
Singh, professor of biology at Canada’s McMaster University,
says:
“The opposition to evolution goes beyond religious
fundamentalism
and includes a great many people from educated
sections
of the population.”
Consider
Gerard, a professor of entomology who was taught
evolution
at college. “When I took tests,” he says, “I would give
the
professors the answers they wanted—but I did not believe it.”
Why
is it that even some
scientifically-minded
people
have
trouble accepting evolution
as
the origin of life? To
answer
that, consider two
questions
that baffle many researchers:
(1)
How did life get
its
start? and (2) How did living
things
develop?
˙ Scientists can
only speculate
about what conditions on earth
were like billions of years ago.
They have differing views about
where life began—for instance,
whether within a volcano or under
the ocean floor. Another belief
is that life’s building blocks
first formed elsewhere in the universe
and arrived here embedded
in meteors. But that does not answer
the question of how life began;
it just pushes the issue farther
into space.
˙ Scientists
speculate about the
existence of molecules that preceded
genetic material as we
know it today. These molecules
are supposedly more likely to
arise spontaneously from inert
material and are self-replicating.
Yet, science has found no evidence
that such molecules ever
existed, nor have scientists been
able to create any such molecule
in a laboratory.
˙ Living things
are unique in
the way they store and process
information. Cells convey, interpret,
and carry out instructions
contained within their genetic
code. Some scientists liken the
genetic code to computer software
and the chemical structure
of the cell to computer hardware.
But evolution cannot explain the
source of the information.
˙ Protein
molecules are necessary
for the function of a cell. A
typical protein molecule consists
of hundreds of amino acids
strung together in a specific sequence.
Additionally, the protein
molecule must fold into a specific
three-dimensional shape for it
to be useful. Some scientists conclude
that the odds of even one
protein molecule forming spontaneously
are extremely improbable.
“Since a functioning cell requires
thousands of different
proteins,” writes physicist Paul
Davies, “it is not credible to suppose
they formed by chance
alone.”
CONCLUSION. After decades of research in
virtually all branches
of science, the fact remains that life comes only from preexisting
life.
˙ Scientists
have discovered within
each cell intricate molecular
machines composed of protein
molecules that cooperate to perform
complex tasks. These tasks
include transporting and converting
nutrients into energy, repairing
parts of the cell, and conveying
messages throughout the
cell. Could random mutations and
natural selection account for the
assembling and functioning of
such sophisticated components?
Many find that concept difficult to
accept.
˙ Animals and
humans develop
from a single fertilized egg. Inside
the embryo, cells multiply
and eventually specialize, taking
on different shapes and functions
to form distinct parts of the body.
Evolution cannot explain how
each cell “knows” what to become
and where it should move
within the organism.
˙ Scientists now
realize that for
one kind of animal to develop
into another kind of animal
would require that changes take
place within the cell, at the molecular
level. Since scientists cannot
demonstrate how evolution
can produce even the “simplest”
cell, is it plausible that random
mutations and natural selection
could be responsible for the different
kinds of animals on the
planet? Regarding the structure
of animals, Michael Behe, professor
of biological sciences, says
that while research “has revealed
unexpected, stunning complexity,
no progress at all has been made
in understanding how that complexity
could evolve by unintelligent
processes.”
˙ Human beings
are conscious
and self-aware, have the ability to
think and reason, and possess
moral qualities such as generosity,
self-sacrifice, and a sense of
right and wrong. Random mutations
and natural selection cannot
explain the existence of these
unique qualities of the human
mind.
CONCLUSION. While many insist that an
evolutionary origin of life
is an indisputable fact, others are not satisfied with the answers
that evolution provides regarding how life began and how life
developed.
AFTER considering the evidence, many people conclude
that life is the product of a superior intelligence.
Consider the example of Antony Flew, a professor
of philosophy who at one time was a leading
advocate of atheism. When he learned about the
staggering complexity of life and the physical laws of
the universe, Flew changed his opinion. Citing an ancient
approach to reasoning, he wrote: “We must follow
the argument wherever it leads.” For Professor
Flew, the evidence pointed to the existence of a
Creator.
Gerard, mentioned earlier in this series of articles,
came to a similar conclusion. Despite his advanced
education and his career in entomology, he said: “I
saw no proof that life arose spontaneously from nonliving
matter. The order and complexity of living
things convinced me that there has to be an Organizer
and Designer.”
Just as a person can learn about an artist by examining
his artwork, Gerard came to discern the Creator’s
qualities by studying the natural world. Gerard
also took time to consider a book attributed to the
Creator—the Bible. (2 Timothy 3:16) There he found
satisfying answers to questions about mankind’s
past and practical solutions to the problems facing
people today. He thus became convinced that the Bible
was also the product of a superior mind.
As Gerard found, the Bible’s answers are worth
considering. We encourage you to examine them for
yourself. ˛
