This blog is part two of three on the question of God’s Existence.
In my book “Is There a God?” I focus the discussion of the question of God’s existence regarding three major areas of reality and discuss how atheism and monotheism think about each area with respect to explaining them with or without God. In the book I describe the major tenets and arguments made by each side within each of three pivotal areas: (1) The Nature and Existence of Physical Reality, (2) The Design and Purpose of Physical reality, (3) The explanation of Morality. To put these three areas in simpler language by the way of questions:
- Why does the universe and the physical order exist?
- What explains the complexity and appearance of design in nature?
- Is morality real or just opinion and preference?
The first question of why the universe exists at all (as discussed in part 1) . . .
. . . leads both Atheist and Theist to depend on assumptions and arguments that are metaphysical (beyond material observation and science). But this question of complexity and order and function is a how question. How can these complexities and functions arise? Given that somehow the whole material order exists (our previous question), how does it take on its complexity and function? Is God required for this or not? If one could explain the existence of the universe and change and motion and cause without God, does one still need God to explain the current physical order and its complexity and functions? That is the issue before us now.
Here is the full section:
Complexity and Design of Physical Reality (From Is There a God? by William Frye)
We live in a world of structure and complexity and apparent purpose. Take any organ in a living animal for example. That organ performs functions that are usually vital to the survival and well-being of the animal. The organ has a clear purpose and role within the body (to circulate blood for example). The functions of that organ (say the heart) are complex and composed of many parts (arteries and ventricles for example) and various materials (muscles and veins for example). And when each part is examined it is found to be composed of other structures (including cells). And in each of those we generally find more structures with their own functions, purposes, and structures. Also consider the living cell – it was once thought to be some kind of simple blob of jelly but is now found to be a small city of machines, transports, and processes. So in biological organs we recognize both complexity (many parts interacting with each other) and function (a role or purpose to play). This leads to a variety of questions. Is this complexity and interdependence the result of foresight and intellect or is it the working out of natural (material) processes? Can complex life come out of simple chemistry without a guiding intelligence? Does evolution fully explain the complexity of life? Is a belief in God merely a lazy way to fill in gaps in our understanding of apparent design? These are but a few of the important questions relating to the issue of God with respect to the design and purpose of physical reality.
I hope that you will see that the design and functional purpose question is a very different question than the first question of why material things exist and how this world of change and cause can have a foundational explanation. That question leads both Atheist and Theist to depend on assumptions and arguments that are metaphysical (beyond material observation and science). But this question of complexity and order and function is a how question. How can these complexities and functions arise? Given that somehow the whole material order exists (our previous question), how does it take on its complexity and function? Is God required for this or not? If one could explain the existence of the universe and change and motion and cause without God, does one still need God to explain the current physical order and its complexity and functions? That is the issue before us now.
Design is not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works ― Steve Jobs
But is there another alternative? Could the enormous complexity and apparent design of life (life being the most complex material system we are aware of) be the result of a material intelligence rather than requiring God? Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the DNA structure, reasoned that life could not have evolved from non-living chemicals under any conceivable earth conditions. Crick was an atheist and he posed a theory that life on earth was originally seeded billions of years ago by aliens with (obviously) amazingly advanced technologies. But of course, this merely replaces the life on earth question with the question of how these complex aliens came about. Are these aliens explained by God or by natural processes? So it seems we ultimately have just these two ultimate explanations: complexity and design by natural processes or by God (the self-existent one).
We will first present a summary of the atheist materialist position regarding complexity and design.
The atheist strongly asserts that it is now possible based upon the science of evolution to explain the origins and development of all living things. Prior to Darwin’s theory, there was not a robust framework that would account for the diversity of life and its complexity. But Darwin’s brilliant insights have provided an elegant of how the simplest primitive life has evolved into the diverse biosphere that we see today. The natural selection process is straightforward and simple and shows how completely natural processes of genetic variety and mutation result in changes to organisms over time that are increasingly complex and better adapted to their environment for survival. Through descent with modification (another phrase that summarizes evolution), new designs are created without any required intelligent oversight or foresight.
People believe the only alternative to randomness is intelligent design ― Richard Dawkins
The atheist materialist goes on to forcefully assert that evolution has been substantiated by countless studies. It has been clearly observed in the laboratory (such as bacterial and fruit fly studies), in the field (including Darwin’s well know Galapagos island studies), and in the fossil record that demonstrates a clear tree of life that emerges over the huge time frame of life on earth. The fossil record clearly shows a progression of life forms that follow what one would expect from the evolutionary framework – organism types that progress from the most simple and then continually branch and change to account for each of the major categories and sub-categories of life. A huge number of intermediate and transitional forms that show the evolutionary progression are well documented within the fossil record. Each fossil discovery has served to further verify evolution and although there are still questions to be answered and parts of the tree of life to further understand, evolution by natural selection has been verified and overwhelmingly embraced as true within the scientific community.
It should be noted that not all evolutionists are atheists. But the overwhelming majority of atheists are materialists and the vast majority of materialists accept evolution as a well-substantiated scientific account for how life on earth has resulted from entirely material processes as described by natural processes. They would also point out that there are exceedingly few credentialed biologists that do not embrace evolution and a trivial number of professional papers that scientifically argue against the evolutionary framework. In addition, they point out that DNA studies strongly reinforce descent with modification and the tree of life.
When it comes to explaining life on earth and all its complexity and diversity, the Atheist confidently points to evolution as a robust explanation that is completely material and although it results in the appearance of design, no design is needed. Hence, any argument for God or any governing intelligence is completely superfluous and unnecessary. Some have quipped that we don’t need the tooth fairy, the Easter bunny, storks bringing babies, and we don’t need God to explain life on earth.
The atheist admits that some significant and mysterious issues remain. One of these is how we can understand the origin of life itself. Natural selection explains how simple reproducing life can evolve into more complex life forms. But how did this first life emerge from non-life? The origin of life remains very much a mystery, but they claim that biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating and sustaining units that could have led to the first cells. They are confident that there will someday be a material explanation for the origin of life without any need for intelligent guidance, much less God.
We now turn to the arguments of the theist.
Theists ascribe the design and complexity of the universe to God. Many Theists accept God’s direct revelation (such as the scriptures) as being entirely sufficient to prove God’s existence as well as being the source and designer of all that exists. Non-religious theists sometimes accept the metaphysical arguments of the previous section as conclusive proof of God’s existence and also acknowledge him also as a designer (Aristotle for example). Some theists (namely deists) believe God is responsible for the existence of the universe but that he is satisfied to leave its operation once underway to entirely material causation. Other theists challenge scientific theory such as evolution based upon how they see God’s revelation as contradicting scientific assertions (not accepting an old or ancient earth or evolution as explaining the origins of species for example).
But are there empirical (observational) arguments for God other than the arguments rooted in direct revelation or metaphysical argument? Can theists deploy evidence from complexity and design that can stand on their own as evidence for the existence of God? These arguments are especially important in convincing a materialist, who by their own worldview will not consider arguments from metaphysics or revelation. One example of this is the British philosopher Antony Flew. For much of his career, Flew was known as a strong advocate of atheism, arguing that one should presuppose atheism until empirical evidence of a God surfaces. However, in 2004 he stated an allegiance to deism, more specifically a belief in the Aristotelian God. He stated that in keeping his lifelong commitment to go where the evidence leads, he now believed in the existence of a god. Flew pointed to the progress of teleological (design) arguments that accompanied recent science as being a key factor for him. A book outlining his reasons for changing his position, There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind was written by Flew in collaboration with Roy Varghese. Flew’s “conversion” to Theism was and remains controversial.
There are a number of Theistic arguments from observable science and observation. Some of them are very weak if not silly and are readily dismissed by scientists (One example is the assertion that the laws of thermodynamics precludes evolution). But there are other arguments that have real weight and deserve consideration. I will summarize three of them: The Fine-Tuned Universe, the Origin of Life, and Evidence of Intelligent Design.
The Fine-Tuned Universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any one of a number fundamental constants were only slightly different, the universe could not form so as to support life on earth. These physical constants include the strength of gravity, the expansion rate of the initial universe (see Stephen Hawking quote below), the strength of the strong nuclear force, the percentage of dark matter energy, and others. Minuscule changes to any one or more of these constants are asserted to eliminate the possibility of life by preventing the formation of matter itself, the formation of stars and planets, the formation of basic elements (hydrogen, oxygen, carbon), and others. The value (size) of each of these physical constants was set in the earliest miniscule fractions of a second after the big bang and they were set to precisely the values that allowed the universe to form and have the possibility for life to emerge and be sustained.
If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, it would have re-collapsed before it reached its present size. On the other hand, if it had been greater by a part in a million, the universe would have expanded too rapidly for stars and planets to form. ― Stephen Hawking
One can imagine each of the fundamental constants as being a radio dial and that each dial must be set precisely to achieve the conditions for life. The precision required of each individual dial is incredible – 1 part in millions of millions or more. The required precision of one of the dials – the strength of gravity – has been estimated at one in 10 to the 40th power (1 followed by 40 zeroes). The combined odds of all the dials can be debated, but a value of one in 10 to the hundredth power or more is likely. These probabilities are almost beyond comprehension. Imagine winning the Mega Millions lotto (1 chance in 176 million). Now imagine winning it 8 times in a row. That is the odds of these dials being set correctly by chance. If someone wins Mega Millions once you would say they were very lucky. But if they won it even twice you would plan what to wear to the trial. 8 times? Unimaginable – not a chance it was by chance.
Opponents of fine-tuning have proposed a way around these odds. Perhaps there is not one universe, but a nearly infinite set of universes. Each universe has its own unique set of dials (physical constant settings) and we are in the lucky one that by chance has the dials set right for life. So ironically, the reason we are debating this question is that we happen to be in the one that has life and us… In fact, this must be the case or we wouldn’t be here talking! Hmmm…. Imagine someone surviving a firing squad with a thousand expert marksmen and then brushing it off with the comment: “well of course they missed or I wouldn’t be talking to you about it, I am in the lucky universe where this happens”. The same concept could also explain the 8-time Mega Millions winner or any other conceivable event. The Theist responds that this is silly grasping for straws and utterly unsupported by evidence. There must be a designer and that is God.
The second theistic argument is similar. It is the argument that the origin of life on earth requires design. Recall that evolution is a process that takes the raw random results of mutations and through the filter of survival retains the good and useful ones and discards the others. It is able to perform this selection process because beneficial mutations aid the survival of the organism and its ability to pass the beneficial change to the next generation. Over time, the benefits accumulate and change the species and also have the power over sufficient time to even create an entirely new species or type of animal. But the dilemma is how the first primitive reproductive life came about. The first single cell organism that can reproduce itself (and thus be able to evolve by evolution) is in itself very complex. In fact, the more we learn about even the simplest living cells, the more complexity is discovered.
How did that complex initial cell originate without reproduction (replication) and the possibility of evolution to form it over time? Without the possibility of an adaptive random process such as evolution, we are logically left with either chance and/or causal necessity (laws of physics or chemistry). Snowflakes are examples of a somewhat complicated structure that form by the laws of chemistry. Although individual snowflakes can be unique, they follow a consistent type of pattern. A snowflake from a million years ago is essentially the same as one formed today. This is typical of processes that are driven by physical laws alone – they are consistent over time. But objects produced by chemical / physical laws are also enormously simple in structure compared to a living cell.
With regards to the origin of life, there are ideas about how chemicals such as amino acids (a building block of DNA) might form naturally. However, that is only the first step of many in constructing a living cell. How would these amino acids then form into the next higher-level structures that result in the cell and its power of replication? These additional steps would depend on chance alone. Even the simplest theoretical self-replicating structure is comprised of about 32 amino acids. The odds of this happening randomly are miniscule – happening in 1 in 10 to the 40th (1 and 40 zeros) attempts. This is a huge number to overcome even with an earth ocean full of amino acids. And if that single life form formed, what is the chance it would survive and reproduce? And this 32 amino acid organism is only a theoretical structure. If the simplest replicating structure requires a more reasonable 300 amino acids (as in a simple protein) the odds become essentially impossible. Thus, the theist argues that chance / law is insufficient to form life on earth and design is required, and this takes us to God.
The third theistic design argument is that the evolutionary process itself has limitations that prevent it in principle from explaining the progression from the simplest life we just talked about to all the forms of life on the planet. This is an argument against macroevolution, an evolution that results in new species creation – a fish eventually evolving into a lizard or a primate evolving into a human being. They would assert that evolution as a process can produce limited changes in an organism and can explain things like bacterial resistance or finch beaks or the results of dog breeding. But larger body “design” changes are another matter.
Detailed arguments are put forward that describe what is called “irreducible complexity”, that is structures that require numerous interworking specific parts for the structure to work at all. Remove any one part and the structure fails to work at all. Forming such a structure would require the simultaneous formation of many interdependent parts and this cannot happen in evolution, which works by a series of consecutive evolutionary changes. It is asserted that the intermediate evolutionary steps between structure A and structure B would be useless and of no benefit to the survival of the organism. Consequently, evolution could never bridge the chasm. The literature is full of debates on such structures (such as the bacterial flagellum, the eye, the blood clotting mechanism) that allegedly illustrate this limitation of evolution.
The assertion that body form and species development require design, and that evolution is not a sufficient explanation is part of the emerging Intelligent Design (ID) field. Evolutionists violently denounce ID as bad science and an argument from incredulity and ignorance rather than producing positive scientific hypothesis and proof. ID proponents respond that design can be detected and that evolutionary scientists have failed to convincingly explain how “irreducibly complex” structures can be explained. They argue that design and therefore God is required to explain the progression of life.
Arguments from both sides about design and complexity are by their nature “weight of the evidence” arguments. This is true of any empirical (observational) argument. Additional evidence could change the picture and create converts. These arguments are heavily influenced by the presuppositions held by each side of the debate. Theists convinced by metaphysics or revelation that there is a God naturally tend to accept and advocate ID. Atheists who are convinced that materialism is true naturally embrace the belief that natural material phenomena can and (they hope) will eventually explain all “apparent” design.
Until next time – Will
