7. Argument from Life’s Design

The main flaw in the assumption of the link between the theory of evolution and atheism stems from “God of the gaps” arguments. These arguments are quite critical in the philosophy of religion and they are the source of many misconceptions and speculations. The advocates of “God of the gaps” type of arguments, claim that the strongest argument for the existence of God is the unknowns about the universe and the life, and that these gaps should be filled by God. Hence, if there are no gaps left, there is no reason to believe in God! Indeed, some theists express claims along the lines of: “We do not perfectly understand how the eye works, so it must be created by God” or “We do not know how frogs were formed, so God created them”. However, almost none of the theist philosophers and theologians of our time adopt the “God of the gaps” as a supporting argument for the existence of God. Instead, they are of the opinion that knowledge (not ignorance) we gain about the eye or frogs makes us better witness of the art of God. The modern interpretations of cosmological and design arguments (including those we discuss in this book) are grounded on the findings of modern science; not on our ignorance.

Evidence for the theory of evolution and its truth are subjects of other studies. For our purposes, let us assume for a moment that the theory is true, and consider whether it conflicts with belief in God. The theory of evolution teaches that all present forms of life on the earth started from a single-celled organism, with changes in its offspring transferred to new generations via heritage. Phenomena like natural selection, mutation and sexual selection play critical roles in evolution.[50] However, whether these processes take place with God’s planning or coincidentally is not the subject of biology. The goal of biology is to describe the observed properties of life and its formation. When we ask “Is this process an outcome of a conscious design?” we make the transition from the realm of biology to that of philosophy; notwithstanding the profession of the questioner, be it biologist, anthropologist or paleontologist. In short, the interpretation of the theory of evolution as a supporter of materialist-atheism is not a biological, but a philosophical one, and more importantly, a wrong one! Many prominent biologists, as supporters of the theory, clearly manifested their opinion that there is no conflict with evolution and belief in God. These figures include Harvard Botanist Asa Gray, who introduced the theory to the Americans; Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the founders of Neo-Darwinism; Francis Collins, the long-time leader of the Human Genome Project, perhaps the most important biological-genetics projects of recent times; and Simon Conway Morris, a contemporary prominent paleontologist. Renowned atheist, and philosopher of science and biology, Michael Ruse, stated that there is no conflict in believing in God and accepting the theory of evolution. No one can question the expertise of these figures about the theory and they all favor harmony between the theory and religious belief, making it obvious that the link between atheism and the theory does not stem from the content of the theory itself. On the other hand, another prominent atheist and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins used the theory as an instrument to support his atheist views.[51] All these figures are in consensus about the paleontological, geological genetic and biological implications of the theory. The divergence in their views stems from philosophical interpretations of the scientific results.

The main flaw in the assumption of the link between the theory of evolution and atheism stems from “God of the gaps” arguments. These arguments are quite critical in the philosophy of religion and they are the source of many misconceptions and speculations. The advocates of “God of the gaps” type of arguments, claim that the strongest argument for the existence of God is the unknowns about the universe and the life, and that these gaps should be filled by God. Hence, if there are no gaps left, there is no reason to believe in God! Indeed, some theists express claims along the lines of: “We do not perfectly understand how the eye works, so it must be created by God” or “We do not know how frogs were formed, so God created them”. However, almost none of the theist philosophers and theologians of our time adopt the “God of the gaps” as a supporting argument for the existence of God. Instead, they are of the opinion that knowledge (not ignorance) we gain about the eye or frogs makes us better witness of the art of God. The modern interpretations of cosmological and design arguments (including those we discuss in this book) are grounded on the findings of modern science; not on our ignorance.

Therefore, those who claim that the results of the theory of evolution fill a gap and the need for existence of God is eliminated (or reduced) exhibit a common flaw known in the literature of logic as a “straw man fallacy”. The subjects of a straw man fallacy ignore the main arguments of the opposing opinion; instead, they present counter arguments against an ill-posed or exaggerated example of their rivals –as if those examples were the real position taken. Committers of straw man fallacy include famous evolutionary biologists like Dawkins. It is important to note that not all statements of physicists and biologists are about physics and biology; they sometimes cross into the domains of philosophy and theology. However, their audience (often misguided by academic titles) sometimes do not distinguish between the scientific and experimental results and personal philosophical interpretations.

In the scriptures of monotheist religions, God is not only presented as the power of extraordinary (miraculous) creations. On the contrary, situations like the beginning of the universe, certain extraordinary events (“miracles”) about the prophets, and others outside of mainstream phenomena are all minority cases in the creation of God.[52] The majority of creations are always manifested through causality and continuous natural processes. For example, in these scriptures, God creates the rain, makes the seed sprout, feeds man and creates every person. In addition, it is also agreed that rain is formed by the evaporation of water and dispersion of clouds, man is created by a meeting of mother and father and the consequent processes in the womb of the mother. In other words, monotheistic religions readily accept that “God creates through processes” or “creates using causal tools”. Since God is the sole Creator of all processes, He can easily refer to the outcomes of His creations, sometimes skipping the processes themselves. When a painter says “I made this painting” he seldom talks explicitly about his initial mental planning, choice of colors, trial sketches, etc.; yet we do not doubt that he is the painter of that painting (despite the fact that the painter is not the “creator” of the paint, the canvas or his mind). As the sole Creator of all stages of every process, God can naturally talk about the outcomes of His creation, not always referring to intermediate stages. As a matter of fact, the creation of every being in the universe is fundamentally dependent on the Big Bang and consequent processes, yielding the formation of sub-atomic particles and then atoms. If it were necessary to explain every process from the beginning, we would have to answer the questions “How is this book printed?” or “How is that table made?” starting from the Big Bang. It is clear that when we say something is made (either by man or by God), we typically omit many details of the process. In fact, it would even be impossible to describe all those details. Anyone who thanks God for his/her food and regards Him as creator inherently adapts the idea of “creation through processes”. Then, how can the theory of evolution, as a description of the processes taking place during the formation of species, conflict with belief in God? The belief in creation by God does not mean that no other process was involved in this creation. Clearly, the theory of evolution as a description of the development of life, as well as the Big Bang Theory as a description of the beginning of the universe, has no conflict with the belief that God is the Creator of the universe and life.[53]

There is another critical question regarding the subject of this book: Does the theory of evolution form a threat against arguments supporting the existence of God? Actually, the previous chapters of the book form an answer to this question. The arguments listed previously are related to prerequisites for the emergence of life. For example, in the first chapter, we dealt with the finite past of the universe; in Chapter 5 we have seen that fine tuning in certain intrinsic processes of the universe is best described with the existence of God. These arguments hold valid, regardless of the opinion about the beginning of the life (evolution or independent creation). Likewise, the five arguments that we will describe in Part II (arguments from human nature) do not require the rejection of evolution as a prerequisite, and hence evolution poses no threat to them. Therefore, it would be wrong to claim that the theory of evolution forms a threat against the arguments presented in this book. There is still another related question: Even though evolution does not form a threat to other arguments about the existence of God, does it pose a threat against arguments based on the existence of life? The answer is that there would be a threat only if the argument from life were grounded upon the (unnecessary) presumption that each species of life is formed independently. It is quite possible to develop arguments supporting the existence of God, based on life-related phenomena, without making such a presumption. The argument I present in the current chapter is an example. Here is an outline:

1. We observe tremendous diversity and very interesting properties in life on the earth; which manifest in both the micro and macro world, in body structures and in behaviors. 2. The existence of this diversity and these properties can be explained by either theism or materialist-atheism. 3. Theism better explains this diversity and these properties than materialist-atheism, because; 3.1 It better explains the existence of the potentiality, which makes their emergence possible. 3.2 It better explains the complexity in the micro world. 3.3 It better explains the convergence (the re-emergence of very complicated properties over and over) in the macro world. 4. As a result, theism should be preferred over materialist-atheism.

The first point in this outline is directly accepted by anyone (theist or materialist-atheist) who follows advances in modern science. Carl von Linnaeus, regarded as the father of taxonomy (the methodology and system of grouping living things) knew approximately 6,000 species of plants (in the year 1753) and estimated the total to be about 10,000. In 1758, he listed 4,000 animal species and again estimated the total as 10,000.[54] This classification became exceedingly harder to proceed with new discoveries about the world of bugs and microscopic organisms. Today, the number of known species reaches a couple of million. From their micro-world to macroscopic body structures, these millions of species exhibit an enormous variety and complexity. Zoologists and botanists have discovered many interesting properties in behaviors such as feeding, hunting, protecting, cooperation, and mating. The marvels of modern science and technology such as microscopes and micro-cameras facilitated these discoveries. The diversity in living things, from animals to plants, has always been an important focus of interest. Throughout the history of biology, the formation of life on earth was explained by processes like spontaneous generation and evolution.[55] Besides these approaches, the view of theism as life being a conscious creation by God, and the materialist-atheist view as the formation of life through coincidences in the framework of natural processes, also existed as two main alternative views in the history of thought. In short, as in item 2 above, for the explanation of the processes resulting in the formation of living beings, we witness theism and materialist-atheism as two mainstream opposing views. The objection of a materialist-atheist will be on item 3 above, which is critical in our argumentation. Therefore, we will treat individual points (3.1, 3.2 and 3.3) below. Keep in mind that the treatment below can only be a brief summary regarding the breadth of life-related phenomena. When the validity of the 3rd item is established, the concluding point which is “theism should be preferred over materialist-atheism” will flow as a logical outcome.

Evaluation of 3.1: The argument from the “potentiality of the universe” previously presented and this current issue share a common essence. Nevertheless, the diversity and interesting properties we observe in the world of living beings is so great that the potentiality of the universe to allow the world of living can be developed as an argument by itself. As noted before, whatever emerges from the variation of being X, indicates the potentiality of X; if the being X had not contained this potentiality, the emergent thing would not have existed. Logically, nothing can emerge from something beyond its potentiality. No matter what the developments in science say, we can always assert that living beings would not have exhibited their diversity and properties if the universe had not contained that potentiality. The truth or falsehood of the theory of evolution, the acceptance of Lamarckian or Darwinist evolution, the modification of roles given to mutation and natural selection… All of these might change our understanding of how dolphins, ants or cacao plants appeared on the earth; yet they will not change the fact that dolphins, ants or cacao plants would not have existed if the universe did not carry that potentiality. We do not need modern scientific results to support point 3.1. The same assertion could have been made one thousand years ago based on the existing knowledge. Nevertheless, with the outcomes of modern science, the diversity and properties of life are understood better than ever, broadening our knowledge of the potentiality of the universe to unprecedented levels. Therefore, we have a better chance of understanding the value of the potentiality argument, much more so than any other time in history. Life, camouflage ability, light generation, radar systems, etc. all exist thanks to the potentiality of the universe. Whatever roles natural selection or sexual selection played in their emergence, they could not have emerged if the universe had not presented its gift from the very beginning. Let us consider for a moment properties of living beings such as camouflage, light generation and methods of migration and ask the following question: Is the existence of the potentiality that allows the generation of such a large diversity and such a broad range of merits an expected situation from a theist or a materialist-atheist perspective? For the existence of the potentiality that allows the emergence of millions of species with extraordinary properties, is it more reasonable to assert that this potentiality was consciously made to exist, as in the theist view, or to assume that it exists out of a happy coincidence as in the materialist-atheist view? In the theist belief, God is mighty, all-powerful and all-knowing. His power does not diminish as He creates. The creation of the universe by God with the potentiality from which to emerge the diversity and interesting properties observed in living beings is not surprising at all, as He created this potentiality for human (or other conscious beings) to observe the outcomes. In the materialist-atheist view of the universe, matter is passive and unconscious, and hence cannot bear a purpose (since purpose requires consciousness). Therefore, everything in the world of living beings emerged coincidentally in the framework of laws governing matter; there is nothing to expect the universe to carry the potentiality to allow so much more rich properties for life. The observation of such an immense diversity and such an extensive range of solutions developed to survive is utterly surprising in materialist-atheism. Since this situation fits the theist paradigm, we have an objective reason to prefer theism over materialist-atheism. The “happy coincidence” explanation is not at all satisfying, while the theist paradigm provides a consistent picture; hence “theism should be preferred over materialist-atheism”.

Evaluation of 3.2: For thousands of years, man was unaware of the enormous gap between animate and inanimate things. An indication of this fact is the long-time belief in the creation of life through spontaneous generation. In this hypothesis, life can form out of the composition of lifeless substances, without the need for reproduction from parents. Some even pushed the idea to such an extent to prepare recipes for creating bees, flies or mice by admixing certain substances. There had been ideas about generation from waste, or from rotting carcasses of dead animals.[56] Aristotle believed that flies and plants were generated from rotten things.[57] With the invention of microscope in the 17th century, the discussions on spontaneous generation reached a new dimension. It became almost impossible to defend ideas like spontaneous generation of bees or flies, also paving the way to the realization of the immense gap between animate and inanimate things. Surprisingly, the spontaneous generation notion was soon rejuvenated as an explanation of single-celled forms of life observed under microscope. The final nail in the coffin of spontaneous generation was hit in the 19th century with advances in microscopy, further widening the gap between animate and inanimate beings.[58] In the dawn of the 20th century, despite all understanding of the differences between animate and inanimate, the cell was still imagined as a “homogeneous globule of plasm”, consisting of simple chemical compounds. In other words, the complexity in the micro-world was not completely understood yet. In the 1950s, further developments in microscopy revolutionized cell biology. It was realized that cells are made out of complex molecules like proteins. Perhaps most importantly, the discovery of DNA significantly improved our knowledge of how the cell functions and reproduces itself. As we now understand it, the cell functions like a sophisticated factory. The DNA governs the processes like a supercomputer at the center of the cell; the RNA functions like the workers; the mitochondria produce the cell’s energy; proteins are machines performing various operations; the cell membrane is the border protection, allowing the passage of only what is needed inside. The picture of the cell drawn by modern science is a clear manifestation of the gap between animate and inanimate. This picture becomes even more fascinating when we consider the fact that in a few centimeters of a typical living body, there are thousands of cells. Now, is this picture more compatible with theist or materialist-atheist expectations? Prior to the developments in life sciences previously mentioned, for a long time in history, the materialist-atheist paradigm expected the closeness between animate and inanimate to become more apparent with new findings of science. The widening of the gap came as a complete surprise. From a theist angle, neither the proximity, nor the remoteness of animate and inanimate is problematic. God is the Creator of the micro and macro world; He is omnipotent; He can manifest his power through complex structures He creates in the micro world. The emergence of such magnificently complex structures through chemical evolutions – even though the processes are not completely understood yet – does not cast any shadow on the manifestation of God, and such an emergence does not change the matter: the complex picture of the cell is much more expected in theism than in materialist-atheism. Let us try to dig further into the complexity of the cell through studying a protein. Even the simplest kinds of cells are made of hundreds of proteins. In order to function properly in the cell, the amino-acids (building blocks of proteins) must be correctly ordered in a protein. Even minute changes in the arrangement of amino-acids can cause a protein dysfunction. Evolutionary biologist and biochemist Steven Rose expresses some striking facts about the protein as follows:[59] “… for a relatively modest protein - with a molecular weight of 34 000, and with 288 amino acids, but made up of only 12 different amino acids out of the possible 20 - the number of isomers is 10300. If only one molecule of each isomer were to exist, the total mass would be some 10280 grams. As the weight of the earth is only 1027 grams, it is very clear that only a tiny fraction of these isomers in fact exist.” In another words, if we turned all of the matter in the universe into amino-acids and used them as raw materials, created a system that built up random combinations of them, created another system that filtered out certain proteins we need, the probability of obtaining the target protein would still be almost impossible. Protein synthesis is needed even for the simplest ancestor of cells. Even for a simple fictitious microscopic organism, hundreds of proteins and their meaningful organization would be needed. The minimum possible number of proteins needed for life is a controversial matter; according to one study, the simplest cell should contain at least 387 proteins (other figures are estimated in different studies. However, in all these works the estimated minimum is always greater than 200. This is a very large number, especially considering the complex structure of a single protein).[60] Natural selection cannot provide an explanation for the formation of these proteins. Natural selection comes into play as a result of competition in life and can act only for reproducing forms of life; the mechanism of natural selection is immaterial prior to the existence of life itself. Some studies suggest RNA-based emergence of the first cells (the model is known as RNA-World).[61] RNAs are rather complicated molecules and the processes behind the emergence of first have not been totally understood yet. Even if we suppose that these processes will be completely understood one day, we do not have to wait till that day to encounter the complex world of the cell and magnificent processes occurring inside, as the findings of modern science already provide pertinent data. Materialist-atheism regards nature as a stage of non-conscious, non-intentional events. In this perspective, the observation of numerous complicated molecules (whereas random combinations of raw materials in the universe yields exceedingly small probabilities even for a single such molecule) and the functioning of these molecules in certain ways, is something utterly unexpected (even if those observations resulted from processes intrinsic to nature). This observation does not pose any surprise in theism, and hence forms another reason to prefer theism over materialist-atheism.

Evaluation of 3.3: One quite peculiar fact in the world of living beings is the appearance of similar properties in species not coming from the same heritage. Such properties are called “convergent” in biology. A well-known example is the ability to fly, observed in birds, bugs, mammals (e.g. bats) and pterosaurs (now extinct). This ability is agreed to have emerged independently in these species. Convergence can be manifested in both animals and plants, but also in behavioral and molecular-level properties. There are hundreds of known examples of convergence in modern biology; in all those cases, properties are not inherited from a common ancestor.[62] Some other examples of convergence are echolocation in dolphins and bats; light production of fireflies and certain species of deep-water fish; and navigation through the position of the sun by some bird and bug species. As mentioned above, living beings exhibit a stunning level of complexity at a microscopic level. The convergence properties just mentioned are carried via the coordinated actions of many molecules at microscopic level. The critical question here is “How do such complicated convergent properties appear over and over?” If the pushing force behind the diversity is mutations in the genes, there is no law in nature telling mutations to act towards a certain goal. Thus no one should be expecting the appearance of structures (each having an extremely low probability to form) over and over and independently from each other. According to Stephen Jay Gould, if we were able to go back in time to the beginning of the earth, everything would occur differently.[63] On the opposing side, Simon Conway Morris uses convergence arguments and holds the opinion that life would be quite similar to what it is now. If many properties are developed independently, if the earth were to be started over from the beginning of time, life should develop rather similar properties. If we regard random mutations and natural selection (for choosing the outcomes of mutations) as the mechanism of diversity, Gould’s expectation would be more logical (we should expect a completely different scene of life, if the earth were to restart). However, if we take into account the observed properties of convergence (Gould was well-aware of them), since similar properties have independently emerged many times on the earth, it would be more rational to expect (as Morris does) the emergence of a quite similar scenario. More importantly, we should note that random mutations and natural selection do not provide a satisfactory explanation for so many convergent properties. What would be the explanation for observing probabilistically highly-unlikely events over and over? Since we observe independent convergent evolutions, heritage from a common ancestor is not the answer here. Moreover, answers similar to those we previously discussed in the chapter on fine-tunings in physics, such as “Had these laws not existed, we would not be here to observe them; hence we should not be surprised about extremely low probabilities in fine tunings” would not be acceptable, either. We could have existed even without convergence. We would still be alive even if bats and dolphins had not shared echolocation (or even if these species had not existed at all). The emergence of such complicated behaviors over and over is probabilistically unexpected (remember the insufficiency of the raw materials in the universe to form even a single protein for a specific function). All these problems arise from the materialist-atheist assumption of a completely random evolution process. If the processes in nature are regarded as outcomes of a conscious design, all these problems disappear. There is nothing surprising in the creation by God all-mighty and all-knowledgeable of processes given to living beings over and over (in a convergent way). To achieve this, God could have manipulated mutations as well as created other forms of intrinsic laws (not yet discovered) of nature to carry out convergent processes. In either case, the peculiar property of the convergence observed in life is better explained in theism than materialist-atheism.

In short, the theory of evolution does not pose any threat to theism. Yet the world of living beings exhibits a wealth of information to develop arguments favoring theism. There are many phenomena that can be considered as examples. For brevity, we considered only a few: the potentiality of the universe to form the extraordinary diversity in life (3.1), the enormous gap between animate and inanimate beings as progressively understood throughout the history of biology, the complex structures in the micro world causing this gap (3.2), and the convergence of properties with many examples discovered in modern biology (3.3) are all better explained by theism than materialist-atheism. These facts are much more expected in the theist paradigm, than the materialist-atheist one. Therefore, the examples from life noted in this chapter support previously stated arguments for preferring theism over materialist-atheism.

12 Arguments for the Existence of God by Prof. Caner Taslaman https://mim.mbirgin.com/?c=posts&id=276