Random Accidents or Designed for a Purpose
In part one, we saw that God created the universe, and everything in it. We saw that God chose His Words very carefully and was very specific, very precise, and very deliberate. We saw that God ordered everything, just the way He wanted it, in order to fulfill His purpose. We ended part one with an important question: Why did God create us, in such a way that pretty much guaranteed that we would rebel, and then force us to suffer and die in a fallen world?
Before we examine what the Bible says about this troubling question, it would be nice to see if science comports with what the Bible says about God creating the universe, and everything in it. So, how does this biblical account of creation comport with the reality that we observe? Does science support the biblical account, or is science at odds with the biblical account?
Let’s look at some scientific observations of our universe.
The atheist astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle, who founded the prestigious Institute of Astronomy at Cambridge, as he was contemplating stellar evolution and formulating the theory of nucleosynthesis, which explains the origin of elements, theorized that a particular isotope of carbon would be necessary to form elements more complex than beryllium. Although it was very improbable (for all practical purposes impossible) that such a carbon isotope existed, it had to exist, for life to exist. Life is built around carbon because it bonds with itself to form long chains to store information, and it easily bonds with other elements to store energy.
Hoyle was a staunch atheist, who had once said, “religion is but a desperate attempt to find an escape from the truly dreadful situation in which we find ourselves…No wonder then that many people feel the need for some belief that gives them a sense of security, and no wonder that they become very angry with people like me who say that this is illusory.”
By this time, Edwin Hubble, who was a famous American astronomer, had already discovered the red shift, which meant that the universe was expanding and thus, it had a beginning, but Hoyle refused to accept that idea and promoted a steady state (eternal) universe. Hoyle refused to accept that the universe had a beginning, because that sounded too much like the biblical account of creation. Hoyle mockingly called this idea the “Big Bang“, and the name stuck. After William Fowler, an American nuclear physicist, found Hoyle’s theoretical isotope, Hoyle said that his worldview had been shaken to its core, and that “A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.”
Hoyle said it would be more probable for us to chain a group of monkeys to typewriters and for them to randomly bang on the keys until they wrote Shakespeare’s play “Hamlet“, than it would be for the super hot core of a star to produce this carbon isotope. Hoyle realized that an intellect had fine tuned the proprieties of the universe, in order to produce this carbon isotope to fulfill a purpose, which was to bring forth life, in the universe. So, Hoyle came up with the idea of panspermia, which said that aliens intervened to create life on our planet. Before Hoyle died he said that life, “must have been the result of some unseen intelligence and that ‘there is a coherent plan for the universe, although I admit I have no idea what it is’”
Clearly, science tells us that the universe had a beginning, and it has been fine tuned for life, (which means that there must be a Fine Tuner) but like Hoyle and Darwin, people refuse to accept these facts, because they just can not understand the problem of evil and, because the idea of surrendering their autonomy and their sovereign rule over their lives is abhorrent to them. And sadly, when they stand before God, they will be without excuse. (Romans 1:20)
Now let’s look at some scientific observations about life, and its origin.
Specifically, let’s look at the amino acids that make up the proteins that make up every cell of a human body. Did the amino acids spontaneously form in a prehistoric prebiotic pond, when lightening struck it, and did these amino acids link up chemically to form functioning proteins, which self-assembled into a functioning cell? Did the chemical environment cause this lucky cell to divide and form another cell, which under went a mutation and linked with the original cell, conveying a benefit to it, which helped it survive? Did this fortuitous chemical roulette wheel keep on spinning for billions of years, until a living organism finally emerged? Did this living organism reproduce itself and continue to mutate and did natural pressures kill off the weaker organisms and allow only the fittest to reproduce and mutate into novel organisms, until humans emerged, billons of years later? Or did God create the laws of physics and chemistry and apply them in order to make amino acids, proteins, cells, and the human being?
Dr. Steven Myer, who holds a PhD from the University of Cambridge wrote the following about chemical evolution producing the first amino acids in some prehistoric prebiotic soup.
“While laboratory simulation experiments have failed to demonstrate the plausibility of chemical evolution, they may have inadvertently demonstrated the necessity of intelligent agency playing an active role in the design of living systems. Ironically, even successful simulation experiments require the intervention of the experimenters to prevent what are known as “interfering cross reactions” and other chemically destructive processes.
Assume for the moment that the reducing gases used by Stanley Miller do actually simulate the conditions on the early earth. Would his experimental results, then, support chemical evolution? Not necessarily. Miller-type simulation experiments have invariably produced non-biological substances in addition to biological building blocks such as amino acids and nucleic acid bases. Without human intervention, these other substances will react readily with biologically relevant building blocks to form a biologically irrelevant compound, a chemically insoluble sludge.
To prevent this from happening and to move the simulation of chemical evolution along a biologically promising trajectory, experimenters have often removed those chemicals that degrade or transform amino acids into non-biologically relevant compounds. They must also artificially manipulate the initial conditions in their experiments. Rather than using both short and long-wavelength ultraviolet light which would be present in any realistic atmosphere, they use only short-wavelength UV. Why? The presence of the long-wavelength UV light quickly degrades amino acids. Thus, investigators have routinely manipulated chemical conditions both before and after performing “simulation” experiments in order to protect their experiments from destructive naturally occurring processes. These manipulations constitute what chemist Michael Polanyi called a “profoundly informative intervention.
They seem to simulate, if they simulate anything, the need for an intelligent agent to overcome the randomizing influences of natural chemical processes, processes that lead inexorably, under realistic conditions, to biochemical dead-ends.”
Dr. Meyer went on to write about the probability of amino acids blindly forming functional proteins:
“First, all amino acids must form a chemical bond known as a peptide bond so as to join with other amino acids in the protein chain. Yet in nature many other types of chemical bonds are possible between amino acids; in fact, peptide and non-peptide bonds occur with roughly equal probability. Thus, at any given site along a growing amino acid chain the probability of having a peptide bond is roughly 1/2. The probability of attaining four peptide bonds is: (1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2)=1/16 or (1/2)4. The probability of building a chain of 100 amino acids in which all linkages involve peptide linkages is (1/2)100 or roughly 1 chance in 1030.
Second, in nature every amino acid has a distinct mirror image of itself, one left-handed version or L-form and one right-handed version or D-form. These mirror-image forms are called optical isomers. Functioning proteins tolerate only left-handed amino acids, yet the right-handed and left-handed isomers occurs in nature with roughly equal frequency. Taking this into consideration compounds the improbability of attaining a biologically functioning protein. The probability of attaining at random only L-amino acids in a hypothetical peptide chain 100 amino acids long is again (1/2)100 or roughly 1 chance in 1030. The probability of building a 100 amino acid length chain at random in which all bonds are peptide bonds and all amino acids are L-form would be (1/4)100 or roughly 1 chance in 1060 (zero for all practical purposes given the time available on the early earth). Functioning proteins have a third independent requirement, the most important of all; their amino acids must link up in a specific sequential arrangement just as the letters in a meaningful sentence must. In some cases, even changing one amino acid at a given site can result in a loss of protein function.
Moreover, because there are twenty biologically occurring amino acids the probability of getting a specific amino acid at a given site is small, i.e. 1/20. (Actually the probability is even lower because there are many non-proteineous amino acids in nature). On the assumption that all sites in a protein chain require one particular amino acid, the probability of attaining a particular protein 100 amino acids long would be (1/20)100or roughly 1 chance in 10130. We know now, however, that some sites along the chain do tolerate several of the twenty proteineous amino acids, while others do not.
The biochemist Robert Sauer of M.I.T has used a technique known as “cassette mutagenesis” to determine just how much variance among amino acids can be tolerated at any given site in several proteins. His results have shown that, even taking the possibility of variance into account, the probability of achieving a functional sequence of amino acids in several functioning proteins at random is still “vanishingly small,” roughly 1 chance in 1065 an astronomically large number. (There are 1065 atoms in our galaxy).
In light of these results, biochemist Michael Behe has compared the odds of attaining proper sequencing in a 100 amino acid length protein to the odds of a blindfolded man finding a single marked grain of sand hidden in the Sahara Desert, not once, but three times. Moreover, if one also factors in the probability of attaining proper bonding and optical isomers, the probability of constructing a rather short functional protein at random becomes so small as to be effectively zero. All these calculations, thus simply reinforce the opinion that has prevailed since the mid-1960s within origin of life biology: chance is not an adequate explanation for the origin of biological specificity.”
So, what do scientific observations tell us? Science tells us that there is no way that random natural processes could have performed all the chemical engineering that would have been necessary to produce the very first useable amino acids. And if useable amino acids had been available, there is no way that they could have randomly self-assembled into long chains and folded into functional proteins. Protein formation is driven by information, not chemistry.
A gene, which is a section of DNA that specifies how to construct a protein, is read by a tiny molecular machine called RNA Polymerase (RNAP) and this molecular machine transcribes a section of DNA into mRNA and then another molecular machine called a ribosome reads the mRNA and assembles amino acids in long strings and folds them in order to create functional proteins. The genetic code in humans directs these amazing molecular machines to make 20,000 different proteins, which are assembled together to construct 200 different cells, which are used to form the tissues of all the organs and systems of and within a human body.
The whole process of building proteins, cells, tissues, organs, and systems in order to form a human body is driven primarily by genetic information, not chemistry. So, it is nonsensical to claim that life originated from environmentally-guided chemical evolution. No, life depends primarily on information that guides chemical processes. Moreover, life depends on the tiny molecular machines that interpret information and assemble biological matter into highly specified ordered functional configurations. This means that life depends on life. Here’s what I mean: a ribosome reads mRNA in order to assemble long chains of amino acids and fold them into functional proteins in order to create life, but ribosomes are made out of long chains of amino acids that have been strung together and folded into functional proteins, so that they can create life. So, life originated from life, and more specifically, from a Mind.
Paraphrasing James Tour, who holds a Ph.D. in synthetic organic and organometallic chemistry from Purdue University, we have been studying the origin of life problem for decades, and have discovered that life is incredibly complex. We have discovered that random chemical reactions can not produce life, there are too many special conditions, where chemical reactions must be isolated from one another, and symmetries must be broken.
Work has clearly been done to overcome the effects of entropy, thus, life is the product of design. Life is the result of a highly ordered system that defies the effects of chemical entropy. Every closed system will succumb to the effects of entropy, unless external work is done on that system to enable it to overcome the effects of entropy. So, the question is this: Who or what put in the work that is necessary to overcome chemical entropy to produce life?
Clearly, useable amino acids did not evolve in an electrified chemical soup, under a reducing atmosphere and self-assemble into functional proteins, because protein formation is a very complex process that is driven by information, not chemistry. Information from an intelligent agent guided the chemical processes in order to form amino acids. And math tells us that without this intelligent agent guiding the sequencing of the amino acids, and specifying how they are folded in order to build functional proteins, functional proteins would not exist. To believe otherwise is to believe that you could be blindfolded and released in the Sahara Desert and find a single grain of sand that had been marked and hidden, three times!
Clearly, the Bible offers the best explanation of where animals, and humans came from.
Here is the bottom line: Scientific observations comport with the biblical account of how God created the universe, and with the biblical account of how God created animals and humans, so we can have great confidence in what the Bible says about our very troubling question.
God’s Purpose, and Goal
God is all knowing. God is all powerful. God is love. And as we have seen, everything that exists is God’s thoughts. God choose to think certain thoughts and speak those thoughts out, in order to create everything. God could have thought any one of a billion other thoughts, and spoke them into existence. So, why did God choose this universe, and its laws? Why did God choose to make us the way He did, knowing that we would rebel against Him? After we fell, why did God choose to make us live in this sad, sad world, where conflict, struggle, pain, suffering, sorrow, poverty, disease, and death rule over us? Why did God choose to become one of us, and shed His blood, while suffering a horrible death, to restore us to fellowship?
God could have created a universe that had laws that would not permit decay. God could have created us in a way that ensured that we would never rebel against Him. God could have made us more like Him, and given us the creative powers that He has, so we could create our own universe, and continually fulfill our every desire. In short: God could have done everything differently. God, however, chose to make us in a way that ensured that we would fall, and live in a fallen world that promoted conflict, struggle, pain, suffering, lack, disease and death. Why? Because it accomplishes His purpose. So what is God’s purpose?
In Revelation 4:11, God says that He created everything for His pleasure. In 1 John 4:16, God tells us that He is love. What does love do? In John 3:16, God tells us that Love gives. So, God derives pleasure from giving Himself. God is One essence, however, He is also Three persons. Before God created us, the three persons in the Godhead gave themselves to each other, i.e. they fellowshipped with each other. Then, God decided to make creatures that were like Him so He could give Himself to them, and they could give themselves back to Him. (1 John 4:19)
In short, God created us, so that He could fellowship with us.
We see this fellowship in Genesis 3:8. God appeared in the Garden of Eden, during the cool of the day, when it would be most comfortable for Adam and Eve to fellowship with Him. And it would appear that God came to fellowship with Adam and Eve everyday, because they were expecting Him, which is why they hastily sewed together fig leaves and made clothes for themselves, in order to hide their shame, so that they could fellowship with Him.
God’s ultimate goal is found in Revelation 21:3. God’s ultimate goal is to live with humans. God doesn’t want to just come and visit humans every once in a while, or everyday when it cools off. No, God Almighty wants to live with us, and enjoy our company, forever and ever!
So, it would appear that God didn’t create the Garden of Eden as the perfect place for Him and Adam to fellowship together, and that God didn’t create Adam in his optimal state. No, the Garden of Eden was merely a place of testing, and Adam failed the test, as God knew he would. Moreover, Adam was not created in his optimal state, which is why he failed the test.
The book of Revelation tells us that the perfect place will be the New Jerusalem, and that Adam will be in his perfect state, when he is there. In the New Jerusalem men and women, who have been made perfect, will live with and fellowship with the Perfect God, forever. And in the New Jerusalem there will be no more pain, crying, sorrow or death! (Revelation 21:4)
As it turns out, God can not create perfect men and women, He has to build perfect men and women, by subjecting them to suffering. Jesus is One of the Persons in the Godhead. This member of the Godhead came to earth, through the agency of another member of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit, Who fertilized Mary’s egg to bring forth Jesus in a human body. Jesus is fully God, and fully man. God didn’t create Jesus, He is Eternal, but He did create His earthly body. The Spirit of Jesus is perfect, but His physical soul endured conflict, sorrow, suffering and death, in order to learn obedience and be made perfect. (Hebrews 5:8-9)
The statement that God can not create perfect men and women seems outlandish. So, God is all-knowing, and all-powerful, but He can not create a perfect human that He wants to live with and fellowship with? It is logically impossible for God to create a square circle, and it is also logically impossible for Him to create a perfect human, who always freely exercises his or her will to sincerely love Him. The important words, in this statement are “always“, “freely” and “sincerely“. God can not create us with these attributes, these attributes have to be built into us, as we suffer in this fallen world. These attributes cost God a lot, He had to shed His blood and die for them, and they cost us a lot of suffering, but evidently, it will be worth it.
Since God created us in His own image and likeness, we can gain some insight into why He finds freely chosen sincere love so pleasurable by examining our human relationships. What type of relationship gives us the most pleasure? If we desired someone and we cast a spell on them, or drugged them, in order to captivate their will, so that they could not choose to be in a relationship with anyone but us, would that give us pleasure? Or would it bring us more pleasure to know that even though the person we desired could have chosen anyone, they freely chose to be in a relationship with us? And of course, this question answers itself.
Does sincerity really matter? If we were rich and famous, and the person, who we loved, merely loved us, so that they could spend our money and enjoy our popularity, and we discovered that they feigned their love for us, would it bring us pleasure? Or would we find it reprehensible, when we discovered that the person, who we loved, only feigned love for us, so that they could enjoy our money and fame? And of course, this question also answers itself.
So, when it comes to relationships and love, “freely” and “sincerely” are very important words. God could have designed us as robots that couldn’t freely exercise our will and choose to rebel against Him, but there would be no point, because He would not derive any pleasure from such a relationship. Moreover, God , in all His Glory, could have lived with us here on the earth and swiftly rewarded obedience and punished disobedience, but this would have surely caused us to feign love for Him, in order to get what we wanted and avoid punishment. God does not find feigned love pleasurable, He finds pleasure in us sincerely loving Him, so He has hidden Himself from us and compelled us to live by faith, and let us reap what we have sown.
So, what about the, “always” part? The always part is more problematic, than the freely and sincerely parts. The perfect human that God desires to live in a relationship with in the New Jerusalem will always and forever freely exercise his or her will to sincerely love Him.
We will talk about the “always” problem in part three.
Follow
