Operation and Origin Science
Empirical science (or operation science) is an investigation into how things operate in the present. It is concerned with present, regular, observable and repeatable events. Hypotheses can be constructed and then tested through further experimentation and observation.
Forensic science (or origin science) deals with things that are no longer occurring in the present. It is an attempt to explain how events were caused in the past, events that are unrepeatable and therefore cannot be observed. It is a speculative. Past events must be reconstructed and conclusions about its cause must be drawn by viewing the evidence that remains.
Causality and Uniformity
The principle of causality states that every event has an adequate cause. This principle forms the basis of modern science.
The principle of uniformity states that certain causes tend to produce the same kind of events (or uniform experience). For example, water flowing over rocks tends to round the edges of the rock, wind blowing on water tends to produce waves, and so forth.
Natural and Unnatural Causes
Forensic Example—Finding A Dead Body
It is this type of investigation that we must follow when investigating the origins of the universe, life and human life and whether they had a natural or intelligent cause.
Part 1—The Universe Must Have Had An Intelligent Cause
The Universe Had a Beginning
S—Second Law of Thermodynamics
The Law that entropy increases—the Second Law of Thermodynamics—holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature… if your theory is found to be against the Second Law of Thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.
U—Universe is Expanding
However, popular opinion changed in the 1920s when Edwin Hubble, working at Mt. Wilson Observatory, observed that the further a galaxy is from earth, the faster it seemed to be moving away. The idea of an expanding universe was born. This theory would later become commonly known as the “Big Bang” theory. Since we know that the universe is expanding, if we extrapolate this expansion backwards in time, we come to a singularity—a beginning.
R—Radiation From the “Big Bang”
No explanation other than the Big Bang has been found for the fireball radiation. The clincher, which has convinced almost the last doubting Thomas, is that the radiation discovered by Penzias and Wilson has exactly the pattern of wavelengths expected for the light and heat produced in a great explosion. Supporters of the Steady State theory have tried desperately to find an alternative explanation, but they have failed.
G—Great Galaxy Seeds
The ripples show that the explosion and expansion of the universe was precisely tweaked to cause just enough matter to congregate to allow galaxy formation, but not enough to cause the universe to collapse back on itself. Any slight variation one way or the other, and none of us would be here to tell about it. In fact, the ripples are so exact (down to one part in one hundred thousand) that Smoot called them the “machining marks from the creation of the universe” and the “fingerprints of the maker.”
E—Einstein’s General Relativity
The Cause of the Universe Must Be Supernatural (Beyond Nature)
The Cause Must Also Be Intelligent
First, creation from nothing implies that creation was willed into existence. The universe once did not exist—and it did not ever have to exist. But since it did come to exist it shows that somebody with a mind and will decided to cause it to exist.
Second, we know the cause is intelligent by looking at what was created. The universe reveals advanced planning of a great mind. Not only is life complex (to be discussed shortly) but it appears that the universe was fine-tuned for human life from the beginning—commonly called the anthropic principle. Jastrow, speaking about this principle said,
The anthropic principle is the most interesting development next to the proof of the creation, and it is even more interesting because it seems to say that science itself has proven, as a hard fact, that this universe was made, was designed, for man to live in. It [the universe] is a very theistic result.
The harmony of natural law… reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.
American astronomer former atheist Allan Sandage adds:
"The world is too complicated in all of its parts to be due to chance alone. I am convinced that the existence of life on earth with all its order in each of its organisms is simply too well put together… The more one learns of biochemistry, the more unbelievable it becomes unless there is some kind of organizing principle—an architect.”
The Naturalistic Cosmic Evolution Explanation Is Inadequate
Part 2—First Life Must Have Had An Intelligent Cause
There Are Just Two Options, Really
(1) life spontaneously appeared on its own through chemical reactions in non-living matter and then continued to evolve through naturalistic processes, or
(2) life is the result of an intelligent cause. Noble Prize-winning biologist George Wald said, “There is no third position.”
The Miller–Urey Experiment
Problems with Spontaneous Generation
First, it was disproven. It was once widely believed that living things could originate from nonliving matter. But this was proven false by Francesco Redi and Louis Pasteur.
Although Francesco Redi, an Italian physician, disproved in 1668 that higher forms of life could originate spontaneously, proponents of the concept claimed that microbes were different and did indeed arise in this way… in 1864… in a series of masterful experiments, Pasteur proved that only preexisting microbes could give rise to other microbes (biogenesis).
Pasteur later commented on the results:
Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment. No, there is now no circumstance known in which it can be affirmed that microscopic beings came into the world without germs, without parents similar to themselves. Those who affirm it have been duped by illusions, by ill-conducted experiments, spoilt by errors that they either did not perceive or did not know how to avoid.
If there ever was a primitive soup, then we would expect to find at least somewhere on this planet either massive sediments containing enormous amounts of the various nitrogenous organic compounds, amino acids, purines, pyrimidines and the like, or alternatively in much metamorphosed sediments we should find vast amounts of nitrogenous cokes. In fact no such materials have been found anywhere on earth… There is, in other words, pretty good negative evidence that there ever was a primitive organic soup on this planet that could have lasted but a brief moment.
Third, life would likely be older than the earth itself under the evolutionary model. A recent paper published by evolutionary geneticists suggests life could be 2.7 times older than earth itself! It’s argued that the complexity of life has increased exponentially, doubling every 376 million years. Extrapolating this rate backwards in time, they conclude that life began before the earth was born, possibly very shortly after the Big Bang:
Linear regression of genetic complexity (on a log scale) extrapolated back to just one base pair suggests the time of the origin of life = 9.7 ± 2.5 billion years ago. Adjustments for potential hyperexponential effects would push the projected origin of life even further back in time, close to the origin of our galaxy and the universe itself, 13.75 billion years ago.
(1) it took roughly 5 billion years for life to reach the complexity of bacteria,
(2) there was no intelligent life in the universe prior to earth,
(3) life was brought to earth by meteoroids, asteroids or comets,
(4) intelligent life has just begun to appear in our universe and is not as evenly distributed as the Drake equation suggests and
(5) it took many cumulative rare events for life to originate from scratch.
How is it that life arose outside our solar system, possibly very shortly after the Big Bang, in far worse conditions, travelled and survived a very lengthy interstellar space voyage, entered our atmosphere unharmed, found an environment conducive for evolution, and produced the myriad of life forms we see today? Those are “many cumulative rare events” indeed!
With so many complications, it’s no surprise that there is “no firmly accepted standard model for the emergence and early evolution of life on Earth.” In 2011, the Origins Project gathered together two dozen evolutionary scientists at Arizona State University for an update on how first life began. One Scientific American blogger summarized the event this way: “Geologists, chemists, astronomers and biologists are as stumped as ever by the riddle of life.”
Spontaneous generation has been disproven, there is no evidence for it, and scientists are at a loss to explain it. It would seem that chemical evolution has no leg to stand on. Since there really is no other explanation other than an intelligent cause, it would seem that this is currently the only possible explanation. This is the second strike against evolution.
Part 3—Human Life Must Have Had An Intelligent Cause
S—Status? Still Unproven
The Scientific Method Requires Observation
Observing Changes Within A Kind Is Not Proof
A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (microevolution) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution). Outsiders to this rich literature may be surprised thatthere is no consensus on this issue, and that strong viewpoints are held at both ends of the spectrum, with many undecided.
A wide spectrum of researchers—ranging from geologists and paleontologists, through ecologists and population geneticists, to embryologists and molecular biologists—gathered at Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History under the simple conference title: Macroevolution. Their task was to consider the mechanisms that underlie the origin of species and the evolutionary relationship between species. … The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear
Observing Similarity Is Not Proof
L—Lack of Fossil Evidence
No Sign of Macroevolution in the Fossil Record
Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.
To say that there is lack of evidence for macroevolution in the fossil record is an understatement. Noted atheist and paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould admitted:
We do not see slow evolutionary change in the fossil record… change seems to be abrupt because the intermediate steps are missing. The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.
Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. [Further,] in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors: it appears all at once and “fully formed.”
What About “Intermediate Links?”
Neanderthal man, known to be fully human; Piltdown man, later discovered to have been due to a fraudulent combination of human skullcap with an ape’s jaw; Java man, consisting of an ape skull and a human femur, found separated by many meters, and later disavowed by its discoverer; and Australopithicus africanus, the skull of an infant ape which typically bore a slight resemblance to a human child’s skull. … Nebraska man, America’s own ape-man… consisted of only one tooth, later discovered to be that of a pig.
Where Do Living Fossils Fit?
the tuatara (supposedly extinct since the Cretaceous Period until found still living in New Zealand), the Lepidocaris crustacean (only found as fossils in Devonian rocks), the Metasequoia conifer tree (thought extinct for the past 20 million years), the Neopilina mollusk (supposedly extinct for 280 million years), the lingula brachiopod (“extinct” since the Ordovician), and even the trilobite (chief index fossil of the even more ancient Cambrian Period).
I—Impossible to Achieve
Self-Organization is Contrary to Second Law
Suppose you throw red, white, and blue confetti out of an airplane 1,000 feet above your house. What’s the chance it’s going to form the American flag on your front lawn? Very low. Why? Because natural laws will mix up or randomize the confetti. You say, “Allow more time.” Okay, let’s take the plane up to 10,000 feet to give natural laws more time to work on the confetti. Does this improve the probability that the flag will form on your lawn? No, more time actually makes the flag less likely because natural laws have longer to do what they do—disorder and randomize.
Three Types of Order in Nature
First, there is specified order. Quartz crystals fall in this category. The structure of crystals is specific, precise and ordered but simple and repetitive. An example of this pattern would be: “ROCK ROCK ROCK ROCK.”
Second, there is complex order. Random copolymers are molecules attached together in a random order to form a larger molecule. Unlike crystals, however, they are not simple but complex (composed of two or more parts) and not repetitive like the pattern “PQUX RPBWT TE ZAX”.
Third, there is specified complexity. This type of pattern is more than something that is ordered—it hascomplex order with clear and specific functions. Examples of specified complexity include looking up in the sky on a hot summer’s day and seeing the words “DRINK COKE,” going to the breakfast table and seeing “GOOD MORNING” spelled out with cereal letters, or finding a piece of wood washed ashore that has the words “SEND HELP—I’M STRANDED!” etched into its side.
Life has the third type of order; it is both specified and complex. Atheist, award winning British chemist and National Academy of Sciences member Leslie Orgel (1927-2007) said,
“Living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals … fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; random mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity.”
Specified Complexity Requires an Intelligent Designer
In that novel, radio astronomers discover a long sequence of prime numbers from outer space. Because the sequence is long, it is complex. Moreover, because the sequence is mathematically significant, it can be characterized independently of the physical processes that bring it about. As a consequence, it is also specified. Thus, when the radio astronomers in Contact observe specified complexity in this sequence of numbers, they have convincing evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence… Sagan based the SETI researchers’ methods of design detection on actual scientific practice.
Second, the probability of such complex patterns arising in nature on its own is so minuscule that it is near mathematical impossibility. Atheist and astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle (1915–2001) said,
Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance of their being formed through random shuffling of simple organic molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is insensibly different from zero. [So there must be] an intelligence, which designed the biochemicals and gave rise to the origin of carbonaceous life.
During the past few years… attempts have been made to search whether or not DNA obeys a law similar to Zipf’s law for languages. The key issue in such attempts is what could possibly constitute a “word” in DNA sequences… We focused our attention on genomes (rather than individual genes) and considered that a given genome is a language whose “words” are the different domains, which are found in proteins. This is a much more realistic approach… These results indicate that all four genomes obey the law f ?r –a with a remarkably close to one, which is identical to Zipf’s law for natural languages. We conclude that Zipf’s law can be recovered in genomes if the appropriate definition of a “word” is used.
The conclusion is that DNA has the same level of specified complexity as human language. But human language has an intelligent creator (humans). Therefore, DNA “language” must also have an intelligent cause.
Fourth, the sheer amount of specified complexity is staggering. The DNA inside of every human cell contains five million pages of information. That’s equivalent to 25,000 books of two-hundred pages. Even a “simple” one single-celled amoeba contains the equivalent of 1,000 copies of the Encyclopedia Britannica.Carl Sagan said this about the human brain:
The information content of the human brain expressed in bits is probably comparable to the total number of connections among the neurons—about a hundred trillion bits. If written out in English, say, that information would fill some twenty million volumes, as many as in the world’s largest libraries. The equivalent of twenty million books is inside the heads of every one of us. The brain is a very big place in a very small space… The neurochemistry of the brain is astonishingly busy, the circuitry of a machine more wonderful than any devised by humans.
How do evolutionists explain such specified complexity? Some theorize that complexity arose through natural law-like processes formed somewhere along the way of evolution. But, these processes have not been observed, let alone identified. In short, “no convincing answer has been given to date” from the evolutionary community.This is entirely unsatisfactory. But it gets worse.
Life is Irreducibly Complex
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.
Life is based on machines—machines made of molecules! Molecular machines haul cargo from one place in the cell to another along “highways” made of other molecules, while still others act as cables, ropes, and pulleys to hold the cell in shape. Machines turn cellular switches on and off, sometimes killing the cell or causing it to grow. Solar-powered machines capture the energy of photons and store it in chemicals. Electrical machines allow current to flow through nerves. Manufacturing machines build other molecular machines, as well as themselves. Cells swim using machines, copy themselves with machinery, ingest food with machinery. In short, highly sophisticated molecular machines control every cellular process. Thus, the details of life are finely calibrated and the machinery of life enormously complex.
Irreducibly complex systems like mousetraps, Rube Goldberg machines, and the intracellular transport system cannot evolve in a Darwinian fashion. You can’t start with a platform, catch a few mice, add a spring, catch a few more mice, add a hammer, catch a few more mice, and so on: The whole system has to be put together at once or the mice get away. Similarly, you can’t start with a signal sequence and have a protein go a little way towards the lysosome, add a signal receptor protein, go a little further, and so forth. It’s all or nothing.
Second, irreducible complexity is beyond the cell. It is found in the components that provide ciliary motion (what allows cells to “swim”), propulsion by bacterial flagellum (a biological rotary propeller system), vesicular transport, blood clotting, vision, “features of the immune system like clonal selection, antibody diversity, and the complement system,” “biosynthesis of the larger amino acids, lipids, vitamins, [and] heme.” These features could not have developed gradually because their components are all irreducibly complex.
Third, there is irreducible complexity at the system level. The human body is made up of ten major organ systems which must work together as one unit. There is the digestive system (throat, stomach, intestines, colon, gallbladder), skeletal system (bones, cartilage, ligaments, tendons), reproductive system (male: testes, scrotum, penis, prostate; female: ovaries, uterus, vagina), integumentary system (skin), muscular system, nervous system (brain, spinal cord, nerves), endocrine (hormonal) system (thyroid, sweat glands), excretory system (kidneys, liver), respiratory system (nose, throat, lungs, diaphram) and circulatory system (blood, vessels, heart). Each system depends upon the other—they would all need to evolve together, simultaneously, for the body to function normally. Joseph A. Kuhn, MD, writes in the Baylor University Medical Center journal:
Such [evolutionary] changes would require far more than could be expected from random mutation and natural selection. Since these systems are irreducibly complex and individual mutations in one organ would not be beneficial for the organism, these random mutations in all aspects… would need to occur simultaneously. Therefore, the human body represents an irreducibly complex system on a cellular and an organ/system basis.
all living organisms interact with and change their environments and, yet, do not destroy their natural environment unless the ecosystem becomes imbalanced. Without any guiding force or intelligence, ecosystems have a tendency towards self-destruction and do not give themselves the opportunity to exist in the first place: they are doomed from the beginning. The only way for any ecosystem to exist is for the ecosystem to have existed and function in its entirety from its origin. Therefore, ecosystems cannot come into existence by Darwinian mechanisms because they are irreducibly complex.
Naturalistic evolutionary models must explain how both or all the symbiotic partners emerged and developed simultaneously--and in proximity—with the specific morphological and biochemical features in place to permit the transfer of mutually beneficial—or absolutely essential—goods and services to the other(s). An even greater challenge may be to explain how symbiotic relationships became so ubiquitous in the biological realm.
Macroevolution Requires Nine Conditions
(1) Advantageous mutations reduce non-mutated population size. Therefore, they must occur in a neutral (non-hostile) environment otherwise the organism will not be retained in the population. Very few locations would meet this criterion.
(2) Since natural selection weeds out rather than preserves mutations in a gene pool, the mutation cannot make any structural change in the organism.
(3) The net effect of the mutation must be unidirectional yet “most recurrent mutations have been observed to retain the potential for back mutation.”
(4) There must be a high mutation rate, in the order of “one in ten thousand and one in a million per gene per generation” in higher organisms. He adds that even this figure is small and would, “would result in a very small change in a given gene pool, even given large numbers of generations. This has long been considered one of the major stumbling blocks to the [Probably Mutation Effect].”
(5) The population must be large because small populations can be easily destroyed by a mutation. But the effects of the mutation of a large population are zero.
(6) Organisms with many genes add more complications. Like point two, mutations in these organisms must be also selectively neutral relative to the gene which mutates.
(7) There must be “little or no hybridizing admixture,” or “crossbreeding” with others of the same kind.
(8) “The genetic structures involved must have high ‘penetrance’” (must be highly susceptible to mutation).
(9) There must be “high heritability” (its genetic information must be heritable), a condition which is “almost never met for mutational phenotypes.” With so many requirements, one can conclude:
It appears that the probability of meeting any one of these conditions in nature is extremely low, if not non-existent… the fifth and seventh conditions effectively cancel each other out, as do the third and eighth, and we are forced to the conclusion that it is impossible to meet all the conditions. Mutation cannot be the mechanism for macro-evolution.
All things considered—the unlikeliness that mutations can meet all nine required conditions for macroevolution, the impossibility of specified and irreducible complexity arising from natural processes, the lack of evidence for macroevolution in the fossil record—it’s a strike for biological evolution.
Put All Three Together: A Plausibility Nightmare
Cosmic evolution (origin of matter from non-matter),
chemical evolution (origin of living matter from non-living matter) and
biological evolution (origin of more complex life from simpler life)
would all have to be true cumulatively. But as we have seen, each pillar in the evolutionary hypothesis has fatal issues.
“Three Strikes, Evolution—You’re Out!”
Appendix 1: The Analogy of the Canyon
Imagine there is a deep four-foot ditch completely separating you and your neighbor. One day you find your neighbor in your yard and you ask how he got there. If he says, “I jumped,” that seems like an acceptable answer. However, imagine the gap is now a 100 foot wide canyon. Suddenly “I jumped” isn’t acceptable! But suppose he begins to explain his arrival into your yard this way:
He did not come across in one jump. Rather, he says, in the canyon there were a number of buttes, no more than 10 feet apart from one another; he jumped from one narrowly spaced butte to another to reach your side. Glancing toward the canyon, you tell your neighbor that you see no buttes, just a wide chasm separating your yard from his. He agrees, but explains that it took him years and years to come over. During that time buttes occasionally arose in the chasm, and he progressed as they popped up. After he left a butte it usually eroded pretty quickly and crumbled back into the canyon.
This story teaches us three lessons. First, a “jump” can be offered as an explanation for how a gap was bridged, but it’s the gap’s width that determines whether it was really plausible. Second, crossing a huge gap is made more plausible if it’s turned into a series of smaller, consecutive jumps. Third, you can’t argue with someone who says they used smaller stepping stones to bridge the gap if they also claim that those stones have since disappeared.