Who’s Dead, God or Charles Darwin?

I’m laying down a reference marker with this post. Quite a bit of the following video may rise over your head. But stick around. And refer back to it in the coming days, as I add to my latest blog subject, Intelligent Design.

The video is an interview between Peter Robinson of The Hoover Institute (Stanford University) and three academics. Let’s take a look at their credentials.

Peter Robinson is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, a public policy think tank at Stanford University. He is also the host of “Uncommon Knowledge,” a web series where he interviews intellectuals and thought leaders. Robinson earned his bachelor’s degree in English from Dartmouth College and his MBA from Stanford Graduate School of Business.

John Lennox is a British mathematician, philosopher of science, and Christian apologist. He is a Professor Emeritus of Mathematics at the University of Oxford and an Emeritus Fellow in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science at Green Templeton College, Oxford. Lennox has written several books on the relationship between science and religion, including “God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?” and “Can Science Explain Everything?” He earned his PhD in mathematics from the University of Cambridge and a Doctor of Philosophy in bioethics from the University of San Francisco.

Michael Behe is an American biochemist, author, and intelligent design advocate. He is a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. Behe has written influential books on intelligent design, such as “Darwin’s Black Box” and “The Edge of Evolution,” which argue that certain biochemical systems are irreducibly complex and best explained by the action of an intelligent designer. Behe holds a Bachelor of Science degree in chemistry from Drexel University and a PhD in biochemistry from the University of Pennsylvania.

Stephen Meyer is an American philosopher of science and an advocate of the intelligent design movement. He is a senior fellow and the director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, a non-profit organization that promotes intelligent design. Meyer has written several books on the subject, including “Signature in the Cell” and “Darwin’s Doubt.” He earned his Bachelor of Science degree in physics and earth science from Whitworth University, a Master of Philosophy in the history and philosophy of science from the University of Cambridge, and a PhD in the philosophy of science from the University of Cambridge.

Video provided by The Hoover Institute

Highlights of the Interview

In this interview, Michael Behe, John Lennox, and Stephen Meyer, leading voices in support of intelligent design, discuss flaws in Darwin’s theory and evidence pointing to intentional design in the physical world. Peter Robinson asks if, like Einstein’s theory of relativity, Darwin’s theory has become easier to believe over time. Behe, Lennox, and Meyer all say that the opposite is true, and that Darwin’s theory has been increasingly disconfirmed by observations in biology.

The interview touches on three problems with Darwin’s theory that have emerged in recent decades.

The first is the fossil record, specifically the Cambrian Explosion, which refers to an event where major groups of animal forms appeared abruptly in the fossil record without any discernible connection to ancestral precursors. Stephen Meyer explains that this pattern of abrupt appearance recurs throughout the sedimentary rock column and contrasts with Darwin’s depiction of the history of life as a great branching tree.

The fossil record, instead of following Darwin’s depiction of a great branching tree, looks more like a lawn or an orchard of separate trees where major groups of organisms appear suddenly.

Meyer also addresses the Artifact Hypothesis, which suggests that missing ancestral forms are due to incomplete sampling or preservation. He argues that, 160 years after the publication of “The Origin of Species,” more new animal forms are known now than in Darwin’s time, yet there are still no intermediate forms found.

This has led to an increasing departure from Darwin’s theory rather than a regression towards it.

Peter Robinson asks about Punctuated Equilibrium, a concept proposed by Stephen J. Gould¹ and Niles Eldredge, which holds that evolution takes place in fits and starts. Meyer explains that while it improved the description of the fossil record, they never provided a convincing mechanism for how evolution could occur so quickly. He highlights the two mysteries in his book “Darwin’s Doubt”: the missing fossils and the generation of new biological form.

Meyer emphasizes that generating new forms requires new information, and opening up an ecological niche does not explain the origin of the necessary information to build new animal forms to fill it.

Next Peter Robinson addresses the mathematical problem (problem 2) with Darwin’s theory of evolution. He suggests that the math doesn’t work when considering the time since life emerged, the rate of random genetic mutations, and the complexity of creating proteins.

John Lennox clarifies that Darwin’s theory doesn’t explain the origin of life, as it presupposes the existence of life. Lennox discusses how biologist Richard Dawkins² initially claimed natural selection was responsible for the existence and variation of all life but later admitted that evolution couldn’t be responsible for the origin of life.

Lennox also mentions Sir Fred Hoyle³, who argued that life couldn’t have originated on Earth due to mathematical impossibility. Hoyle’s calculations suggested that there wasn’t enough time for life to emerge through random processes. Lennox agrees that minor variations within species are non-controversial, but the origin of new species and body plans is a different issue.

He highlights the perspectives of mathematically conscious biologists like Dennis Noble⁴and Lynn Margulies⁵, who argue that the neo-Darwinism, the standard textbook theory, doesn’t need to be improved but replaced!

These biologists, familiar with the calculations and complexity, say that from their perspective, Darwin’s theory is dead.

Next, Peter Robinson brings up problem 3 of Darwin’s Theory, cellular biology and Michael Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity.

They discuss how cells, once thought to be simple, are now understood as being composed of sophisticated molecular machines. Behe explains that Darwin’s theory of numerous, successive, slight modifications doesn’t work when considering the complexity of these machines.

Behe gives the example of a mousetrap, which has various components that are necessary for it to function. If one piece is removed, the mousetrap doesn’t work. This concept of irreducible complexity suggests that these complex systems in a cell couldn’t have evolved gradually, as intermediate stages would confer no functional advantage for natural selection to act upon.

Lennox discusses how some contemporary biologists argue for a top-down causation, which contradicts the stepwise ascent proposed by Darwin. Behe agrees, saying that such a view moves away from Darwin and randomness.

Robinson quotes Darwin, who said that his theory would break down if an irreducibly complex system was demonstrated. Behe says that there are indeed many such systems in the cell. However, Behe also points out that Darwin’s statement puts an unfair burden on opponents to prove a negative, which science cannot do.

“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.”
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

Peter Robinson then poses a possible objection to irreducible complexity, suggesting that intermediate components could exist without conferring any advantage or harm to the organism. Behe dismisses this idea as ridiculous, arguing that natural selection would not create components that could be used for some future function.

Next, Stephen Meyer discusses the connection between Michael Behe’s irreducible complexity and the mathematical problems John Lennox mentioned earlier. Meyer explains that the nano machines, like the bacterial flagellar motor, are made up of multiple proteins that fit together in an integrated fashion. These proteins require genetic information to be built, and the odds of the mutation-selection mechanism generating the necessary information to create even one protein are extremely low.

John Lennox brings up the linguistic nature of genetic information, stating that the human genome is like a very long word written in a chemical language of four letters (ATCG)⁶. The order of these letters is crucial for the functioning of the genome. As genetic complexity increases with the folding of proteins and the discovery of epigenetic information, the probability of such structures arising through random processes becomes extremely low. Lennox concludes that he prefers an explanation that makes sense over one that doesn’t make sense.

Human Genome DNA Base Pairs
Encyclopedia Britannica

Next, Michael Behe points out that even much simpler systems than the bacterial flagellum cannot be explained by Darwinian processes.

He cites an example of how trillions of malarial cells, Plasmodium falciparum, were required to develop resistance to the anti-malarial drug chloroquine with just two mutations, while the flagellum requires 12,000 amino acids. Behe also mentions a laboratory experiment by Richard Lenski⁷ in which an E. coli bacterium’s growth rate increased due to deletion of genes for the bacterial flagellum, emphasizing that it’s often faster and easier to lose information for short-term survival benefits.

Peter Robinson draws a parallel between the advancement of technology, like telescopes, which revealed more complexity in the universe, and the increased understanding of the complexity of cells through molecular biology. Stephen Meyer and John Lennox agree with this comparison, highlighting the Molecular Biological Revolution starting in the 1950s with Watson and Crick’s discovery of the double helix structure of DNA and Crick’s Sequence Hypothesis. This hypothesis proposed that the nucleotide bases in DNA functioned like alphabetic characters in written text, giving rise to the understanding of the complex information storage, transmission, and processing system within cells. Darwin believed cells were analogous to what we would call a blob of jello, and nothing as complex as they really are.

Therefore, explaining the origin of life and new forms of life requires understanding how random changes in sections of genetic code can occur without destroying the function of the original code.

Next, John Lennox states his position is that he believes there is evidence of design in nature, but he doesn’t necessarily equate that with the biblical account of creation. He thinks there’s a lot of room for interpretation and discussion about how to understand the biblical account in light of scientific evidence.

As a mathematician and a philosopher, He recognized the complexity and the information-rich nature of life, and he thinks it’s reasonable to conclude that such complexity points to a designer. That said, He also recognizes that there are many unanswered questions and ongoing debates about the specific mechanisms through which life has developed and changed over time.

So, is he “in for intelligent design?” Yes, but with the understanding that there is still much to learn and discover about the relationship between the evidence for design in nature and our understanding of God’s role in the process of creation. It’s important to engage in open-minded and rigorous scientific investigation and dialogue to continue to refine our understanding of these complex issues.

Next, John Lennox and Michael Behe discuss the limitations of Darwin’s theory in explaining the origins of human rationality and the complexity of life. Lennox mentions Darwin’s doubt about the reliability of human rationality, which he suggests undermines the very rationality that scientists use to study the natural world. He argues that if one bases their belief in the rational intelligibility of the universe on a mindless, unguided evolutionary process, they are effectively destroying rationality.

Stephen Meyer agrees, emphasizing the importance of the reliability of the mind in conceiving the universe. Lennox mentions the works of CS Lewis, Alvin Plantinga⁸, and Thomas Nagel⁹ in support of this argument, all of whom challenge the idea that evolutionary naturalism can account for human rationality.

Michael Behe then explains that intelligent design can coexist with natural selection to a certain extent, but it doesn’t explain everything. He uses the example of polar bears evolving from brown bears as evidence that natural selection can produce new species and traits, but he argues that it cannot explain the elegant machinery at the foundation of life.

In this part of the interview, Peter Robinson raises the question of how an intelligent designer might have operated in the material world. Stephen Meyer argues that invoking the action of a mind implies a non-material cause, which doesn’t necessarily require a mechanism to explain the origin of information. He says that information always arises from a mind, although the mind-body interface is not yet fully understood.

The Classic Mind – Body Problem

The mind-body problem is a philosophical debate about the relationship between the mind and the body, or between mental experiences and physical processes. The central question is: How do our thoughts, feelings, and consciousness, which seem to be non-physical or mental in nature, interact with our physical bodies?

There are two main perspectives on this problem: dualism and materialism (or physicalism).

Dualism: Dualists believe that the mind and the body are two separate entities. The mind (or soul) is made up of non-physical substances, while the body is composed of physical matter. This view raises questions about how the non-physical mind can interact with the physical body. For example, how does a non-physical thought cause a physical action like lifting your hand?
Materialism (or Physicalism): Materialists argue that everything, including the mind, can be explained in terms of physical processes. According to this view, mental experiences, such as thoughts and emotions, are simply the result of complex interactions between physical components in the brain. This perspective faces challenges in explaining subjective experiences or consciousness – the “what it is like” aspect of our mental lives.

The mind-body problem is a philosophical debate about the relationship between our mental experiences and our physical bodies. Dualists believe the mind and body are separate entities, while materialists think that mental experiences can be explained by physical processes. The problem remains unresolved, and philosophers continue to explore different theories and perspectives to better understand the nature of the mind and its connection to the body.

Michael Behe clarifies his earlier statement, emphasizing that he wasn’t suggesting that radioactive decay is responsible for intelligent design, but rather that a clever mind might use something undetectable to scientific instrumentation to achieve the desired results.

Stephen Meyer responds that he isn’t disagreeing with Behe, but rather with the requirement that many evolutionary colleagues want to place on the theory of intelligent design. And who therefore insist it is not science. He says that intelligent design proposes a different kind of cause—a mental cause.

John Lennox, acting as a referee, discusses how Newton saw his scientific discoveries as evidence of intelligent input into the universe. He clarifies that there are different kinds of explanations, and both are needed to provide a full explanation.

The conversation turns to the origin of life, the universe, and the Cambrian animals. Stephen Meyer argues that science should focus on the type of cause that best explains the origin of these things: an undirected material process or an intelligent cause.

A method of historical scientific reasoning where Darwin realized that if you were wanting to explain an event in the remote past, you should try to explain it by causes that you see now in operation. And he got this principle from the great geologist Charles Lyell….if you don’t know what caused [something], you’d use a standard historical method of reasoning known as the method of multiple competing hypotheses.
Stephen Meyer

[Elsewhere, Meyer refers to this also as “an inference to the best explanation.” The same historical scientific reasoning that Darwin used.]

Michael Behe points out that there are many instances in science where no known mechanism exists such as the Big Bang or radioactive decay. He emphasizes that scientists can deduce explanations from patterns, even if they don’t have a specific mechanism.

When Isaac Newton developed his wonderful law of gravity, he was asked, “What the heck is gravity?” And he said, “Hypotheses non fingo.” I have feigned no hypothesis.” I don’t know.

In the interview, the speakers continue discussing the possibility of a designer or intelligent cause behind the origin of life, and whether it should be included in scientific explanations. Michael Behe argues that intelligent design can be inferred from physical evidence, like the machinery of the cell, without directly referencing God. John Lennox emphasizes the importance of differentiating between scientific explanations and other types of rational explanations, such as history and philosophy, and questions whether God’s activity is detectable scientifically.

Stephen Meyer adds that historical scientific reasoning, which involves inferring back to causal origins (abduction), can be used to support the idea of intelligent design. He points out that the creation of new information is often associated with conscious activity, and that considering intelligent design as a possible explanation in historical scientific reasoning shouldn’t be limited.

In the next segment of the interview, the speakers discuss the domination of naturalism and materialism in the academy and how that has led to a hostile environment for those who suggest intelligent design. They argue that naturalism and materialism limit scientific inquiry, and that evidence should be followed wherever it leads.

They also discuss quotes from Richard Dawkins and Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI), each presenting contrasting views on the existence of design, purpose, good and evil in the universe. Dawkins suggests that the universe has no design or purpose and is characterized by pitiless indifference, while Ratzinger argues that the complexity of living creations points to a creating intelligence.

“The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”
Biologist Richard Dawkins

“Let us go directly to the question of evolution and its mechanisms. Microbiology and biochemistry have brought revolutionary insights here. We must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error. They show us a creating intelligence, and they do so more luminously and radiantly today than ever before.”
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger – (later Pope Benedict XVI)

John Lennox argues that Dawkins’ statement is not a statement of science but a reflection of his own atheistic beliefs, and Michael Behe says Ratzinger’s perspective aligns more with the latest scientific discoveries in molecular biology and biochemistry. Stephen Meyer points out that Dawkins’ assertion is testable and that recent scientific discoveries challenge the materialistic point of view.

Michael Behe notes that if Dawkins is concluding from physical evidence whether there is purpose in the universe, then it is legitimate for others to consider the question of design as well. The speakers also criticize Dawkins’ denial of the existence of good and evil, arguing that it leads to a disconnect at the moral level.

In the next part of the interview, the speakers discuss the strength of intelligent design as a scientific hypothesis, its progress in the 21st century, and how it is being challenged by the dominant secular worldview. They mention the contrasting views of Michael Behe, who believes that scientific progress will confirm and extend the hypothesis of intelligent design, and David Berlinski, who argues that the theory of evolution remains popular not for its scientific merit, but because it supports a secular worldview.

John Lennox states that he is an optimist and believes that there will be an intellectual breakthrough in the field of biology, as the evidence continues to accumulate. Stephen Meyer mentions the Encode Project, which has confirmed predictions made by proponents of intelligent design about the non-coding regions of DNA being functional rather than “junk DNA.”

Both Lennox and Meyer refer to a 2016 meeting at The Royal Society¹⁰, where evolutionary biologists who doubt the standard Neo-Darwinian model called for a new theory of evolution due to the lack of creative power of natural selection. They suggest that the growing body of evidence may eventually lead to a shift in the scientific community’s perspective on intelligent design.

In the final part of the interview, the speakers discuss the potential negative implications of advocating for intelligent design, such as the resurgence of religious conflicts or the undermining of the Enlightenment. Michael Behe emphasizes that scientific discoveries should not be influenced by one’s worldview, and that the complexity and elegance of the cell cannot be ignored. Stephen Meyer argues that cancel culture can occur on both sides of the debate, and that a belief in a creator has historically inspired scientific innovation, rather than stifling it.

John Lennox, who is playfully accused of “rolling back the Enlightenment,” contends that the Enlightenment also led to historical persecutions and conflicts. Like the guillotine and the gulag. He further clarifies that Christianity, when properly understood, repudiates violence, and that the use of force cannot impose truth on people.

+++

Know & Celebrate God’s Good Creation