rom a scientific perspective, we can approach the evolution/creation question in two ways. One is to examine the postulates and mechanisms of evolution to see if sufficient `power' is present to produce the complexity and diversity of life (will "non-concept" work). The aim this time is to look for evidence that can be attributed to "concept." Because "concept" and "non-concept" are antithetical, the two parts of this investigation are related. Evidence for one may be evidence against the other. If evolutionary mechanisms are inadequate, and we are here as the result of the Creator's concept, we should expect to see signs attributable to intelligence or concept.
But what does "concept" (intelligence) look like? What would count as evidence for it? Would we recognize it if we saw it? Do living systems reflect or suggest any of this evidence?
One way concept would manifest itself is in the form of design. The idea from design is not new. It is a biblical idea and should not be overlooked.
Is design evident in nature? The following observations come from proponents of evolution. "We cannot help being struck by the very high degree of organized complexity we find at every level, and especially at the molecular level."1 "One cannot fail to be impressed by the complexity of the network of metabolic cycles and regulatory mechanisms. . . . Let us look at the amazing perfection with which biological structures are built up, according to criteria of purpose."2 "This brings us to the second distinctive feature of living things: their design and construction appear to result from a conscious purpose."3 "The problem is that of complex design. The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their design. If anyone doesn't agree that this amount of complex design cries out for an explanation, I give up. No, on second thought I don't give up."4
Design isn't just a problem for evolutionists; it is the problem. A few defenders try an `exception to the rule' approach. "`Organs of extreme perfection' proclaim their value unambiguously; the difficulty lies in explaining how they developed."5 "The imperfection of nature reveals evolution. . . . Evolution lies exposed in the imperfections that record a history of descent."6 Extreme perfection in everything is probably limited to heaven; we are simply looking for design.
Does design suggest the possibility of a designer? "Archaeologists and anthropologists deduce the presence of primitive man from the presence of artifacts in geological strata, and thus use the `deducing the designer from the design' method of logic. . . . [However], if there was a creator, he left no `tooling marks.'"7 Or did He?
Is there something special about concept or intelligence that allows it to be distinguished from natural processes? Somehow we all know there is, even if we cannot point out all the reasons. Why are there radio telescopes scanning space for signs of life? We have no knowledge about such life. We cannot place any alleged alien in a laboratory and examine how its intelligence functions. Yet we assume, for example, that patterns in a radio signal transmitted by an intelligent source would be different than the background static and be recognizable. Why is that?
Our questions cannot be answered in the next few sentences, but we can begin thinking about them by dividing the problem (or blessing) of design into two parts. The first part, by analogy to a computer, I will call the hardware problem. This is the problem of how to explain the existence of a complex machine. This is the traditional arena of design arguments and is the kind generally addressed in the quotations listed above.
It is a problem because the existence of functional complexity without conscious design is extremely improbable. The odds of simultaneously producing even one small molecular machine such as an enzymatic protein are staggering. The reason an archaeologist recognizes tooling marks on something like a stone artifact turns out to be nothing more than a belief that certain fracture patterns are too improbable to have arisen by chance. We can reproduce similar fracture patterns and examine the process, indicating that an organism of sufficient intelligence, such as a human, could make these fracture patterns. If a biochemist painstakingly synthesizes an enzymatic protein, whose intelligence is he reproducing?
But trying to explain design from either a creation or evolution perspective can be misleading if we are not careful. We tend to think of design in terms of gross morphological structures or anatomies. We speak of change in the design of an organism as modifying a particular structure, like a wing or a brain. This view tends to oversimplify the problem, and this is the reason why I prefer Wilder-Smith's terminology of concept and intelligence over design. Explaining complex structures like livers and eyeballs (on an anatomical level) or enzymatic proteins and nucleic acids (on a molecular level) is indeed a problem. But there is another kind of design that is often overlooked.
Living systems, in all observable forms, are the result of information. Change requires modifying that information. Using the analogy of the computer, we will call this the software problem. In the case of living organisms, the software that is written in code on the cell's DNA contains the information to produce the hardware. Supplied with the appropriate start-up hardware (as in the combination of sex cells), the information drives the assembly of the organism which ultimately manifests itself in the morphological and physiological "apparent" design. Can matter impose upon itself coded information?
