ARTICLE OF FAITH: A Universe by chance, or design?

Just about anywhere you look these days in Science vs. Creationist debates, you’ll find someone stating "Scientists no longer question the basic facts of evolution as a process" and that's a true statement if you're referring to Darwin’s Special Theory, also known as Natural Selection. No one questions natural selection as it is observable and testable. The problem arises from insisting that natural selection within a species can account for speciation, and even ardent evolutionists from Gould to Margulis admit the big problems there. Gould's punctuated equilibrium theory was an attempt to account for the startling gaps in the fossil record, but unfortunately there's increasingly little science to support his theories.

That common descent has taken place is obvious. What drives large-scale leaps between species (and creates the gaps in the fossil record) is not. The few apparent transitional cases, such as Eohippus to Equus, appear as anomalies and not the norm. Farther confounding the issue is that the "transitional" horse species overlap at various levels.

As a whole, however, beneficial mutations happen far too slowly to account for the magnificent range of diversity and specialization we see in the world...and again, a number of prominent evolutionists are sounding the horn on that issue as well and have clearly stated the problems, some even calling for a post-Darwinian theory (Margulis).

On the surface, anyone can say that evolution is tried and tested when they're referring to the Special Theory...because it most certainly is a tried and tested process that takes place within a species. We can replicate it ourselves to some extent with the creation of different breeds of domesticated animals. But does it account for speciation and large-scale leaps? The jury is still out, as any intellectually honest person would admit.

In the end, I have to look at the Big Bang as the beginning of the issue. What was the cause of everything? Science can't answer that question because as we back up in time, science hits "Planck time" and breaks down right before we hit the singularity of the Big Bang. Science cannot give the cause of the Universe...that's an incontrovertible fact we must live with. To insist that the Universe had a purely natural beginning is purely a faith position, something some cosmologists have finally come to accept. I will openly acknowledge that my belief in a created Universe is a faith position. Will a “naturalist” admit the same? I doubt it.

We can continue to argue about whether or not evolution is a purely natural process, or one with intent and purpose behind it, but we won't get far because of the issue addressed above. To some degree, Darwin's personal philosophy was far more advanced than some of his modern colleagues today. He did understand a very important fact that seems lost on them. Even though Darwin wasn't familiar with the Big Bang theory, he did understand that the physical laws of science governed everything, and that nothing took place that didn't fall in line with those laws. Therefore, mutations of any sort, particularly large-scale ones that became new species, had to obey the laws of science. When they exceed those laws, or exceed a fractal expression of them, we must consider that something else is driving the process.

Scientists are reluctant to call in God, but Darwin himself wouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. To Darwin, something else was at work. Darwin revealed this in his second most popular work, one which few people read or quote (The Variations of Animals and Plants Under Domestication). He sensed correctly that beneficial large-scale mutations simply couldn't happen rapidly enough to account for the diversity of species we see in the world, given any amount of time. Because of this fact, Darwin, like his contemporary Asa Gray, believed that his own theory could not be an ultimate theory, a point he states quite clearly in the book.

That common descent from single cell to complex life took place is obvious. That variation within a species takes place is obvious. What drove (and still drives) speciation is far from obvious, and in fact presents several huge problems that scientists still struggle with. To claim that the issue is solved is false triumphalism built on consensus. The fact remains that unless you can determine the cause of the Universe, you cannot determine whether or not the pattern of common descent is "natural" or intended, whether it's chance or design. Any conclusions based upon an unknowable premise cannot be considered true...only hypothetical.

Scientists, because they must use the laws of science to validate an idea, cannot give a scientific cause for the Universe and the driving force behind the subsequent spread of life on this planet. As a Christian, however, I do have an explanation...one that is made even more valid by the fact that it was written down 3,500 years ago and has only just been shown to be completely consistent with the known scientific record. Genesis and several other passages of the Bible state the progression of events in the same order as the discoveries of Science in the past 150 years. A universe that sprang from nothing, followed by invisible sub-atomic particles slowly forming into visible matter, and eventually living, thinking, breathing life. Genesis described it accurately (but as a deliberate act of God) , and science has confirmed it in the same order. Based upon the fact that the “natural origins” crowd must accept the cause of the Universe as a faith position, I find it infinitely more satisfying to choose God as the cause because it’s also much easier to accept on faith (with a dash of reason tossed in for flavor).