Using a watch and a fish to argue for design

Thomas,
Thanks for your comment concerning my post titled “Arguing for Design.” I agree science will continue to move forward and more discoveries are on the horizon. However, the problem isn’t that science needs more time and more experiments; the problem is there isn’t even a viable option to explain the origin of life. The earliest cells we have discovered (a few billion years ago) are more complex than a lap top computer. And not only are early cells incredibly complex, they can continuously reproduce themselves. Can your lap top computer do that? Darwin said the cell has to be simple; like Jello with a nucleus and that complexity of the cell would refute his theory. I believe it is time to reexamine Darwinian Evolution.

The fossil evidence, pointing towards the existence of an irreducibly complex cell (read Darwin’s Black Box by Behe), at the early stages of life, demands an explanation. It is doubtful science will be able to find a solution to this problem. This why scientists like Francis Crick (co-discovered DNA molecule) look to outer space to deal with the issue of complexity of the cell. He thinks it is possible that life on other planets seeded the earth with complex cells. The outer space idea come about because of the commitment to a naturalistic explanation only. Many scientists rule out the supernatural as an explanation even before looking at the evidence (a priori). I firmly believe adding the possibility of a supernatural explanation will in no way harm science. There are many theistic scientists looking for naturalistic causes in all branches of science. Yet, when they run into a system that appears designed they don’t call it an illusion (Dawkins and others); they call a spade a spade and point to intelligent design; the origin of life certainly qualifies.

Steve