An Engineer considers the case for Creation by design versus Evolution by chance

Whenever I observe an item, be it ever so simple and static such as a chair or exceedingly complex and dynamic such as a Jumbo Jet airliner and its radio/radar guidance systems, I cannot escape the conclusion that intelligent minds have been involved at every stage (i.e. concept, calculations, draughting, planning, construction, testing and co-ordination of independent systems, etc) - hopefully leaving nothing to chance! I fail to see how any reasonably intelligent person can possibly evade this inexorable logic, solidly based on the actual experience of every day of our lives!

When I look at the outstandingly brilliant, workable, successful designs in all living things, which are infinitely more complex and sophisticatedthan human designs (for how many of the latter are both self-reproducing, remaining true to the original design generation after generation, andat least partially self-repairing?); and when I realise their interdependence with other living and inanimate things, I am profoundly awestruck and compelled to conclude that such amazingly brilliant, staggeringly complex designs can only be the work of a great Mind, a supremely intelligent Designer-Creator!

It is perhaps just a little more understandable that in Darwin's day the evolution theory should have sounded plausible, when in their ignorance of the complexity now revealed by the newer sciences, especially molecular biology, they could talk of the simple, single-celled amoeba - which we now know is anything but simple, indeed exceedingly complex. They knew little of cell structure and nothing of DNA, RNA and the wonderfully ingenious double-helix method of cell-division and replication. Scientists today know far more than their Victorian counterparts, and yet the Scientific Establishment asks us to believe that the outstandingly brilliant designs so abundantly evident in the living world are merely the product of blind, mindless, purposeless, unaided `chance'! With respect, I submit that the whole concept of the Evolution by Chance theory (i.e. that, starting with the `Big Bang', everything evolved by chance without the need for intelligent design) is a fundamental, monumental fallacy unworthy of our highly intelligent minds!

The preposterous nature of this fallacy has been pointed out by a steadily increasing number of very competent scientists. For example, Professor Sir Fred Hoyle, FRS, the internationally famous astro-physicist and author, writes in his book The Intelligent Universe (Michael Joseph, 1983): 

`Imagine a blindfolded person trying to solve the Rubik Cube. The chance against achieving perfect colour matching is about 50,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1. These odds are roughly the same as those against just one of our body's 200,000 proteins having evolved randomly, by chance.'
`There is not a shred of objective evidence to support the hypothesis that life began in an organic soup here on Earth.'
`The picture of the origin of the Universe . . . as it has unfolded in astronomy is curiously indefinite . . . A component has evidently been missing from cosmological studies, a component involving intelligent design . . . ' (These extracts are quoted on the dust cover)

In Evolution from Space (Scientific Book Club, 1982), Professor Hoyle and his co-author Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe (Professor of Applied Mathematics and Astronomy, University of Wales College, Cardiff) in a devastating critique of evolutionary claims, comment on the fossil evidence as follows: 

`It is not hard to find writings in which the myth is stated that the Darwinian theory is well proven by the fossil record . . . The fossil record is highly imperfect from a Darwinian point of view . . . because the slow evolutionary connections required by the theory did not happen. . . . Palaeontologists have recognised this truth for a century or more. . . ' (p. 147).

The final page of their `Conclusion' summarises their argument as follows: 

`From the beginning of this book we have emphasised the enormous information content of even the simplest living systems. The information cannot in our view be generated by what are often called `natural' processes . . . As well as a suitable physical and chemical environment, a large initial store of information was also needed. We have argued that the requisite information came from an `intelligence'. . . ' (p. 150).

In April 1992, Professor Paul Davies (then Professor of Theoretical Physics, Adelaide University), author of many scientific books and shortly to be honoured by HRH Prince Philip, stated in the BBC SOUL series: 

`I have been more and more impressed, the deeper I dig, at the coherence, unity and harmony of nature. To me this suggests overwhelming evidence of design.'

Concluding his book The Mind of God (Simon & Schuster, 1992), Professor Davies writes: 

`I cannot believe that our existence in this universe is a mere quirk of fate, an accident of history, an incidental blip in the great cosmic drama. Our involvement is too intimate . . . Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor by product of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here.' (p. 232). 

In Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Adler & Adler, 1986), molecular biologist Dr Michael Denton writes: 

`The intuitive feeling that pure chance could never have achieved the degree of complexity and ingenuity so ubiquitous in nature has been a continuing source of scepticism ever since the publication of the Origin of Species . . . It is the sheer universality of perfection, the fact that everywhere we look, to whatever depth we look, we find an elegance and ingenuity of an absolutely transcending quality, which so mitigates against the idea of chance. Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which - a functional protein or gene - is complex beyond our creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?' (p.327,342). 

It is noteworthy that most, if not all, the scientists quoted `do not subscribe to any conventional religion', as Professor Davies puts it (Preface p.16) but have arrived at their conclusions on what they consider to be logical and scientific grounds. As Dr Denton comments: `The conclusion may have religious implications but it does not depend on religious presuppositions'(p. 340-341).

In the light of such telling statements by scientists of first-rate calibre, why do the Scientific, Educational and Media Establishments persist in presenting Evolution by Chance as though it were `fact' proven beyond reasonable doubt? Could it be due to human pride and an egocentricity which cannot allow even the possibility that there could be an `Intelligence' greater than our own, a Creator to whom we might be accountable? That would, surely, be neither a sufficient, nor a scientific reason for rejecting that possibility. I submit, therefore, that there is now a compelling, unanswerable case for the re-instatement of Creation by Design as, at the very least, a viable scientific theory of origins competing with Evolution by Chance, and for demoting the status of the latter from `fact' to `hypothesis'.

The concept of Creation by Design inevitably raises the question: what was the Creator's purpose? Further, it would be reasonable to suppose that the Creator might well wish to communicate with us, perhaps to reveal the reason for our existence. So, have we a `revelation'? I submit that the Judaeo-Christian Bible deserves serious consideration as a Divine revelation. Its creation account is dignified and does not conflict with any proven fact of science; its moral codes are unsurpassed and many of its prophecies accurately fulfilled. It reveals that the Creator made us in His own image (with personalities like His own) in order that we might be capable of a meaningful, intelligent, affectionate and eternal relationship with Himself. This gives profound purpose, dignity and hope to humanity, which no other explanation can equal. Further, the same Book records that the Creator has visited this planet in the unique Person of Jesus Christ, whose sublime teaching, shining example and supreme sacrifice have made it possible for wayward humanity to be reconciled to its magnificent Creator God, who has not only a great Mind but a great Heart!.

In conclusion, I believe the powerful scientific arguments for Creation by purposeful, intelligent design, by a Designer-Creator God andthe claims of the Judaeo-Christian Bible to be a Divine revelation are eminently worthy of the most serious and conscientious consideration. Nothingcould be more important than the question of our origins, the reasons for our existence, and our final destiny. To ignore these great issues or to come to the wrong conclusion about them would indeed be the ultimate personal tragedy.

 Bernard A. Reeves (1995)

Incorporated Engineer, MIEIE 

Return to top of page