Continuing with
one more reflection from a book called A Meaningful World; let us now turn our attention to “the cell”.
A few months ago the Two Catholic Men
presented the following scenario that
related intelligent design and physical size. Imagine you were walking in a
forest with a friend when you both stumbled upon a log cabin. You would
naturally assume that someone created it (a person or a group of people), even
if there was no empirical evidence of a builder other than the cabin itself.
Unless you had more evidence, you will NOT presume a specific builder by name,
but the assumption of “intelligence” will become a base premise that is
non-negotiable.
Now suppose
your traveling companion said the cabin is just a result of the random forces
of nature, matter and energy coming together over time to form the cabin. To
accept your friend’s conclusion would be not only unreasonable, but also
irresponsible.
Now, just begin to increase the physical size of the cabin. Suppose it was the size of an Egyptian pyramid. You will not presume the builder must specifically be King Tut, but the same impartial assumption about an intellect remains.
Now, increase the size of the cabin to the size of planet earth. Reason’s
responsibility leads us to the same conclusion about intelligence, although you
might drop the part about the source of it being human. Observing the planet
earth itself and how it works points to the same assumption. Just because the
earth is big and not made by us, why should we conclude it is a product of mindlessness?
This thinking
& sizing process can also work in reverse.
-
Suppose you observe a cabin the size of a single cell under a powerful microscope. To your astonishment, you observe not only the ordered structure of the building frame, but also indoor plumbing, electricity, a security system and a fully functioning HVAC system. Any reasonable person might ask, “Who built this?!?”
- Finally,
consider a single living cell with a membrane, centrosome, cytoplasm, Golgi
complex, lysosome, mitochondrion, nuclear membrane, nucleolus, nucleus,
ribosome, rough ER, smooth ER and vacuole…all much more complex than any cabin.
We reach the same conclusion. Intellectual honesty tells us that it’s all beyond
what random mindlessness can do for itself.
“We know that
even the simplest functioning cell is almost unfathomably complex, containing
at least 250 genes and their corresponding proteins, each one extraordinarily
difficult to produce randomly and none of which can function apart from the
intricate structure of the cell.” (A Meaningful World, p. 201.)
The evolutionary
magic wand of natural selection and/or survival of the fittest cannot be used to
explain how the first living cell (or cells) came to be. The first cell had no
parent(s), no genetic ancestors to evolve from; to say it came about through the
random jostling of matter and energy might be a kin to saying a running car
could come about through the random jostling of car parts. Whether a living
cell or a running car, it’s not just a matter of the right parts being in the
right physical location; the parts need to be integrated and interdependent for
anything meaningful to happen. There is no reason for an alternator, an
alternator belt and a battery to be carefully integrated together unless there
was some intention behind it. It’s the same with the parts of a living cell.
The famous Miller-Urey experiment offered an explanation for
the origins of life, but hardly a convincing one. The experiment involved passing
an electrical current through gaseous methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water (all
assumed to be in earth’s early atmosphere). The result was the formation of
some carbon-based compounds. I can see at least three problems with this as an
explanation.
Carbon-based compounds are not living cells.
The experiment was not “mindless”. The experiment demonstrates (rather ironically) how a precise set of intelligently designed conditions are necessary to from a “primordial soup”.
There is no
evidence of a primordial soup and atmosphere ever existing on earth as it did in
the Miller-Urey experiment. “For materialists, in order for God not to exist, it was necessary for them
to invent the soup.” (A
Meaningful World, p. 209.)
The authors
of the book also offered an interesting allegory about an intellectual
blindness that can be found in regard to the first cell. Imagine you are
invited to a science laboratory for a special demonstration. When you arrive
you see hundreds of small magnets strewn about the floor and strung together
with some wire. A scientist then pulls an electrical switch. Suddenly, the
magnets come together to form an elegant shape and the new creation begins to
clean-up the laboratory. When the last beaker is cleaned, dried and put way,
the host scientist turns off the switch and all the magnets fall lifelessly to
the floor. You are absolutely astonished and shout, “That’s amazing!” The
scientist replies, “Why? It’s just a bunch of magnets.” A similar attitude
might be taken in regard to first cell or cells on earth, “It’s just a bunch of
amino acids.”
Such
blindness finds its root in the sin of pride and the danger arises when we
become more attached to our assumptions and over-generalizations than we are to
reality. Our theories then become our idols.
“Our bringing
up idolatry here is not a mere metaphorical device; rather it strikes to the
very heart of the problem. Idolatry at its deepest is the worship of something
that is human-made. In demanding that the universe must conform to human
reason, to our theory, to what is simplest and easiest for us to understand, we
are refashioning the universe into an idol.” (A Meaningful World, p. 246.)
INTERESTING SIDE NOTE:
Shortly after reading A Meaningful World I took note of a
popular song on the radio that my kids always want to hear called “A Sky Full
of Stars” by Coldplay. I’m often appalled by popular music lyrics or just left unimpressed,
but on some occasions I’m touched, and even reminded of “Omnipresence”.
…'cause in a sky full of stars
I think I see you…
Such a heavenly view
You're such a heavenly view
I mentioned to my 12 year old son that
the song reminds me of God.
He promptly replied…“Of course.”
