A Question of Randomness or Design?

 

Some believe that everything we see in the Universe, including living creatures, was created by chance; for example, they believe that the raw materials or organic molecules from which the first living cell originated came into existence due to appropriate conditions occurring all at once by chance, resulting in the first living organisms that lived beneath the surface of the water. Then these first marine plant organisms evolved, giving rise to aquatic organisms with all their complexities and adapting to their surroundings. They then moved (by chance) to land and adapted to its climate as amphibians first, then as reptiles, and a branch of reptiles became birds, and a branch of birds became mammals, until we finally reached man (by chance), who is the centerpiece of nature's creativity.

We have to consider that any transition from a reptile-like animal to a mammal would necessitate the development of entirely new organ systems. Transforming the reproductive system, for example, requires the development of completely new organs such as the uterus, placenta, and mammary glands in addition to changing where the eggs grow. Some scientists question the creative power of natural selection and random mutations.

The origin of wings is a classic example that paleontologists and biologists have studied. There is no evidence of their evolutionary origins in the fossil record. Wingless insects are fossils found directly beneath (i.e., more ancient than) flying insects. Wings appear suddenly, fully developed, and quite large, reaching a span of 30 centimeters.

The human brain is the wild card. This galactic complexity organ defies all previous biological paradigms. Even if my actions are entirely physical, any unchangeable fate is buried beneath so many layers of complexity and, at the very least, the persistent illusion of agency that, for the time being, I am as unpredictable as if I had true free will. Because of this complexity, the emergence of social humans was a world-changing innovation.

As a species, we are endowed with a natural curiosity about the world and our place in it. We want to know - no, we need to know - how we got to be who we are and what our future holds.

Scientists are not immune to fads. A few years ago, the fad was to emphasize the similarities between humans and chimpanzees. Robin Dunbar (University of Liverpool), reviewing a book stressing the vast differences between humans and chimps, writes: ‘Notwithstanding the enthusiasm in the 1970s and 1980s for the similarities between humans and our primate cousins, both in popular culture and among academics, the fact is that humans are very different from even our ape sister species.’

Claims of a close relationship between humans and chimpanzees based on genes are becoming more and more absurd. The mouse genome was sequenced in late 2002.

Both humans and mice have about 30,000 genes. An editorial in New Scientist states, ‘What’s the difference between Stuart Little and William Shakespeare? Answer (to a very rough approximation): about 300 genes.’ Alison Abbott, writing in Nature, adds “The two genomes, it turns out, are remarkably similar: 99% of mouse genes have a direct human counterpart.”

The next time your friendly neighbourhood evolutionists claim that you are closely related to a chimpanzee, tell him that he is more closely related to a mouse.

At its core, the power of choice is the ability to redirect the course of events. The entire realm of human artifacts—cities and buildings, technology and computers, books and films—eloquently testifies to humanity’s capacity to harness natural forces to create things that nature, acting alone, would not produce.

 

Life is a phenomenon associated with a vast society of specialized molecules, millions of them, cooperating in surprising and novel ways. No single molecule carries the spark of life; no chain of atoms alone constitutes an organism. Even DNA, the biological super molecule, is not alive. Isolated from a living cell, DNA would be inert, unable to perform its familiar role. Only within the context of a highly specific molecular environment does a given molecule play its part in life. To function properly, DNA must be part of a large team, with each molecule executing its assigned task in concert with others. Recognizing the interdependent capabilities of the component molecules within a living organism presents a profound philosophical puzzle: if everything depends on everything else, how did this community of molecules arise in the first place?

Purposeful design becomes evident when one examines the respiratory system. From the moment we inhale to the moment we exhale, every aspect of respiration is controlled, monitored, and adjusted on a microsecond-to-microsecond basis. With rare exceptions, our bodies intuitively understand our needs and constantly adjust bodily functions. If this process were not automatic, our first night’s sleep would be fatal.

Proponents of evolution point to clots causing heart attacks and strokes as flaws, suggesting a lack of design. However, it remains uncertain whether factors such as diet, stress, and lifestyle are truly responsible.

The evolution of organisms towards greater fitness does not negate the intelligent and miraculous design behind this development. On the contrary, we often marvel at the complex design of some lower organisms, such as certain bacteria, which exhibit more complexity than more developed organisms. This seemingly contradicts known evolutionary principles. For example, some bacteria use a structure resembling a whip to navigate through liquid environments. This whip connects to the cell membrane and allows the bacteria to determine direction and speed on demand.

Scientists have long known about the bacterial flagellum, but its detailed structure, revealed about a decade ago, surprised many. They discovered that the flagellum operates through a highly complex "organic motor," akin to an electric motor with a fixed stator and a rotor, rather than a simple seismic mechanism.

The flagellum generates mechanical movement independently of the chemical energy stored in cells, driven by ions flowing through the outer cell membranes. Approximately 240 different proteins are involved in its construction, each precisely positioned within the cell membrane. These proteins facilitate movement at an atomic level, highlighting the system's complexity. Any disruption or loss of even a small part would render the flagellum nonfunctional, contradicting the evolutionary principle of gradual development.

The flagellum's intricate design includes a motor capable of rotating at speeds up to 100,000 rpm, far exceeding that of a car engine. This motor can self-assemble, produce its own energy, reorganize if malfunctioning, and control its speed and direction. It is a true nano-machine, displaying remarkable complexity and efficiency.

 

The Bacterial Flagellum requires over 50 different, separate protein parts for operation.

 

In summary, the bacterial flagellum is a sophisticated macromolecular machine that self-assembles, repairs itself, operates with two gears, and is powered by proton motive force. It is connected to a sensory apparatus that functions with short-term memory, allowing for precise movement and adaptation[1].

A true watchmaker thinks ahead: he designs his cogs and springs, as well as their interconnections, with a future purpose in mind. Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process discovered by Charles Darwin and now known to be the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, serves no purpose. It lacks both a mind and an eye. It makes no provision for the future. It lacks vision, foresight, and all sight.

Intelligent design is compatible with creationist and evolutionist ideas of new organisms arising from old by a process of generation, but what separates it from naturalistic evolution is what was responsible for their evolution. Intelligent design holds that material mechanisms are limited and that any substantial evolutionary change requires input from a designing intelligence. Designing intelligence can make a difference regardless of how organisms emerged.

According to the research data, an astronomical body capable of supporting and equipping humans to launch and sustain a global high-technology civilization requires at least 10^700 times more fine-tuning precision than is required for the support of ephemeral simple life. To put this number (10^700) in context, the total number of protons and neutrons in the observable Universe is 10^79.

Many design patterns can be found in DNA and the cell's information-processing system. At the most basic level, the way DNA and its information-processing machinery encode and process digital information represents a solution to a general design problem: how to store information and transmit it across a communication channel to produce a functional result.

DNA is the blueprint, instruction manual, repair manual, and instructions for replicating itself and everything it codes for. In computer terms, DNA is the software because it carries information but cannot act on it. Proteins are analogous to computer hardware, requiring DNA software to provide information about when and where specific chemical changes should occur in time and space, as well as to produce material required for life.

 

The information storage density of DNA is many times that of our most advanced silicon chips.

Scientists realized that DNA is only one component of a complex system for expressing and processing information as they learned more about how the cell uses the information in DNA to build proteins.

DNA is made up of chemical sequences that function similarly to digital or alphabetic characters: it contains functionally specified information. As scientists became aware of this, they understandably became skeptical of chance as an explanation for the origin of biological information.

The probability of producing the proteins necessary to build a minimally complex cell--or the genetic information necessary to produce those proteins--by chance is unimaginably small.

 

Nonetheless, we will consider evolutionary biology to be a field of argument for and against random evolution, so instead of delving into more biological details, we will play a little math game that no two sane people can disagree on, because mathematics is, after all, the field of reason and logic.

 

The concept of coincidence or the likelihood of events occurring in succession or in a specific order fall under a branch of mathematics known as probability theory, which studies the probability of random events. To illustrate probability practically, consider a bag containing ten balls numbered sequentially from 1 to 10. We ask a blindfolded person to draw these balls in numerical order, returning each drawn ball to the bag to maintain a constant number of ten balls. The chance of drawing the first ball correctly is simply one in ten. What is the chance of drawing the number 2 ball the second time? After returning the first ball to the bag, the probability of picking ball number 2 remains 1/10. However, the combined probability of drawing both balls correctly is 1/10 * 1/10.

Continuing this process, the probability of drawing each subsequent ball correctly is 1/10, resulting in an overall probability of:

\Left (\frac {1}{10} \right) ^ {10} = 0.0000000001(101​)10=0.0000000001

This equates to a chance of 1 in 10 billion, or 0.000000001%, for drawing the tenth ball correctly. As more balls are correctly withdrawn, the likelihood of the next correct draw decreases by a factor of ten, yet there remains a chance to draw even the tenth ball in the desired order.

To further complicate matters, imagine a monkey randomly striking keys on a typewriter. Let us calculate the probability that the monkey types the following excerpt from a Shakespearean poem:

From fairest creatures we desire increase, 41

That thereby beauty’s rose might never die. 42

The numbers next to each line represent the total number of letters and spaces between words, requiring precise keystrokes to achieve the desired text. The total number of characters needed to form these two lines, including spaces, is 83. For simplicity, we will disregard the movement required to transition between lines and punctuation, excusing any related errors by the monkey.

Let us commence the experiment: after every 83 keystrokes, we will examine the typed paper to see if the monkey has, by chance, produced the poem. If not, we will return the paper and allow the experiment to continue.

 

A simple calculation reveals that the probability of the monkey successfully typing the poem in the correct sequence involves the 26 letters of the English alphabet plus one for the space. We will assume the monkey has access to a 28-character keyboard, including a space key, excluding other complexities that might reduce its chances of success.

The probability of success in this experiment is one divided by 27 raised to the power of 83. This number is extraordinarily small, approximately equivalent to one divided by \ (6.4 \times 10^{118}\).

 

What does this number imply for the time required for a monkey to type the poem?

Assuming the monkey makes 100 typewriter strikes per minute continuously for 24 hours (a fast typist averages about 60 words per minute), and we replace the monkey whenever it tires, we can calculate the following: If we divide the number of attempts needed for a chance of success (\ (27^ {83} \)) by the number of attempts per year, the result is approximately \ (10^ {111} \).

How many billion years does this equate to?

Dividing \ (10^ {111} \) by \(10^9\) yields \(10^{102}\), or nearly 102 billion years (noting that the rounding is a decrease, not an increase).

 

However, these calculations are purely theoretical. Scientists estimate the Earth's age to be around 5 billion years, which is far too short for this figure. According to the latest studies, the Universe is only 13.8 billion years old, a minuscule number compared to the time required for a monkey to complete its attempts and achieve a single chance of typing a two-line poem excerpt.

Given that the human brain contains approximately 10 billion neurons, each tasked with receiving information and issuing commands to the body's 10 trillion living cells, can we fathom the possibility of creating even one human being by chance, let alone billions?

 

Could we finally agree that the world, with all its intricate details and complexities, could not have been created by chance?

 

Reflecting on the absence of absurdity in creation, the brilliant scientist Albert Einstein once remarked, “I do not believe that God plays dice.”

This sentiment finds resonance in the Holy Quran, Surah Ad-Dukhan (44), Verses 38 and 39:

“And We did not create the heavens and the earth and all that is between them in play. We have not created them except for a true purpose, but most of them do not know.”

---

[1] . TANKESHWAR ACHARYA, Bacterial Flagella: Structure, importance and examples of flagellated bacteria, Microbe Online, APRIL 28, 2013.