Radio Frequency IDentification, (RFID) tech has been around for years and has many advantages over commonly used UPC (Bar Codes) we see on just about everything we purchase at the store. RFID uses a microchip with an antenna and can identify objects, or people for that matter, without having to be line-of-sight. The chips can store more data than a barcode and can send a signal from several feet away.

One day RFID tech will replace barcodes, but not until the price drops and the price will not drop until more companies begin using RFID. A catch 22 if there ever was one. Or which will come first, the chicken or the egg? What would it take to solve this dilemma? Simultaneous implementation and cooperation. Everyone would have to agree and start using the tech simultaneously and have an industrial and economic system ready to embrace the change. So there must be coordination, communication, planning, timing, and application for this to happen. The intelligence behind the process is essential. We also see this in biochemical systems concerning DNA and proteins.

One of my former students who reads my blog sent me a message asking me if I have any posts on science and God. I pointed out a few to him, most recently the 3 parts series on, ‘Why I Don’t Believe In Evolution‘. Then after some reflection realized that as far as science and God I was lacking in material.

Not two weeks after that I took my daughter and a couple of her friends to an Apologetic conference in Rockland. One of the speakers was Professor Douglas Axe who wrote the book, “Undeniable – How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed.”

The big question Axe has is to what we owe our existence? Are we simply a product of material evolution and those who believe in God have an overactive imagination or rather a blind faith in the hopes of a better afterlife? Is our faith simply a crutch that rests on centuries of theologians evolutionary desires to explain what we don’t understand?

Many researchers have concluded our belief as Christians, or theists is a by-product of evolution. If that is the case then we can’t expect this belief to depart from the human psyche any time soon. Justin Barrett a professor at Fuller University says, “It’s the way that human minds seem to naturally develop.”1 Fuller believes, “The concept of God begins to emerge when children start searching for reasons to explain the world around them.”2

Professor Robert Geraci also believes that evolution is responsible for our belief in something beyond the material. He teaches at Manhatten College in New York and explains we need an agency or a cause for everything. Intuitively, we all know this. The oak tree was caused by the seed of a previous oak tree, and that oak tree was caused by the seed of another, ad infinitum, but when we encounter things that don’t seem to have a cause or is beyond our understanding then we inject a diety. In other words, everything should have a cause and if we don’t see a cause then we make one up.

Geraci says, “Once humans became accustomed to seeing agency, [an action or intervention that produces an effect] around their world, it became an easy intellectual sidestep to say that something was causing events with no clear explanation, such as thunderstorms or sickness. In this way, believing in God may be kind of an accident of our evolutionary heritage.”3

If this true and our belief is embedded in our evolutionary process it should come as no surprise that breaking the chains of bondage from this line of thinking will be difficult. Barrett says, ” If our belief in the divine is part of our evolution as a species, it explains why it is very difficult to shake.” According to Barrett, “It takes discipline, formal education and cultural resources to ‘completely divorce oneself’ from these religious inclinations. It is difficult to consistently be a good atheist because our mind seems to be working against us.”4

Is our intuition in seeing design in the biological realm really an aberration of the truth? Has life risen from chance and we are nothing more than moist robots as Frank Turek calls it? Francis Crick, one of the co-founders of the DNA structure wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”5 The question I have to ask is what evidence is there that our minds are working against us? I think most of us would agree that our intuition would better serve our survival if it is in line with truth and reality, to me that is common sense.

Not all materialists believe that evolution is tricking us into believing in things that are not true. They admit how comfortable they are with a Godless worldview and even desire it to be true so they can live as they please without a God looking over their shoulder. They admit their own bias for a god-less worldview and openly concede they don’t want to answer to anyone for their decisions in this life.

Thomas Nagel, a professor at the New York University wrote, “I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is not God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind.”6 That kind of open honesty about oneself and the scientific community at large is rare and it is a left hook to the conclusions of Geraci and Barrett who blame evolution for our beliefs in God.

Let’s face it, if the evolutionary process is valid, the truth is irrelevant, all that matters is survival of the fittest and natural selection. Yet being a Christian missionary is contrary to natural selection. Selling all you have, traveling to a foreign country, encountering all kinds of dangers, and potentially sacrificing your health, well being, and possibly your life to share the Gospel does not lend itself to passing your genes into the next generation. Maybe in a few millennia, those pesky religious zealots will be weeded out.

In his book, Douglas Axe addresses the bias of many in the scientific community and has experienced it first hand as his research points to Intelligent Design. The focus of his research revolves around the proteins in our body. He points out what every biologist knows, that the proteins make up the cellular activity in our bodies. He likens them to the various parts of a vehicle, a car for example, and the vehicle is the cell. Without the components, (carburetor, breaks, radiator, pistons, tires, etc.) the car would not function. The pieces would just lay on the roadway inactive and non-functioning.

Each protein is made up of a strand or chain of amino acids and these chains when in the correct sequence, fold up and create a three-dimensional structure. It is the genetic code and genes that tell the amino acids how to connect and fold. In turn, DNA needs proteins to replicate, but proteins need the DNA instructions in order to know what to form. Which came first the chicken or the egg?

But the problem goes much deeper than that. Whether proteins or DNA came first is just one of several million dollar questions, but we also need to know how DNA became a carrier of information to build proteins. DNA and proteins depend on each other for their existence and researchers know it must be solved or Darwin’s evolutionary theory is dead in the water.

Stephen Meyer author of Signature in the Cell wrote, “At some point, DNA must have arisen as a carrier of the information for building proteins and then come into association with functional proteins. One way or another, the origin of genetic information still needed to be explained.”7 In other words, we can concede for a moment that functional proteins came about by an evolutionary process, (I don’t believe that) but who came up with the blueprint of instructions to assemble them? We can ask who made the various car parts on the street, (yes it would be nice to know), but we can also ask who wrote the directions on the assembly?

As far as Darwin’s theory of natural selection we have to ask when did natural selection take place in the process? It is obvious we have to have an initial functioning cell arranged in such a way that it survives. Natural selection does not explain the arrangement or assembly, but rather after it has been living.

Jim Tour a brilliant chemistry professor who has been listed as one of the top ten chemists in the world and one of the top 50 most influential scientists in the world today has some thoughts on natural selection. “If one asks the molecularly uninformed how nature devises reaction with such high purity, the answer is often, ‘Nature selects for that.’ But what does that mean to a synthetic chemist? What does selection mean? To select, it must still rid itself of all the material that it did not select. And from where did all the needed starting material come? And how does it know what to select when the utility is not assessed until many steps later? The details are stupefying and the petty comments demonstrate the sophomoric understanding of the untrained.”8

We can conclude that RDIF technology came about by random, unguided natural processes over a period of millions of years. We can say the tiny various components of the microchip came together and began to function despite what our intuition tells us. We can see that it has significant advantages over the commonly used bar-codes, including more information. We understand that it would be a superior method to process data and move merchandise. We can concede it was random processes over eons of time that created this technology, but the question remains who wrote the directions for the arrangement?

“No matter what form the message takes, the information being conveyed always originates in a mind. Information can’t be separated from the activity of an intelligent agent. And this connection makes this property a potent marker for intelligent design.”9 Atheist or theist, all know that process which controls our body starting at the molecular level contain massive amounts of information and instruction, and there is no known example of information arising without intelligence behind it. We know this intuitively and see evidence of it daily.

 

Creative Commons License
Does Science Ever Point To God? by James Glazier is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

 

Sources:

  1. Zukerman, Wendy. “The evolutionary psychology of believing in God.” Australian Broadcasting Corporation, ABC.net, June 10, 2014, https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/futuretense/the-evolutionary-psychology-of-believing-in-god/5512982
  2. Zukerman, Wendy. “The evolutionary psychology of believing in God.” Australian Broadcasting Corporation, ABC.net, June 10, 2014, https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/futuretense/the-evolutionary-psychology-of-believing-in-god/5512982
  3. Zukerman, Wendy. “The evolutionary psychology of believing in God.” Australian Broadcasting Corporation, ABC.net, June 10, 2014, https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/futuretense/the-evolutionary-psychology-of-believing-in-god/5512982
  4. Zukerman, Wendy. “The evolutionary psychology of believing in God.” Australian Broadcasting Corporation, ABC.net, June 10, 2014, https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/futuretense/the-evolutionary-psychology-of-believing-in-god/5512982
  5. Crick, Francis. “Conclusions”, What Mad Pursuit, New York, Basic Books, 1988, pg 138
  6. Nagel, Thomas. “Logic”, The Last Word, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1997, 130-131
  7. Meyer, Stephen C. “Self-Organization and Biochemical Predestination.” Signature In The Cell, Harper One, 2009, pg 235
  8. Axe, Douglas. “Seeing And Believing.” Undeniable – How Biology Confirms Our intuition That Life Is Designed, Harper One, 2016, pg 195
  9. Rana, Fazale. “The Artist’s Handwriting.” The Cell’s Design-How Chemistry Reveals The Creator’s Artistry, Baker Books, 2008, pg 142
%d bloggers like this: