4. Signs of Design
Chapter Four
SIGNS OF DESIGN
Is There Evidence of an Artist?
Ed Timmons pulled his brand-new 1972 Dodge Polara police unit to the curb and lifted the radio microphone from its cradle. “Five-oh-nine is ten-ninety-seven,” he said as he pulled his flashlight from the floorboard adjacent to his seat.
“Ten-four,” responded the dispatcher.
It was a warm August night on the west side of town. Ed was working a one-man car, and he was the first unit on scene. He was anxious but cautious. A resident called the police to report a possible murder, and Ed was still several minutes ahead of his beat partner. As he waited for the second unit to arrive, the original reporting caller, Angela Harvey, ran from the front door of the residence, waving her arms in the air.
“Hurry! Something’s happened to Linda!” Angela pointed to the rear unit of her duplex. “I heard screaming and there’s blood everywhere!”
Ed had recently transferred to our city from a small suburb, and this was the first time he’d ever been dispatched to a possible murder scene. When Senior Officer Randy Campbell arrived, they followed Angela to Linda’s residence. Ed noticed a trail of blood as he approached the courtyard separating the front house from the rear rental unit. Linda’s front door was ajar, and Randy observed blood smears on the doorknob. He used his baton to push open the door.
Linda’s apartment was small and dark. A chair in the entryway was overturned, and bloody footsteps led back to the rear bedroom. Ed approached with his gun drawn, not sure what to expect. He followed the trail down a short hall, where a small potted ficus tree was lying on its side. Randy stopped when something shiny reflected the beam of his flashlight. On the ground, next to the potted tree, lay a twisted wire. Randy knew what it was the moment he saw it, even though it was covered in blood.
Ed was now at the bedroom door, shining his flashlight into the interior. “Oh no,” he said. Randy peered into the bedroom as Ed searched for the light switch. When the lights came on, both men witnessed what they would later describe as the worst murder scene they’d ever observed.
Linda Seymour was lying on her bed, undressed. She had clearly been in a struggle. Her throat was deeply severed; her lifeless body was covered in blood. Ed fumbled to remove the portable radio from his belt, tried to steady his trembling hands, then asked the dispatcher for a supervisor. Detectives were later called and arrived on the scene within forty minutes.
Randy guided the investigators to the wire murder weapon lying next to the ficus. Detective Paul Rigdon was new to the investigative team at the time, and like most homicide detectives, he’d never seen a garrote in person. He recognized it, however, because he had recently watched the newly released film The Godfather. Four characters in Coppola’s film were killed with a garrote, and Rigdon immediately recognized the design features of the simple weapon.
A thin wire (approximately eighteen inches long) was lying next to the potted tree. It might easily have been mistaken for the wire used to tie the ficus to its support stick, but this particular wire was attached at each end to two five-inch-long wooden dowels. Each dowel had a small hole drilled at its center, with the wire threaded through and tied carefully with a knot.
Linda’s throat injuries were consistent with the garrote; the killer had used the weapon to strangle her. The wooden handles allowed the killer to wrap the wire around Linda’s neck and pull with sufficient force to choke her to death. He then apparently dropped the murder weapon in his rush to flee the scene.
The garrote was collected from the interior of the crime scene on the night of the murder, but it took our agency forty years to connect it to its external source. It was a pivotal piece of evidence in the trial; we demonstrated how the weapon had been designed for a purpose and reflected the character and expertise of its designer.
When we say something is “designed,” we mean it was created intentionally and planned for a purpose. Designed objects are fashioned by intelligent agents who have a goal in mind, and their creations reflect the purpose for which they were created.
The moment Randy Campbell and Paul Rigdon observed the garrote, they knew it wasn’t simply a piece of wire and wood dislodged from the ficus pot. Years later, I also recognized the object as a crafted weapon. Why? Because it possessed characteristics reasonably associated with DESIGNED objects:
DUBIOUS PROBABILITY (GIVEN CHANCE)
Although this specific configuration of wire and wood could have come together accidentally when the raw materials in the pot were tipped over, the odds of this occurring by chance seemed highly improbable.
ECHOES OF FAMILIARITY
Randy recognized the garrote because he was familiar with similar weapons he had seen in movies. The weapon in Linda’s apartment echoed the shape of the garrote Peter Clemenza used to kill Carlo Rizzi in The Godfather. Clemenza’s garrote was clearly a designed weapon, and this device at the crime scene was extremely similar.
SOPHISTICATION AND INTRICACY
Randy and Paul recognized the garrote, although relatively simple in its construction, was unexpectedly sophisticated and intricate compared to the materials in the ficus pot. The handles were of a matching, precise length, and each possessed an identical drilled hole at its midpoint to allow for the insertion of the wire. In addition, the wire was threaded and tied on both ends with a specific kind of knot known as a “buntline hitch.”
INFORMATIONAL DEPENDENCY
As we reopened and investigated the case many years later, we identified a suspect and eventually executed a search warrant at his home. We were surprised to find a file containing instructions for several types of homemade weapons, including a garrote and crossbow. Our suspect had used some of these instructions to craft his weapon. When something is directed and created by way of instructional information (as we examined in the last chapter), it’s reasonable to conclude an intelligent agent has designed it.
GOAL DIRECTION (AND INTENTIONALITY)
From the garrote’s configuration, Randy and Paul also inferred its purpose and the intentions of its designer; the construction of the garrote appeared to have been directed with a goal in mind. In many ways, the device was similar to other cutting utensils; comparable tools are used to draw and slice clay (or cheese), for example. But the unusually long length of the garrote wire made it impractical to use in a kitchen or potter’s studio. It was perfectly long enough, however, to wrap around someone’s neck.
NATURAL INEXPLICABILITY (GIVEN LAWS OF PHYSICS OR CHEMISTRY)
The laws of physics and chemistry also seemed to be unlikely candidates to explain the garrote’s assembly. Even if the raw materials (the wire and wood) were available in the pot prior to the commission of the crime, nothing in the laws of chemistry or physics would have necessitated the formation of the garrote. In fact, even some combination of chance and natural law seemed incapable of forming the simple weapon.
EFFICIENCY/IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY
The garrote was efficiently constructed from only three pieces (the wire and two handles), and anything less would not have sufficed. The garrote wire was thin and sharp. If used as a ligature without its handles, the perpetrator would certainly have cut his or her own hands trying to pull with enough pressure to kill Linda. Thicker ligatures can be used without handles, but this device, designed to strangle and sever the victim’s neck, required handles to be effective. In other words, all three pieces were simultaneously required; the wire and wood had to be assembled together in order for the garrote to work. The weapon was irreducibly complex to three pieces, and this kind of irreducible complexity is best explained by intelligent design.
DECISION/CHOICE REFLECTION
Cold-Case Approach:
Randy and Paul were surprised the killer used a garrote (rather than a gun, for example), and years later I also recognized the unusual nature of this weapon. Very few murders are committed with garrotes, other than in mafia gangster movies. Yet our killer chose this specific weapon. Choice is a feature of design and a reflection of intelligent agency. Designers make conscious choices between options. Their designs often reflect these decisions, especially when other options are available.
While any one of these attributes, in isolation, may not convince us of a design inference, the cumulative collection of features makes the inference the garrote was DESIGNED the most reasonable conclusion.
Most of my cases have relied on the cumulative nature of evidential inferences. Evidence is typically divided into two categories: direct and indirect (circumstantial) evidence. Eyewitness statements are direct evidence; everything else typically falls into the indirect category. Had our suspect confessed to the creation of the garrote, he would have provided a compelling piece of direct evidence verifying the design and purpose of the weapon.
Unfortunately, our suspect refused to speak to us. Our design inference related to the garrote was still compelling and reasonable, however, in spite of the lack of direct evidence. The cumulative, indirect (circumstantial) case was powerful because it was built on eight separate lines of evidence considered together. This is the nature of cumulative, circumstantial cases. They are built as collections; the larger the set of evidences pointing to the same conclusion, the more reasonable the inference. (I’ve written much more about this in my book Cold-Case Christianity.)
The presence of the DESIGNED garrote inside the crime scene eventually pointed to a suspect outside the room. Our killer was Linda’s ex-boyfriend, and he was very familiar with her apartment and its proximity to the front house. He chose to build a garrote after considering one or two other devices he thought he could use without making a sound. The killer was concerned about noise and wanted to use a weapon capable of silencing Linda immediately.
While garrotes might appear easy to use in movies, and effective in settings where silence is important, they are not nearly as simple to use in real life. Linda was attacked while she was sleeping, and she awoke before the killer was able to wrap the garrote around her neck. She screamed and struggled violently with the killer before he finally subdued her. As a result of Linda’s struggle, her killer panicked and left the weapon at the scene.
THE CUMULATIVE CASE FOR AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER
While we often infer design intuitively, we typically do so by identifying several of the eight design features I’ve described—whether we’re conscious of the process or not. Every spring, for example, mockingbirds build nests in the tall bougainvillea tree in my front yard. When my wife and I discover a new nest, we immediately distinguish it from the tree, even though the nests are often constructed from bougainvillea branches and leaves. Mockingbird nests display many of the design features we’ve identified. The nests are sophisticated and intricate compared to the branches in which they are perched. The odds the nests could have formed due to chance or natural forces (such as wind, gravity, or some property of physical attraction) seem remote and insufficient.
As we examine the nest more closely, we observe the outer lining is constructed from larger twigs and branches, while the inner lining is much finer, including small scraps of dry leaves and torn cloth. The nest appears to have been created with a goal in mind to hold something fragile. As soon as we see nests, we recognize their shape echoes the shape of bowls designed by other intelligent creatures, and when we examine the position of a nest in a tree, it appears the location is the conscious choice of its designer. It is placed to avoid predators yet allow easy access to the parent birds.
Note that only six of the eight design features seem to be present as we examine the nest, but when these six features are considered cumulatively, they still result in a powerful inference: nests are the product of intelligent design.
This is the nature of cumulative, circumstantial cases: the more evidence you have pointing to the same conclusion, the more reasonable the conclusion.
The Evidence “In the Room”:
THE APPEARANCE OF DESIGN IN BIOLOGICAL ORGANISMS
As unlikely and unexpected as it may be, life exists in our universe, and just as researchers stipulate to the appearance of fine-tuning in the cosmos, scientists also stipulate to the appearance of design in biological organisms. Richard Dawkins would be the first to agree: “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”1
Many other scientists affirm this observation and extend it to include the larger ecosystems in which many symbiotic organisms are dependent on one another for their survival. Smith College professor of biological sciences Robert Dorit said, “The apparent fit between organisms seems to suggest some higher intelligence at work, some supervisory gardener bringing harmony and color to the garden.”2 For scientists looking for an explanation within the “garden” to avoid the inference of an external “supervisory gardener,” this appearance of design is difficult to explain.
Dawkins believes, however, the power of natural evolutionary processes can explain “the illusion of design and planning.”3 If the appearance of design and planning is purely illusory, it is an impressive illusion indeed. The examples of apparent design are plentiful and varied. Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe describes in detail a number of inexplicable biological systems and micro-machines in his groundbreaking book Darwin’s Black Box. Behe challenges the scientific community to explain the appearance of design in cellular cilia (microscopic oar-like filaments), the interconnected molecular processes involved in blood clotting, the specified complexity of cellular protein delivery systems, and more. He also identifies a number of design features similar to those we observed in the garrote.
Behe and other scientists, such as biochemist Fazale Rana, believe the interaction of an intelligent agent “outside the room” of the natural universe is the best explanation for the appearance of design in these microscopic structures and processes “inside the room.” In fact, Rana believes the design inference is reasonable in even the simplest life-forms: “The incredible complex nature of minimal life, likewise, makes it difficult to envision how natural evolutionary processes could have produced even the simplest life-forms.… It is superastronomically improbable for the essential gene set to emerge simultaneously through natural means alone.”4
In even the smallest cellular organisms, dubious probability, echoes of familiarity, sophistication and intricacy, informational dependency, goal direction, natural inexplicability, efficiency/irreducible complexity, and decision/choice reflection are prohibitively difficult to explain on the basis of chance mutations and the laws of physics or chemistry alone. Life at its simplest and most foundational level demonstrates a staggering level of complexity.5
Michael Behe’s numerous biological examples provide an insurmountable challenge to naturalistic theories appealing to causes from “inside the room.” The cumulative design features present in these organisms simply cannot be explained by naturalistic processes. The sheer number of parts required to work together simultaneously for each of these systems to function incline us toward an external explanation: “As the number of required parts increases, the difficulty of gradually putting the system together [through mutations and natural selection] skyrockets, and the likelihood of indirect scenarios plummets.… As the number of systems that are resistant to gradualist explanation mounts, the need for a new kind of explanation grows more apparent.”6
THE ICONIC BACTERIAL FLAGELLUM
One cellular micro-machine remains the iconic “poster child” for an external intelligent cause related to the design we observe in molecular organisms. Some bacteria swim by rotating a long filament in a whiplike fashion. This spinning motor assembly is called a flagellum.
Bacterial flagella are incredibly difficult to explain for scientists who recognize them as a marvel of machinelike precision. Harvard biophysicist Howard Berg has publicly described the bacterial flagellum as “the most efficient machine in the universe.”7
The iconic status of the bacterial flagellum results primarily from the ease with which even casual observers can identify the eight characteristics of design we’ve been describing:
DUBIOUS PROBABILITY (GIVEN CHANCE)
As we examine the complex structure of the flagellum, chance alone seems an unlikely explanation, particularly when over forty separate pieces are required to create this motor. Richard Dawkins acknowledges the improbability of explanations for complex biological structures: “A complicated thing is one whose existence we do not feel inclined to take for granted, because it is too ‘improbable.’ It could not have come into existence in a single act of chance.”8
In recognizing the insufficiency of chance in the appearance of complex biological structures such as the flagellum, Dawkins seeks to account for their existence through a series of smaller—and therefore more likely—random events guided by natural selection alone. But in order for this explanation to be reasonable, the number of unguided steps necessary to arrive at the flagellum is staggeringly unlikely. Undirected material processes, even when assisted by natural selection, cannot achieve the task.9 We’ll see why this is the case when we examine the irreducible complexity of bacterial flagella.
ECHOES OF FAMILIARITY
When my sons were young, they each had a police officer costume. As part of the costume, each had a plastic toy pistol shaped to resemble the old revolvers my dad’s generation of police officers used to carry. They weren’t precisely fashioned, but their shapes certainly echoed the design of real pistols, and my boys used them to effectively re-create a number of imaginary “cop and robber” games. These toy pistols were obviously the product of intelligent design, and even my young sons recognized the pattern similarity when compared to the pistols with which they were familiar (the ones used by their father and grandfather).
In a similar way, the bacterial flagellum we’ve been describing bears a striking resemblance to the rotary motors created by intelligent designers.10
Humans were building rotary engines for generations before we ever discovered the rotary design of flagella. We recognize the form of this rotary engine when we see it in bacteria; the shapes of flagella echo the designed engines we use in tools and vehicles. If our rotary engines are the products of intelligent design, it’s reasonable to infer a designer is responsible for other similarly shaped and constructed machines, even the micro-machines we find in cellular organisms.11
SOPHISTICATION AND INTRICACY
The intricacy and interactive complexity of a flagellum is mind boggling. Over forty different specifically shaped proteins are precisely employed to create the structure of the rotary motor.
The manner in which these proteins are assembled is surprisingly sophisticated. In fact, the discovery of flagella of this nature in the early 1970s was, according to Behe, “a startling, unexpected discovery,” especially given the unusual way the flagellum is powered: “Unlike other systems that generate mechanical motion (muscles for example) the bacterial motor does not directly use energy that is stored in a ‘carrier’ molecule such as ATP. Rather, to move the flagellum it uses the energy generated by a flow of acid through the bacterial membrane. The requirements for a motor based on such a principle are quite complex and are the focus of active research. A number of models for the motor have been suggested; none of them are simple.”12 The flagellum is intricate, sophisticated, and unexpected.
INFORMATIONAL DEPENDENCY
Part of the difficulty involved in describing the intricate, ordered nature of a flagellum, and the intricate, specified, complex cellular organisms in which they are employed, lies in the role information plays in the creation and assembly process. The bacteria’s DNA houses the information used to create and assemble all the pieces necessary to build a flagellum. The instructions for these proteins often reside next to one another in the DNA molecule, like consecutive letters and words in written text. They are grouped in small clusters called operons.
The instructions for bacterial flagella are found in over fourteen distinct operons (categorized as class 1, class 2, and class 3 operons). When a bacterium begins construction of a flagellum, it activates the class 1 operon and the information from this group of genes starts the process of protein formation described earlier. Each successive set of proteins is then created at the direction of the next class of operons. Information is delivered in sequence, instructing the proper, orderly construction of the flagellum.13
A Tool for the Call-Out Bag:
When I was first issued my Glock 21 pistol, it was much easier to clean at the counter in our department’s firing range than alone at home. I was still unfamiliar with the disassembly and reassembly order, but the large diagram the range master posted above the counter at the practice range made the process a lot easier. The information on the poster guided me until I became familiar with the assembly process and committed the poster’s information to memory.
In a similar way, genetic information guides and directs proteins to form the flagellum in a particular order, resulting in a functional, irreducibly complex micro-machine. The informational dependency of flagella is a sure sign of intelligent agency.
GOAL DIRECTION
The design of my Glock 21 reflects more than creativity; it reflects purpose. It doesn’t take much effort to discern the intention and goals of the designer, and even the assembly pathway reflects purpose and goal direction. The individual parts are assembled carefully and sequentially for a specific reason to achieve a specific objective.
When I disassemble the Glock for cleaning, I must do it in a particular order: squeezing the trigger, pulling back the slide slightly, pushing down the take-down levers, removing the slide barrel assembly, pushing and releasing the recoil spring, and finally removing the barrel assembly. After cleaning, the gun must be reassembled in reverse order. The gun’s designer clearly created an assembly pathway allowing for the initial construction of the gun (and I can discover this pathway by trying to successfully deconstruct the pistol). This pathway is intentional and purposeful; it achieves its goal.
In a similar way, the flagellum is also crafted in an intentional, purposeful sequence. The bacterium begins the process by creating the proteins required to form the innermost structures of the flagellum (i.e., the rotor and stator). These are created in the proper sequence, timing, and spacing. The bacterium next produces the proteins required for the drive shaft and bushings. Once all of these specific protein pieces are assembled (forming the basal body), the universal joint and flagellum whip are created and assembled.14 Just as there is a purposeful, goal-directed assembly pathway for the Glock 21, inferring the existence of an intelligent, goal-directed pathway creator, there is also an assembly pathway for the flagellum, inferring a similar explanation.
Several scientists have observed this careful, creative sequencing. Behe described it this way: “Design is positively apprehended in the purposeful arrangement of parts. Looked at this way, irreducible complex systems such as flagella serve both as negative arguments against gradualistic explanations like Darwin’s and as positive arguments for design. The negative argument is that such interactive systems resist explanation by the tiny steps that a Darwinian path would be expected to take. The positive argument is that their parts appear arranged to serve a purpose, which is exactly how we detect design.”15
NATURAL INEXPLICABILITY (GIVEN LAWS OF PHYSICS OR CHEMISTRY)
As improbable as chance is in explaining the origin of the flagellum, natural laws don’t improve the odds of organizing and assembling the many necessary building blocks of the molecular motor. The limited laws of physics and chemistry might explain simpler relationships between molecules, but they fail to account for the complexity and purposeful relationships we see in molecular machines like the flagellum.16
Biochemist and molecular biologist Franklin Harold acknowledged the futility in explanations from natural law: “Here we reach an edge, and are left contemplating the disquieting notion of an orchestra without a conductor.”17 Biological systems and organisms “inside the room” appear to dance to the music of a conductor “outside the room.”
EFFICIENCY/IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY
The natural mechanisms of strict evolutionary processes can’t explain the flagellum for an important reason: these processes can’t account for efficient, irreducibly complex micro-machines. Darwinian evolution requires a gradual and incremental pathway to any finished micro-machine. Like complex structures built from Lego building blocks, sophisticated micro-machines, if assembled through an additive process of natural selection, must come into existence incrementally—“block by block.”
Expert Witness Profile:
Committed as he is to the creative power of natural selection, Dawkins understands the necessity of gradualism and “incrementalism” in explaining the existence of micro-machines (such as the bacterial flagellum): “Evolution is very possibly not, in actual fact, always gradual. But it must be gradual when it is being used to explain the coming into existence of complicated, apparently designed objects, like eyes [or bacterial flagellum]. For if it is not gradual in these cases, it ceases to have any explanatory power at all.”18
Dawkins recognizes the power irreducible complexity has to falsify naturalistic explanations (like any combination of chance, natural law, or natural selection). Even Charles Darwin acknowledged this dilemma when he wrote On the Origin of Species: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”19
The garrote at our murder scene demonstrated design features with just three interdependent pieces. The flagellum has dozens of necessary, interactive, inter-reliant pieces. With just one fewer part, the flagellum fails to operate as the efficient motor needed to provide motility to the bacterium.
The irreducible complexity of this large assemblage of pieces means the finished design of the flagellum must be constructed in one sweeping step; it cannot be assembled over several generations, unless the prior intermediate micro-machines also offer some advantage to the bacterium. If they don’t offer an advantage, and are instead a misshapen liability, or simply an unnecessary addition, natural selection will not favor the presence of the structure within the organism. In other words, natural selection will not “select” the “intermediates” to allow for further additions. Efficient, irreducibly complex structures point most reasonably to an intelligent designer.20
When we were first issued our Glock Model 21 handguns, we knew they were preferred for a number of reasons, including the fact they’re constructed from a smaller number of moving parts than our previous firearms. As a result, they’re much easier to disassemble and clean and far less likely to break down.
Even at a minimum level of complexity (relative to other handguns), the design inferences are obvious. My Glock 21 is irreducibly complex; the removal of just one piece in the overall assembly will not only render the weapon inoperative but may, in fact, make it deadly to operate. The irreducible complexity of the handgun betrays the intelligent design of its creator. No process of chance or natural law (or even natural selection) can account for the Glock 21.
In a similar way, intelligent causation most reasonably accounts for the irreducibly complex nature of the bacterial flagellum, and alternative explanations relying on some evolutionary combination of chance, natural law, or natural selection cannot.21
DECISION/CHOICE REFLECTION
Interestingly, not all cellular organisms are propelled by flagella, and not all flagella are the same. Bacterial flagella are different from archaeal flagella, and eukaryotic flagella are even more dissimilar than the other two groups. In each case, the molecular motors used are specifically tailored and fitted. Each motor appears to be perfectly suited for use in its particular organism, although several other options were clearly possible. The specific use of one kind of motor in a cellular organism, rather than another, is best explained by intelligent selection.22 The specificity of bacterial flagella (and the role of these micro-machines within highly ordered cellular organisms) is prohibitively difficult to explain if it is not the product of an intelligent choice.23
When these eight cumulative design features of the bacterial flagellum are considered in unison, intelligent design is the most reasonable inference:
Staying “Inside the Room” for an Explanation:
CAN WE ACCOUNT FOR THE APPEARANCE OF DESIGN WITHOUT AN EXTERNAL DESIGNER?
How might we explain the appearance of design in biological organisms from “inside the room” of the natural, material universe? The design inference we’ve described in bacterial flagella is strikingly persuasive. Could such molecular motors evolve over time through natural selection, given the laws of physics and chemistry in the universe? Some would say so. But is their explanation supported by the evidence?
COULD MOLECULAR “BORROWING” ACCOUNT FOR THE APPEARANCE OF DESIGN?
Philosopher Philip Kitcher believes the complex flagellum was formed through an evolutionary process by borrowing a less complex type III secretion system (T3SS) within the cell and building from there.24 These small micro-machines are comparable in some ways to bacterial flagella; they share some common proteins and have a similar appearance.
But T3SS share another similarity with bacterial flagella: they are also irreducibly complex. The T3SS requires approximately thirty parts to appear simultaneously before the secretion system will function. In order to borrow the T3SS, we first have to explain how this irreducibly complex system came into existence.
Scientists have no evidence to support the existence of the thirty precursor, intermediate molecular machines necessary to demonstrate how the T3SS evolved (in an additive, Darwinian manner) from nothing to something amazing in its own right. In fact, given the complexity of the T3SS and the difficulty in imagining an evolutionary origin, many scientists now believe the T3SS actually devolved from a bacterial flagellum.
COULD EVOLUTION ACCOUNT FOR THE APPEARANCE OF DESIGN WITHOUT “BORROWING”?
Some researchers, in an attempt to show the power evolution has to cause the appearance of design and the existence of irreducible complexity, have created sophisticated digital computer simulations designed to mimic evolutionary processes. They often claim success in reproducing some of the design features we’ve described.
A Tool for the Call-Out Bag:
But these computer simulation efforts fail for several important reasons. Some programs sidestep the complexity of the problem by choosing to focus on systems that can be more easily explained (i.e., can be constructed from simpler, useful precursors). This fails, however, to explain structures such as bacterial flagella, which have no apparent useful precursors.
Other programmers are careful to control the initial processes and goals so as to assure success. In both instances, the programs were created by intelligent designers who gifted them with the proper foundational information. These research programs typically overstate their achievements, especially related to their ability to create irreducibly complex structures and systems. Many of these simulations produce only trivially complex structures and they are incapable of replicating the functional relationship between biological structures required for an entire system to operate.
Efforts to provide a naturalistic, evolutionary explanation for the features of design we’ve described through molecular borrowing and computer simulations have failed to account for the reasonable appearance of design.
Searching “Outside the Room” for an Explanation:
WHAT KIND OF CAUSE COULD ADEQUATELY ACCOUNT FOR THE APPEARANCE OF DESIGN?
If the search for evolutionary explanations from “inside the room” fails to overcome the strong inference of design in biological structures, are we warranted in looking “outside the room” for an explanation? Some skeptics have offered the following arguments against an external intelligent designer:
WHAT ABOUT DESIGN “IMPERFECTION”?
Expert Witness Profile:
If there were an all-powerful intelligent designer, this designer would be working from scratch and should be capable of creating optimally designed micro-machines and biological structures, right? Skeptical scientists and philosophers have identified what they consider “imperfections” in biological organisms and offer them as evidence against the involvement of an external intelligent agent.25
DNA has been presented as one such example of design imperfection, given the presence of nonfunctional genes (“junk DNA”) within a variety of genomes. According to critics, if a powerful, intelligent creator designed DNA with these nonfunctional “pseudogenes,” the designer was apparently error prone, wasting millions of DNA bases.26
But examples of alleged biological imperfections fail to negate the reasonable existence of a designer. Recent research now reveals “junk DNA” isn’t actually junk at all. Some sequences in “junk DNA” have now been identified as genetic “switches,” determining where and when genes get expressed. The more we study DNA, the more we realize the value of these pseudogenes. Many claims of design imperfection are simply the result of our current scientific ignorance.
Even if we did find a “less than perfect” feature in an organism, why would this negate the existence of a designer? What we see today, when examining the design of biological organisms, shouldn’t be mistaken for the original designs. Organisms, like everything else in our universe, decay over time and adapt to the harsh impact of environmental forces. The appearance of imperfection may simply be the result of entropy, or change over time.
Finally, how would we know what’s “less than perfect” in the first place? The process of design is a continuous act of compromise. Designers must repeatedly concede some “micro” aspect of their creation to achieve a “macro” goal. Unless we have access to the mind of the designer and understand his or her overarching purposes completely, we’re likely to misinterpret why certain forms or strategies were employed along the way. The appearance of design imperfection is often simply a matter of limited perspective on our part.
WHAT ABOUT “VESTIGIAL” STRUCTURES AND ORGANS?
Some features of biological organisms seem useless and unnecessary. One such example (offered by skeptics of an external intelligent designer) is the human appendix. This seemingly needless organ is often described as an evolutionary remnant in human biology: a “vestigial” (or “holdover”) organ.
Are vestigial organs and structures definitive evidence against the existence of an intelligent designer? No. As with “junk DNA,” researchers who once thought the appendix was a “junk organ” have come to think otherwise. The role the appendix plays in the human immune and regulatory systems is better understood with every passing year. Like claims related to design imperfection, claims related to vestigial organs may actually be the result of our current scientific ignorance. Even if someone were to correctly identify an organ or structure as vestigial, this would not eliminate the reasonable existence of a designer.
Years after the murder of Linda Seymour, I retrieved all the evidence from our property room and found that many pieces of evidence had changed, including the garrote. It now possessed a kink (or bend) midway down the length of the wire. At first I wondered if this bend was part of the original design. But I eventually realized it was not part of the original design but was instead the result of the way the original officers had packaged the garrote in a small envelope. The appearance of the “vestigial” bend did not, however, negate the design inference. Like design imperfections, vestigial structures may simply be the result of entropy.
IS OUR INTELLIGENT DESIGNER JUST A “GOD OF THE GAPS”?
Many skeptics believe intelligent-design inferences are premature and impulsive, driven primarily by those who are impatient with the explanatory power of science. As our scientific understanding has increased in the past two centuries, much of what was once a mystery is now a matter of scientific knowledge.27 Are we simply inserting an external intelligent designer because we presently have a gap in our scientific understanding? Are we defaulting irrationally to a “God of the gaps”?
THE DESIGN INFERENCE IS BASED ON WHAT WE DO KNOW, RATHER THAN WHAT WE DON’T KNOW
When detectives enter a crime scene, they collect evidence and begin to search for reasonable explanations. When Ed Timmons and Randy Campbell first observed the garrote, they intuitively recognized evidence of the eight design characteristics we’ve described in this chapter. Given the evidence of these features, an external intelligent designer was the best and most reasonable inference. They didn’t jump to this conclusion on the basis of what they didn’t know; they concluded this on the basis of what they did know about the nature of designed objects. In a similar way, intelligent design in biological systems is inferred positively from the evidence of design we’ve defined.28
A Tool for the Call-Out Bag:
BASED ON WHAT WE DO KNOW, SCIENCE HAS THE GREATER BURDEN OF PROOF
If a detective arrived at the scene of Linda’s murder and told Ed and Randy to ignore the garrote’s obvious design features, the officers would have collected the weapon in spite of the detective’s decree. Both would have considered the detective to be badly mistaken unless he could tell them why this object was not the designed weapon they believed it to be.
When we observe an object possessing the design features we’ve described, the reasonable default position ought to be a design inference (we don’t even need all eight features to be present to infer design). Any other explanation attempting to account for these features without the involvement of a designer ought to require a robust evidential argument to dissuade us from our reasonable inference. If a detective wanted Ed and Randy to ignore the design inference, the burden of proof would have been the detective’s to shoulder.
In a similar way, the burden of proof for those who deny the reasonable design inferences in biology lies with those trying to stay “inside the room.” Scientists and researchers who deny innate, obvious characteristics of design must provide reasonable and compelling alternative explanations. For many who reject the existence of an external intelligent designer, the broad, naturalistic theory of evolution has become the catchall assumption and explanation for all inexplicable phenomena.29
Those determined to deny the existence of an external intelligent designer often default to evolutionary explanations even when they are inadequate. As philosopher of science John Lennox observed, “It is therefore clear how an evolution of the gaps could be just as metaphysically motivated for an incautious atheist as a God of the Gaps could be for an incautious theist.”30
“Inside the Room” or “Outside the Room”?
WHEN IT COMES TO BIOLOGICAL ORGANISMS, THE DESIGN IS IN THE DETAILS
We’ve examined the cumulative, circumstantial case for design in biological systems. We restricted our inferences to the most reasonable explanations from the evidence as we carefully gathered the facts. We also recognized the burden of proof lies with anyone who would deny the reasonable inference of design, given the cumulative case we’ve assembled.
While the presence of any one of the design characteristics we observed in biological systems may not be entirely persuasive, the cumulative appearance of many features results in a strong and reasonable inference of an external intelligent designer. Efforts to account for the “appearance” of design from natural forces “inside the room” are insufficient. The presence of design in biological systems once again points us to an intelligent, purposeful cause “outside the room.”
When detectives concluded the garrote was best explained by an external designer, they began to look for the suspect who matched the characteristics they observed in the weapon. As it turned out, it would be more than three decades before the suspect was eventually arrested. He had extensive experience as a sailor and was very familiar with the knots used by those who sail. His knowledge was reflected in his use of the buntline-hitch sailing knots we observed on the garrote.
Designs often tell us something about their designers, and this murder weapon was no exception. Our cold-case team arrested Linda Seymour’s killer: the garrote’s intelligent designer. We convicted him nearly thirty-five years after the murder. The case drew the attention of national media, and our suspect was sentenced to twenty-five years to life.
Our Emerging “Suspect” Profile:
When we observe the cumulative, circumstantial case for design in biological systems, it’s reasonable to infer an intelligent designer, and this designer has demonstrated a degree of ingenuity and creativity unparalleled by human standards.31
The evidence of design in biology provides even more information about the external cause of the universe. Our suspect is powerful, intelligent, and creative. What kind of external suspect could fit our growing list of characteristics? As we are about to see, the best explanation for the creative cause of the universe is a mind.