In this blog post, we will compare the perspectives of evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory on the origin of human existence and consider whether we are a product of chance or a being created on purpose.
The question of where everything in the universe began has emerged as a result of efforts throughout human history to find answers in various ways. Historically, until a certain point in time, people in each culture often sought answers to the question of where they came from in the world through various stories of creation, in which beings with supernatural powers beyond human imagination were said to have created the world. However, in 1859, a groundbreaking theory was presented that explained how the world came to be the way it is today without the need for such transcendent beings, and was accepted as scientific. Charles Darwin, a naturalist, presented a system that attempted to explain the philosophical questions that all humans must have thought about at least once through his book “On the Origin of Species” using only what is visible. As a result, the two opposing claims of “evolution” and “creation” have formed the framework of discussion on the question of where the world began and how it came to be as it is today.
In fact, no matter where a person comes from, there is no major obstacle to living in the world. Even if you don’t know about it, there is no major problem in leading a visible life. However, in a world where there are numerous values and conflicts caused by them, it is difficult to find the center of how to live in the world without thinking about where you come from and why you exist. In this article, I would like to discuss the origin of all things in the universe, where humans came from, and how we should live in the world. First, let’s take a look at the content of the “evolutionary theory,” one of the two opposing views.
The “evolutionary theory” consists of three main propositions. First, species are not constant. Biological species can evolve over time to produce a new species with a different appearance. Second, this evolutionary process can explain almost all living organisms. It is explained that the origin of the numerous and diverse living species that currently exist can be traced back to almost one single point. Third, this huge process is caused by “natural selection.” Let’s take a look at natural selection.
A typical example is the observation of industrial melanization of the pepper moth during the British Industrial Revolution. As most trees turned black due to industrial smoke, brightly colored moths were often eaten by birds, and black-colored moths became more advantageous for survival. In other words, individuals with genes that are advantageous for survival survive, increasing their numbers and thriving, while those with genes that are not so advantageous for survival decline. This is another example of natural selection, in which bacteria with genes that are resistant to the drugs we commonly know survive.
In other words, natural selection is the survival of individuals with genetic traits that are advantageous for survival in a particular environment, and that is a change. In the end, what the theory of evolution is trying to say is that the changes made through natural selection have accumulated to create the diversity of species. At first glance, it seems like a natural process and there is nothing wrong with it. In fact, genetic variation is a phenomenon that has been scientifically observed and proven. However, the question is whether it can explain the emergence of new species. The example of the pepper moth was given, but that was also a mutation within a single species. The best way for a moth to escape its natural enemy relationship with birds is to become larger and have physical defenses such as claws to compete with birds. If mutations had occurred within the species of moths in that direction, and if the individuals that were advantageous for survival had survived while the others had declined, the species of moths itself should have disappeared and a large species of flying creatures that could compete with birds should have remained.
When there are limits to explaining species change in this way, what evolutionists are newly explaining is that the variations we can observe occur in a short period of time, so there are no major changes on the surface. It is possible to accumulate gradual changes and cause the emergence of new species if there is enough time. However, if gradual changes occur and organisms change over a long period of time, there must be or have been intermediate forms between all species. And if a new species emerges through gradual changes, the intermediate stages must be made up of a number of successive stages, not just one. However, the theory of evolution cannot provide a model of the evolutionary process of any living organism.
The explanation that the complexity and sophistication of biological entities were formed by natural laws, such as the laws of physics that apply to simple particles like electrons and protons, rather than by a designer with a will, has such limitations. And the theory of evolution can only explain the flow after the birth of life. The previous explanation of how the first living organism appeared cannot explain how the universe was created and how time began in the past. Now, let’s see how the opposing side, “creationism,” especially “intelligent design,” explains this.
According to Richard Dawkins, the 19th-century theologian William Paley made the following claim in his essay “Natural Theology.”
Imagine walking through a field and stepping on a stone. Then imagine wondering how that stone got there. Contrary to what I know, I would say that it has always been there. And it would not be easy to prove the absurdity of this answer. But let’s say you found a ‘clock’ instead of a stone. And if you had to answer how it got there, you would hardly be able to come up with the same answer you gave earlier, that is, the answer that you don’t know very well but that the clock has always been there.
In other words, it is impossible to imagine that a complex and sophisticated object like a “clock” is naturally created through a random process and is lying on the ground. Continuing, Feeley writes the following.
A clock must have a maker. In other words, there must be one or more makers in a certain era and place. He made it on purpose. He knows how to make a watch and designed it for its intended use. The evidence of the design that exists in the watch, all the evidence that it was designed, exists in the works of nature as well. The difference, however, is that the works of nature are far more complex, beyond imagination.
No organism can be created by the power of science and technology in the same way as a component is assembled. It is even more difficult to create by accident. This is because organisms are so complex and sophisticated. We have not yet fully understood how the human body interacts with each other. Even a sophisticated organism like the human body cannot be created by accident, and must have a designer.
Then let’s see if the existence of this designer can explain the origin of the universe (before the origin of life), which Darwin’s theory could not explain.
If there is a designer who created a universe that operates according to certain natural laws, some may ask where the designer came from. Even if we concede that there is a designer who created the designer, there must be a starting point in this designer’s genealogy. If time has no beginning or end, it becomes infinite, and the points between the flow of time become undefined points. This can be understood by examining the concept of infinity in more detail.
When we think of the concept of “infinity,” we think of something so large that we cannot easily define its size. We simply think of something incredibly large. However, we cannot actually imagine infinity. As a simple example, we know that the vertical line does not end in the virtual world, but no matter how far we walk on the vertical line, we cannot find the number “infinity.” This is because the number is finite at any point. As such, we cannot imagine “actual infinity.” Some may argue that since the vertical line is infinite at both ends, there is no beginning or end, but since there are clearly defined points in between, we can reach a point with a finite value even if there is no beginning or end. However, such claims do not take into account the directionality of the vertical line. We imagine that the value is determined because we write numbers at regular intervals on the vertical line, but if we erase all the numbers and consider an infinite line with only two ends, we cannot know whether a point in the middle divides the line into 1/2 or 1/3. This is because the length is infinite. The vertical line with numbers that we usually think of is just a line with numbers that we arbitrarily assign the value zero to any point and write the number on it, so it cannot be an example of actual infinity. In other words, any point between the two ends of the line with infinite ends cannot define an absolute position, not a relative position.
The reason why time cannot be actually infinite is because we have reached this moment. If time has no beginning and is infinite, this moment is an unreachable moment. This is because no matter how far back we go in time, we cannot find the beginning. Therefore, if time has no beginning, this moment cannot be reached, and the very existence of this moment is proof that time does have a beginning. If we can keep going back to the designer of the designer, the designer of the designer, that is, if there is no first designer to reach, it means that time is infinite, which contradicts the above explanation. Therefore, due to the finiteness of time, there must be a first designer who can transcend time and cause its beginning. This designer is what we can call the Absolute, the God.
So far, I have presented three main points: the blind spots of the theory of evolution, intelligent design, and the designer who created the world through the concept of infinity, and the existence of the absolute. Of course, these points only support the existence of the absolute. I would like to say that the existence of the Absolute does not mean that the operation of the universe is in a state of disorder where it can be controlled at will by a single being. Rather, it means that there is a unique and orderly principle of the operation of the universe and a clear truth that penetrates all things in the world, and it can present a moral standard that is consistent with people’s thoughts and actions. At the very least, it allows us to make an effort to free ourselves from the confusing and cowardly behavior of rationalizing by applying a yardstick that is favorable to ourselves in each situation. This kind of thinking, which starts with acknowledging the limitations of human beings, will allow us to treat the world with a little more prudence and caution.
