During the past few decades some eminent atheists have openly modified their views. Anthony Flew, after promoting atheism in some of England’s finest universities, announced There Is A God, admitting he was now a deist. Thomas Nagel, one of America’s most esteemed philosophers, still holds to his atheist faith but acknowledges the naturalistic evolution he espoused cannot adequately explain human consciousness or the intricate design of the cosmos. Both men note the influence of scholars making the case for “intelligent design” in forcing them to reevaluate their views. Both are questioning their atheistic assumption that the material world is all there is. Perhaps, as St. Paul thought, “the invisible things” of God are “clearly seen” in the world He made. During the past three decades this position has been advanced by a corps of scholars insisting there is an “intelligent design” evident throughout creation. Notable in advancing this position was Philip E. Johnson, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley. A Harvard Law graduate who had clerked for Chief Justice Earl Warren, his analysis of Darwinism led him to think it was essentially a philosophical theory lacking credible evidence and logic. So he published Darwin on Trial (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press, c. 1991). His treatise elicited considerable discussion, and Johnson used his formidable rhetorical skills to debate a variety of atheistic evolutionists. Soon thereafter he published Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law & Education (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press, c. 1995), asking: “Is God the true Creator of everything that exists, or is God a product of the human imagination, real only in the minds of those who believe” (p. 7). At stake is the question of Ultimate Truth, the Being of God, and of our ability to know Him and the realities He created—beings—which exist independently of ourselves.
Johnson thought we need “a qualified opposition party that is willing and able to challenge the established religious philosophy itself, the metaphysical naturalism that is so successfully promoted in the name of science” (p. 96). He enlisted in this party and served very much as a paratrooper—a battle-scarred commando working behind enemy lines, preparing the way for a coming corps of dissidents, willing to assail the bunkers and dismantle the reigning orthodoxies of naturalistic evolution. He declared that the presuppositions of naturalistic science make sense only if there’s no God. But if God really IS, as Johnson holds, the metaphysical assumptions undergirding monistic materialism (i.e. Darwinism) cannot stand. If God really IS and created all that is, “the living world is the product of an intelligent and purposeful Creator rather than merely a combination of chance events and impersonal natural laws” (p. 74). Conversely, those who eliminate God from the cosmos allow only random events in an iron-clad impersonal universe—“chance and necessity.” This position Johnson calls the “blind watchmaker thesis,” using the title of biologist Richard Dawkins’ work whose subtitle declares that “the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design.” Though admitting that much in our marvelous world seems to be as well-designed as a great cathedral—that a single cell has more data “than all the volumes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica put together”—Dawkins adamantly insisted such “design” is purely an illusion and everything can be explained by “natural selection.”
To call into question such reductionistic declarations, Johnson argued the evidence (i.e. fossils and genetics) suggests design. Perhaps the marvels of nature Dawkins admits appear to be designed are in fact, designed! Christian scholars especially, Johnson says, need the courage to live in truth, “to assert that God is real and that the evidence reflects the truth that nature was created by God” (p. 202). He found it thoroughly mystifying that “Christian” scholars, whether scientists or theologians, seemingly feared to challenge Darwinian pieties when they should be among their most vigorous and articulate critics.
In fact: “Christianity makes sense only if its factual premises are true and if it is providing meaningful answers to questions that people ought to be asking. The essential factual premise is that God created us for a purpose, and our destiny is a glorious one in eternity” (p. 204).
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
In 2004, the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, a scholarly journal housed at the Smithsonian Institution, published a peer-reviewed article by Stephen Meyer. advocating intelligent design. Angry scientists, alarmed at the article’s deviation from the party line, demanded the journal’s editor be censured for allowing such heresy to gain traction. In due course, he was demoted and assigned to another position within the institution. In time his career was ruined and he was ostracized from the inner ring of biologists. Such is the opposition that meets any scholar who dares study biology with anything less than a philosophical commitment to monistic materialism—a stance nicely illustrated in Francis Crick’s admonition that biologists, while marveling at the mystery of DNA, must “‘constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved’” (p. 12). .
Nevertheless, the article’s author, Stephen Meyer, persevered in his studies and amplified his case for intelligent design in Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, c. 2009). Meyer received his Ph.D. from the University of Cambridge in the philosophy of science and this book, he said, “attempts to make a comprehensive, interdisciplinary argument for a new view of the origin of life. It makes ‘one long argument’ for the theory of intelligent design” (p. 8). Consequently it was, said Steve Fuller “at once a philosophical history of how information has come to be central to cutting-edge research in biology today and one man’s intellectual journey to the conclusion that intelligent design and provides the explanation for that fact.” Meyer primarily focused on the reality of non-material information within the biological world. Just as you can load “information” into a computer without adding any weight to its material components, so too information (evident in the DNA) has been programmed into all that lives. Consequently, evolutionary biologists, though deeply committed to reductionistic materialism, cannot avoid using teleological language that refers to intentionality and purpose when describing what they behold. Overtly denying design, they cannot find words that fail to imply it!
As a young scientist, Meyer himself became enamored with the mystery of life while attending a conference that addressed “three big scientific questions—the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and the nature of human consciousness” (p. 24). One of the speakers was “Charles Thaxton, the chemist who with his coauthors had proposed the controversial idea about an intelligence playing a role in the origin of biological information” (p. 28). Intellectually challenged, Meyer decided to pursue his interests in one of the world’s elite research universities (Cambridge) and discern the degree to which information, not mindless matter-in-motion, best explains life’s mysterious origins. Something rational must supply the rationality, the information so evident in all that lives. Most great scientists in the history of science—giants such as Kepler and Newton—saw divine design everywhere in the world they studied. They did so because they inferred the makings of history from its results—employing what Charles Sanders Peirce would label “abduction.” For example, none of us has seen Abraham Lincoln, but we cannot, as historians, explain the Civil War without affirming his existence and activities. So too cosmologists now embrace the Big Bang as the best explanation of the origin of the universe, remarkably unlike the “steady state” theories that long dominated the field.
Everywhere it seems evident that intelligent agents—and only intelligent agents—are responsible for specified information. To explain (using abductive reason) all the information in living organisms, it simply makes sense to posit the possibility of an Intelligent Agent as its source. Mathematical calculations render the possibility of chance (random material events) creating life nearly preposterous. We’re faced with the fact, as G.K. Chesterton said a century ago, that: “Evolution as explanation, as an ultimate philosophy of the cause of living things, is still faced with the problem of producing rabbits out of an empty hat; a process commonly involving some hint of Design.” After carefully explaining (and rejecting) various naturalistic hypotheses, Meyer declares that since “evidence for the causal adequacy of intelligence is all around us both inside and outside the lab” (p. 340) it makes sense to attribute the vera causa of life to intelligent design. “Experience shows that large amounts of specified complexity or information (especially codes and languages) invariably originate from an intelligent source—from a mind or a personal agent” (p. 343).
Meyer meticulously considered a multitude of issues in 500 pages, adding another 50 pages of endnotes and 30 pages of bibliographical references to scholarly literature. “In Signature in the Cell,” says Scott Turner, a SUNY professor of environmental and forest biology, “Stephen C. Meyer gives us a fascinating exploration of the case for intelligent design theory, woven skillfully around a compelling account of Meyer’s own journey.”
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
During the past two decades the dramatic increase of Americans self-identifying as “Nones” (having no religious faith) has concerned thoughtful Christians. Particularly among the young, it seems, many are disinterested and even hostile to the Christian tradition. Asked by pollsters to explain their stance, they often say “science” (especially the chemical evolution of life and the biological evolution of species) had disproved it. Concerned by this development, Stephen Meyer wrote Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries that Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe (New York: HarperOne, Kindle Edition, c. 2021) to show why their position is certainly questionable and probably untenable. Meyer currently works with the Discovery Institute in Seattle, WA. In his earlier scholarly works he “argued that certain features of living systems—in particular, the digitally encoded information present in DNA and the complex circuitry and information-processing systems at work in living cells—are best explained by the activity of an actual designing intelligence. Just as the inscriptions on the Rosetta Stone point to the activity of an ancient scribe and the software in a computer program points to a programmer, I’ve argued that the digital code discovered within the DNA molecule suggests the activity of a designing mind in the origin of life,” though he refrained from making philosophical claims concerning the existence of God.
In his recent treatise, however, he makes such claims, challenging entrenched scientific dogmas that shape the worldview of millions of people. He begins by acknowledging that today’s scientific worldview is deeply materialistic, asserting that “matter, energy, and/or the laws of physics are the entities from which everything else came and that those entities have existed from eternity past as the uncreated foundation of all that exists. Matter, energy, and physical laws are, therefore, viewed by materialists as self-existent.” Without any mental qualities, these entities have randomly assembled themselves into all that exists. So there cannot be immaterial realities such as God or the human soul. Varieties of materialism have been propounded for thousands of years by ancient Greeks such as Democritus as well as makers of modernity such as Thomas Hobbes, Charles Darwin, and Francis Crick. The materialistic position was succinctly summed up by astronomer Carl Sagan: “The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.” On the contrary, Meyer seeks to demonstrate that: “The properties of the universe and of life—specifically as they pertain to understanding their origins—are just ‘what we should expect’ if a transcendent and purposive intelligence has acted in the history of life and the cosmos. Such an intelligence coincides with what human beings have called God, and so I call this story of reversal the return of the God hypothesis” (p. 19). This “hypothesis” was basic to the development of modern science, as is evident in the works of Copernicus, Robert Boyle and Isaac Newton. In short: Meyer’s views are thoroughly in accord with the West’s greatest scientists.
In the 19th century, however, the “theistic science” of Newton et al. was edged aside by the “scientific materialism” now dominating the West. Yet, amazingly, as the 21st century begins, some of the guiding assumptions of materialism seem to be crumbling. By definition, materialism assumes the eternality of the material world—in one mode or another matter has existed and simply circulated from one thing to another, and no Creator is needed to explain it. However, sophisticated discoveries by astronomers such as Edwin Hubble led to an avalanche of evidence regarding an expanding universe which pointed to an initial, explosive moment of creation, popularly known as the “big bang.” (This is the first of Meyer’s three scientific discoveries justifying the return of the God hypothesis.) One of Hubble’s gifted associates, Alan Sandage, an agnostic for much of his life, found the evidence so persuasive that he ultimately changed his mind. Speaking at a meeting in 1985, “he not only described the astronomical evidence for the beginning of the universe; he shocked many of his colleagues by announcing a recent religious conversion and then explaining how the scientific evidence of a ‘creation event’ had contributed to a profound change in his worldview. I recall his looking intently at the audience and gravely stating, ‘Here is evidence for what can only be described as a supernatural event. There is no way that this could have been predicted within the realm of physics as we know it.’ As he spoke, he paused between the words ‘super’ and ‘natural,’ saying them separately for emphasis. He went on to explain that ‘science, until recently, has concerned itself not with primary causes, but secondary causes. What has happened in the last fifty years is a remarkable event within astronomy and astrophysics. By looking up at the sky, some astronomers have come to the belief that there is evidence for a ‘creation event’” (p. 172). What Sandage and contemporary cosmologists recognize as a point of “singularity” indicates the physical universe came into being from nothing physical! It was, as Christian theologians have always declared: “creatio ex nihilo—‘creation out of nothing’ (nothing physical, that is)” (p. 186).
The second scientific discovery Meyer discusses is often called the “Goldilocks Universe.” From every angle of investigation, the universe seems amazingly fine-tuned. Four fundamental forces underlie all that is: gravity; electromagnetism; the strong nuclear force; the weak nuclear force. The slightest difference in any one of these forces would have made the formation of the universe impossible. Essential chemicals, most especially carbon, need to be precisely what they are in order for anything to be. Physicist Fred “Hoyle was stunned by these and other ‘cosmic coincidences’ that physicists began to discover after the 1950s. Whereas before he affirmed atheism and denied any evidence of design, he began to see fine tuning as obvious evidence of intelligent design. As he put it in 1981, ‘A common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question’” (p. 218).
The third scientific discovery Meyer explores is the “origin of life and the DNA enigma.” Monistic materialists, such as Richard Dawkins, tenaciously upheld the dogma that biology is “‘the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose’” (p. 257).” But the more we know of living things the more it seems they have been meticulously designed by an all-knowing Mind. The notion that “chance and necessity” would bring living creatures into being appears less and less possible. Thus “Nobel laureate Christian de Duve, a leading origin-of-life biochemist until his death in 2013, categorically rejected the chance hypothesis precisely because he judged the necessary fortuitous convergence of events implausible in the extreme. As he put it, ‘A single, freak, highly improbable event can conceivably happen. Many highly improbable events—drawing a winning lottery number or the distribution of playing cards in a hand of bridge—happen all the time. But a string of improbable events—drawing the same lottery number twice or the same bridge hand twice in a row—does not happen naturally’” (p. 273). Nor, says Meyer, could life on earth have happened naturally! Furthermore, since the discovery of DNA every materialistic explanation of the information indwelling and shaping biological cells has failed.
Beyond calling into question the materialistic position on the origin-of-life, Meyer argues Intelligent Design properly explains it. The creative action of a conscious and intelligent agent clearly represents a known and adequate cause (one ‘now in operation’) for the origin of specified information. Uniform and repeated experience affirms that intelligent agents can produce large amounts of functional or specified information, whether in software programs, ancient inscriptions, or Shakespearean sonnets. The specified information in the cell also points to intelligent design not just as an adequate explanation, but as the best explanation. Why? Experience shows that large amounts of specified information invariably originate from an intelligent source. This is particularly apparent when the information is expressed in a digital or alphabetic form. A computer user who traces the information on a screen back to its source invariably comes to a mind, that of a software engineer. Similarly, the information in a book or newspaper article ultimately derives from a writer—from a mental, rather than a strictly material, cause” (p. 288).
In his final chapters, Meyer shows how the these scientific discoveries justify believing the “God hypothesis.” An Intelligent Being could bring into being all that is, design it meticulously, and create living creatures on planet earth. The rational process of abduction—inference to the best explanation—makes such belief highly reasonable and persuasive. Reflecting on his research at Cambridge University, especially devoted to one of its most illustrations professors, Sir Isaac Newton, he thought about “how thinking about science and God had changed since the publication of Newton’s great Principia in 1687, almost exactly three centuries earlier. In the epilogue to a later edition of that book called ‘The General Scholium’ and in other scientific works, notably the Opticks, Newton articulated a profoundly theological perspective. Not only did he extol the order and uniformity of nature as a reflection of God’s character and superintending care of creation; he argued for the existence of God based on the design evident in nature—in short, for a God hypothesis” (p. 593). Newton “also understood that the most fundamental laws of nature either merely describe the observed regularities in nature or they manifest the ‘constant Spirit action’ of a ‘Divine Sustainer’ of the world. He did not think the laws of physics alone explained the origin of the solar system or, still less, the origin of the universe” (p. 596). Consequently: “For Newton, nature not only provided evidential support for belief in God, but his God hypothesis functioned as a hugely productive science starter. There is no reason to think that updating that hypothesis will threaten scientific advance today. On the contrary, there is good reason to expect that it will inspire deeper interest in discovering more about the intricacy, order, and design of the universe, just as it did for Newton himself” (p. 622).
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Just recently I’ve become acquainted with the works of an Oxford mathematician, John Lennox. He has had a remarkable life, helping spread the Gospel throughout the world. Through many lectures, podcasts and books he has attracted many followers, and he openly identifies with the Intelligent Design corps of scholars, as is evident in Cosmic Chemistry: Do God and Science Mis? and his autobiography, My Life. Christians concerned with rightly reading both Scripture and Creation will find in Lennox a first rate thinker with an engaging approach to our world.