Science Implicitly Recognizes Design, Not Chance


Science Implicitly Recognizes Design, Not Chance
by Michael Fishwick

Evolutionism teaches its followers that blind chance underlies the developmental mechanisms of the structural components of life. Although many scientists may pay unthinking lip service to this philosophical assumption, practical reality dictates that scientific research operates upon the acknowledgement of design. The very fact that scientific disciplines such as physics, chemistry and biology have identified certain laws that govern the way in which the natural world operates, testify to an ordered and hierarchically orientated Creation. Chance does not create order; it results in chaos.

Advances in molecular biology have shown that even the simplest cells are wonders of complexity, far more advanced in design and interactive capacity than anything that we can imagine. Perhaps even more telling is the fact that our understanding of the design and operating-procedures of these molecular components hardly scratches the surface. (A short video animation, endorsed by Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, can be viewed online at:)

It is now becoming more generally acknowledged, for instance, that what was recently discarded as being “junk” DNA is in fact likely to play a crucial role in cell biology. A paper published in the U.S. based ‘Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences’ journal relates that, by using information technology, a study conducted by scientists at IBM’s (International Business Machines) research center, found patterns not only in those areas of the genome that are known to code for proteins, but also in so-called “junk” areas. Although the identified patterns will have to be investigated biologically, it should be noted that the mathematical tool used to discover this information is yet another example of the use of design in science, in order to discover design. In other words, scientists implicitly rely on design in their everyday work. Chance does not come into the equation.

The leader of the research team at the Thomas J.Watson Research Center, Dr. Isidore Rigoutsos, said that his team’s study suggested, “a connection between a vast area of the genome we didn’t think was functional with the part of the genome we knew was functional.” He added, “These regions may indeed contain structure that we haven’t seen before” and went on to conclude that, “If indeed one of them corresponds to an active element that is involved in some kind of process, then the extent of cell process regulation that actually takes place is way beyond anything we have seen in the last decade.”

In the 1998 edition of his book ‘Not By Chance’, Dr. Lee Spetner calculated the hypothetical role of chance in speciation. The book was endorsed by, amongst others, a Nobel Laureate biologist, Professor Christian B. Anfinsen, who described it as “extremely thorough and compelling”. The calculation was made giving evolutionary theory the benefit of unproven assumptions such as the increase of previously unknown genetic information through mutation. Dr. Spetner concludes that:

From the maze I’ve just described, you can see there’s a lot of freedom in how the population goes through it. At every node there’s supposed to be a random choice among the million ways to go. If the choices are really random, then the chance of the same trait evolving twice is so small that we should have to call it impossible. To get convergence, two lines of descent would have to make the same random choices at each of the 500 nodes they meet so that they come out at the same place. The odds against the population taking exactly the same path twice is 103,000 to one….So let’s say that, in a convergent transition to a new species, not all of the 500 choices had to be the same. If only 100 of them had to be the same, the odds against it would be 10600 to one. Those odds are still enormously greater than the odds against the event we call impossible. And don’t forget, I’m dealing here only with the transition from one species to the next. No evolutionist would try to say a complicated organ, like a wing or a kidney – to say nothing of the eye – developed in a single species transition. For the evolution of a complex organ we would have to allow many thousands of steps.

To get some idea of the huge numbers involved in this calculation we should understand that there are estimated to be 1080 atoms in the entire universe. 1080 is a number one with eighty noughts following it. (Try writing this number on a piece of paper!) In regard to chance, mathematicians and statisticians consider that an event is absolutely impossible if the chance is greater than one chance in 1045.

That many scientists, in reality, either ignore the claims of evolution, have not pondered upon its contradictions or perhaps recognize that it plays no part in their everyday work, can easily be seen in a great number of scientific papers, reports and research objectives. It is very common to see researchers refer to design in nature, thus contradicting the outlook and propaganda of the evolutionary elite. A growing number of scientists, particularly those involved in technological research and design, realize, and are beginning to state, that what we see in nature is perfectly designed for fulfilling its particular function. In a recent story from Science News online, Joanna Aizenberg, a researcher with Bell Laboratories, NJ, is quoted, after studying the structure of a deep sea sponge in regard to its strength, as saying: “I would now say it’s the most perfect design I have ever seen.”

This scenario is reflected in a host of other stories that have been in the news in recent months. By studying nature scientists are hoping to be able to make use of incredibly perfect and wonderful designs in order to themselves design, or to improve the function of, technological appliances. These could potentially benefit many areas of social and civil life ranging from medicine to engineering to scientific study itself.

Such innovative ideas in a culture saturated with the idea of macro evolution can only be a welcome sign of a much needed paradigm shift. From realizing the fact of design in nature, it doesn’t take a great intellectual leap to realize that design must have a Designer. We must understand, of course, that this is not good enough in itself. Catholics are called upon to be Carthusians at home, apostles abroad. In other words we must pray, study and then evangelize. For did Our Blessed Lord not say that: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.”?