G.K. Chesterton is recorded as saying that people who do not believe in God will believe in anything. Since the theory of evolution became the accepted explana­tion in the West for the origin of life, many people have uncritically latched on to it as a basis for not believing in the God of the Bible.

Much has been written about biologi­cal evolution in recent years. However, a shift in scientific opinion is starting to emerge. Evolution has now become a the­ory under attack as the molecular biolo­gist, Michael Denton, has recently pointed out in his landmark book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Adler & Adler, 1986). While biologists are still grappling with the possibility of “macro-evolution”, that is, large-scale evo­lution occurring over geologic time that is said to result in the formation of new species or taxonomic groups, Denton is right to point out that more attention needs to be paid to what has been termed “chemical evolution”, which is a term that expresses what evolutionists believe con­cerning the origins of life. We must not tacitly assume that life just evolved ran­domly from simple chemicals (biogene­sis) via the formation of complex mole­cules capable of reproducing themselves. In fact, what we now know about chem­istry does not support this theory.

Let’s go back to 1953 when Stanley Miller of the University of Chicago reported the sensational claim that he had taken the first step towards creating life in a test tube. Miller mixed some simple gases together in a glass vessel and then passed a powerful electrical charge through it. This produced some small amounts of amino acids which are the chemical building blocks of life. Miller believed that his experiments actually reproduced the “primordial” or “prebi­otic” soups of chemicals that existed at the dawn of time on earth. He further believed that he had demonstrated the mechanism for the formation of life.

The interesting development that is taking place today is that Miller’s original interpretation of those early experiments is now being downplayed by evolutionists in view of the better understanding we have gained into molecular biology. What has led to this about-face?

To discover why evolutionary biolo­gists are in retreat on this issue we need to understand some basic facts about amino acids and proteins. Amino acids are the building-blocks of proteins. Proteins are formed by the linking together of amino acids in the correct sequence. Proteins are essential to the function and structure of all living cells. For example, some proteins function as enzymes that catalyse the pro­duction of chem­icals that consti­tute the building materials neces­sary in living cells. We have all heard of haemo­globin. This is the protein that is vital for the transportation of oxygen through the blood system. The synthesis of all proteins is determined by a complex molecule known as DNA.

In fact, it is just over 50 years since James Watson and Francis Crick at Cambridge University identified the structure of DNA as a “right-handed” double helix. This discovery opened up the whole discipline of genetics and gave birth to molecular biology. Significantly, nucleic acid molecules (DNA and RNA) contain information that can be decoded and reproduced. It is the information that is stored on the DNA molecules that is critical for the process of protein synthe­sis. Such information determines the sequence of amino acids that are linked together to form protein molecules.

It needs to be pointed out that mole­cules in nature are often either “left-handed” or “right-handed”. As it turns out, the amino acids are “left-handed” while many of the sugar molecules we are familiar with are “right-handed”.

The “left-handed” form of the amino acid alanine is on the left and the “right-handed” form of alanine on the right. They appear almost indistinguishable but a closer look reveals that the two forms are actually mirror images of each other. However, because they are not mutually super imposable they are not the same molecule! Furthermore, because they are not the same molecule they behave differently in certain chemical processes.

For one to hold to chemical evolution one would have to believe that left-handed amino acids evolved randomly somehow from simpler molecules (that are neither left-handed nor right-handed). The point is that left-handed molecules would not be formed under normal con­ditions. Furthermore, one would have to contend that the right sequence of amino acids (very, very high numbers here!) attached themselves to one another to form proteins.

Similarly, one would have to believe that the correct molecules (bases, sugars and phosphate “bridges”) attached them­selves, eventually forming the first DNA molecule complete with the information not only to organise life but also to repro­duce itself. The odds for these processes to take place randomly are akin to some­thing like throwing an enormous pile of Scrabble tiles on the floor and randomly forming all the words for the Westminster Confession of Faith in the correct sequence! In other words, practically zero.

Many scientists today believe that primitive forms of life have arrived either via meteors (eg from Mars) or have been formed in volcanic activity through fis­sures in the floor of the oceans. The first view is reflected in the present heightened interest in the search for life on Mars (or on Europa, one of the moons of Jupiter). The second view has found supporters since the discovery in the 1970s of extreme heat-loving microbes known as hypothermophiles on the floor of the Pacific Ocean. The forms of life we are more familiar with rely on sunlight as their energy source. However, these primitive microbes are classified as chemotrophs because of their ability to metabolise chemicals directly into bio­mass through exploiting chemical and thermal energy without relying on sun­light. These recent discoveries have been interpreted as undergirding the confi­dence of many scientists in the various plausible, present-day theories concerning the origin of life. Are they right?

One highly respected scientist, British-born Paul Davies, now with the Australian Centre for Astrobiology at Macquarie University, has written prolifi­cally about the origin and evolution of life and the search for life beyond earth. Davies concludes, “Darwinianism cuts in only when life has got going: we cannot appeal to Darwinian evolution to explain how life began.” However, if Darwinism offers an unlikely, even impossible, expla­nation as to how life began, is there a more promising alternative?

From about the mid-’70s some scien­tists began realising that it was more than coincidence that all the seemingly arbi­trary constants in physics have one strange thing in common — they are precisely the values you need if you want to have a universe capable of producing life. This has come to be known as the “anthropic” principle (from the Greek word for mankind). This term was first coined by Brandon Carter, a colleague of Stephen Hawking’s at Cambridge University, at a symposium celebrating the 500^th anniversary of the birth of Copernicus in 1973 at Krakow, Poland. Carter produced a paper called “Large Number Coincidences and the Anthropic Principle in Cosmology”. Essentially, what Carter claimed was that all the apparently arbitrary and unrelated con­stants in physics have one extraordinary common factor — they seem expressly designed to support the existence of life, particularly human beings.

The anthropic principle may be best understood in terms of a very fine-tuned uni­verse that gives every indication of having been designed for one overriding pur­pose: the exis­tence of all forms of life. Further, the physical con­stants of the universe appear to be on a razor’s edge. A small variation in any of these physical constants would make the universe inhos­pitable for life. For example, the process of nuclear fusion is how energy is pro­duced in stars such as the sun. If the charge on the electron was only fraction­ally different from what it is now, then stars would not be able to fuse hydrogen and helium. By the same token, if the strength of the strong nuclear force (this is the force that holds the nucleus of atoms together) were to be only 2% greater, then diprotons would be stable, with a result that hydrogen would fuse too easily. Such small variations would have huge implications for the existence of life.

Paul Davies was awarded the Templeton Prize in 1995 when he deliv­ered an address entitled “Physics and the Mind of God”. In his address Davies asserted:

To me, the contrived nature of physical existence is just too fantastic to be taken on board as simply a ‘given’. It points forcefully to a deeper underlying meaning to existence. Some call it pur­pose, some design. These loaded words, which derive from human categories, cap­ture only imperfectly what it is that the universe is about. But that it is about something, I have absolutely no doubt.

Famous British physicist Fred Hoyle who opposed the Big Bang theory of uni­verse with his counter-proposal of the Steady State theory wrote in his 1994 autobiography: “After a lifetime of crab­wise thinking, I have gradually become aware of the towering intellectual struc­ture of the world”. Since then an increas­ing number of scientists have used the terms “intellect”, “structure”, “purpose” and “design” when speaking of the uni­verse.

The Bible declares that God created the whole cosmos through His word and that the work of His fingers is evident in the universe He created and which He continues to sustain. There is no need to apologise for the existence of God. It is true that men and women are blinded by sin with a result that they require special revelation from God in the form of the Bible. But they are not so blinded that they cannot see the “structure”, the “purpose” and the “design” of the uni­verse that point to an intelligent Designer.

The anthropic principle doesn’t “prove” the existence of God. But if God were not to exist we would be very hard-pressed to account for the razor’s edge on which the physical constants are balanced. It certainly makes far more sense to believe in the existence of God than to believe in the theory of a random universe as proposed by Darwinists.

However, as C.S. Lewis realised, to believe in God means we must change our lives to come under His sovereignty. American journalist Lee Strobel was a spiritual sceptic until his conversion in 1981. He had become convinced that sci­ence had made the concept of a Creator irrelevant. He wrote, “My road to atheism was paved by science ... But, ironically, so was my later journey to God.” In Strobel’s book, The Case for a Creator, (Zondervan, 2004), he applies his journalistic skills to examine scientific evidence that points toward God. As a former scientist who specialised in chemistry, I can say that there is far more physical evidence to sup­port the notion of a personal Creator than there is to believe in a purely random uni­verse. The notion of intelligent design makes sense. Lee Strobel’s book is one that readers may want to consult for fur­ther reflection on how the evidence points in the direction of intelligent design. It also has a very helpful bibliography for those who want to explore the subject in-depth.