Reviewing Darwin’s Doubt Chapter 9

© Can Stock Photo Inc. / kgtoh

© Can Stock Photo Inc. / kgtoh

I am deep into the book, Darwin’s Doubt, by Stephen C. Meyer, and chronicling my way through it. The title of the book comes from the problem that the Cambrian explosion posed, and still poses, to evolutionary theory. In the first article, the problem that first appears in the fossil record is explained. In the next article, some possible solutions to the problems are explored and discarded. In the third article, we begin to look to genes for possible solutions, and that sets the stage for this article.

The origin of the animals that appeared suddenly in the Cambrian period necessarily required vast amounts of new functional information. Where did it come from and how did it arise? The discovery of DNA as information retaining and building mechanisms seemed to present great hope for a solution, but that is not the story the history of exploring this solution tells. In fact, the study of DNA has only accentuated the problem.

Continue reading

Finely Tuned Universe


We live in a finely tuned universe. Not everyone would put it that way, many people who do not believe in God, for instance. For them, the existence of life is a product of random chance. Though the odds are low (extremely low), they would rather believe that we are product of chance than the design of a Maker.

To take the position that chance explains everything, we also need to be able to accept that our rational minds came from the same random, meaningless, irrational process of chance. Life sprang from inanimate material; reason came from matter; morality developed from natural selection; love is something more like indigestion than anything more noble or meaningful. In fact, all is meaningless if the atheist is right. There is no point to life, let alone our lives, at all.

If that is the way it is, so be it. It is not like there is anything we can do about it. It does affect how we live, though. Does it not?

If there is no Giver of life, we are not beholden to anyone. If there is no Rational Mind, how can we trust our own minds? If there is no Author of morality (or Judge of it), I am free to do as I please (as long as I do not get caught by someone who does like what I do). If God is not Love, fulfilling any pleasant sensation or feeling is as good and certainly no worse than the next; there is no difference between the prostitute paid for sex and my spouse.

There is no absolute scientific proof for either position, not should we expect any. We are infinitesimally minuscule in comparison to time and space. It is incongruous that we should expect to know more than we do.

From a purely rationalistic position, the odds are a pretty good indication of the probabilities. You can watch the video below and decide for yourself.