From: bjmiller@phy.duke.edu (Brian Miller) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 94 10:44:52 EDT To: Chi.Wong@eng.sun.com, jcchen@MIT.EDU Subject: Improved Version of Paper Cc: bjmiller@phy.duke.edu The Blind Watchmaker Regains His Sight by Brian J. Miller June 2, 1994 Preface: The following article was written for a magazine at Duke University which will be published in the Fall of '94. However, several people have asked me for permission to forward the article. Everyone is welcome to send this article to whomever they wish. The final article will be much more condensed, so I decided to make the current version public now; although, a few typos probably still remain. This article is a quick overview of the state of evolutionary research. Each topic is addressed in much greater depth in the following books: Denton, Michael, _Evolution:_A_Theory_in_Crisis_, Adler & Adler, Bethesda (1985). Johnson, Phillip, _Darwin_on_Trial_, IVP, Downers Grove (1991). These books also contain all relevant references to primary source material. The general information on evolution can be found in any standard textbook on evolution or vertebrate anatomy. The information on the eye-type structures in clams comes from an article by Kenneth R. Miller called "Life's Grand Design" which was printed at MIT this year. The information on the impossibility of RNA forming on the early earth and the lack of a reducing atmosphere is found in the following two articles: Shapiro, Robert, "Prebiotic Ribose Synthesis: A Critical Analysis" _Origin_of_Life and_Evolution_of_the_Biosphere_ 18 (1988), pp 71-85 Thaxton, Charles B., Bradley, Walter L., Olsen, Roger L., _The_Mystery_of_Life's_Origin: _Researching_Current_Theories_, Philosophical Libraries, New York (1984), pp 69-98. A useful discussion on the philosophical objection to miracles can be found in _The_Historical_Reliability_of_the_Gospels_ by Craig Bloomberg. Finally, a survey of research into the effects of prayer can be found in _Healing_Words_ by Larry Dossey, M.D. Although, I would recommend reading a few sections of the last book with a healthy bit of skepticism. I hope this article is both encouraging to those who incorrectly thought that science is in conflict with Christian faith and challenging to those who believe that evolution can explain the wondrous design in nature. I also hope that proponents of a young earth would use much greater caution when criticizing members of the scientific community such as myself. Introduction: In the early 1800's, a bishop named William Paley presented perhaps the most elegant and compelling argument ever devised for the universe having an intelligent designer. He presented his treatise using a simple analogy between a watch and living creatures. He claimed that a person finding a watch on the ground would immediately realize that the exquisitely designed workings of such an object revealed that it must have an intelligent designer, and the only difference between a watch and nature is that nature displays a manifestation of design far exceeding that of the watch. Therefore, no rational person could possibly deny the existence of a divine designer. Paley's argument went scientifically unchallenged until Charles Darwin presented his revolutionary theory of evolution. Darwin's theory replaced the providential creator with the blind processes of natural selection. Understandably, the presentation of this naturalistic view of the world started a heated debate which continues with the same passion today. Darwin realized this debate could not be resolved with the scientific knowledge of the nineteenth century: the fossil record was mostly incomplete, molecular biology was not understood, and no one had made any concerted effort to observe evolutionary patterns in nature; however, today, the questions raised by Darwin can more accurately be addressed. After a century of in depth research and scientific advancement, Darwin's theory of evolution has proven to be a powerful model in explaining many of the adaptations of species. Yet, the evidence from the biological sciences reveal an intelligent creator as clearly today as at the time of Paley. The Evidence for Evolution: The theory of evolution states that all organisms came into existence through a series of intermediate forms undergoing gradual changes and diversification from one original ancestor. Some evolutionists also attempt to extend the theory to explain how the first forms of life arose out of inorganic compounds. Nearly all evolutionists agree that evolution, according to any definition, is driven by natural selection. Nature allows those organisms which can most effectively propagate their genes in the gene pool to survive from generation to generation while causing others to disappear. In other words those creatures which are either the best adapted to their particular environments or can mate the most effectively would out survive those which are less fit or less sexually attractive. The genetic variation in offspring from which natural selection can choose comes from mutations which add new genetic material to the gene pool and from several process which produce offspring with different combinations of available genes. Much of the compelling evidence for the theory of evolution was compiled by Darwin over a period of 20 years and summarized in his book _Origin_. In the first few chapters, Darwin described fourteen species of finches he found on the Galapagos Islands that vary greatly in size, plumage, beak design, and behavior. However, many of these finches can be arranged into an almost perfect series with gradually changing features. Such evidence strongly implies that each of these species had a common ancestor which speciated into the many forms on the island. Each of the morphological differences in the birds helped them to better survive in their respective niches. Darwin also described different species of flora that looked distantly related to species on the mainland. Such similarities offered powerful circumstantial evidence that seeds from some common ancestor on the mainland somehow landed on the islands and then took a different evolutionary path. _Origin_ continues by giving further evidence for small scale evolutionary development which is often referred to as microevolution. Today, Darwin's microevolutionary theories are rarely challenged, for numerous clear sequential patters have been found in different species of fruit flies, snails, and birds, and a few species have even come into existence over the last century. The rest of _Origin_ describes and defends large scale evolutionary development which is often termed macroevolution. Darwin believed that the processes of microevolution could be extrapolated to explain all of nature. According to Darwin's general theory, the theoretical common ancestor to all known species would have speciated into numerous lineages which went through numerous modifications to better adapt to their environments. The new lineages continued to speciate forming new branches which represent all known phyla, classes, and other divisions of nature. This pattern would have formed an evolutionary tree with the common ancestor as the truck and modern species as the leaves. Darwin described how paleontology offered clear circumstantial evidence for macroevolution from the geological record which contains numerous fossils layered in a highly suggestive order. For instance, mammals first appear later than reptiles which first appear later than amphibians which first appear later than fish. Such a progression follows the expected development from aquatic classes to terrestrial classes. In addition, later appearances of members of many classes are often more specialized and more morphologically diverse. The fossil record also shows distinct evolutionary paths in geographically isolated regions. For example, unique species of mammals developed over millions of years in South America while it was isolated from North America. After North America became connected to South America and placental mammals migrated from North to South America, South America's unique species disappeared while the placental mammals continued. Additional evidence for evolution, which has been found over the past century, has mainly come from the study of embryology, anatomy, and molecular biology. Embryologists have found that the embryonic development in mammals follows a similar path in most species up to a certain point. Eventually, the paths for different species diverge, and the divergence begins at earlier points between species which have greater morphological differences. In addition, comparative anatomy has shown that many species have features which seem poorly designed or seem remnants of a distant ancestor. As a clear example of such vestigial features, certain hermaphroditic lizards still require the assistance of a partner for self-fertilization. Finally, molecular biologists have found large segments of DNA in most species which are either redundant or inactive. Some of these segments in humans and other primates even contain the same genetic errors in the same locations. Each of these findings strongly suggests that many species are biologically related. Reaction against evolution: Despite this highly compelling evidence for evolution, many conservative religious groups deny even the theory's most supported claims such as speciation and the existence of a fossil record that spans millions of years. Many of these groups interpret the first chapters of Genesis as describing the creation of the earth in a literal six days about six thousand years ago. Christians have discussed how literally they should interpret the first chapters of Genesis since the second century, but the perceived attack by evolutionary theory on the foundations of Christian faith has caused many groups to accept no compromise from a completely literal interpretation. In an attempt to scientifically justify such an interpretation, the Institute of Creation Research (ICR) was created in California to study models that could explain many of the earth's geological formations in terms of a world wide flood. Nearly all of ICR's theories for a young earth and for a world wide flood have been thoroughly disproved by researches, but these theories are still presented in much of their material. ICR has also caused much embarrassment to conservative Christians by attacking evolution with poorly researched arguments. Today, most proponents of a young earth and world wide flood simply ignore the massive amounts of evidence contradicting their position and wait in faith that new evidence will someday come that fills in the holes of their own theories. However, the criticisms of evolution have not only come from religious groups with little knowledge of paleontology or of other branches of biology, but they have emerged from respected members of those various fields. A senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum named Colin Patterson described evolution, like creationism, as scientifically vacuous concepts held primarily on the basis of faith. He commented how at two science meetings, he asked the members to list anything they knew for certain about evolution. The only response he ever received was silence. In addition, a leading primate expert named Solly Zuckerman studied many of the theoretical transitional stages between apes and man and concluded that the stages believed to be slightly more advanced than Lucy were more likely variations of apes than human ancestors. He continued by comparing the study of human origins to parapsychology and questioned whether much science could be found in the field at all. These two men's criticism of evolutionary claims and the reaction from the scientific community are described in detail by Philip Johnson in his book _Darwin_on_Trial_. Similarly, a doctor specializing in molecular biology name Michael Denton analyzes the failure of the predictions of evolutionary theory to correspond to discoveries in the various fields of biology in his book _Evolution:_A_Theory_in_Crisis_. Denton begins his critique by describing the typological model of nature: that classes are absolutely distinct, that they posses unique diagnostic characteristics, and that these characteristics are present in all members of a class in fundamentally invariant form. The vast majority of species in nature conform to this model remarkably well. For instance, every member of the mammalian class exhibits a number of unique features: specialized hair, specialized brain with a central medulla and cortex, mammary glands producing milk, a four chambered heart with specialized features, a large cerebral cortex, and a few others. No species outside of the mammalian class exhibit these features even in the most rudimentary form. In contrast to the typological model, the Darwinian model of nature predicts that the distinctions between classes should be blurred with many species exhibiting characteristics that could be classified as intermediate. Such a pattern would be the natural extension of the patterns observed in microevolution. Just as the Galapagos finches form a sequence of gradually changing beak morphology, several series of intermediate species should form gradually changing sequential patterns leading from one major grouping in nature to the next. Some sequential patterns in nature are presented by biologists as clear evidence of sequential transitions, but when studied in detail these sequences seem much less convincing. For instance, evolutionists have typically described vertebrate evolution as a series of transitions from fish to amphibians to reptiles to birds and mammals. However, this transitional line is at best broken and ambiguous as clearly seen in the differences between the different classes' heart designs and embryonic developments. The hearts of reptiles and mammals in some aspects, such as with the aortic arches, do not appear sequential but seem equally distanced from the amphibians; in reptiles the aorta comes from the fourth left aortic arch while in mammals it comes from the fourth right aortic arch. Even the sequential characteristics of the heart, such as the number of its chambers, may not reflect evolutionary transitions as clearly as the sequential pattern of the classes' environments: aquatic to semi-aquatic to terrestrial. In other words the designs of the hearts may be sequential out of adaptive necessity for each class to live in its particular environment. Characteristics which are not under as direct environmental constraints, such as the embryonic developments of the amphibian, reptile, and mammal eggs, do not follow a sequential pattern at all. In fact, the mammalian development in many ways resembles that of an amphibian more than that of a reptile. Overall, the physiology of the different classes is not sequential but clearly distinct which again fits well within the typological pattern. This hierarchical pattern is broken by a handful of species. The most commonly known are the egg laying monotremes, the lungfish, and _Peripatus_ which is considered intermediate between the annelid worms and the arthropods. However, these animals do not represent species with transitional characteristics but species with a mosaic of characteristics which are entirely representative of whichever class the characteristic comes from. For instance, every aspect of the lungfish which resembles a fish, such as the gills, is completely typical of fish, while every aspect that resembles a terrestrial animal, such as its heart and the path of the blood from the lungs to the heart, is similar to most terrestrial vertebrates. Similarly, in the monotremes the reproductive system and structure of the eggs are entirely reptilian while their mammalian characteristics are completely mammalian. _Peripatus_ displays the same mosaic of characteristics. None of these animals can be thought of in any way as transitional. The fact that out of the hundreds of thousands of species that fit well within the typological description only a handful seem to fall between the lines only emphasizes the lack of continuity between Darwinian predictions and reality. Denton's book continues its critique with a discussion on homology: similarities between different species in the design of common structures such as limbs. Evolutionists have historically claimed that these similarities imply a common ancestor. However, the homology argument, which was once possibly the strongest argument for evolution, has become fatally weakened by advances in embryology, genetics, and comparative anatomy. For instance, since homologous structures in different species of vertebrates were believed to be biologically related, evolutionists expected that they would develop from the same locations in the early embryos and follow the same developmental paths. However, for the same structures in different vertebrates, the locations of the structures' development in the embryos, the cells involved in their development, and their subsequent developmental paths were found to be completely different. Even more problematic, homologous structures in different vertebrates are now known not to be coded for by homologous genes. Numerous genes in a species were found to code for several different traits at once, a phenomenon known as pleiotropy, and the combination for each gene was found to be invariably species specific. Therefore, homologous traits in different species must be to a great extent coded for by non-homologous genes. In other words, a structure such as a limb in one species could not possibly have transformed into a homologous structure in another species through a series of small mutations in a single gene or group of genes, for the structure in the new species is at least partly coded for by completely different genes and any possibly homologous genes in the new species partly code for completely different structures. Making the homology picture even more unclear, many extremely similar structures exist which could not possibly be related by any evolutionary path. The most striking example is the incredible similarity between the forelimbs and hindlimbs of vertebrates. Despite the fact that the design of the fore- and hindlimbs matches exactly with a seemingly arbitrary plan, no evolutionist would claim that one evolved from the other or that both evolved from a common source. The thought that both sets of limbs transformed into nearly identical structures in different species through independent series of beneficial mutations has no clear explanation. More importantly, such similarities severely bring into question any claims of evolutionary relationships between species solely based on some similarities in their morphology. The failure of the homology argument undermines every attempt to provide a naturalistic explanation for species' hierarchical pattern of homologous characteristics. The following chapter in Denton's book focuses on the overall picture of the fossil record. Originally, evolutionists assumed that the fossil record would contain the numerous transitional species that would clearly represent the major branches on the evolutionary tree connecting the different phyla and classes. They predicted that these missing links would continuously be discovered and would blur the sharp boundaries between nature's hierarchical categories. In addition, they expected that numerous series of fossils should be found that represent clear sequences of a species changing form over time. However, the fossil record reveals a completely different story. The record consistently reveals species which appear suddenly without any apparent ancestor and which never change form over time, and these species either fit entirely within a category existing today or represent categories which are entirely new. The most dramatic example is the sudden appearance of the first representatives of all the major invertebrate phyla and many of their subgroups in the Cambrian strata within a period of less than ten million years, an event known as the Cambrian explosion. Each of these species either fits entirely within invertebrate categories known today or represents entirely unrelated categories. The closest ancestors every found for any of these species are single celled algae and bacteria. The later portions of the fossil record continue to follow this same pattern. The first representatives of each class or order are highly specialized and usually fit completely within their respective groups. Although some fossils are claimed by evolutionists to provide clear links between different classes, under careful analysis their status as transitions becomes much less believable. For instance, for nearly a century evolutionists considered the rhipidistian fishes perfect ancestors to amphibians, so they classified this order as intermediate between fish and amphibians. The rhipidistians have features in their skulls, teeth, vertebral column, and fins which greatly resembled amphibians. Evolutionists assumed that the soft body tissue would also be somewhat transitional. However, in 1938 a close cousin of the Rhipidistia was caught in the Indian ocean, and the soft body structures of this prized catch proved to be completely representative of fish and far removed from the earliest amphibians. Now, some evolutionists consider the lungfish a much closer connection to amphibians. As an even clearer example, today evolutionists consider the _Seymouria_ a perfect transitional species between amphibians and reptiles. Some evolution textbooks even claim that no clear evidence exists that can classify it as either one or the other. However, a fossil of a close relative of the _Seymouria_ was discovered with larval gills like those of a tadpole suggesting that this group was entirely amphibian in its reproductive system, but the reproductive system represents the greatest difference by far between amphibians and reptiles. Amphibians lay eggs with soft shells in the water which hatch into tadpoles. The tadpoles eventually undergo a metamorphosis changing into terrestrial animals. Reptiles lay eggs with hard shells on land which hatch into smaller versions of the adult form. An additional problem with the _Seymouria_ as transitional is that it appears too late in the fossil record to be an ancestor of the reptiles. Therefore, the _Seymouria_ seems to fit completely into the amphibian class. The most commonly cited transitional vertebrate which is named _Archaeopteryx_ fairs no better under careful study. This dinosaur-like bird was once considered a perfect transitional species between reptiles and birds. It has numerous characteristics similar to reptiles such as its vertebrae, pelvis, tail, skull, teeth, and small claws. However, this view was severely weakened by information gathered from a careful analysis of _Archaeopteryx_'s cranial cavity and feathers. Endocasts have shown that _Archaeopteryx_'s brain in all important aspects is essentially avian. The brain exhibits avian cerebral hemispheres and cerebellum which is proportionally larger in birds in order to perform the complex activity of powered flight. Even more striking, the highly adapted feathers are identical to those of modern birds. These pieces of evidence plus studies of _Archaeopteryx_'s skeletal structure indicate that it was likely capable of powered flight, and since the physiology in birds is highly specialized specifically to accommodate for powered flight, all of _Archaeopteryx_'s physiology may be entirely avian. Now many paleontologists believe that birds evolved earlier in time from a different group of reptiles. Despite the problems with the previous transitional species, evolutionists consider the therapsids an undeniable transitional group between reptiles and mammals. The therapsid fossils show gradual transitions from reptiles to mammals in numerous features such as the skull, teeth, ribs, and legs. The most striking transition is that of a joint that connects the jaw to one part of the skull in reptiles but connects to another part in mammals. Two lineages of therapsids have been discovered that have both the reptilian and the mammalian jaw joint. However, the therapsid sequence becomes much less decisive in the light of evidence taken from endocasts. This evidence shows that the brains of the therapsids, as far as their shape and structure, were entirely reptilian while those of the earliest mammals were close to or entirely mammalian. If the therapsids follow the same pattern as every known living species and every species found in the fossil record, their physiology may have been a mosaic of completely reptilian and completely mammalian characteristics, or the physiology may have been entirely reptilian. Another major complication with identifying other sequential patterns of species from the fossil record is that many features from completely unrelated species often have remarkably similar structures, a phenomenon known as convergence. Numerous examples of convergence exist in nature such as the similarities in the design of the eye in vertebrates and cephalopods (squids and octopuses) or the overall shape of fish and whales, but perhaps the most striking example is the skeletal similarities between the marsupial and placental dogs. The skeletons of these two animals are so similar that only a trained zoologist can tell them apart. However, the differences in the soft anatomy of their reproductive systems are immense. Clearly, any relationship between species based solely on the skeletal features must be made with extreme caution. Evolutionists have attempted to provide numerous explanations for these tremendous conflicts between the overall pattern of the fossil record and predictions from Darwinian evolution. For instance, numerous theories have been proposed to explain the sudden appearance of highly specialized members of all the phyla at the same time. Most of these theories attempt to provide reasons for why the soft bodied ancestors to the Cambrian species would not have been preserved in the pre-Cambrian rock. Unfortunately, none of these theories has proven in any way convincing. Even more problematic, surveys of rocks dating slightly before the Cambrian explosion have yielded numerous examples of soft bodied animals, but these animals are in no way ancestral to the Cambrian groups. Since soft bodied ancestors clearly could have been preserved in the pre-Cambrian rock, no reason seems to exist why the Cambrian groups' ancestors, if they existed, have not been found. In order to explain the discontinuities in the later portions of the fossil record, many evolutionists have traditionally appealed to the record's incompleteness. Unfortunately, with the many discoveries by paleontologists over the past hundred years, this argument has become increasingly more hollow. Fossils have been found from most areas of the world and from most layers in the earth's strata. Invariably, new discoveries only enhance the divisions in nature or create new categories which represent very distant branches on the evolutionary tree. In addition, the record today is surprisingly complete. The record contains representatives of nearly 90% of all living terrestrial vertebrate families excluding birds, and for larger terrestrial vertebrate species in some areas of North America, the record may be nearly complete. Likewise, for certain groups of marine invertebrates with hard components, such as the mollusks, the number of genera living today that were preserved as fossils may be as high as 50%. Clearly, the traditional appeal to the imperfection of the record can not possibly explain the sharp divisions in all the different groups in nature which are as distinct today as at the time of Darwin. The final approach to harmonize the fossil record has been to acknowledge that the fossil record's hierarchical structure is real and propose modifications to evolutionary theory to explain this pattern. Such a modified theory has been proposed by the two paleontologists Eldredge and Gould. Their theory termed punctuated equilibrium proposes that new species arise suddenly in small isolated areas. The new species go through a period of rapid morphological change, and they then spread throughout the entire area without going through any subsequent changes. This theory is well supported by experimental evidence and reasonably explains the sudden appearance in the fossil record of new species. However, although this theory explains the small gaps between closely related species, it could not possibly be extended to explain the major gaps in nature unless one is to believe in miracles. The thought of a small isolated population of fish suddenly changing into amphibians is inconceivable. Despite all attempts to explain otherwise, the pattern of fossils is still more reminiscent of the Biblical creation account than to any reasonable theory of Darwinian evolution. The next difficult challenge to evolutionary theory is to explain how multiple adaptations, which out of necessity must all work perfectly together, could have occurred at the same time. The classic examples are the numerous interconnected features of the eye and the highly coadapted feathers of birds. The common explanation for coadaptation has been that only one of the coadapted features of some structure goes through a small advantageous change first. Then, each of the other features in turn goes through a small change to better work with the original modification. For instance, the lens in the eye would first become slightly modified. The muscles connecting to the lens would then go through a subsequent modification, and then the photocells in the retina, then the wiring in the brain, and so forth. This description of coadaptation presents two crucial challenges: small changes in a single feature must create enough of an advantage to spread throughout the population before being lost through genetic drift or other process, and this scheme must be able to occur within a reasonable amount of time. The plausibility of such occurrences developing a structure as complicated as the eye can not be answered definitively, but nature offers no reason for hope. For instance, several possible stages in the development of an extremely simple eye-type structure, with virtually no signs of coadaptation, exist in a single group of clams. However, the clams in the most advanced eye stage have not had enough of an advantage over the clams in the most primitive eye stage to dominate the population. Since the features in much more advanced eyes are more intricately coadapted, the individual mutations must be much smaller, and the chance of these mutations giving enough of an advantage to spread throughout the population becomes even less. Even more problematic, structures in possibly intermediate stages of development in certain animals never develop clearly useful adaptations. For instance, the Nautilus possesses an eye that would immediately and greatly benefit from a simple lens, but over the millions of years of the animal's existence, the lens never developed. The many unique adaptations of birds offer even clearer problems. Many of the intricate features of feathers are useless unless highly specialized and perfectly coadapted. The gap between the least specialized feather and wing useful for flight and the most specialized reptilian scales and forelimbs useful for any other purpose is immense. Evolutionists have offered extremely vague scenarios of how such a gap could have been bridged, but under close scrutiny each theory presents fatal flaws. Likewise, the avian lung is highly specialized and completely different from that of reptiles. Since any significant change in the reptilian or avian lung would instantly lead to an animal's death, evolutionists have not even attempted to describe any type of lung that is in any way intermediate between those of the two classes. The problem of explaining coadaptations becomes greater when trying to explain how intermediate structures could evolve that would be much less advantageous than either the initial or final structure. For instance, in the evolution of the forelimbs of a terrestrial mammal into the wings of a bat, some intermediate stage must exist where the forelimbs are neither more useful for climbing, walking, nor flying than that of the original structure. Evolutionists can offer no explanation for how such a disadvantaged animal could have continued to evolve until the wings were properly designed for flight. The evolution of a terrestrial animal into a whale presents numerous similar challenges. Finally, the problem becomes orders of magnitude more difficult when trying to explain how a single cell could have evolved into a complex life form, such as a monkey, with the numerous coadapted physiological systems such as the circulatory system, endocrine system, and skeletal system all controlled by an indescribably sophisticated interconnecting system of neurons called the brain. No species living today or found in the fossil record show any sign of possessing any of these structures in an intermediate stage. Clear evidence from nature that small successive mutations could produce any highly sophisticated structure with coadapted features is simply nonexistent. Denton's book continues by describing the contradiction between evolutionary theory and his own specialty, molecular biology. Evolutionists originally hoped to determine evolutionary relationships between species by comparing the differences in their homologous proteins. They expected that the protein sequences would be more similar in species that were more closely related in evolutionary terms. For instance, proteins in lampreys should be more similar to those in amphibians than to those in reptiles and should be even more similar to those in fish than to those in amphibians. As expected the differences between sequences did match differences in morphology, and charts of the differences between homologous proteins in numerous species nearly perfectly reproduced the taxonomic groupings; homologous proteins in humans and apes were found to be much more similar than those in humans and dogs, and those in humans and dogs were much more similar than those in humans and fish, and those differences were small compared to the differences between those in humans and insects. However, comparisons did not reveal any evolutionary pattern. Instead of differences in proteins producing sequential patterns as predicted by evolutionists, the protein sequences showed that every group of species was well defined and completely isolated from any other group, and any member of these groups was equally distanced from any member of another group. For instance, the differences in proteins between the lamprey and any member of the jawed vertebrate classes are nearly identical. Likewise, the differences in proteins in any insect and any member of the vertebrate phylum are also nearly identical. A strict hierarchical pattern remains completely intact at ever level; no species is in anyway intermediate between any group. This echo of the typological pattern of nature at the molecular level, like the pattern of the fossil record and the problem of homology, presents a further challenge to evolutionary theory. Evolutionists have attempted to respond to this challenge from molecular biology by reinterpreting the meaning of protein differences using a theory known as the molecular clock. According to this theory, since the time proteins first formed in the first cells, they have undergone mutations at a constant protein specific rate with respect to time. Such a process would produce protein differences which represent the time since different lineages, representing different groups in nature, split from a common ancestor. Unfortunately, every scenario developed to justify this theory contradicts numerous known facts from biology. In fact, no evidence exists to support such a molecular clock except the hierarchical pattern of proteins for which it was created to explain. The final and perhaps greatest challenge to naturalistic evolution has been to explain the origin of life. The gap between the simplest living cell imaginable and the most complex nonliving object is absolutely immense, and the more biologists learn about cell functions, the greater the gap becomes. Biologists originally proposed that complex organic compounds necessary for the creation of life were formed from simple compounds in earth's early atmosphere. After the formation of these organic compounds, the early oceans supposedly became an organic soup with complex organic compounds which eventually came together into the first living cells. However, atmospheric astrophysicists in the last few years have concluded that the earth's early atmosphere probably contained far to much oxygen for significant numbers of useful organic compounds to have been formed. In addition, even with an ideal mixture of organic compounds, the chances of RNA naturally forming are remote. Without RNA, protein synthesis and replication would be impossible. Furthermore, even with sufficient quantities of all necessary compounds, the probability of any type of self-replicating functional cell forming is virtually impossible. Finally, even if such an event were plausible, all geological evidence indicates that cells did not form over a long period of time through any sort of evolutionary process. The first cells appear in rocks dating around 3.5 billion years ago when the earth first became habitable for organic life. Rocks older than 3.5 billion years do not contain any trace of organic materials which should have been left if the prebiotic soup ever existed. The state of research into life's origin is so bleak that some scientists have even suggested that cells evolved on another planet and somehow safely found their way to earth. Others have given up on directly studying organic life and have turned to highly unrealistic computer models to justify the possibility of life's naturalistic creation. Finally, others glibly point to examples of complex self-organization in nature to rationalize the problem. All of these explanations, when compared to creationists' attempts to justify a 6000 year old earth, seem no less naive nor dogmatic. Understandably, some scientists claim that many evolutionists adhere to a strict naturalistic view of life's origin despite the overall evidence from the biological scientists and, like strict creationists, simply wait in faith that new evidence will someday come that fills in the holes of their theories. Argument for Design Despite these criticisms from Denton and other biologists, evolution is still a powerful theory that offers a reasonable explanation for many patterns in nature. In addition, since it is the only possible naturalistic explanation, it is the only possible theory researchers can study. Scientists would have tremendous difficulty developing theories that attempted to incorporate such unpredictable phenomena as God's divine intervention in nature. As a general rule, science simply makes observations and then develops theories and models which provide for those observations the best explanation. At times the theories or models may even be seriously deficient or predominantly inaccurate, but as long as they help illuminate some facet of nature, they have proved their usefulness. The theory of evolution more than fulfills this requirement. Unfortunately, some evolutionists still make the claim that the evidence from biology reveals that life is not the product of intelligent design. Such a claim reaches well beyond the realm of science into the realms of philosophy and religion. More importantly, such a claim has virtually no empirical or theoretical support. Biologists have found numerous pieces of evidence supporting the theory that many species are biologically related to a common ancestor which went through divergent series of beneficial modifications, but the preponderance of the evidence indicates that the entire process required intelligent direction. This conclusion was supported by several engineers, mathematicians, and evolutionary biologists at the international symposium "Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution." The members claimed that evolution by natural selection is simply a special case of problem solving by trial and error; however, trial and error methods have been shown to be incapable of solving complex problems. For instance, trying every possible move combination in a chess game can not be used to effectively determine the best next move. Instead, any successful method requires the assistance of intelligently designed algorithms. Likewise, evolution by natural selection could not have produced complex adaptations unless individual mutations, like the moves in chess, had intelligent guidance. These views are further supported by research in the field of protein chemistry. Studies have shown that the functional constraints on proteins' amino acid sequences are likely highly stringent. For instance, almost any change in the amino acids which reside in the interior of the 3D structure of a protein would severely damage the protein's stability and functional properties. Now, the consensus of opinion is that a protein could not transform into another similar protein through a series of random mutations since at some stage several highly improbable mutations would have to occur at once. The probability of a series of random mutations significantly modifying a structure such as a lung, which is dependent upon several proteins, is increasingly remote. In addition to challenging the view that life is the result of the blind forces of nature, discoveries in science have also illuminated the innovativeness of nature's wondrous design. Scientists have shown that many of humanities most elegant solutions to technological problems have close analogs in the biological realm. For instance, many of the most advanced imagining systems on NASA satellites have closely resemble mechanisms in the human eye. Likewise, the most advanced information storage and retrieval systems developed by engineers and computer scientists were greatly surpassed billions of years ago by those in living cells. In addition, many ingenious innovations in biology, such as the cell's ability to self-replicate, still lie well beyond our ability to implement. Although biologists have just begun to comprehend the indescribable perfection of design in nature, as science and technology advances, the similarities between life and machines will undoubtedly become even more numerous and more obvious. Clearly, the philosophical proposition that living organisms are not strictly analogous to machines, which at one time fatally weakened Paley's argument, is no longer valid. Evolutionists often attempt to down play the perfection of design in nature by citing examples of features which do not meet their expectations of how an intelligent creator would have designed them. This strategy seems particularly puzzling. For while they claim that any aspect of nature which can not immediately and obviously be explained in terms of the plans of an intelligent designer greatly weakens the argument for design, they also claim that any scenario, no matter how vague or unbelievable, that helps explain the evolution of species supports their theories. In addition, they claim that the numerous problems in evolutionary theory which have no conceivable explanation only represent a current lack of knowledge. Surely, evolutionists should expect to more easily predict the workings of nature than the plans of a divine creator. Such dabbling in philosophy by scientists is no less inappropriate than theologians uninformed criticisms of science. The main reason that many deny the clear evidence of design in nature is an unwillingness to accept the possibility of any supernatural intervention in the world. This presupposition resulted from the tremendous success of science in providing nearly every phenomenon in nature a naturalistic explanation. As a result of this success, many reject claims of events having ever occurred that fall outside the realm of science. However, even with the tremendous advances of science over the past century, numerous well documented events throughout history defy all attempts at lending themselves to naturalistic explanations. Even today, carefully controlled scientific investigations into alleged miraculous healings and the effects of prayer have yielded results that support the possibility of the supernatural. Therefore, rejecting the possibility of supernatural intervention in the formation of life is completely unjustified. As mentioned earlier, when Darwin first published _Origin_, the divine watchmaker described by Paley seemed to have been reduced to a blind watchmaker, and all of the apparent purpose and design in nature was suddenly removed. These claims resulted in the formation of numerous ideolologies which have transformed the way people view themselves and the world around them. However, such conclusions now seem to have been completely unjustified. Nearly every piece of evidence, which at one time was believed to support completely naturalistic evolution, now seems to cast more doubt on its universal validity, and instead each new piece continuously strengthens the argument for an intelligent designer. In short, in the light of modern science, the blind watchmaker has regained his sight.