We live in a world that values tolerance and religious pluralism. Because of this widespread attitude, perhaps it’s not surprising that one of the questions I’m most often asked by non-Christian academics relates to the identity of the Designer. They want to know, how does the scientific case for intelligent design specifically identify the God of the Bible as the Designer?

I answer this question differently than many of my friends associated with the Intelligent Design (ID) Movement. They argue that scientific inquiry cannot determine the Designer’s identity. Christian ID proponents maintain that there are nonscientific reasons why they believe that the biblical God is the Designer, but they insist that the Designer’s identity is not a question science can address.

I respectfully disagree. I think that science has the wherewithal to provide sufficient clues that allow us to infer the Designer’s identity. To appreciate why I would adopt this position, I need to first explain why intelligent design has a place in science.

Intelligent Design Is Part of the Construct of Science

Because of the influence of methodological naturalism (the philosophical position that scientific explanations must be restricted to natural processes), many people assert that intelligent design lies beyond the bounds of science. Yet a number of scientific disciplines are predicated on scientists’ ability to detect the activity of intelligent agents and distinguish that activity from natural processes. For example, forensic scientists can determine whether or not an individual died as the result of natural processes, by accident, or by the intentional action of another person—an intelligent agent. Anthropologists can examine pieces of rock and determine whether the stones were intentionally fabricated into a tool by a hominid (such as Neanderthals) or merely shaped by natural processes. In the quest to identify alien civilizations, researchers at SETI monitor electromagnetic radiation emanating from distant stars looking for signatures that bear the hallmark of intelligent agency. In the early 1970s, Leslie Orgel and Francis Crick proposed directed panspermia to explain the origin of life on Earth, and they even suggested ways to scientifically test this idea.

Science does have the toolkit to detect the work of an intelligent designer and distinguish it from natural causes and events. If so, then why can’t scientific inquiry determine if an intelligent designer played a role in the origin, history, and design of life and the universe? It seems to me that it can, and I would argue that it has.

Science, not only possesses the capacity to detect the work of intelligent agency, it also has the means to provide insight about the agent’s characteristics. Crime scene investigators can determine if a murderer was left-handed or right-handed, the probable height of the culprit, etc. Anthropologists can glean a tremendous amount about the biology and cognitive ability of hominids by examining the tools they made. If SETI scientists were to detect a signal that emanated from an alien civilization, no doubt they could discern something about the aliens that sent it by analyzing the signal’s properties and studying the star system that generated the signal.

The Scientific Case for God’s Existence and the Identity of the Designer

So, what can we infer about the identity of the Intelligent Designer from science? A handful of scientific insights provide some important clues.

Astronomers have learned that the universe had a beginning. This means that it must have a cause, and that this cause exists outside the universe itself. To put it another way, a transcendent cause brought the universe into existence. (For many people, this knowledge provides evidence for God’s existence.) If we take the transcendent cause to be the Intelligent Designer, then the Designer must reside beyond the universe and must be powerful enough to cause the universe (Genesis 1:1). Astronomers also believe that time began when our universe began, suggesting that the Intelligent Designer must operate outside the confines of time (Psalm 90:2; Isaiah 40:28).

Astronomers and astrophysicists have learned that the fundamental parameters, constants, and characteristics that define the universe must assume precise values for life to exist. This fine-tuning suggests that the universe was designed for a purpose. (Again, many people view the fine-tuning of the universe as further evidence for God’s existence.) Design and purpose are qualities that derive from a Mind. This insight about the fine-tuning of the universe means that the Intelligent Designer must have personality (Job 38–41).

The constancy of the laws of nature and the orderliness of the universe indicate that the Designer is not capricious. Instead, the Agent responsible for the universe appears to be unwavering and unchanging (James 1:17; Malachi 3:6; Hebrews 13:8).

The repeated occurrence of the same designs throughout biology and the universal nature of biochemical systems imply that a single Designer produced life, not an ensemble of designers (1 Corinthians 8:6).

Advances in our understanding of biochemical systems revitalize William Paley’s watchmaker argument for God’s existence. The remarkable similarities between the architecture and operation of biochemical systems and human designs indicate that the cell’s chemical systems are the work of a Mind. This observation also suggests that a resonance exists between the mind of human designers and the Intelligent Designer. To put it another way, human beings appear to be made in the image of the Intelligent Designer (Genesis 1:26–27).

The beauty on display throughout the universe and the marvelously fascinating creatures that make up the biological realm demonstrate that the Designer possesses an artist’s flair and playfulness. The Intelligent Agent responsible for life seemingly takes great delight in what He has made (Genesis 1:31a; Psalm 104:26).

There are many such evidences, but I believe that this short list provides us with sufficient insight about the Designer’s qualities that we could reasonably conclude that the Intelligent Designer is most likely the God of the Bible.

But a skeptic might raise the question about so-called bad designs in nature. What about all the pain and suffering? Do these features of nature mean that the Intelligent Designer is malevolent? Do they imply that the Intelligent Designer is incompetent? Not necessarily. It is hard to argue that the Creator who could bring the universe into existence lacks competence. And when we examine supposed bad designs more carefully, we often find compelling reasons to view the “bad” designs as actually good designs. Junk DNA has become the quintessential case in point.

As for pain and suffering in the world, a number of philosophers have pointed out that there may be good reasons why the Intelligent Designer would create a world where pain and suffering exist. And science provides some clues as to what those reasons might be.

It is remarkable to me how strong the scientific case is for intelligent design. As a Christian, I don’t find it all surprising that the scientific evidence directs us to the God of the Bible. After all, Scripture teaches that God has revealed Himself to us through the creation.

Resources

• Big Bang (web page)
• “Anthropic Principle: A Precise Plan for Humanity” (article)
• “Convergence: Evidence for a Single Creator” (article)
• “A Biochemical Watch Found in a Cellular Heath” (article)
• “An Inordinate Fondness” (article)
• Junk DNA (web page)
• Bad Designs (web page)
• “Of Weevils and Wasps: God’s Good Purpose in Animal Death” (article)
• “Life from Death” (article)
• “Historic Christianity’s ‘Two Books’ of Revelation” (article)

Internet science discussions are abuzz about experiments showing that chimpanzees have the cognitive capacities for cooking. Scientists and laypeople alike are citing these discoveries as confirmation that chimps and humans are descended from a common ancestor. The discoveries also are fueling the growing legal movement to grant chimps and other large apes personhood status.¹ However, as usual, the peer-reviewed paper (available for free here) that generated the Internet buzz is much more nuanced and cautious.²

The researchers’ experiments demonstrated something we already know: large mammals prefer cooked vegetable tubers to raw ones. What the researchers added are the following reasons why:

• Cooked tubers are easier to digest.
• Cooked tubers deliver many more calories.
• Cooked tubers deliver more nutrients that can be assimilated.
• Cooked tubers are free of the harmful toxins common to most raw vegetable tubers.

The experiments also showed that chimps will trade raw tubers for cooked tubers even if they must wait for the cooked tubers. With some additional training, chimps will place raw tubers into a pot if by experience they know that the tubers will be returned to them cooked. The researchers did note, however, that raw tubers contain very little food value for chimps and that chimps much prefer their typical diet of raw fruits to cooked tubers. Moreover, in their experiments humans did all the cooking.

I would be willing to bet that the behavior the researchers observed concerning chimpanzees and cooked tubers is not unique among nonhuman animals. Each one of the dogs I have owned much preferred cooked vegetables to raw vegetables. That preference was especially evident with tubers. As a child I had a cat that relished fried breaded oysters.

I would add that Japanese macaques (the largest of the Japanese apes) routinely wash and season their food with sea salt. However, even though they spend long hours soaking themselves in hot spring pools, they never “cook” their food in the pools. I also find the experimental findings consistent with observations that chimps in the wild often follow wildfires to harvest roasted seeds and nuts. Evidently, chimps always are on the lookout for easy-to-forage high-quality foodstuffs.

At the end of the day, these experimental results do not really prove that humans are no more than naturally evolved apes. But they do provide more support for the Bible’s description of three distinct kinds of life created by God:

1. Life that is purely physical;
2. Animal life that is both physical and “soulish,” in that the soulishness of the animals enables them to form emotional relationships with human beings whereby they can serve and please humans; and
3. Human beings—which are physical, soulish, and spiritual—capable of forming relationships with God whereby they can serve and please Him.

These biblically based categories explain why so many soulish animals share some physical and behavioral characteristics with humans. Such shared features are critical for these animals to form strong emotional bonds with humans. They make these creatures exceptional among all nonhuman species of life. Likewise, because we humans were created to form relationships with God, we possess features that make us exceptional among all Earth’s life. I address these topics of “soulish” animal exceptionalism and human exceptionalism in much more depth in my book Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job.

Does life exist beyond Earth? Not surprisingly, searches of the solar system yield no evidence because the only planet (or moon) located in the right place is Earth. However, the discovery of exoplanets (planets outside our solar system) boosted researchers’ enthusiasm for finding life beyond Earth. Thus far, our technology lacks the sensitivity to detect any signatures of life outside of our solar system, but scientists continue to make progress. While these advances reveal additional indicators that Earth may be rare (or unique) in its capacity to support life, they also provide a way to genuinely test the rare-earth hypothesis.

Using current telescope technology, scientists can measure only orbits, masses, and sizes of exoplanets. Over the next decade, advances will permit the detection of life signatures from stars in the neighborhood of the solar system, which will allow powerful tests of the rare-earth hypothesis. An article published in the journalAstrobiology highlights one of those tests.

Earth currently resides near the habitable zone’s inner edge. Yet, as the Sun’s luminosity increases (with age), the habitable zone will move farther and farther out, making Earth less habitable. As Earth’s surface temperature increases, the planet will go from supporting large-bodied, complex life (like humanity) to hosting only multicellular life and then only microbial life. Eventually it will be completely devoid of any life. The whole progression takes between 2 to 3 billion years. Although Earth provides an impractical venue for testing this idea, older exoplanets in the solar neighborhood serve as good places for the test.

As described in Astrobiology, researchers identified six Sun-like stars that could host Earth-like planets residing in the continuous habitable zone (CHZ). Each of these stars measures between 6 and 7 billion years old (as compared to the 4.6-billion-year age for the Sun and Earth). Applying biosphere evolution models to (hypothetical) planets orbiting the stars revealed that each planet was in a different stage of decline from Earth-like to almost extinct. Future measurements to find planets around these stars and characterize their biosignatures will yield constraints on the validity of the rare-earth hypothesis.¹

Even though better testing is still a ways off, the current research does highlight one more criteria that habitable planets must meet. Not only must they start in the habitable zone, they must remain within a habitable zone that continually moves farther away from the host star. As the Astrobiology article states, “If the development of Earth-like biospheres is rare, requiring a sequence of low-probability events to occur, biosphere evolution models suggest they are rarer still, with only thousands being present in the Galaxy as a whole.” Research continues to point to a rare, finely designed Earth.

Length. Width. Height. Duration.

Cue soundtrack and sing along:
One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn’t belong…

You pluck out “duration” prior to finishing the popular jingle, but there’s far more to the comparison than merely space (length, width, height) versus time (duration). That fourth dimension is laden with implications about our very existence.

Humans experience time differently from space. We can retrace our steps and return to any location in space but time moves relentlessly forward. What happens “before” affects what happens “after” but never the reverse. The Bible, in contrast to the prevailing ancient Near Eastern way of thinking about time,¹ accurately described (at the time it was written) this property of the universe, known as causality. Recent advances by scientists seeking to understand how space and time form and interact provide additional support for the biblical notion that causality arises from the Creator.

Earlier Research Leads to Dead-End Street

The Bible clearly states that the universe—and time in particular—had a beginning.²And three seminal scientific advances during the twentieth century affirmed that statement: (1) Einstein’s theory of general relativity; (2) Hubble’s detection of the universe’s expansion; and (3) Hawking and Penrose’s space-time theorems. However, despite these advances, a vexing puzzle remained.

In relativity, gravity allowed scientists to understand how space-time can adopt many different shapes (think large scale). However, behavior of particles at atomic and subatomic scales (quantum mechanics) ignores gravity and has necessitated quantum theory. Attempts to unify both seemingly discordant physical observations have led scientists to pursue a theory of quantum gravity. String theory represents the most popular attempt to provide a quantum theory of gravity. According to this theory, a multitude of space-time configurations exist with different dimensionality and different laws of physics, but testing remains elusive.

A Road to Main Street

Another recent approach reveals some remarkable properties of the fabric of space-time.³ Instead of trying to develop an overarching theory that incorporates both gravity and quantum mechanics, this alternative approach seeks to build from scratch––using basic quantum mechanical principles––a space-time structure resembling this universe. Such a process ensures the outcome obeys quantum mechanics, while allowing the number and shape of the dimensions to unfold rather than be specified.

Initially, researchers simply started with some representative four-dimensional building blocks of space-time, then allowed them to interact under simple gravitational and quantum mechanical rules, and finally observed the outcome. With no additional input, the results ended at one of two different outcomes—neither of which resembled the stable four-dimensional universe in which we live.

Scientists derived two important conclusions from this work. First, the dimensionality of space is not a fixed quantity. Instead, dimensionality can fluctuate and change depending on how the fundamental constituents of space-time assemble. Second, large, smooth, four-dimensional universes like this one are not stable under these rules.

Realizing that something was lacking in their modeling studies, scientists searched for that missing component. They discovered that adding one simple building block––causality––to the structure resulted in stable, four-dimensional universes. In other words, if the interactions were required to operate such that time always progressed in a single direction, the quantum fluctuations of curvature did cancel out on large scales to produce “normal”-looking universes. Furthermore, the overall results remained unchanged even as a variety of small details changed.

The implications of this research are far-reaching. The arrow of time that allows us to distinguish the past from the future derives from something outside of space and time. Stated another way, something beyond this universe encoded cause and effect into the very fabric of space-time.

While past and future seem like obvious concepts to the average person, they don’t make as much sense from a naturalistic viewpoint. For example, the basic laws of physics work the same regardless of any direction to time. Given the conditions of a system (for example, an interacting group of subatomic particles), the laws of physics predict the state of the system at any other arbitrary time (past, present, or future). Yet people remember the past but must wait for the future to happen.

Ironically, the same publication that describes this research into causality and dimensionality published an article in the previous month’s issue utilizing a multiverse to explain the arrow of time exhibited by this universe.⁴ The appeal to a multiverse implicitly acknowledges the “beyond natural” (or supernatural) origin of causality in this universe.

Humans on Easy Street

The twentieth-century discovery of a cosmic beginning points to a “beyond natural” cause that brought the universe into existence. The arrow of time (that is second nature to us) also provides evidence that something supernatural affected the space-time fabric of this universe. Otherwise, this creation would not have the three spatial and one temporal dimension required for life.

Given the laws of physics, life requires a universe with three large spatial dimensions and only one time dimension. A universe with fewer spatial dimensions would not permit the spatial complexity life requires. On the other hand, a universe with more spatial dimensions would not allow stable atoms or stable planetary orbits—both of which play a critical role for life. Anything other than one time dimension means that the future or past state of a system would not relate to the present. In other words, a hypothetical living organism in such a universe would not be able to find food or elude danger because the past is unknowable and the future is unpredictable. By imposing causality on the fabric of space-time, a universe with three large spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension results. Causality allows this universe to be habitable.

Causality’s significance for humanity is staggering. Without causality, life becomes a mechanical existence devoid of any hope, joy, or intrigue (or even Sesame Street). Furthermore, although our past influences our future, it does not dictate future events. We can choose among a number of different paths for our future. Though sometimes taken for granted, a universe with such features rouses wonder and gratitude.

This article was originally published in RTB’s ezine, New Reasons to Believe (Summer 2009).