Creationism - National Center for Science Education
Creationism - National Center for Science Education
Creationism - National Center for Science Education
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
life is impossible without prior Plan, and that random systems cannot by themselves<br />
produce Design. He insists that the Argument from Design has “never been adequately<br />
refuted.” In The Creation of Life: A Cybernetic Approach to Evolution, Wilder-Smith<br />
develops his computer-age design argument at considerable length. Computers, he says,<br />
have decisively refuted the theory of the random origin of life. Knowledge of cybernetics<br />
allows us to dispose of the anthropomorphic concept of God and view Him as<br />
Intelligence. The DNA code upon which life is based is more than a mere pattern: it is an<br />
actual script <strong>for</strong> life. Such an in<strong>for</strong>mation code proves supernatural Creation. Wilder-<br />
Smith says that “hindrances to accepting the postulate of an exogenous intelligence to<br />
account <strong>for</strong> nature’s coding have been finally and completely overcome by quite recent<br />
advances in cybernetic science” (1970:161). Chance cannot program in<strong>for</strong>mation.<br />
In another book, The Natural <strong>Science</strong>s Know Nothing of Evolution, Wilder-Smith<br />
expands on this idea.<br />
Evolution is thus basically an attempt to explain the origin of life from matter and energy without the aid of<br />
know-how, concept, teleonomy, or exogenous in<strong>for</strong>mation. It represents an attempt to explain the<br />
<strong>for</strong>mation of the genetic code from the chemical components of DNA without the aid of a genetic concept<br />
(in<strong>for</strong>mation) originating outside the molecules of the chromosomes. This is comparable to the assumption<br />
that the text of a book originates from the paper molecules on which the sentences appear, and not from any<br />
external source of in<strong>for</strong>mation... [1981:4]<br />
“Thus,” Wilder-Smith concludes triumphantly, “it is impossible <strong>for</strong> matter to have<br />
organized itself without the aid of energy and of teleonomic machines!”<br />
Paleontology gives no evidence that evolution has occurred, as Wilder-Smith<br />
demonstrates in some detail; more importantly, in<strong>for</strong>mation theory proves positively that<br />
it cannot occur. No laboratory experiment could ever demonstrate the plausibility of a<br />
naturalistic origin of life, he argues, because the scientist always adds energy and some of<br />
this all-important “know-how”—in<strong>for</strong>mation, concept, teleonomy, Logos—to the<br />
experiment. Such experiments do not duplicate “natural” conditions. Because of this<br />
added “know-how,” scientists have been “successful in their attempts to create artificial<br />
life.” Since the vital “know-how” was added, these experiments do not prove life could<br />
have arisen naturally; quite the contrary, they prove that exogenous Intelligence is<br />
necessary to create it.<br />
Darwin, when he <strong>for</strong>mulated his theories of the origin of life one hundred years ago [sic—Darwin wrote<br />
about the evolution of life from previous species, not the origin of life itself], had no knowledge of either<br />
the laws of thermodynamics (they were just being worked out by Clausius, Clapeyron, and Kelvin at that<br />
time), or the laws of heredity (Mendel’s laws were unknown to him, though they were published in<br />
Darwin’s lifetime). Darwin in his day could there<strong>for</strong>e assume with impunity that order did arise<br />
spontaneously from chaos, that life did arise spontaneously. Today, in the light of scientific discovery, we<br />
can no longer do this. [Wilder-Smith, quoted by Ingram 1968:6]<br />
Creationists are so utterly convinced by the Design Argument that they use it<br />
unblinkingly in ways that seem paradoxical to non-creationists. Many of the marvelous<br />
adaptations seen in nature work to the detriment of other species—especially carnivorous<br />
and parasitic adaptations. Such exquisitely designed evil (<strong>for</strong> creationists consider it<br />
such) refutes evolution as convincingly as beneficent design. Most creationists do not see<br />
this as a paradox. They rationalize it by explaining that this evil is the result of the Fall: