Creationism - National Center for Science Education

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