The Argument from Biological Complexity

Abstract

This chapter argues that advances in our understanding of the molecular level of life overwhelmingly support the conclusion that, to a very large degree, life is the intended product of a designing mind. Several general characteristics of the design argument will be noted here at the outset. The first characteristic to note is that the argument for design from biochemistry is in large part an empirical argument. That is, it depends critically on our detailed understanding of the physical structures and processes of life. In turn, that means it depends on the progress of science in elucidating those structures and processes, and that the persuasiveness of the argument can shift with empirical discoveries. Such discoveries have been made since Darwin first put forward his theory. It has been only since the middle of the twentieth century—a hundred years after Darwin’s work, when the double helical structure of DNA and the irregular functional shape of the oxygen-binding protein myoglobin were discovered—that biology has begun to grasp the mechanisms of the molecular foundation of life. Over the past seventy years progress has accelerated enormously with the development of powerful new laboratory tools. An overarching discovery is that the foundational level of life is run by astoundingly complex molecular machinery. That key breakthrough drives much of the argument here. Furthermore, although it is an empirical observation, it is very secure; future work may show life to have greater functional intricacy than we now recognize, but it will not show it to have less. In addition to empirical data, the argument for design from biochemistry requires logical ties to connect the data to the conclusion. Unlike other writers such as David Hume,1 who cast the design argument mainly as one from analogy, Steven Meyer,2 who sees it as an inference to the best explanation, or Elliott Sober,3 who treats it as a likelihood argument, I consider the design argument to be an inductive one. That is, as we shall see, by considering how we draw conclusions that some inanimate systems were purposely designed, common elements can be extracted to guide us when attempting to decide if some biochemical systems were purposely designed. 5