Undeniable

1. The Conflict Between Intuition and Scientific Consensus

The troubling contradiction between what the voice of scientific consensus was telling me and what the voice of my own intuition was telling me—the conflict within—had to be resolved.

Early skepticism. From graduate school, the author felt an intuitive conflict with the prevailing scientific view that life began and evolved solely through ordinary molecular processes and unguided natural selection. While expected to accept this consensus, his intuition suggested otherwise. This internal conflict motivated his scientific journey.

Challenging the stream. The scientific consensus, like a strong stream, can be almost irresistible, shaping thinking and even discouraging dissent. Darwin himself noted the initial widespread rejection of his theory by peers, followed by a sudden, non-evidence-based shift to near-total acceptance, suggesting peer pressure and cultural factors influence scientific opinion. The author experienced this pressure firsthand when his work challenged evolutionary assumptions.

Awkwardness is valuable. Going against the scientific stream is awkward, but often necessary for progress. The author's early critical stance, though penalized in academia, highlighted the need to question ingrained assumptions, particularly the unstated assumption that life's origin must be explained by ordinary molecular processes alone. This awkwardness is a sign that important, challenged claims are being addressed.

2. Science is a Human Endeavor, Not a Utopian Ideal

Many of us have bought into the idea that science, though practiced by humans, has managed to rid itself of human flaws.

Beyond simple rules. The popular image of science as a purely objective process following simple rules like "follow the evidence wherever it leads" is utopian. While ideal, human testing of human ideas is complicated by human factors, especially when dealing with big ideas that touch on deeply held worldviews like origins.

Human flaws persist. Scientists, like all people, have biases and strongly held views. Prestige, peer pressure, and the desire to protect established ideas can influence scientific discourse and even suppress dissenting views. The author's experience being pushed out of a research center due to his connection to intelligent design illustrates how human factors can override purely objective scientific evaluation.

Authoritarian science. When a particular view becomes institutionalized, dissent can be labeled "anti-science," enforcing compliance among the timid. This creates an authoritarian science where the consensus of elites is presumed correct, discouraging ordinary people from engaging critically. A realistic view acknowledges science as an intrinsically human pursuit, however imperfect.

3. The Universal Design Intuition is Grounded in Common Science

Tasks that we would need knowledge to accomplish can be accomplished only by someone who has that knowledge.

Innate perception. Humans possess a universal design intuition, an innate faculty to perceive purposeful intent behind certain outcomes. This is evident from childhood, where we naturally attribute complex, functional things to a "God-like designer," even if raised as atheists. This intuition is tenacious and persists even among trained scientists.

Common science basis. This intuition isn't mystical; it's grounded in common science – the everyday process of observing the world, making mental notes, building conceptual models, and refining them. We learn from experience that certain tasks require knowledge and effort (making an omelet, buttoning a shirt) and don't happen by accident. This principle extends to more complex things.

Applying the intuition. The intuition suggests that if we would need knowledge to accomplish a task, that task can only be accomplished by someone with that knowledge. This applies to arranging letters into instructions (oracle soup) or arranging molecular components into functional biological systems. To dismiss this intuition for life's origin requires ignoring a fundamental principle learned from universal human experience.

4. Life Exhibits Profound Functional Coherence

The very fact that the terms electron transfer chain and antenna system are used by the scientists who study photosystem I tells us that this photosystem’s overall function involves multiple subfunctions, including the transfer of electrons and the collection of photons by an antenna.

Busy wholes and whole projects. Living things are "busy wholes" that accomplish "whole projects." They are active entities that achieve complex results by bringing many small things together in just the right way, manifesting intent. Examples range from spiders building webs to cells performing photosynthesis.

Hierarchical organization. These whole projects are achieved through hierarchical functional coherence. Large projects are broken into smaller subprojects, each requiring specific components working together. This organization extends down to the molecular level, where proteins and molecular machines perform intricate tasks that support higher-level functions.

Beyond human invention. Life's functional coherence operates on a scale and complexity far beyond human capacity. Even simple single-celled organisms like cyanobacteria contain nanotechnological marvels like Photosystem I, exhibiting exquisite design and manufacturing capabilities that dwarf human achievements like solar-powered robots. Living things are all-or-nothing wholes, where all parts work in unison for the whole to be alive.

5. Natural Selection is a Fiddler, Not an Inventor

Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest.

Selection follows, doesn't lead. Natural selection is the tendency for fitter organisms to have more offspring. It acts like a "homer," shifting a species' genetic makeup towards higher fitness based on existing variations. However, it cannot invent new functional features because it can only favor an invention after it already exists within the population.

The gaping hole. This means the power of invention resides elsewhere, leaving a "gaping hole" in evolutionary theory. Selection can refine or "fiddle" with existing functions, like improving a weakly functional enzyme, but it cannot create the initial functional coherence needed for invention. Laboratory experiments confirm selection's inability to invent new functions from non-functional starting points.

Stepping stones require insight. The idea that selection builds complex inventions through a series of small, beneficial steps ("stepping stones") is problematic. For these steps to lead to a specific, complex invention requires an uncannily coordinated sequence of beneficial precursors appearing at the right time and place. This coordination itself looks like the result of insight, not accident.

6. Accidental Invention is Physically Impossible

Functional coherence makes accidental invention fantastically improbable and therefore physically impossible.

Blind searches are limited. Evolutionary processes, in the absence of foresight or guidance, are akin to blind searches through vast spaces of possibilities (like genetic sequences or molecular arrangements). Success in a blind search depends on the size of the target relative to the search space and the number of attempts made.

Fantastically big numbers. The space of possible molecular arrangements or genetic sequences is fantastically large – numbers so big they cannot be physically actualized in our universe. For example, the number of possible protein sequences or digital images of a certain size is beyond physical representation.

Impossible coincidence. Functional coherence, the specific arrangement of parts needed for invention, occupies an infinitesimally small fraction of these vast spaces. For accidental causes to stumble upon this coherence is fantastically improbable. Such extreme improbability means the event is physically impossible within the limits of our universe's matter, energy, and time.

7. Functional Coherence Requires Knowledge and Insight

Knowledge is the primary ingredient of every omelet.

Beyond physical causes. The reason accidental invention is impossible is that functional coherence can only come from knowledge and insight. Whether making an omelet, writing instructions, or building a complex machine, the process involves a mental stage of conception (top-down design) and a methodical stage of construction (bottom-up implementation).

Language as analogy. Written instructions, like the Apollo 13 mailbox instructions, demonstrate this. They require coherent arrangement of letters into words, words into sentences, and sentences into a logical sequence. Blindly arranging letters or words cannot produce meaningful instructions because it lacks the necessary knowledge of language and the objective.

General principle. This principle applies universally. From simple tasks to complex inventions like digital images or molecular machines, achieving functional coherence requires discerning the right parts and arranging them in the right way. This discernment requires knowledge, and there is no substitute for know-how.

8. Life's Complexity Defies Accidental Origin

Of the possible genes encoding protein chains 153 amino acids in length, only about one in a hundred trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion is expected to encode a chain that folds well enough to perform a biological function!

Proteins are inventions. Proteins, the workhorses of the cell, are molecular inventions exhibiting impressive functional coherence. Their specific amino acid sequences must be arranged just right for the chain to fold into a stable, functional 3D structure. Experiments show that functional protein sequences are fantastically rare within the space of possible sequences.

Beyond proteins. The challenge extends far beyond single proteins. Higher-level biological systems like photosynthesis or vision require the coordinated action of many different proteins and other molecules, arranged in intricate functional hierarchies. Each new form of life represents a new, high-level invention embodying distinct functional coherence.

Impossible odds. The origin of new life forms requires the origin of many new genes and proteins, each a fantastically improbable event by accident. The combined improbability of all the necessary inventions appearing by chance for even one new life form is staggering, making accidental origin physically impossible.

9. Materialism Fails to Explain Personhood and Meaning

The meaning we attach to these words is nowhere to be found in a person’s brain, or in any other physical location, for that matter.

Beyond things. Reality consists of thinkers, thoughts, and things. Materialism claims only things are primary, but it fails to explain thinkers (conscious persons) and thoughts (meaning, truth, reason). Physical descriptions of matter cannot account for subjective experience, free will, or the objective reality of concepts like "two" or "truth."

Consciousness defies physics. The mind's ability to control the physical body and ground thought in conceptual realities suggests it is categorically distinct from and above mere physical processes. While the brain is a physical interface, consciousness itself cannot be reduced to physical activity without collapsing the very notion of thought and meaning.

Sanity at stake. If meaning and truth are merely physical processes, then all human thought and language are fundamentally confused. Our insistence on truth over falsehood becomes arbitrary. Accepting the reality of a conceptual realm, distinct from the physical, is necessary for reason and science to have meaning.

10. Life Points to a Personal Creator

The source from which everything else came is not a what but a who.

Primacy of personhood. The richness of human experience – consciousness, reason, morality, creativity, relationships, emotions – points to personhood as a fundamental aspect of reality, not a derived one. A reality where persons exist must originate from a source where personhood is primary.

Beyond impersonal purpose. While some acknowledge life's apparent purpose, they seek an impersonal natural order. However, something lacking personhood cannot know the path to personhood or intend to create persons. The astonishing insight required for life's invention points to a personal knower.

Resonance and relationship. The deep resonance between the physical appearance of living things and our own emotional makeup, and our capacity for wonder and exhilaration in discovery, suggest a personal connection. Life's splendor is proof of a great Creator who invested intellectually and emotionally, inviting a relationship with us.

11. Biology Awaits a New, Design-Based Understanding

Biology awaits its Turing machine.

Old road limitations. The materialist assumption has constrained biology, focusing on how life works in physical terms while neglecting the deeper why questions of purpose and meaning. This leads to a disjointed view where life's splendor is acknowledged but treated as an accidental outcome, hindering a full understanding.

New road potential. Acknowledging life as designed opens a new road for biology. Instead of viewing organisms as accidental outcomes of blind processes, they are seen as masterful inventions embodying ingenious solutions to design challenges. This perspective can inspire deeper intellectual appreciation and shed new light on every subdiscipline.

Beyond mutations. If genomes are like operating systems, then the idea of complex life forms arising solely from random mutations is fundamentally flawed, regardless of whether the cause is accidental or guided. A design-based biology could explore life's complexity through the lens of engineering principles, seeking the underlying organizing principles that make life's components fit together so perfectly.

Last updated: May 7, 2025