Civilizations development and species origin technologies

M. Behe argues that the «irreducible complexity systems» existing in the body cannot be formed by means of the sequentially added elements, since the each element’s useful function is launched only when it is integrated into a complete system. But in such a case, organisms are the product of rational consciousness; that is, created in accordance to the plan. If the morphological evolution of animals can still be somehow imagined, then molecular one is difficult to imagine. The key point of M. Behe’s argumentation is that in no scientific source provides one with the detailed, testable scenarios of how incredibly complex biochemical systems could be formed under the influence of the evolutionary processes. In his opinion, the more complicated the system, the less its spontaneous occurrence likely.

M. Behe states that the alleged irreducible complexity could not be the result of an evolutionary process and therefore it can only be explained through the intelligent design. He does not deny microevolution based on Darwinian mechanisms that adapt the species to specific environmental conditions, but these mechanisms are not able to carry out structural changes in the body and generate the «inexcusable complexity» systems. As a result of the calculations, the scientist was able to establish extremely low values of the complex organic molecules’ spontaneous nucleation probability by means of calculations performed. Opponents of M. Behe believe that this value is explained by the extreme scarcity of information regarding the conditions under which chemical reactions can take place leading to the occurrence of such molecules. Therefore, this number cannot be considered as seriously justified one.

The irreducible complexity concept’s critics believe that in the course of evolution something which was just beneficial at first, may later, with the change of other parts, become necessary. Moreover, various parts of the system can spontaneously change, acquire other functions, or, having lost their functions, be removed from the system. For example, scaffolding supporting the «irreducible complex building» is necessary until the building can stand on its own. There are also the evidences provided that the bacterial flagellum has a precursor possessing proteins that are homologous to ones found in the bacterial flagellum. It should be noted that there should have been someone to create scaffolding and the flagellum predecessor. Nothing comes out of nowhere.

M. Behe’s doctrine opponents suggested that some parts could be temporarily borrowed from other organisms and simpler molecular systems. However, Scott Minik, who has been studying flagellar bacteria for 20 years, refuted this assumption having proved that 30 out of 40 parts that constitute the bacterial flagellum are unique and could not have been borrowed from any other system. Even if such parts had been found, borrowing would have been just a part of the problem, since its functioning requires not only specific details, but the exact assembly sequence as well.

Kenneth Miller, a biologist from Brown University, demonstrated a computer animation of the flagellum’s performance. He began to disassemble the «mechanism», removing dozens of parts from it, not one at a time. In the end, he removed a significant portion of the complex system, but the remaining parts continued functioning. It is believed that these data have refuted the main argument of M. Behe regarding the indivisible complexity. However, I have a question: can a computer animation, in which the movement of each flagellum part is programmed, correspond to the living organism’s functional characteristics?

Mark Perakh, a professor of Mathematics and Statistics of California State University, Fullerton, in his critical article «Intelligent Design or Blind Accident? «A clash of Two Worldviews» expressed the opinion that many biochemical systems described by M. Behe are characterized by excessive complexity. If so, it can be explained either by the result of the chaotic uncontrolled events’ sequence, or by the irrational design. In the absence of evidence that the complexity of the system is irredundant, this complexity is more likely to indicate a blind incident than the rational design. However, I believe that M. Perakh is also wrong in this aspect. It is not the excessive complexity that is observed, but the minimal complexity capable of the function’s provision.

Many biochemical systems described by M. Behe are not characterized by excessive complexity; they are the rational complexity necessary to perform certain complex functions. These difficulties are not excessive, but rational.

Rukhlenko I. A. (Рухленко Илья Александрович) (Dean of the faculty of ecology of Volzhsky University named after V. N. Tatishchev) in his two-volume book «What is the Answer to the Darwinist?» gives practical advice to people who have skepticism towards the modern theory of evolution, but are engaged in verbal disputes with sticklers for Darwinism. The author explains in detail that they should respond, if they refer to the following:

1) Palaeontological; 2) molecular genetic; 3) comparative anatomical; 4) embryological; 5) bio-geographical «evidences of evolution». Especially considered in detail the examples of observed evolution, based on the empirical void. They are unacceptably few and most of them are not examples of evolution. In addition to the of «evidences of evolution» criticism, the book covers a large number of facts related to different areas of biology that contradict the concept of natural evolution, and explains them by means of the Intelligent design’s different theories. The analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the Intelligent design’s theory compared to the theory of natural evolution is provided. The conclusion is that it is the concept of continuous creation that successfully explains most of the biological facts today.

The «Intelligent Design» movement’s leading representatives, working for the «Discovery Institute» non-profitable public organization, consider it as a scientific theory, according to which certain features of the Universe and life are best explained by an intelligent first cause and could not occur as a result of natural processes without conscious control. Intelligent design argues that there are enough evidences in nature that life and nature are the result of a thoroughly thought-out design plan. Nature can be treated more as a result of preliminary planning, but not as a simple adaptation’s consequence.

Books dedicated to the Intelligent Design «The Signature in the Cell», «Darwin’s Doubt» (S. Meyer), «Undeniable» (D. Ax) and «Darwin on Trial» (Ph. E. Johnson) are published in significant circulations and are sold well. However, works dedicated to this problem are not accepted by the peer-reviewed journals and scientific conferences. The «Intelligent Design» concept does not find recognition as a scientific theory and is considered as pseudoscience in the vast majority of American scientific organizations.

The «Intelligent Design» movement’s leading representatives work for the «Discovery Institute» non-profitable public organization based in Seattle (USA). It supports the promotion of the introduction of the creationist anti-evolutionary beliefs in the US curriculum along with generally accepted scientific theories. In 2005, the «Kitsmiller against Dover School District» lawsuit’s verdict was that the directive to teach Reasonable Design as part of natural science subjects as an alternative to the evolutionary theory contradicts the First Amendment to the US Constitution. The «Intelligent Design» is not a scientific theory and has a religious nature served as the basis for such a verdict.

Within 2001 to 2010, the Discovery Institute staff collected about 700 scientists’ signatures under the «Scientific Disagreement with Darwinism» thesis to show that there are many scientists who disagree with the so-called Darwinian evolution. This thesis says: «We are skeptical of statements about the random changes and natural selection’s possibility to be responsible for the complexity of life». This resolution has led to several campaigns aimed at showing the level of the evolution in the scientific community’s support, including the «Scientific Support for Darwinism», which collected more than 7 thousand signatures in four days. It should be noted that such issues are not resolved by the vote of people who do not have in-depth knowledge on this issue. The propaganda of the theory of the «Intelligent Design» in order to justify the divine creation of life fundamentally contradicts science and harms the development of mankind, as any other religion does.

1.7. OUTSTANDING SCIENTISTS AND THINKERS’ DOUBTS

Many thinkers at various times thought about the complexity of the origin of the surrounding world on Earth. They realized that there were a lot of inexplicable facts and phenomena that may be associated with the highly developed intelligence’s activities. The ancient Greek philosopher Anaxagoras, observing the expedient arrangement of the world, came to the idea of a «supreme intelligence». Socrates and Plato also saw evidences of the existence of a supreme intelligence in the structure of the world. «The world is too complicated to occur by chance». M. Bakunin wrote the following about it: «The great philosophers from Heraclitus and Plato to Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Kant, Fichte, Schelling and Hegel, if not to mention the Indian philosophers, wrote heaps of volumes and created systems as witty as sublime in which they in passing revealed many beautiful and great things and discovered immortal truths, but also left this mystery, the main subject of their transcendental research, as impenetrable as it was before them».

Many thinkers associated the complexity and thoughtfulness of the world with religious beliefs, when all facts unexplained by science were associated with the divine power. Other scholars, understanding all the theological views’ mysticism and savagery, spoke about the role of the creative principle, about the Creator participation, the abstract Supreme Intelligence or Creator in their statements about the world’s structure.

V. I. Lenin is attributed the following statement: «If nature is creation, it goes without saying that it can be created only by something which is greater, that is more powerful than nature. To be created from something that already exists, since in order to create nature, something should already exist independently of nature. So there is something existing besides nature and, moreover, it is something that creates nature. It is called God in Russian».

The points of view of mankind’s prominent personalities are more powerful than the views of ordinary scholars repeating orthodox truths learned from the student bench. I am pleased to realize that they correspond my beliefs. So I decided to cite some of them. Theologians used all these statements to strengthen their power over the minds of gullible believers. Some of them are taken from the book by Ivan Klimishin, a professor of the Carpathian National University named after Vasily Stefanik, Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, titled «Scientists Find God», as well on the following sites: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lists of creationist scientists; https:// www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1AOHY ruUA792UA816 amp; e i = 6thbXLycD9H5kwXFuI D4CA amp; q = great + scientists + about + and

+ creationists amp; oq = Great + scientists + about + and + creation amp; gs l = psvab.1.0.33i22i29. 2267.14336…16918… 0.0…0,158.1143.1lj2

…0,… l…gws-wiz……0i71j0i22i30i 19j0i22i30j33i10.BhONC u5TpY; https://www.pravmir.ru/velikie-fiziki-o-vere-i-boge/ The desire to find a supernatural explanation for creation in the distant past was well expressed by Giordano Bruno: «We seek God in the unchanging, unshakable law of nature, in the reverential mood of the soul governed by this law… in the true reflection of His essence, in countless constellations glowing on the invariable space of a single sky…».

Georg Lichtenberg noted many years after that: «Is our concept of God not the personification of the incomprehensible,» and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz argued that «only the trivial throats of scientific knowledge alienate man from religion and God, while the more profound ones return Him to them again».

Carl Linnaeus, the founder of the flora and fauna taxonomy, exclaimed: «I watched animated creatures follow each other in a continuous chain, adjacent to the vegetable kingdom, plants linked to the mineral kingdom, going into the interior of the globe, while this globe is whirling in the stable order around the Sun, giving it life. Finally, I saw the Sun and all other luminaries, the entire star system, infinite, uncountable in its infinity, moving in space, being hung in the middle of eternal void by the First Incomprehensible Mover, the Being of the Beings, the Cause of the causes, the Leader and Keeper of the Universe, the Lord and Worker of all things in the world! So, it is fair to believe that there is God, the Great and Eternal one, not born of any being that has created these universal things and established the order». According to C. Linnaeus, «We have as many species as the Infinite Being first created… these forms, according to the laws of reproduction, have produced many others, but always similar to themselves».

Similar thoughts were expressed by Claude Bernard, one of the founders of experimental medicine and endocrinology: «No matter how far experimental science goes forward in the progressive course in its development and no matter how great its successes and discoveries are, it’s never able to answer about the primary cause of everything, about the origin of matter and life, and about the ultimate fate of the universe and man without crossing its own limits. Trying to answer these questions, I enter the field of metaphysics and cease to be a naturalist, exploring nature and learning the truth through observation, my opinions and views in this case no longer hold the authority of accurate and positive knowledge, since I am already outside the areas of competence of physical and physiological sciences here. «Jean-Baptiste Lamarck wrote: «The Supreme Creator of everything that exists is the direct creator of matter and nature and only indirectly is the creator of all products of this latter». Further, developing the idea of evolution, he argued: «The Higher Power has created matter, laid the foundation for the existence of its various species… Therefore, the duration of the matter’s existence will entirely depend on the will of its Creator, and nature with all its power can neither diminish nor add the slightest particles to the amount of what has been created».

Georges Cuvier, who rejected Lamarck’s theory of evolution, was convinced that «the Creator of all creatures, while creating them, could have been guided by only one law − the necessity to give each of his creations, which should continue life, means to sustain existence». Jean-Henri Fabre, the French entomologist, echoed him: «The world is ruled by an Infinite Intelligence. The more I observe, the more I discover this Intelligence, shining behind the mystery of the existing world. I know that they will laugh at me, but I care little about it; it’s easier to strip my skin off than deprive me of my faith in God». The Russian academician P. S. Pallas argued: «… A species is a constant unit, and species should be considered to be designed in the first plan of creation and assigned to form the chain of creatures that we admire not being able to explain this chain».

John Stuart Mill in his posthumously published essays «On Religion» (Th ee Essays on Religion, 1874) noted that the world order indicates the existence of an ordering intelligence. However, this does not give us any reasons to believe that God has created matter, that he is omnipotent and omniscient. God is not the Absolute Everything; a man collaborates with God in restoring the order, harmony and justice. A number of scientists in their judgments avoided the word God and used the word Creator instead. So, Louis Pasteur, the founder of modern microbiology and immunology, stated: «the more I study nature, the more I stop in awed amazement at the Creator’s affairs».

Georg Hegel believed that there is the Absolute Spirit which is the basis of everything that exists, which, because of its infinity only, can achieve true selfknowledge. It needs a manifestation for selfknowledge. Self-disclosure of the Absolute Spirit in space is nature; and self-disclosure in time − history. The mission of world-historical personalities was to be agents of a universal spirit.

William Whewell argued that «…it is impossible to practice biology without the objective purposes in nature’s assumption and ultimate cause». In his view, the common feature of «palaiologina Sciences» (historical casualty sciences) is the inability to explain the origins of the modern state of things through a natural way from some «initial state» without the assumption of supernatural intervention». Being a principled evolutionism opponent, he believed that «a creative power manifested» itself at the beginning of each new geological period. He did not admit trasnformism in biology, saying that «admission of the new species’ as a natural phenomenon in nature, without pointing at the same time on the real facts confirming such an assumption, therefore, stands for the completely unfounded rejection of the creation hypothesis». This statement is not an object of faith, but a scientific axiom. Its essence is reduced to the cosmological argument («History and science», 1894, Russian translation, 1900).

Johann Goethe, the German poet, thinker and natural scientist, the founder of the plants metamorphosis’s doctrine, drifting towards the idea of evolution, believed that it can only occur within certain limits under the guidance of the Creator. He wrote: «All parts are formed according to the eternal laws, and the rarest form is secretly similar to the original image».

Voltaire said: «One needs to be blind, so as not to be blinded by this picture, one needs to be a fool to reject its Creator, one needs to be crazy not to bow before Him».

K. E. Tsiolkovsky noted in his scientific paper «Unknown Intelligent Powers»: «The will of man and all other beings – both higher and lower ones − is only a manifestation of the Universe’s will. The voice of a man, his thoughts, discoveries, concepts, truths and delusions − is only the voice of the Universe».

Pierre-Simon de Laplace addressed Napoleon Bonaparte with the following statement: «My religion is simple: I look at the Universe and I am convinced that it could not be a matter of blind chance, but was created by some unknown and almighty being that is as much exceeds a man as far the Universe exceeds our best machines». His answer to Napoleon’s question whether God was offered a place in the world’s system proposed by Laplace was as follows: «I did not need such a hypothesis».

Justus Liebig, the German chemist, exclaimed: «Do not forget that with all our knowledge and researches we remain short-sighted people whose strength is rooted in the fact that we have support in the person of the higher Creature».

Jöns Jakob Berzelius, the Swedish chemist, wrote: «All organic nature gives evidences of the wise goal’s existence and is a product of a higher intelligence… Thus, a person’s mission is to consider his higher ability − the ability to think» in accordance with the Creature to which he owes his existence».

A whole series of statements dedicated to the Supreme Intelligence belongs to famous physicists. Isaac Newton, one of the greatest geniuses of mankind, who introduced his own version of biblical chronology, left after himself a significant number of manuscripts on these issues. In his Principia Philosophiae, he wrote: «The Heavenly Sovereign rules the whole world as the ruler of the Universe. We marvel at Him because of His perfection, worship Him and bow to Him because of His infinite power. From a blind physical necessity, which is always and everywhere the same, no variety could have occurred, and all the variety of created objects corresponding the place and time, which constitutes the structure and life of the Universe, could have happened only by the thought and will of the Original Creature, which I call the Lord, God». «The wonderful arrangement of the space and harmony in it can only be explained by the fact that the space was created according to the plan of the omniscient and omnipotent Creature. This is my first and last word». Isaac Newton also noted: «How do bodies movements obey the will and where does animal instinct come from?… And if He did so, then philosophy should not look for other origin of the world or believe that the world could have occurred out of chaos only in accordance with the laws of nature…». The economist John Maynard Keynes, who purchased Newton’s alchemy notes, said at the jubilee of Newton’s three hundredth birthday: «He considered the Universe to be a cryptogram composed by the Almighty God».

Albert Einstein in his letter to the New York rabbi Goldstein in 1924 wrote such words: «I believe in Spinoza’s God, who manifests himself in the natural harmony of life, but not in God, who cares about fate and people’s affairs». In another letter, one can read such words: «I do not believe in a personal God. I expressed my attitude towards God clearly and have never refused my words. If one may consider some my statements to be religious, then it is probably due to my unlimited admiration for the world’s structure that science shows us.» He expressed the following thought:

«The one, who is seriously engaged in science, is convinced that there is a certain spirit in the laws of nature, and this spirit is higher than man».

The same idea was expressed by James Joule, the English physicist:

«There is a vast variety of phenomena we face which are the evidences of the Great Universe Architect’s wisdom and kindness» Max Planck, the outstanding physicist and founder of quantum physics, once said the following: «Both religion and natural science need faith in God, at the same time, God stands at the beginning of all thinking for religion, and at the end − for natural science. For some people, He means the foundation, and for others − the peak of any worldview principles’ building».

Andrе-Marie Ampеre, another famous French physicist, said:

«The most convincing evidence of the God’s existence is the harmony of means by which order is maintained in the universe, due to this order, living things find everything they need for the development and reproduction of their physical and spiritual abilities in their organisms».

Werner Heisenberg, the German physicist and one of the quantum mechanics’ founders, expressed the similar idea: «The first sip from the natural science’s cup gives rise to atheism, but God waits for us at the bottom of the vessel».

Andrei Sakharov, a Soviet physicist and one of the hydrogen bomb’s developers, said: «My deepest feeling… is the existence of some kind of the nature’s inner meaning… And this feeling, perhaps predominantly feeds on the picture that has been opened before people in the XX century. «I don’t know at heart what my position really is, I believe in no dogma, I don’t like official churches. At the same time, I can’t imagine the Universe and human life without any meaningful beginning, without a source of spiritual «warmth» going far beyond the matter and its laws».

James Jeans, the English astrophysicist, said in a similar way:

«Primitive cosmogonies presented the Creator working in time, forging the Sun and the Moon and stars from the already existing raw material. Modern scientific theory makes us think of the Creator working out of time and spaces, which are part of His creation, as well as the artist is out of his canvas».

Pascual Jordan, a German physicist, one of quantum mechanics’ founders, also noted that «Modern science has removed the obstacles that previously were between natural knowledge and religious worldview. Contemporary natural science no longer rebels against the Creator».

Thomas Edison, a well-known physicist-inventor answered the question of expediency in the world of atoms during an interview in the following: «Do you really think that it is done without any sense? The harmonious and useful combinations of atoms take beautiful and interesting shapes and colours, as if expressing their pleasure. In illness, death, decay, or decay, the disagreement of the compound atoms immediately manifests itself through the fetid odour. The atoms united in the known forms constitute the lower ranks’ animals. Finally, they are united in a man, who represents the complete harmony of meaningful atoms».

The same opinion was shared by William Herschel, the English astronomer: «The more the field of science is broadening, the more evidences of an Eternal Creative and Almighty Intelligence existence appear».

John Fleming, the English physicist and radio engineer, wrote on this occasion: «A great number of modern discoveries have completely destroyed the old materialistic ideas. Nowadays, the Universe appears before us today as a thought, but thought presupposes the presence of a Thinker».

Stephen Hawking, a modern theoretical physicist, wrote: «My studies of the Universe are in the boundary zone between science and religion, but I do my best to stay on the scientific side. It is quite possible that God acts in such a way that is not described by scientific laws, but in such a case, the person has to rely on its own faith. Even if there is only a single unified theory – it is just a set of rules and equations. What adds fire to the equations and creates the Universe to be described? The common scientific approach of a mathematical model constructing does not provide the answer to the question of why the universe should exist to be described by this model. Why does the Universe exist at all? (Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes, New York, 1988, 174).

I would like to finish this list of the famous scientists’ sayings with the final phrase of the «Origin of Species», the main paper by Charles Darwin. It reads as follows: «There is greatness in this view, according to which the Creator initially breathed life with its various manifestations into one or a limited number of forms; and while our planet is spinning, according to the unchanging laws of gravity, an infinite number of the most beautiful and most amazing forms has occurred and continues to occur from such a simple principle». He also noted in this book: «The world rests on regularities and in its manifestations is presented as a product of the Intelligence − this is an indication of its Creator».