How Did Life Develop Order?

Modern-day scientists, philosophers and theologians are examining the basic building blocks of life to better understand why they contain organized and specific information which work apparently towards goal-oriented processes and purposes. The basic building blocks of life, though complex, appear organized.

How did life get ordered? Science cannot explain how such complexity in information arose other than by mere chance, yet we can specifically see in both our DNA as well as in the alignment of the stars that there are recognizable patterns. Science agrees there are natural laws of physics such an entropy and gravity, but when we remove the time and space perameters (think cloning and astronauts), the logic and reasoning upon which we base our understanding of these basic natural principles become fuzzy.

Was life designed or evolved? If one believes that an intelligent being created life, who is then prepared to explain the properties which constitute the Creator? If the basic building blocks of life such as DNA are reaching towards a self-sustaining, enhanced form of existence (i.e. survival of the fittest) then this would imply some kind of ultimate destiny or goal. Do material objects, particularly those without the ability to rationalize as we know it, create their own means and ends? Do they establish their own boundaries and sense of balance and order? Why then do some species thrive in the sunshine and others prefer to be nocturnal? What constitutes thought?

In his most recent book, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence For Intelligent Design author Stephen C. Meyer who is Director and Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Washington, examines similar teleological questions. Dr. Meyer has a Ph.D from Cambridge University. His studies included the history of origin of life biology and this new book takes a look at the possibility that there may be a "master programmer of life."

Scientists should be commended for examining new ways of understanding and explaining life sciences. It is hoped that similar to art expression and religious belief, the courts and judges (think the Dover Decision) will not be the final arbitrators as to what constitutes truth or science. One only needs to look at history to see that governmental regulators or the majority consensus are not always the best determiners of social justice, equal and inherent civil rights or even regulatory rulemaking over our environment. There is a perfectly good reason for this - they are relying on logic which is a product of human nature. Science is ever evolving. It is why one should always keep an open mind with regard to scientific theories.

Evolutionists also have to use reason and logic and those skills basically fundamental to the mind to understand, chronologically organize and differentiate even basic artifacts, bones, rock formations and seeds found in nature. As of this date, they cannot explain the how or why of biological complexity such as eye design or neuroscience or the ability for blood to clot for example - only that it does exist. Hopefully those interested in the methods and means will join into the conversations without fear of prejudice to arrive at some logical explanations. The door is wide open for possible explanation by all. Some ultimate irrefutable truth statement would be nice, but as shown above regarding entropy and gravity, it might end up depending upon viewpoint and experience.