Chapter 5: Life Is No Accident

 第5章：人生绝非偶然

( Bilingual : 双语 )

LIFE IS NO ACCIDENT

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. —CHARLES DARWIN, ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES¹

The illusion of design is so successful that to this day most Americans (including, significantly, many influential and rich Americans) stubbornly refuse to believe it is an illusion. — RICHARD DAWKINS, “THE ILLUSION OF DESIGN”²

THERE IS A GOD: HOW THE WORLD’S MOST NOTORIOUS Atheist Changed His Mind was the title of a book published in 2004. The writer was Anthony Flew, the most outspoken atheist of his generation. While at Oxford in the 1940s, he presented a paper on atheism to the Socratic Club, chaired by C. S. Lewis. Flew was a prolific writer, publishing over thirty books. His conversion from atheism to theism at age eighty was a source of tremendous controversy. Regardless of the debate over the extent of his “conversion” from atheism, the fact is that he did convert.

In a symposium in New York in May 2004, Flew was asked if his recent work on the origins of life pointed to intelligence behind creation. He declared that it did and retold the story in his book.

Yes, I now think it does . . .  almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together. . . . It is all a matter of the enormous complexity by which the results were achieved, which looked to me like the work of intelligence.³

Flew goes on to reveal that his conversion was a result of the commitment he had made to follow the evidence wherever it leads. “This statement represented a major change of course for me, but it was nevertheless consistent with the principle I have embraced since the beginning of my philosophical life-of following the argument no matter where it leads,"⁴

Flew is not alone in recognizing the window into the world of the cell that has given us a glimpse of the fantastic complexity of life. Specifically, the developments over the last forty years in biochemistry and biology have shown us the micro universe of the cell and have led to the logical conclusion that life is no accident.

In the last chapter we looked at the incredible fine-tuning of the universe from the very beginning of creation. The evidence shows that the universe was designed with life in mind. However, the actual emergence of life itself brings into focus equally fascinating fine-tuning evidence that points to the reality that life itself was intentionally engineered. When life walked onto the stage of history, it was no inconsequential thing.

生命绝非偶然

 如果能够证明存在任何复杂的器官，而它不可能通过无数次、连续的、微小的修改而形成，那么我的理论就绝对崩溃了。 ——查尔斯·达尔文，《物种起源》¹

 设计的幻觉是如此成功，以至于直到今天，大多数美国人（其中包括许多有影响力和富有的美国人）顽固地拒绝相信它是一种幻觉。 — 理查德·道金斯，《设计的幻觉》²

 《上帝是存在的：世界上最臭名昭著的无神论者如何改变主意》是 2004 年出版的一本书的书名。作者是安东尼·弗卢，他是这一代人中最直言不讳的无神论者。 20 世纪 40 年代，他在牛津大学期间，向由 C. S. Lewis 主持的苏格拉底俱乐部提交了一篇关于无神论的论文。 弗卢是一位多产的作家，出版了三十多本书。 他在八十岁时从无神论转向有神论，引起了巨大的争议。 不管关于他从无神论“转变”到什么程度的争论，事实是他确实转变了。

 2004 年 5 月在纽约举行的一次研讨会上，弗卢被问到他最近关于生命起源的研究是否表明了创造背后的智慧。 他宣称确实如此，并在他的书中重述了这个故事。

 是的，我现在认为确实如此。 。 。 几乎完全是因为DNA调查。 我认为 DNA 材料的作用是，通过产生（生命）所需的安排的几乎令人难以置信的复杂性，它表明智力必须参与使这些极其不同的元素一起工作。 。 。 。 这完全取决于所取得的结果的巨大复杂性，在我看来，这就像智力的工作。

 弗卢接着透露，他的转变是他承诺遵循证据的结果，无论证据如何。 “这句话对我来说当然代表了一个重大变化，但它仍然与我从哲学生涯开始以来就遵循的原则是一致的——无论论证走向何方，都要遵循它，”⁴

 弗卢并不是唯一一个认识到细胞世界的窗口，它让我们得以一睹生命奇妙复杂性的人。 具体来说，过去四十年生物化学和生物学的发展向我们展示了细胞的微观宇宙，并得出了生命并非偶然的逻辑结论。

 在上一章中，我们看到了宇宙从创世之初就进行的令人难以置信的微调。 证据表明，宇宙在设计时就考虑到了生命。 然而，生命本身的实际出现引起了同样令人着迷的微调证据的关注，这些证据表明生命本身是被有意设计的。 当生命走上历史舞台时，这并不是一件无关紧要的事情。

DNA: THE LANGUAGE OF LIFE

Let's look at the very thing that changed Flew and is giving the objective mind overwhelming evidence for DNA. 

Discovered in 1953 by James Watson and Francis Crick, deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is an instruction manual for operating any living thing. As Bill Gates said, “Human DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created."⁵ Watson and Crick may have discovered the book of life (DNA), but Francis Collins opened it up and taught us how to read it. Collins is a theist and a Christian, who mapped the human genome. He has been featured in Time magazine and is a vital voice for the evidence in the magnificent order and information that makes up this indispensable component of life.

Bacteria have DNA. Yeast have DNA. So do porcupines, peaches, and people. It is the universal language of all things. We are in a truly historic era, when this language from many different species is being revealed for the first time. All of the DNA of an organism is called its genome, and the size of the genome is commonly expressed as the number of base pairs it contains. Think of the twisted helix of DNA as a ladder. The rungs of the ladder consist of pairs of four chemicals, called bases, abbreviated A, C, T, G. ⁷ ACGT is an acronym for the four types of bases found in a DNA molecule: adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G), and thymine (T).

Our human genome stacks up as 3.1 billion rungs of the DNA ladder. Again, the probability it could have happened by chance is staggering. Have you ever received a pocket text? You get a few letters strung together that make no sense. It usually happens when people randomly touch their keypads without realizing they are hitting the keys. If you received a text that had an understandable message like, “Don’t tell anyone, but I won the lottery," the chances the writer could claim the text was typed randomly would be astronomically improbable. Few would disagree with that straightforward conclusion. What if it was an ordered sentence of a billion letters? That's a conservative comparison to the intelligent information in the human genome, our DNA. Chances of pocket texting that? The most accurate statement about us as humans is, we are “fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:14).

DNA：生命的语言

 让我们看看是什么改变了弗卢，并为客观思维提供了压倒性的 DNA 证据。

 脱氧核糖核酸 (DNA) 于 1953 年由詹姆斯·沃森 (James Watson) 和弗朗西斯·克里克 (Francis Crick) 发现，是操作任何生物的指导手册。 正如比尔·盖茨所说，“人类 DNA 就像一个计算机程序，但比有史以来创建的任何软件都要先进得多。”⁵ 沃森和克里克可能已经发现了生命之书 (DNA)，但弗朗西斯·柯林斯打开了它并教会了我们 如何阅读。柯林斯是一位有神论者和基督徒，绘制了人类基因组图谱。《时代》杂志对他进行了专题报道，并为构成生命不可或缺组成部分的宏伟秩序和信息的证据发出了至关重要的声音。

 细菌有DNA。 酵母有DNA。 豪猪、桃子和人也是如此。 它是万物的通用语言。 我们正处于一个真正的历史时代，来自许多不同物种的这种语言首次被揭示。 生物体的所有 DNA 称为其基因组，基因组的大小通常表示为它包含的碱基对的数量。 将 DNA 的扭曲螺旋想象成一个梯子。 阶梯的梯级由四种化学物质对组成，称为碱基，缩写为 A、C、T、G。 ⁷ ACGT 是 DNA 分子中四种碱基的缩写：腺嘌呤 (A)、胞嘧啶 (C) 、鸟嘌呤 (G) 和胸腺嘧啶 (T)。

 我们的人类基因组由 DNA 阶梯的 31 亿级组成。 同样，它偶然发生的可能性是惊人的。 您收到过口袋短信吗？ 你会得到一些毫无意义的字母串在一起。 当人们随机触摸键盘而没有意识到自己正在敲击按键时，通常会发生这种情况。 如果你收到一条短信，里面有一条可以理解的信息，比如“不要告诉任何人，但我中了彩票”，那么作者声称该短信是随机输入的可能性就微乎其微。很少有人会不同意这个直截了当的结论。 如果这是一个由 10 亿个字母组成的有序句子怎么办？这是与人类基因组（我们的 DNA）中的智能信息的保守比较。口袋短信的可能性？关于我们作为人类的最准确的说法是，我们“可怕而奇妙” 所造的”（诗篇 139:14）。

CHANCE OR DESIGN

Was life engineered by intelligence, or did it arise spontaneously from random processes? The answer to this question has a bearing on whether you are a theist or an atheist, if you are using logic to determine your beliefs.

For the last two thousand years, scientists and philosophers for the most part have agreed that life was designed. When Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, he sparked a revolution in how the scientific community would view this. “Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the creator from rational discussion.”³ Dawkins explained how this theory caused him to leave the Christian faith and embrace atheism: “At about fifteen years old, I recognized that there was no good reason to believe in any kind of supernatural Creator. My last vestige of religious faith disappeared when I finally understood the Darwinian explanation for life.”³

Einstein, on the other hand, who was fully aware of evolutionary theory, said the scientist's "religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.”¹⁰ Likewise, many other scientists over the past several decades are recognizing to greater degrees how design is revealed throughout science.

机遇还是设计

 生命是由智慧设计的，还是从随机过程中自发产生的？ 如果您使用逻辑来确定您的信仰，这个问题的答案将关系到您是有神论者还是无神论者。

 在过去的两千多年里，科学家和哲学家大部分都同意生命是被设计的。 当查尔斯·达尔文 (Charles Darwin) 于 1859 年发表《物种起源》时，引发了科学界对此观点的一场革命。 “达尔文主义将上帝作为造物主的整个观念从理性讨论中剔除。” 道金斯解释了这一理论如何导致他离开基督教信仰并接受无神论：“大约十五岁的时候，我认识到没有充分的理由相信这一点。 在任何一种超自然的造物主中。 当我终于理解了达尔文对生命的解释时，我最后的宗教信仰就消失了。”¹³

 另一方面，爱因斯坦完全了解进化论，他说科学家的“宗教感情表现为对自然法则的和谐感到欣喜若狂，它揭示了一种如此优越的智慧，与它相比，所有的 人类的系统思维和行为完全是微不足道的反映。”¹⁰  同样，过去几十年来许多其他科学家也在更大程度上认识到设计是如何通过科学来揭示的。

BACK IN DARWIN'S DAY

回到达尔文时代

Trying to go back to the nineteenth century and recapture the cultural mind set that existed when Darwin's work was first published isn't difficult. It's safe to say that Darwin threw the proverbial match into the powder keg. His ideas exploded onto the scene with the force of an earthquake and set off a subsequent firestorm much like the wildfires seen in the western part of the United States after a long period of drought.

试图回到十九世纪并重新捕捉达尔文著作首次出版时存在的文化思维定势并不困难。 可以肯定地说，达尔文把众所周知的火柴扔进了火药桶。 他的想法以地震的力量突然出现，并引发了随后的大火，就像美国西部长期干旱后发生的野火一样。

Darwin's explanation that all things have a natural cause made the belief in a creatively superior mind quite unnecessary. He created a secular world, more so than anyone before him. Certainly many forces were verging in that same direction, but Darwin's work was the crashing arrival of this idea and from that point on, the secular viewpoint of the world became virtually universal. ¹¹

达尔文关于一切事物都有其自然原因的解释使得相信具有卓越创造力的头脑变得毫无必要。 他创造了一个世俗世界，比他之前的任何人都更伟大。 当然，许多力量都在朝着同一个方向发展，但达尔文的工作是这个想法的突然到来，从那时起，世界的世俗观点几乎变得普遍。¹¹

The scientific community was looking for explanation for life other than God. Darwin gave them their God substitute: natural selection.

Natural selection is the blind process that slowly selects small differences between individuals in species to outsurvive others. Over time the beneficial differences, such as larger size, become more dominant in a population. These small changes are believed to accumulate over time and eventually cause a species to dramatically transform. Natural selection combined with mutations is seen the explanation for all of the variety of life as well as the emergence of every species. For this to happen, life would have emerged gradually over millions of years. “Life on Earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species—perhaps a self-replicating molecule-that lived more than 3.5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection.” ¹²

科学界正在寻找上帝以外的生命解释。 达尔文给了他们上帝的替代品：自然选择。

 自然选择是一个盲目的过程，它慢慢地选择物种中个体之间的微小差异，以超越其他个体。 随着时间的推移，有益的差异（例如更大的体型）在种群中变得更加占主导地位。 人们相信这些微小的变化会随着时间的推移而积累，最终导致物种发生巨大的转变。 自然选择与突变相结合被认为是所有生命多样性以及每个物种出现的解释。 为了实现这一点，生命将在数百万年的时间里逐渐出现。 “地球上的生命从生活在 35 亿多年前的一个原始物种（可能是一种自我复制的分子）开始逐渐进化； 随着时间的推移，它不断扩展，产生了许多新的、多样化的物种； 大多数（但不是全部）进化变化的机制是自然选择。” ¹²

In Dawkins's work called The Blind Watchmaker, he goes into great detail to laud the complexity of living things only to assert that their complexities arise from natural selection rather than as the result of an intelligent Creator.

在道金斯的著作《盲人钟表匠》中，他详细地赞扬了生物的复杂性，结果却断言它们的复杂性源于自然选择，而不是智能造物主的结果。

Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion  design and planning.¹³

自然选择是盲目的钟表匠，盲目是因为它看不到未来，不计划后果，没有目标。 然而，自然选择的生命结果却以压倒性的方式给我们留下了深刻的印象，其设计的外观仿佛出自制表大师之手，以幻觉的设计和规划给我们留下了深刻的印象。¹³

Evolution is certainly observable within species or genus. Even a single type of bird, like the finches Darwin observed, have massive amounts of variety. This type of evolution is called microevolution. However, this process can only drive very limited changes. As Hugh Ross has explained,

This microevolution is not linear as Darwin presumed. It behaves like a sine curve (it oscillates). During the few years Darwin spent on the Galapagos Islands he observed the beaks of some finch species getting wider and others getting longer. However, now that biologists have been observing those finch species for over 150 years they note that the beaks get wider then narrower and longer then shorter in response to varying available food. That is, each beak characteristic is seen to vary about a mean. Rather than microevolution arguing for dramatic changes it appears instead to argue for stasis. ¹⁴

进化在物种或属内当然是可以观察到的。 即使是单一类型的鸟类，如达尔文观察到的雀类，也有大量的多样性。 这种类型的进化称为微进化。 然而，这个过程只能带来非常有限的变化。 正如休·罗斯所解释的那样，

 这种微观进化并不像达尔文所假设的那样是线性的。 它的行为就像正弦曲线（它振荡）。 达尔文在加拉帕戈斯群岛度过的几年里，他观察到一些雀类的喙变宽，而另一些雀类的喙变长。 然而，生物学家对这些雀类物种的观察已超过 150 年，他们注意到，随着食物的变化，喙会先变宽，然后变窄，变长，然后变短。 也就是说，每个喙特征都在平均值附近变化。 微进化似乎并不主张戏剧性的变化，而是主张停滞。 ¹⁴

The theory that this process could eventually cause one species to evolve into another significantly different one (like a fish becoming an amphibian) is macroevolution. The former has been clearly observed; however, the latter has no experimental or observational support.

这个过程最终可能导致一个物种进化成另一个显着不同的物种（就像鱼变成两栖动物）的理论是宏观进化。 前者已被清楚地观察到； 然而，后者没有实验或观察的支持。

DARWIN’S VISION

Darwin envisioned all of the history f life resembling a giant tree. The base of the tree would represent the first living organisms. The branches of the tree would represent the growth and development of various species from one kind another. As life progressed, natural selection would cause viable organisms to survive and ultimately form completely new species. Therefore, all of life was interconnected, every living thing ultimately a product of common descent.

Darwin's ideas about evolution congealed after his three-year voyage on the Beagle as a young naturalist in 1834. He eventually arrived in a chain of islands off the coast of South America called the Galapagos Islands, where the bulk of his study focused on the finch species on the island chain. He noticed traits that caused certain finches to thrive in that environment. Once he returned to England, it would be twenty-five years before he would fully develop these observations and publish On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.

达尔文的愿景

 达尔文将生命的全部历史想象成一棵参天大树。 树的根部代表着第一个活的有机体。 树的树枝代表着不同物种从一种到另一种的生长和发展。 随着生命的进步，自然选择将使可行的​​生物体得以生存并最终形成全新的物种。 因此，所有生命都是相互关联的，每一种生物最终都是共同血统的产物。

 1834 年，作为一名年轻的博物学家，达尔文在小猎犬号上进行了三年的航行后，他关于进化论的想法逐渐成形。他最终到达了南美洲海岸外的一串岛屿，称为加拉帕戈斯群岛，在那里他的大部分研究都集中在雀类身上 岛链上的物种。 他注意到导致某些雀类在那种环境中茁壮成长的特征。 回到英国后，他花了二十五年的时间才充分发展这些观察结果并出版《通过自然选择实现物种起源，或在生命斗争中保护受青睐的种族》。

Darwin knew his theory would be controversial. He fully understood the religious implication, that natural selection would eliminate the need for divine guidance in nature. But he also understood that his theory had many unanswered questions. Ultimately he knew that if natural selection couldn't explain the emergence of all of life, it could, fact, explain nothing beyond trivial changes in species.

达尔文知道他的理论会引起争议。 他完全理解宗教含义，即自然选择将消除自然界对神圣指导的需要。 但他也明白他的理论还有许多悬而未决的问题。 最终他知道，如果自然选择无法解释所有生命的出现，那么事实上，除了物种的微小变化之外，它也无法解释任何事情。

Contrary to the current tenets of evolutionary dogma that pervade modern science, no conclusive evidence has been presented that all of life arose from a common ancestor by an unguided natural process.

Yes, there are noteworthy connections between humans and chimpanzees, who share a significant percentage of the same DNA. In addition, human embryos look a lot like other types of embryos in the animal world. But the real issue is how these observations are interpreted. These similarities between species could just as easily result from common Designer rather than a common ancestor.

与现代科学中普遍存在的进化教条的信条相反，没有确凿的证据表明所有生命都是由一个共同的祖先通过不受指导的自然过程产生的。

 是的，人类和黑猩猩之间存在着值得注意的联系，它们有很大一部分具有相同的 DNA。 此外，人类胚胎看起来很像动物世界中其他类型的胚胎。 但真正的问题是如何解释这些观察结果。 物种之间的这些相似之处很可能是由共同的设计者而不是共同的祖先造成的。

ORIGIN OF LIFE

When Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species, the title mistakenly implied that the theory of evolution offered evidence of how life arose from natural processes. Nothing could be further from the truth. His theory was the origin of species, not the origin of life. As Darwin wrote, "Science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence origin of life. ¹⁵

Think about it. According to Darwin's theory, every living thing from algae in the ocean elephants in the desert was derived from one single celled ancestor. Natural selection used the extremely rare occurrence of positive mutations and accumulated those variations to produce all the species of everything that is alive. But where did that original cell come from? How could something this fantastic just happen? Natural selection tells you only what happens after you get life. If there is no life or no cell to begin with, then there is nothing to select. This is exactly what Oxford mathematician John Lennox pointed out to Richard Dawkins in the God Delusion Debate in Birmingham, Alabama, in 2008: “Richard, evolution only tells you what happens once you get life; it can't explain where the mechanism of the replicating mutator came from."¹⁶

Several Christians in Darwin's time and today feel that the theory of evolution poses no threat to a belief in the existence of God. They simply see evolution as the tool God used to shape life throughout history. Although it is not a position I hold, I can respect their interpretation.

生命的起源

 当达尔文撰写《物种起源》时，标题错误地暗示进化论提供了生命如何从自然过程中产生的证据。 没有东西会离事实很远。 他的理论是物种起源，而不是生命起源。 正如达尔文所写，“科学尚未阐明生命本质起源这一更高层次的问题。”

 想一想。 根据达尔文的理论，沙漠中的海象中的每一种藻类生物都源自一个单细胞祖先。 自然选择利用极其罕见的正突变并积累这些变异来产生所有生物的物种。 但那个原始细胞是从哪里来的呢？ 这么奇妙的事情怎么会发生呢？ 自然选择只告诉你获得生命后会发生什么。 如果一开始就没有生命或细胞，那么就没有什么可以选择的。 这正是 2008 年在阿拉巴马州伯明翰举行的上帝错觉辩论中，牛津大学数学家约翰·伦诺克斯 (John Lennox) 向理查德·道金斯 (Richard Dawkins) 指出的：“理查德，进化论只告诉你一旦获得生命后会发生什么；而进化论只会告诉你生命诞生后会发生什么； 它无法解释复制突变子的机制从何而来。”¹⁶

 达尔文时代和今天的一些基督徒认为，进化论不会对上帝存在的信仰构成威胁。 他们只是将进化视为上帝在整个历史中用来塑造生命的工具。 虽然这不是我的立场，但我可以尊重他们的解释。

However, all thoughtful Christians would agree that a blind evolutionary process could not produce the wondrous forms of life we see today, particularly humanity. The idea defies abundant scientific discoveries as well as common sense. Even if the mechanism that accounts for all the changes in life from one species to another were natural selection, it would have taken a supernatural Designer to have constructed such an astounding process. The evidence from the microscope points as clearly to a Creator as does the evidence from the telescope.

然而，所有有思想的基督徒都会同意，盲目的进化过程不可能产生我们今天看到的奇妙的生命形式，特别是人类。 这个想法违背了丰富的科学发现和常识。 即使解释生命从一个物种到另一个物种的所有变化的机制是自然选择，也需要一位超自然的设计师才能构建出如此令人震惊的过程。 来自显微镜的证据和来自望远镜的证据一样清楚地指向造物主。

MYTH BUSTERS 流言终结者

Skeptics delight in calling all religion a myth and comparing belief in God to belief the tooth fairy or one of the multitudes of fictitious deities of the ancient world. But which belief is the myth? One of my son's favorite shows is MythBusters. Each episode takes on a popular legend myth and tries to validate Things like, is it safer to drive a car with an airbag or without one? Or one of the more controversial topics: Are men better drivers than women? I'm waiting for them to take on the most important myth of all: Could life arise from non-life?

怀疑论者喜欢称所有宗教为神话，并将对上帝的信仰与对牙仙或古代世界众多虚构神灵之一的信仰进行比较。 但哪种信仰是神话呢？ 我儿子最喜欢的节目之一是《流言终结者》。 每一集都会讲述一个流行的传奇神话，并试图验证诸如驾驶有安全气囊的汽车更安全还是没有安全气囊的汽车更安全之类的事情。 或者更具争议性的话题之一：男性是否比女性更好驾驶？ 我正在等待他们揭开最重要的神话：生命能否从非生命中产生？

The rumor that life has been created in a test tube is a myth that was busted years ago. In the 1950s Stanley Miller and Harold Urey attempted to reconstruct the primordial soup they postulated would have been the conditions of the early earth where life could have arisen spontaneously from nonlife. Although there is no evidence that these were the initial conditions on earth when life began, their experiment gained attention because it was just that: an experiment. Electricity was sent through a concoction of methane, ammonia, and hydrogen; and the result was very simple nonliving amino acids. However, Dr. Frankenstein was closer to creating life than these men were.

试管中创造出生命的谣言几年前就被破灭了。 20 世纪 50 年代，斯坦利·米勒 (Stanley Miller) 和哈罗德·尤里 (Harold Urey) 试图重建他们所假设的原始汤，即早期地球的条件，生命可能从非生命中自发产生。 尽管没有证据表明这些是地球上生命开始时的初始条件，但他们的实验引起了人们的关注，因为这只是一个实验。 电力通过甲烷、氨和氢气的混合物输送。 结果是非常简单的非活性氨基酸。 然而，弗兰肯斯坦博士比这些人更接近创造生命。

The relevance of this experiment was eventually discredited because the experimental conditions did not match those of the early earth. In more realistic conditions such experiments do not yield significant quantities of the building blocks of life. As Hugh Ross explained,

 Earth never had a prebiotic soup nor any kind of prebiotic mineral substrate. Physicists now know why earth never could have possessed any prebiotics. It is due to the oxygen-ultraviolet paradox. If the environment of earth at the time life's origin contained any oxygen, that oxygen would immediately and catastrophically shut down prebiotic chemistry. On the other hand, if earth's environment at the time of life's origin contained no oxygen, ultraviolet radiation from the sun would penetrate earth's environment to a sufficient degree as similarly, immediately, and catastrophically shut down prebiotic chemistry. Either way, earth never could have naturalistically possessed any prebiotics.¹⁷

由于实验条件与早期地球的条件不符，该实验的相关性最终被怀疑。 在更现实的条件下，此类实验不会产生大量的生命组成部分。 正如休·罗斯解释的那样，

 地球从未有过益生元汤，也没有任何种类的益生元矿物质基质。 物理学家现在知道为什么地球永远不可能拥有任何益生元。 这是由于氧-紫外线悖论造成的。 如果生命起源时的地球环境含有任何氧气，那么氧气将立即灾难性地关闭生命起源前的化学反应。 另一方面，如果生命起源时的地球环境不含氧气，来自太阳的紫外线辐射将充分程度地穿透地球环境，同样地，立即地、灾难性地关闭生命前的化学反应。 不管怎样，地球不可能自然地拥有任何益生元。¹⁷

LIFE: WHAT ARE THE CHANCES?

The design argument has been one of the great roadblocks to atheistic dogma because any hint of design logically indicates an intelligent mind behind it. This argument leads smart men like Dawkins to say absurd things like, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of being designed for a purpose.' " ¹⁸ The presence of design is so overwhelming that biologists decide the design they witness everywhere isn’t real. Nobel Laureate Francis Crick, who initially discovered DNA, would say, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but evolved.”¹⁹ However, as more and more is learned about just how complex life really is, these kinds of disclaimers are becoming increasingly difficult to justify intellectually.

生活：有什么机会？

 设计论证一直是无神论教条的最大障碍之一，因为任何设计的暗示在逻辑上都表明其背后有一个聪明的头脑。 这种论点导致像道金斯这样的聪明人说出了一些荒谬的话，比如“生物学是对复杂事物的研究，这些事物看起来是为了某种目的而设计的。” ” 18 设计的存在是如此压倒性，以至于生物学家认为他们在任何地方看到的设计都不是真实的。最初发现 DNA 的诺贝尔奖获得者弗朗西斯·克里克会说：“生物学家必须时刻牢记，他们看到的东西不是设计的， 然而，随着越来越多的人了解到生命到底有多么复杂，这类免责声明变得越来越难以从理智上证明其合理性。

Life is beyond amazing. It's way beyond explanation. As biologists understand more and more about the processes of life, the intellectual leap is made to assume that its origins are explained easily through naturalism. The stunning miracle of how reproductive life emerged—male and female —is so impossible to imagine that it sounds like a fairy tale. And how did life know that every living thing needed a genetic code or that all the parts of the eye had to appear at once?

生活真是太奇妙了。 这是无法解释的。 随着生物学家对生命过程的了解越来越多，他们在智力上发生了飞跃，认为生命的起源很容易通过自然主义来解释。 生殖生命如何出现（男性和女性）的惊人奇迹是如此难以想象，听起来就像一个童话故事。 生命如何知道每一种生物都需要遗传密码，或者眼睛的所有部分必须同时出现？

As mentioned, even if the earth were filled with all of the building blocks of life, those pieces would never have assembled into a cell. In their book Evolution from Space, Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe argue that the probability of life arising on earth on its own is on the order of one chance in 1040000 20 (I hear Jim Carrey's voice right now from Dumb and Dumber: “So you're saying there's a chance.”) They said it was the same probability that a tornado could blow through a scrapyard and piece together a Boeing 747 airplane, full gas, ready to fly.²¹ (Their point was that since life couldn't have arisen on its own, it must have come from outer space.²²)

如前所述，即使地球充满了生命的所有组成部分，这些碎片也永远不会组装成细胞。 Fred Hoyle 和 Chandra Wickramasinghe 在他们的《Evolution from Space》一书中指出，地球上出现生命的概率约为 1040000 20 分之一（我现在听到《阿呆与阿瓜》中金·凯瑞的声音：“所以你 他们说，有机会。”）他们说，这与龙卷风吹过废品场并将一架波音 747 飞机拼凑起来、加满油、准备飞行的可能性是一样的。 是自己产生的，它一定来自外太空。²²)

Their conclusions point to the fact that naturalists are willing to postulate anything imaginable to account for the evidence for design in life. We have already discussed the great lengths naturalists will go to in order to avoid the possibility of an intelligent Creator, such as arguing for an eternal universe or an infinite number of universes called the multiverse. In order to account for the complexity of life and the impossibility of life starting itself, one of the most unusual explanations of all is the conjecture that life on earth is simply an alien experiment, or we were somehow planted here by extraterrestrials. So is this science or science fiction?

他们的结论指出了这样一个事实：博物学家愿意提出任何可以想象到的假设来解释生命设计的证据。 我们已经讨论过博物学家为了避免存在智慧造物主的可能性而竭尽全力，例如争论永恒的宇宙或称为多元宇宙的无限数量的宇宙。 为了解释生命的复杂性和生命本身的不可能性，最不寻常的解释之一是推测地球上的生命只是一个外星实验，或者我们是外星人以某种方式种植在这里的。 那么这是科学还是科幻小说呢？

WHO DESIGNED THE DESIGNER? 设计师是谁设计的？

The evidence for design is so overwhelming that skeptics such as Dawkins have to try and dismiss or deflect this in order to avoid the obvious implications. In fact, the central claim in his international bestseller The God Delusion is that though the universe “appears to be designed,” we must reject this because we can't answer the question "Who designed the Designer?"²³

设计的证据是如此压倒性的，以至于像道金斯这样的怀疑论者不得不试图驳回或转移这一点，以避免明显的影响。 事实上，他的国际畅销书《上帝的错觉》中的核心主张是，虽然宇宙“似乎是被设计的”，但我们必须拒绝这一点，因为我们无法回答“谁设计了设计师？”的问题。

Dr. Daniel Came of Oxford, who is an atheist as well, responded sharply to Dawkins on this central tenet of his book:

Dawkins maintains that we’re not justified in inferring a designer as the best explanation of the appearance of design in the universe because then a new problem surfaces: who designed the designer? This argument is as old as the hills and as any reasonably competent first-year undergraduate could point out is patently invalid. For an explanation to be successful we do not need an explanation of the explanation. One might as well say that evolution by natural selection explains nothing because it does nothing to explain why there were living organisms on earth the first place; or that the big bang fails to explain the cosmic background radiation because the big bang is itself inexplicable.²⁴

As Dr. Came pointed out, it is a logical fallacy to say you have to have an explanation for an explanation because it sets up an infinite regress. Philosophers such as Alvin Plantinga have dealt brilliantly with the utter nonsense of this claim.

Suppose we land on an alien planet orbiting a distant star and discover some machine-like objects that look and work just like a 1941 Allis Chalmers tractor; our leader says "there must be intelligent beings on this planet-look at those tractors." A sophomore philosophy student on the expedition objects: “Hey, hold on a minute! You have explained nothing at all! Any intelligent life that designed those tractors would have to be at least as complex as they are!" No doubt we'd tell him a little learning is a dangerous thing and advise him to take the next rocket ship home and enroll in another philosophy course or two.²⁵

The rebuttals given for the argument for complexity are almost humorous in their absurdity. Dawkins spelled out one such argument at a TED.com talk:

The standard creationist argument is living creatures are too complex to have come about by chance. Therefore, they must have had a designer. This argument of course shoots itself in the foot. Any designer capable of designing anything, something really complex has to be even more complex himself. Complexity is a problem that any theory biology has solve. And you cannot solve it by postulating an agent even more complex. Thereby simply compounding the problem. ²⁶

牛津大学的丹尼尔·卡姆博士也是一位无神论者，他对道金斯书中的核心原则做出了尖锐的回应：

 道金斯认为，我们没有理由推断设计师是宇宙中设计外观的最佳解释，因为这样就会出现一个新问题：谁设计了设计师？ 这种说法由来已久，任何有能力的一年级本科生都会指出，这种说法显然是无效的。 为了使解释成功，我们不需要对解释进行解释。 人们也可能会说，自然选择的进化没有解释任何事情，因为它无法解释为什么地球上首先存在生物体； 或者说大爆炸无法解释宇宙背景辐射，因为大爆炸本身就是无法解释的。²⁴

 正如卡姆博士所指出的，说必须对一个解释有一个解释是一个逻辑谬误，因为它会造成无限倒退。 阿尔文·普兰丁格（Alvin Plantinga）等哲学家出色地解释了这种完全无稽之谈的说法。

 假设我们降落在一颗绕着一颗遥远恒星运行的外星行星上，并发现了一些类似机器的物体，它们的外观和工作方式就像 1941 年的 Allis Chalmers 拖拉机； 我们的领导说“这个星球上一定有智慧生物——看看那些拖拉机。” 参加这次探险的一名二年级哲学学生反对道：“嘿，等一下！ 你根本就没有解释什么！ 任何设计这些拖拉机的智能生命都必须至少像它们一样复杂！”毫无疑问，我们会告诉他一点学习是一件危险的事情，并建议他把下一艘火箭飞船带回家，并参加另一门哲学课程 或两个。²⁵

 对复杂性论证的反驳几乎是荒谬的幽默。 道金斯在 TED.com 的一次演讲中阐述了这样一个论点：

 标准的神创论论点是，生物太复杂，不可能是偶然产生的。 因此，他们一定有一个设计师。 这种说法当然是搬起石头砸自己的脚。 任何有能力设计任何东西、真正复杂的东西的设计师，他自己都必须变得更加复杂。 复杂性是任何生物学理论都可以解决的问题。 而且你无法通过假设一个更复杂的代理来解决这个问题。 从而使问题变得更加复杂。 ²⁶

This is a rather astonishing attempt at using a logical device called Occam's razor. It is a principle attributed to the fourteenth-century Franciscan friar William of Occam in England. "The most useful statement of the principle for scientists is, when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the one that is simpler is better.”²⁷ So atheists seize on this concept simplicity (forgetting it was proposed by a theist) and rule out God as a possible explanation because the idea of God would be too complex to be the answer to why things appear designed. That's like saying that a painting couldn't be produced by an artist because an intelligent human with a complex brain being the artist would be more complex than the painting. These kinds of arguments are more like word games that serve as a red herring to divert the dialogue away from a truly simple conclusion: design points to a designer.

这是使用称为奥卡姆剃刀的逻辑装置的相当惊人的尝试。 这是十四世纪英国方济会修士奥卡姆威廉的一项原则。 “对科学家来说，该原则最有用的陈述是，当你有两种相互竞争的理论做出完全相同的预测时，越简单的理论越好。” ²⁷ 因此，无神论者抓住了简单性这一概念（忘记了它是由有神论者提出的） ）并排除上帝作为可能的解释，因为上帝的概念太复杂，无法解释为什么事物看起来是设计的。这就像说艺术家不能创作一幅画，因为一个具有复杂大脑的聪明人 作为艺术家会比绘画更复杂。这些争论更像是文字游戏，它们充当了转移注意力的话题，使对话偏离了一个真正简单的结论：设计指向设计师。

CAN EVOLUTION EXPLAIN EVERYTHING? 进化论能解释一切吗？

As was mentioned, the probability for a cell, an organ, or any of the millions of complex species coming into existence naturally is so fantastically small that biologists have to give natural selection godlike qualities. They justify their claim by arguing that all changes can be broken down into small steps. That's because the probability is so vanishingly small for random chance to explain the origin of life as well as the fantastic development of millions of complex species. Dawkins tried to explain:

It is grindingly, creakingly, crashingly obvious that, if Darwinism were really a theory of chance, it couldn't work. You don't need to be mathematician or physicist to calculate that an eye or a haemoglobin molecule would take from here to infinity to self assemble by sheer higgledy-piggledy luck. Far from being a difficulty peculiar to Darwinism, the astronomic improbability of eyes and knees, enzymes and elbow joints and all the other living wonders is precisely the problem that any theory of life must solve, and that Darwinism uniquely does solve. It solves it by breaking the improbability up into small, manageable parts, smearing out the luck needed, going round the back of Mount Improbable and crawling up the gentle slopes, inch by million-year inch. Only God would essay the mad task of leaping up the precipice in a single bound.²⁸

But without an intelligence behind the universe, could chance alone so easily find the step-by-step paths envisioned by Darwin? Such a claim is based almost exclusively on a massive leap of faith. Even more problematic, evidence from molecular biology over the past several years has all but disproven in many cases the possibility of such scenarios.

正如前面所提到的，一个细胞、一个器官或数百万个复杂物种中的任何一个自然存在的可能性都非常小，以至于生物学家不得不赋予自然选择神圣的品质。 他们通过认为所有改变都可以分解为小步骤来证明自己的主张是正确的。 这是因为对于解释生命起源以及数百万复杂物种的奇妙发展来说，随机机会的概率是如此之小。 道金斯试图解释：

 显而易见的是，如果达尔文主义真的是一种机会理论，那么它就行不通。 你不需要成为数学家或物理学家来计算一只眼睛或一个血红蛋白分子从这里到无穷远完全靠运气来自我组装。 眼睛和膝盖、酶和肘关节以及所有其他生命奇迹的天文学上的不可能性，远不是达尔文主义特有的难题，而恰恰是任何生命理论必须解决的问题，而达尔文主义确实解决了这一问题。 它通过将不可能的事情分解成小的、可管理的部分，抹掉所需的运气，绕过不可能山的后面，爬上缓坡，一寸一寸地爬上百万年英寸来解决这个问题。 只有上帝才能完成一次跳上悬崖的疯狂任务。²⁸

 但是，如果宇宙背后没有智慧，仅凭偶然性就能如此轻易地找到达尔文设想的一步一步的道路吗？ 这样的主张几乎完全基于巨大的信仰飞跃。 更成问题的是，过去几年来自分子生物学的证据在许多情况下几乎证明了这种情况的可能性。

IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY 

无法降低的复杂性

I opened this chapter with a quote from Darwin: “Is there any complex organ or aspect of life for that matter that couldn't have evolved or been produced by natural selection?” Here’s a term that the naturalists love to hate: irreducible complexity. This states that many structures organisms must have numerous parts all at once, or they do not function. Remember, if something is to be considered a true scientific theory, it must be falsifiable. The claim that natural selection can explain every living thing fails when tested according to this principle.

Specifically, Dawkins's argument of life climbing Mount Improbable completely breaks down when applied to real living systems. Most organs, biological processes, and cellular machines contain multiple pieces that are all needed simultaneously to operate properly. Therefore, they cannot develop through a step-by-step process of adding or modifying one piece at a time.

我用达尔文的一句话开始了这一章：“有没有任何复杂的器官或生命的方面不能通过自然选择进化或产生？” 这是一个让博物学家又爱又恨的术语：不可简化的复杂性。 这表明许多生物体结构必须同时具有许多部分，否则它们就无法发挥作用。 请记住，如果某个东西要被视为真正的科学理论，它就必须是可证伪的。 如果根据这一原理进行检验，自然选择可以解释所有生物的主张就站不住脚了。

 具体来说，道金斯关于生命攀登不可思议之山的论点在应用于真实的生命系统时就完全站不住脚了。 大多数器官、生物过程和细胞机器都包含多个部分，这些部分需要同时才能正常运行。 因此，它们不能通过一次添加或修改一项的逐步过程来开发。

BACTERIAL FLAGELLUM  细菌鞭毛

The most common example is the bacterial flagellum, which acts like an outboard motor. It includes dozens of essential pieces, such as the filament (propeller), bearings, drive shaft, hook, and motor. If even one piece is missing, the flagellum cannot be built. Only an intelligent Designer could arrange so many pieces so precisely for the specific purpose of locomotion.²⁹

 最常见的例子是细菌鞭毛，它的作用就像舷外发动机。 它包括数十个基本部件，例如灯丝（螺旋桨）、轴承、驱动轴、挂钩和电机。 即使缺少一块，鞭毛也无法构建。 只有聪明的设计师才能为特定的运动目的如此精确地安排如此多的部件。²⁹

In response, biologists again deny the obvious by appealing to several implausible scenarios. They typically claim that irreducibly complex machines could have come about through a process called co-option. Namely, similar pieces from other parts of the cell could have been borrowed and then brought together to form a new structure. For instance, wood from a doorstop, a spring from a clock, and a wire clothes hanger could be borrowed to form a mousetrap. Such claims are understandable from biologists who have no experience in engineering. However, anyone who has been involved in any sort of design process will immediately reject such a claim.

Imagine receiving a self-assembly bookcase. Even if all the pieces are present, randomly arranging them will not magically cause a functional bookcase to come together. Tools and assembly instructions are needed to put the pieces together in the correct order. Similarly, the construction of the flagellum is directed by an assembly program that builds the pieces in the correct order while several other molecular machines assemble the different pieces together properly.³⁰ Therefore, a cell cannot borrow new pieces from someplace else without simultaneously creating the assembly program and finding the needed assembly tools. Such coordinated events are fantastically improbable. The flagellum is easiest to discuss since its pieces are identifiable, and we are quite familiar with the design of outboard motors. However, the difficulty of the flagellum evolving pales in comparison, for example, to the evolution the eye.

作为回应，生物学家再次通过诉诸几种令人难以置信的情景来否认显而易见的事实。 他们通常声称，不可简化的复杂机器可以通过称为共同选择的过程产生。 也就是说，可以借用细胞其他部分的类似部件，然后将其组合在一起形成新的结构。 例如，可以借用门挡上的木头、钟表上的弹簧和铁丝衣架来制作捕鼠器。 对于没有工程经验的生物学家来说，这样的说法是可以理解的。 然而，任何参与过任何设计过程的人都会立即拒绝这样的说法。

 想象一下收到一个自组装书柜。 即使所有的部件都存在，随机排列它们也不会神奇地使一个功能性书柜组合在一起。 需要工具和组装说明才能将各个部件按正确的顺序组装在一起。 类似地，鞭毛的构建是由装配程序指导的，该程序以正确的顺序构建各个部件，而其他几个分子机器则将不同的部件正确地组装在一起。 30因此，细胞无法从其他地方借用新部件而不同时创建组装件 编程并找到所需的组装工具。 如此协调一致的活动真是太棒了.

 不太可能。 鞭毛是最容易讨论的，因为它的各个部分是可识别的，而且我们对舷外发动机的设计非常熟悉。 然而，与眼睛的进化相比，鞭毛进化的难度就相形见绌了。

THE EYE 👁 眼

Ming Wang, a world-renowned eye surgeon, received his MD from Harvard and his PhD in laser physics from MIT. He has performed over fifty-five thousand eye surgeries and holds ten patents in this field. He came to America from China and was led to Christ by a professor at Harvard. He flatly stated, "As a medical doctor and a scientist I can firmly attest to the fact that it is impossible for natural selection to explain the amazing intricacies of the eye."³ The eye contains countless components that focus images, adjust for brightness, and process information to create a picture in the mind. In addition, the visual system is coordinated with locomotion and balance. Such a system clearly requires numerous parts to function together properly to be any use.

Darwinists have responded to this challenge by presenting a vague story how the eye could have developed through a series of stages. However, their description resembles the description of Calvin from the Calvin and Hobbes comic strip imagining a box turning into an airplane. ³² Calvin could imagine such a scenario, since a six-year-old boy has no knowledge of engineering or aerodynamics. Similarly, evolutionists can present such stories only by ignoring virtually all relevant details.

王明，世界著名眼科医生，获得哈佛大学医学博士学位和麻省理工学院激光物理学博士学位。 他已进行超过五万五千次眼科手术，并拥有该领域的十项专利。 他从中国来到美国，并在一位哈佛大学教授的带领下归信了基督。 他坦然地说：“作为一名医生和科学家，我可以坚定地证明，自然选择不可能解释眼睛的惊人复杂性。” 眼睛包含无数的组件，这些组件可以聚焦图像、调整亮度、 并处理信息以在头脑中创建图像。 此外，视觉系统与运动和平衡相协调。 这样的系统显然需要许多部件才能正常工作才能发挥作用。

 达尔文主义者通过提出一个模糊的故事来回应这一挑战，眼睛是如何通过一系列阶段发育的。 然而，他们的描述类似于卡尔文和霍布斯漫画中卡尔文想象一个盒子变成飞机的描述。 ³² 卡尔文可以想象这样的场景，因为一个六岁的男孩对工程学或空气动力学一无所知。 同样，进化论者只能通过忽略几乎所有相关细节来呈现这样的故事。

GOD OF THE GAPS

Such fantastic theories are justified by the claim that any theory is better than looking to God as an explanation. The skeptics claim that such an appeal is giving up on science and appealing to a “God of the Gaps” in areas where we may be ignorant of certain details, which could be explained at a future date. Using such language is a part of the diversionary tactics of people who are desperate to find any possible alternative to God. The argument goes as follows: “Yes, there are many things we don't know as scientists, but it is lazy and cowardly to simply attribute something that we don't understand to the 'work of God.' " Hugh Ross explained it this way:

Typically, whenever Christians present this degree of scientific evidence for God and the Bible, non-theists will attempt to dismiss the evidence by claiming that such Christians are committing the God-of-the-gaps fallacy. Gaps in our understanding of the record of nature, these non-theists will point out, are continually being filled in by advancing discoveries in science. The filling in of such gaps, they assert, establish that God is not necessary to explain the record of nature.

 间隙之神

 这些荒诞的理论的合理性在于，任何理论都比寻求上帝的解释更好。 怀疑论者声称，这种呼吁正在放弃科学，并在我们可能不了解某些细节的领域中向“差距之神”求助，这些细节可能会在未来得到解释。 使用这样的语言是那些不顾一切地寻找任何可能的替代上帝的人的转移策略的一部分。 论证如下：“是的，作为科学家，有很多事情我们不知道，但简单地将我们不明白的事情归因于‘上帝的工作’是懒惰和懦弱的。” ” 休·罗斯是这样解释的：

 通常，每当基督徒为上帝和圣经提出这种程度的科学证据时，非有神论者就会试图驳斥这些证据，声称这些基督徒犯了间隙之神谬误。 这些无神论者会指出，我们对自然记录的理解中的空白正在不断地被科学的进步发现所填补。 他们断言，填补这些空白就证明上帝没有必要解释自然的记录。

From a Christian perspective the record of nature bears testimony of both natural processes and the miraculous handiwork of God. Our understanding of both should increase as we learn more  about the record of nature. The real difference between non-theists and Christian theists is that non-theists predict that all phenomena manifested in nature's record can be attributed to strictly natural causes whereas Christian theists hold that there will be some phenomena that only can be attributed to divine intervention.³³

从基督教的角度来看，自然的记录见证了自然过程和上帝的奇迹般的杰作。 随着我们对自然记录的了解越来越多，我们对两者的理解也应该加深。 无神论者和基督教有神论者之间的真正区别在于，非有神论者预测自然记录中表现的所有现象都可以归因于严格的自然原因，而基督教有神论者则认为有些现象只能归因于神的干预。³³

First, what is overlooked by the naturalists are the enormous and ever increasing gaps in the naturalistic worldview. For instance, as science advances cosmologists have increasingly difficult times explaining why so many features of nature were designed with us in mind. In addition, as the intricacies of the cell are better understood, a naturalistic origin seems increasingly implausible.

首先，自然主义者忽视了自然主义世界观中巨大且不断扩大的差距。 例如，随着科学的进步，宇宙学家越来越难以解释为什么自然的许多特征是在设计时考虑到我们的。 此外，随着人们对细胞的复杂性有了更好的了解，自然起源似乎越来越难以置信。

Even more important, the identification design is based not on what we do not know about science but on what we do know about signs of intelligence. Mathematician Bill Dembski has developed a system for detecting design, which has proven reliable in diverse fields such as forensics and the search for extraterrestrial life.³⁴ The detection process involves identifying patterns that meet three criteria:

更重要的是，识别设计不是基于我们对科学的不了解，而是基于我们对智力标志的了解。 数学家 Bill Dembski 开发了一种检测设计的系统，该系统已被证明在法医学和寻找外星生命等不同领域都是可靠的。³⁴ 检测过程涉及识别满足三个标准的模式：

1. They could not have been produced by natural causes (such as ice crystals).

1. 它们不可能是由自然原因（例如冰晶）产生的。

2. They are highly improbable.

2. 它们的可能性极小。

3. They contain specified complexity.

3. 它们包含特定的复杂性。

When these criteria are applied to the cell, particularly the information contained in DNA, the conclusion of design becomes apparent. The term specified complexity simply refers to patterns that contain some sort of identifiable pattern, such as the faces on Mount Rushmore. Applying these criteria life, such as the information in the cell, clearly shows that life must be the product of intelligence.

当这些标准应用于细胞，特别是 DNA 中包含的信息时，设计的结论就变得显而易见。 术语“指定复杂性”仅指包含某种可识别模式的模式，例如拉什莫尔山上的面孔。 应用这些生命标准，例如细胞中的信息，清楚地表明生命必定是智慧的产物。

Moreover, it's not lazy to attribute a work of art to a painter we've never met or the ingenuity in some technological gadget we have purchased to the work of an inventor. In addition, just because we see the marks of design in something doesn’t mean we cease to attempt to understand how it works. A very simple example is that every device in our home was designed by someone we never met. When we purchased these items and brought them home, it was our passion to read and understand how they worked. To this day we strive to grasp all the potential the designer or inventor put in them.

此外，我们并不懒惰地将一件艺术品归因于一位我们从未见过的画家，或者将我们购买的某些技术小玩意的独创性归因于一位发明家的作品。 此外，仅仅因为我们在某些事物中看到了设计的痕迹，并不意味着我们就不再尝试理解它是如何工作的。 一个非常简单的例子是，我们家中的每台设备都是由我们从未见过的人设计的。 当我们购买这些物品并将它们带回家时，我们热衷于阅读和了解它们的工作原理。 直到今天，我们仍在努力发掘设计师或发明家赋予它们的所有潜力。

Believing God designed life causes us to seek to understand how He did it, not lazily turn off our minds. Likewise, recognizing a Creator behind our universe does not prevent us from understanding how the creation unfolded. When the evidence for an intelligent Creator is overwhelming, we should listen to the advice of everyone from Plato to Lawrence Krauss and follow the evidence wherever it leads. Acknowledging our Creator would not hamper science but free it from the shackles of naturalistic dogma. Scientists could then ask new questions and design new studies that would only enrich our understanding of nature.

相信上帝设计了生命，使我们寻求理解他是如何做到的，而不是懒惰地关闭我们的思想。 同样，认识到宇宙背后的造物主并不妨碍我们理解创造是如何展开的。 当关于智慧造物主的证据是压倒性的时，我们应该听取从柏拉图到劳伦斯·克劳斯的每个人的建议，并遵循证据的指引。 承认我们的造物主不会妨碍科学，反而会将其从自然主义教条的束缚中解放出来。 然后，科学家们可以提出新的问题并设计新的研究，这只会丰富我们对自然的理解。

ARGUMENT FROM IMPERFECTION

不完美的争论

A last assault on design is the argument from imperfection. Skeptics often point apparent examples of poor design in nature. A classic example is "junk DNA," which are regions of DNA without any seeming purpose. However, the argument from imperfection has grown increasingly weak over time. As science advances, most examples of what originally appeared to be poor design or even useless remnants from some ancestor (e.g. appendix) were later shown to be very well crafted and to have clear purposes. For instance, increasing numbers of examples of junk DNA have been shown to likely perform useful functions. When skeptics appeal to imperfection, they are making an “imperfection of the gaps” argument based on ignorance, not evidence.

对设计的最后一个攻击是关于不完美的争论。 怀疑论者经常指出自然界中设计不良的明显例子。 一个典型的例子是“垃圾DNA”，它们是没有任何看似目的的DNA区域。 然而，随着时间的推移，关于不完美的争论变得越来越无力。 随着科学的进步，大多数最初看起来设计不佳，甚至是某些祖先的无用残余物（例如附录）的例子后来被证明是精心设计的，并且有明确的目的。 例如，越来越多的垃圾 DNA 实例已被证明可能发挥有用的功能。 当怀疑论者诉诸不完美时，他们是基于无知而不是证据来提出“差距不完美”的论点。

The great irony is that natural selection is given all the credit for producing the amazing structures of life with all its varieties, but any breakdown or misfiring of a system is seen as evidence for the absence of a Designer. However, such examples, even if genuine, do not challenge the notion of design any more than rust on a car indicates that the entire car was the product of the blind forces of nature. A car can be designed and built by intelligence, but a multitude of factors can lead to its breakdown or malfunctioning. This breakdown due to human error or environmental impact does not prove it was not a product of intelligence.

 最大的讽刺是，自然选择被认为创造了各种令人惊奇的生命结构，但系统的任何崩溃或失火都被视为缺乏设计者的证据。 然而，这样的例子，即使是真实的，也不会挑战设计的概念，就像汽车上的生锈表明整辆车是自然盲目力量的产物一样。 汽车可以通过智能来设计和制造，但有多种因素可能导致其故障或故障。 由于人为错误或环境影响而导致的故障并不能证明它不是情报的产物。

SPEAKING OF GAPS: WHAT DO THE FOSSILS SAY? 说到差距：化石怎么说？

The notion that fossils record the history evolutionary development is grossly overstated. The lack of transitional forms, that is, one species changing into another, is so glaring that it prompted Stephen Jay Gould, a Harvard paleontologist, to propose the theory of punctuated equilibrium. This theory states that a species remains basically the same throughout time and then transforms so quickly that no evidence is left in the fossil record. However, this pattern in the fossils of no change and then sudden appearance of new, radically different creatures is exactly what one would expect from a design standpoint.

For instance, one the oldest type of rock is from the Cambrian era. According to evolutionary theory, the oldest rocks should contain simple organisms. Then as life develops, the younger rocks should record life branching out and becoming more complex. Instead, you have what is called the Cambrian explosion. Complex life just appears. In fact, it appears suddenly, and then identified species never significantly change. Time's cover story heralded, “Evolution's Big Bang: New discoveries show that life we know it began in an amazing biological frenzy that changed the planet almost overnight.” The story that life evolves slowly from simple to complex organisms doesn't seem to be verified by the fossil record. The cover article explained, “In a burst of creativity like nothing before or since, nature appears to have sketched out the blueprints for virtually the whole of the animal kingdom. This explosion of biological diversity is described by scientists as biology's Big Bang.”³⁵ Time went on to describe the fact that the development of life does not follow the Darwinian script.

Indeed, while most people cling to the notion that evolution works its magic over millions of years, scientists are realizing that biological change often occurs in sudden fits and starts. All around the world scientists have found the mineralized remains of organisms that represent the emergence of nearly every major branch in the zoological tree.³⁶

认为化石记录了进化发展历史的观点被严重夸大了。 过渡形式（即一个物种转变为另一个物种）的缺乏是如此明显，以至于促使哈佛古生物学家斯蒂芬·杰伊·古尔德提出间断平衡理论。 该理论指出，一个物种在整个时间里基本保持不变，然后转变得如此之快，以至于化石记录中没有留下任何证据。 然而，化石中的这种模式没有变化，然后突然出现新的、完全不同的生物，这正是人们从设计角度所期望的。

  例如，最古老的岩石类型之一来自寒武纪。 根据进化论，最古老的岩石应该含有简单的生物体。 然后，随着生命的发展，较年轻的岩石应该记录生命的分支并变得更加复杂。 相反，你会遇到所谓的寒武纪大爆发。 复杂的生活才刚刚出现。 事实上，它突然出现，然后确定的物种从未发生显着变化。 《时代》杂志的封面故事宣称：“进化的大爆炸：新发现表明，我们所知道的生命始于一场令人惊叹的生物狂潮，几乎在一夜之间改变了地球。” 生命从简单有机体缓慢进化到复杂有机体的故事似乎没有得到化石记录的证实。 封面文章解释道：“在前所未有的创造力爆发中，大自然似乎已经为几乎整个动物王国勾勒出了蓝图。 科学家将这种生物多样性的爆发称为生物学的大爆炸。”35《时代》杂志接着描述了这样一个事实：生命的发展并不遵循达尔文的脚本。

  事实上，虽然大多数人坚持认为进化在数百万年的时间里发挥着魔力，但科学家们逐渐意识到，生物变化往往是突然发生的。 世界各地的科学家都发现了生物体的矿化遗骸，它们代表了动物树中几乎每个主要分支的出现。³⁶

Darwin himself was stumped by the reality of the Cambrian explosion. He simply assumed the missing transitional forms, or missing links, would be found. "These difficulties and objections may be classed under the following heads: First, why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?"³⁷

The Cambrian explosion is not unique. New life forms typically appear suddenly in the fossil record and then don't significantly change. However, the Cambrian period is the most dramatic. What it indicates is that life changed dramatically in a geological instant. This provides additional evidence for God intervening in the development of life throughout earth's history. Recall that Darwin's explanation was that changes happened so gradually that we should see series of fossils that vary only slightly from each other. He thought that there had not been enough digging yet, that more time was needed. After more than 150 years of excavation, transitional links remain elusive, except in the theoretical artists’ renditions biology textbooks. “ 'What Darwin described in the Origin of Species,’ observes Queen's University paleontologist G. M. Narbonne, 'was the steady background kind of evolution. But there also seems to be non Darwinian kind of evolution that functions over extremely short time periods-and that's where all the action is.' ³⁸

When confronted with the implications of such evidence, evolutionists often respond by claiming that some “transitional" species have been identified. However, what they call transitions are not actually species that lie on a direct line of descent between two other identified species. They are simply fossils that share features of two groups, much like a toaster oven shares the features of a toaster and an oven. However, dramatic similarities between unrelated species are extremely common, such as the similarities between the eyes of octopuses and humans. Therefore, simply identifying similarities between fossils does not prove those similarities are the result of common ancestry. In fact, evolutionists typically argue for evolution where the fossil record is most ambiguous. Where it is most complete, the pattern of sudden appearance and then no change is overwhelming.³⁹

达尔文本人也对寒武纪大爆发的现实感到困惑。 他只是假设缺失的过渡形式或缺失的链接会被发现。 “这些困难和反对意见可以归为以下几个方面：第一，如果物种是从其他物种以精细的等级演化而来，为什么我们不是到处都能看到无数的过渡形式？为什么不是所有的自然都处于混乱之中，而是物种被 正如我们所见，它们定义明确吗？”³⁷

 寒武纪大爆发并不是独一无二的。 新的生命形式通常会突然出现在化石记录中，然后不会发生显着变化。 然而，寒武纪最为戏剧性。 它表明生命在地质瞬间发生了巨大变化。 这为上帝在地球历史上干预生命的发展提供了额外的证据。 回想一下，达尔文的解释是，变化发生得如此缓慢，以至于我们应该看到一系列彼此之间只有轻微差异的化石。 他认为挖掘还不够，还需要更多时间。 经过 150 多年的挖掘，除了理论艺术家对生物学教科书的演绎之外，过渡性的联系仍然难以捉摸。 “‘达尔文在《物种起源》中所描述的，”女王大学古生物学家 G. M. Narbonne 观察到，“是一种稳定的背景进化。 但似乎也存在一种非达尔文式的进化，它在极短的时间内发挥作用——而这就是所有行动的所在。³⁸

 当面对这些证据的含义时，进化论者通常会声称已经识别出一些“过渡”物种。然而，他们所说的过渡实际上并不是位于其他两个已识别物种之间的直接血统的物种。 简单地说，化石具有两个类群的共同特征，就像烤面包机具有烤面包机和烤箱的特征一样。然而，不相关物种之间的惊人相似性是极其常见的，例如章鱼和人类的眼睛之间的相似性。因此，简单地， 识别化石之间的相似性并不能证明这些相似性是共同祖先的结果。事实上，进化论者通常在化石记录最模糊的地方争论进化论。在化石记录最完整的地方，突然出现然后没有变化的模式是压倒性的。³⁹

SUMMARY

The overwhelming evidence for design is seen in the complexity of life at the smallest level. Life appears to be not only designed but also undoubtedly engineered at the smallest scale. The probability of this happening by chance is so vanishingly small that atheists have to propose an infinite number of universes to explain it away. In other words, you can win this cosmic lottery if you have an infinite number of chances.

Furthermore, Darwinian evolution fails to account for all of the diversity and complexity of life. Though evolution is observed on a small scale, it fails to account for all the diversity present in the world. The fact that certain functions of life are irreducibly complex, meaning that they can't function without all the parts present at once, points to the presence of an intelligent Designer. Naturalistic models for the origin of life have been refuted by two recent breakthroughs. One is the discovery that life originated on earth in a geologic instant of time. The other is that life's origin occurred without the benefit of any natural source of prebiotic molecules.

Finally, life appears in the fossil record suddenly (the Cambrian explosion) and then changes only slightly. The evolutionary narrative simply isn't present. These gaps point to the fact that life in its major forms was designed with the genetic capacity to adjust and adapt to a changing environment but has limits as far as its capacity to change to a completely different genus. This leads to the definitive truth that life is no accident. Because life is no accident, human life can have real meaning and purpose.

概括

 设计的压倒性证据可以从最小层面上生活的复杂性中看出。 生命似乎不仅是被设计的，而且无疑是在最小的尺度上被设计的。 这种偶然发生的概率是如此之小，以至于无神论者不得不提出无限多个宇宙来解释它。 换句话说，如果你有无限次的机会，你就可以赢得这张宇宙彩票。

 此外，达尔文进化论未能解释生命的所有多样性和复杂性。 尽管进化是在小范围内观察到的，但它无法解释世界上存在的所有多样性。 事实上，生命的某些功能是不可简化的复杂性，这意味着如果没有所有部分同时存在，它们就无法发挥作用，这一事实表明有一位聪明的设计师的存在。 生命起源的自然主义模型已被最近的两项突破所驳斥。 其中之一是发现生命起源于地球上的地质瞬间。 另一个观点是，生命的起源是在没有任何天然来源的益生元分子的情况下发生的。

 最后，生命突然出现在化石记录中（寒武纪大爆发），然后仅发生轻微变化。 进化论的叙述根本不存在。 这些差距表明，生命的主要形式是具有调整和适应不断变化的环境的遗传能力的，但其转变为完全不同的属的能力却受到限制。 这引出了一个明确的事实：生命并非偶然。 因为生命绝非偶然，人的生命才能有真正的意义和目的。