Thoughts on the Creation Evolution debate

When it comes to discussions about creation vs evolution, it seems that a typical conversation travels in all sorts of places – from fossil types, to genotypes, to what should be taught in public schools, to days of creation, to science vs faith distinctions, etc…

I wouldn’t want to discourage these conversations, I think they are useful. Some of the arguments on both sides appear to be good, and some are outright silly. However, the question that I think is foundational to these discussions; what I would call the question behind the questions is as follows:

“What is responsible for Life?”

There really are only two possibilities here. Either life is the result of a ‘mind’ or life is a result of matter. And what I mean by matter is not necessarily something physical, but some kind of impersonal substance that is self-sustaining.

Not to get scientific, since I’m not a scientist by any means, I would like to point out that for me, it is much more reasonable to believe that life is a result of mind rather than matter. Here are some quick observations:

The evolution of consciousness
It seems highly unlikely that consciousness could simply emerge from blind chance; That rational thinking individuals have somehow gained the ability to reason from an unintelligent source. Could random mutation produce thought? what observation can we make anywhere in nature that would even support that claim?

Information-rich life
All of life carries cells, which contain DNA, which essentially is information. DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism. Micro-biologists are increasingly amazed at how information-rich life really is.

“what has happened is that genetics has become a branch of information technology… The genetic code is truly digital, in exactly the same sense as computer codes. This is not some vague analogy, it is literal truth.”
– Richard Dawkins

“The problem of how meaningful or semantic information can emerge spontaneously from a collection of mindless molecules subject to blind and purposeless forces presents a deep conceptual challenge.”
– Paul Davies, The Origin of Life II

“Life, consciousness, mind and the self can only come from a Source that is living, conscious, and thinking. If we are centers of consciousness and thought who are able to know and love and intend and execute, I cannot see how such centers could come to be from something that is itself incapable of all these activities… it’s simply inconceivable that any material matrix or field can generate agents who think and act. Matter cannot produce conceptions and perceptions. A force field does not plan or think. So at the level of reason and everyday experience, we become immediately aware that the world of the living, conscious, thinking beings has to originate in a living Source, a Mind.”
–Roy Abraham Varghese

My final point is that often when this Mind/Matter discussion comes up, the naturalist would state that to invoke a mind is to invoke a creator, and therefore it brings religion into the scientific discussion. This is just plain false… This is an observation from what makes most reasonable sense; evidence from the best explanation, not simply a God in the gaps theory.