Biochemical Teleological Arguments from Design

Dec. 26, 2025

“How many are Your works, O LORD! In wisdom You have made them all; ” Psalm 104:24 (Berean Bible)

These are not “proofs” that God exists, but rather “evidence” that some things about life had to be designed. In a sense, these can be considered “fingerprints” of God’s creative work. But before we go into some of these things, we have to understand what micro-evolution is.

Micro-Evolution

   Unlike macro-evolution, micro-evolution is a fact that has been observed in nature. It has also been verified by Richard Lenski’s experiments with E. coli bacteria in the 1990’s. See Michael Behe’s The Edge of Evolution p.141 for more.

   An example of micro-evolution would be all races of people of different colors coming from one couple. A second example is a cold virus evolving resistance to last year’s flu vaccine. So when there are genetic copying errors, the result can be catastrophic, cancerous, or very rarely it can be beneficial, or most often it can be neutral. Some of our DNA is in groups called “exons”, creates proteins. However, much of DNA in eukaryotes (plants and animals) is in “introns” which do not code for proteins, though they might have a role in regulating the speed of DNA that codes for proteins. A small mutation can change an intron in exon or vice versa. Mutations that cause this can come from cosmic rays, radioactivity, or chemical mutagenic agents, such as nicotine. Prokaryotes have an additional form of mutation. Prokaryotes have no nucleus of other cell structures and they have “free-floating DNA.  Prokaryotes such as bacteria can randomly eject part of the DNA, and other bacteria “eat” it and make that a part of their DNA.

   Organisms that have unfavorable genetic changes might die out quickly, or else gradually become extinct very slowly. Alternately, the changes could be harmful in most environments but beneficial in others. For example, some Ashkenazi Jews have Tay Sachs disease, which makes them resistant to tuberculosis, and some people have thalassemia (of various kinds) or sickle cell anemia, which make them resistant to malaria.

   Some say the human race is in the middle of a micro-evolutionary change right now.  Biochemists have found a gene for milk digestion, that turns off when we leave infancy, so that we lose the proteins needed to digest milk (but not cheese). Many people (of all races), who ancestors were herders have a mutation where that gene never turns off; they can process milk well their entire life. This includes 70% of western Europeans.

   But what are the limits of biological change through mutation and natural selection, to make living organisms adapt, vs. what can only be done with intelligent design by a Designer (God). Before we can address that question we first have to understand reducible vs. irreducible complexity. Micro-evolution can be seen to create reducible complexity, but it is hard to see how there can be irreducible complexity without a designer.

Reducible Complexity

   Some things are complex, but not irreducibly complex. Consider a large termite mound in Africa, South America, and Australia. They can be up to 90 feet in diameter. There is the queen’s chamber, are different parts for raising eggs, pupae, and even what would appear to be “design” for regulating the humidity, temperature, and air circulation. Some mounds even have sort of a chimney to draw out hot stale air with venturi flow. They are well-built; the oldest termite mound is estimated to be more than 3,820 years old. Termites even have different instinctual behaviors, such as licking eggs and pupae to get any fungus off of them.

   Termite mounds are an example of complexity, but this is not irreducible complexity. If there were insects that just had a few of these traits they might have an advantage over other insects that did not. If they had a few more of these traits then they might have even more of an advantage. It is sort of like trying to adapt to find the best solution, and the closer you get the better off you are. In mathematics an algorithm that works on this type of problem is called a “greedy algorithm” because the global optimum is either the only local optimum or else one of very few local optima.

   A second example of reducible complexity is mimicry. Five types of African butterflies are distasteful, and five other types that are tasty, but mimic the coloration of the bad-tasting ones. For the second group, as the offspring that are closer in appearance to the distasteful butterflies have an advantage over the others. See Lester and Bohlin’s The Natural Limits to Biological Change p.27 for more on this.

Irreducible Complexity

   The idea that DNA information is “irreducible” to the just laws of chemistry and physics goes back to chemist Michael Polanyi in 1967. Discussed at length by Michael Behe, irreducible complexity says that there is no benefit in having part of a feature. Unless all the pieces are in place, there is no point. An example of this is a flagellum, a whip-like cell organelle powered by a cellular rotary motor, that some microorganisms have. It requires at least 30 different specialized proteins to have a flagellum. If a cell has 29, it is no better than having zero. It is analogous to a ring toss at a fair. Unless you  toss the ring right over a bottle, then it is a total miss no matter how close you are. Mathematically it could a totally flat (zero gradient slope), or else random gradients with the winning “hole” being punched through in a non-differentiable way. See The Cell’s Design p.70-83 and The Edge of Evolution p.261-268 for detailed explanations.

Two Types in Between

   There are also two types of complexity between these two.

Only differentiable very close to the optimum:  In one type it can be irreducible complexity until you are close to a solution, and then reducible complexity after that. Let’s go back to 29 specialized proteins being of no benefit until you have all 30 specialized proteins. But let’s say there if you had 31 up to 35 proteins the benefit gradually increases. Comparing these three cases to far, reducible complexity has a slope everywhere that helps you out, irreducible complexity does not have a slope anywhere to help you out, and the third type only has a slope very close to the optimum to help you out.

Many local optima: A second type of complexity is the slope can lead you “astray” to go in the wrong direction from the global optima. This is a much more difficult problem mathematically.

Examples of Irreducible Complexity

“Darwin said in his Origin of Species [p.54], ‘If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly  have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” quoted from The Case for a Creator p.197.

Cilia  are multiple appendages in some cells that look like tiny hairs. Cells lining our intestines have these to help absorb food and water. Each cilium has about 200 protein parts. A prototype inside the cell would be useless. The Case for a Creator p.201-204

Flagellum are whiplike appendages outside of a cell. It can rotate at up to 10,000 rpm, stop on a quarter turn and reverse. A sensory system inside the cell tells it when to start, stop, and reverse. The Case for a Creator p.204-207

RNA Polymerase II involves twelve proteins including one that functions as a “clamp” that hold the DNA in place while the other proteins act on it. The Cell’s Design p.84

How we create antibodies – It is amazing that we have cell machinery all set to make protein antibodies for threats the body has not even seen yet. Some molecules involved are Interleukin, Immunoglobin G (IgG), TCP, and RAG proteins, Darwin’s Black Box p.117-139

Our immune system cells have eight types that work in tandem. They are basophils, eosinophils, eutrophils, leukocytes, lymphocyte B cells, lymphocyte natural killer cells (NK cells), lymphocyte T cells, and monocytes. MHC-1 is the protein marker that cells secrete to inhibit the NK cells by telling them it is part of “self”.

Ribosomes – Each ribosome is 50 giant molecules (more than one million atoms) that can make any protein DNA tells it to make. The Case for a Creator p.207-209

Cellular protein transport – endoplasmic reticulum, Golgi apparatus, lysosomes, etc. Darwin’s Black Box p.98-116

Blood clotting has ten steps involving 20 different molecules. If you reduce the body’s concentration of just one of them, like blood thinners do, then clotting only works as well as the chemical with the lowest concentration. Darwin’s Black Box p.74-97 and The Case for a Creator p.209-211

Cell metabolism – The cell stores and uses energy, vaguely like a battery with Adenosine monophosphate (AMP) which can store energy becoming adenosine diphosphate (ADP), which can store energy to become adenosine triphosphate (ATP). Darwin’s Black Box p.140-161

   An atheistic speculation is that precursor steps might have been useful for a different purpose. However, in most cases the original “repurposed” machinery has not been found.

The Limits of Evolution

   Michael Behe in The Edge of Evolution p.59-61 gives an example of the limits of micro-evolution. Micro-evolution occurs at different rates depending on the time from birth to reproduction and the number of individuals. For example, there are about a trillion malaria cells (10¹²) in a person infected with malaria, there are about a billion people (10⁹) with malaria, and malaria reproduces once every 5 to 12 hours depending on the strain.

   Recently a malaria strain has evolved to develop chloroquine drug resistance, which involved simultaneous mutations. According to Behe, the chance of getting these two mutations in a cell was about 10²⁰. But since there are so many malaria cells,  this has in fact occurred.  The time from newborn infant to a parent is 18-30 years (not 5 to 12 hours), or about 2*10⁵ times slower. Given that there are only 8 billion (8 * 10⁹) humans, but accounting for the fact that sexual reproduction would give more “missing” of mutations than asexual, a two-mutation change in humans would at the least many millions of times slower. Now these are very approximate guesses, so the actual probability could be different. Nevertheless, given that evolutionists claim that humans, chimps, and gorillas diverged about 5 million years ago, there is not much time for specific two-gene mutations to occur randomly, though there is enough time for one-gene mutations. That is not to say that two-gene mutations would never occur, but there is just not enough time for all the mutations necessary to go from mammals to apes to humans.

Conclusion

   Imagine you are flying an airplane over a small deserted island, and you see many rocks arranged together spelling “Help Me”. Then you fly away, finding it curious that random waves can make an interesting pattern. That is sort of what atheists do when they ignore arguments from design. Can we prove that “Help me” was made by a human. No, but with a word that long, it is inescapable that there was a designer.

   It is relatively easy to build complexity block-by-block, where every little change improves things a bit. But this does not work for irreducible complexity, - unless if was no longer random but a Designer was involved. Christians who are theistic evolutionist say this is what had to happen, because random mutation and selection does not have enough “oomph” or time, unless a Designer made things happen. However, Christians who are Creationists say that for all the big differences in life there is no evidence that God used macro-evolution at all. Both groups agree though, that the evidences of design are fingerprints of God.

References

For more information on the web see https://intelligentdesign.org/

Barrow, John. D and Frank J. Tipler. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Oxford University Press. 1986,

Behe, Michael J. Darwin’s BlackBox : The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. The Free Press. 1996.

Behe, Michael. J. The Edge of Evolution : The Search for the Limits of Darwinism. Free Press. 2007.

Davis, Percival and Dean H. Kenyon. Of Pandas and People : The Central Question of Biological Origins. Haughton Publishing Company 1989.

Dawkins, Richard. The Greatest Show on Earth : The Evidence for Evolution. Free Press. 2009.

Dembski, William A. Intelligent Design. IVP Academic 1999.

Dennet, Daniel C. Darwin’s Dangerous Idea : Evolution and the Meanings of Life. Simon and Schuster Paperbacks. 1995.

Frair, Wayne & Percival Davis. A Case for Creation : Third Edition. Moody Press. 1983.

Geisler, Norman L. and Frank Turek. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. Crossway. 2004.

Geisler, Norm. L. & Frank Turek. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist. (audio series). Hoevel Audio, Inc. 2006.

Gould, Stephen Jay. Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes : Further Reflections in Natural History. W.W. Norton & Company. 1983.

Gould, Stephen Jay. The Panda’s Thumb : More Reflections in Natural History. W.W. Norton & Company. 1980.

Gutfreund. H. Biochemical Evolution. Cambridge University Press. 1981.

Johnson, Phillip E. Darwin on Trial, Second edition. InterVarsity Press. 1993.

Johnson, Phillip E. Defeating Darwinism by opening Minds. InterVarsity Press. 1997.

Leaster, Lane P. and Raymond G. Bohlin. The Natural Limits to Biological Change, Second edition. Probe Books 1989.

Moreland, J.P. Scaling the Secular City : A Defense of Christianity. Baker Book House 1987.

Morrison, Steven M. www.BibleQuery.org

Rana. Fazale. The Cell’s Design : How Chemistry Reveals the Creator’s Artistry. Baker Books 2008.

Ridley, Matt. Genome : An Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters. Harper Perennial. 2006.

Ross, Hugh. More than a Theory. Baker Books. 2009.

Strobel, Lee. The Case for a Creator. Zondervan. 2004.

Turek, Frank. Why I Still Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. (audio series) www.impactapologetics.com 2012.

Wikipedia

Michael Ray Lewis atheist to Christian filmmaker. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayU6dDtu0hU

By Steven M. Morrison, Ph.D.