Case for a Creator: Helium Analogy

 And He is before all things, 

and by Him all things consist. 

Colossians 1:17

"The element helium was first discovered by an astronomer, not a chemist, because its existence was inferred from observations of sunlight before it was actually found on earth. 

The astronomer, Norman Lockyer, noticed that there was a wavelength of light produced by the sun that was not produced by

any element yet discovered. He inferred that there must therefore be an undiscovered element in the sun. This was a perfectly legitimate inference, Occam’s razor notwithstanding, because no already-known entity could produce that wavelength of light. And it made no difference that no one knew exactly how or why different elements produced different wavelengths of light. If any chemist had insisted that there was not a new element in the sun, he would have needed to show that you actually can get that wavelength using only the already-known elements. In fact, the English chemist Edward Franklin attempted to do this by putting hydrogen under extreme heat and pressure, but was unsuccessful. 

*The same goes for evolution. 

--The evolution of highly complex biological systems has never been observed, 

--and there are certain theoretical arguments that purport to show that it is essentially impossible (statistically speaking) for random variation, natural selection, and the laws of nature alone to produce those systems. 

So any scientist who wants to argue that the already-known entities in nature could produce all of biology needs to show how this could occur, in spite of the theoretical hurdles. 

---If they can’t do this, then we are perfectly justified in proposing a new entity, such as a designer. 

One final objection must be answered. 

Q: If we don’t know exactly how the designer crafted life, then how do we even know that a designer is the right explanation? Couldn’t it just as easily be something else? 

A: Once again, the story of helium is illuminating. Helium and intelligent design are both parsimonious explanations regarding the broad type of cause, yet non-parsimonious regarding the specific entity. 

Lockyer proposed an element, rather than something else (e.g., a new law of nature), because it was already known that elements can produce light. But he proposed a new element, because it was known that none of the old elements could produce that particular wavelength of light. 

Likewise, ID theorists propose a designer to explain the specified

complexity of life because it is already known that designers (i.e., minds) can produce specified complexity. But we must propose a new designer, because none of the old designers (ourselves, beavers, etc.) are capable of having created the systems in question. 

By now it should be clear why it is the height of silliness to demand proof that the designer could create life, or to expect detailed explanations of how it could be done. If chance and necessity are insufficient to produce life, then we must conclude that something beyond chance and necessity was involved. 

*The proof of that entity’s capability is simply the fact that life exists." 

DanielWitt