et us move on from the question of the origin of the universe in general to a consideration of the origin of life - specifically life on our own planet Earth. How did life begin, and how did it come to be as we know it today?

ne theory, which has the support of some scientists is that the first "replicator" molecules to exist on the Earth were carried here from elsewhere in the universe, probably on a comet. The motivation behind this speculation is the recognition that the probability of these so-called replicator molecules being formed spontaneously is so slight that it's easier to believe that they were generated somewhere else and then imported. As such an idea is of no benefit to us whatsoever, I would suggest that we would do well to ignore it and move on.

he traditional evolutionist view can be summarised as follows (refer to the ThinkQuest article for more detail):

• In the beginning, the Earth's atmosphere was composed of a number of chemicals which, when exposed to certain forms of radiation, allowed for the spontaneous generation of a unique type of molecule that was able to replicate itself using various component molecules in its environment.
• Being so primitive, these replicators introduced multiple "copying errors", which meant that they mutated from generation to generation. This process of mutation is the basis of natural selection.
• As the competition between the replicators hotted up, some of them began to introduce a bit more sophistication into their reproductive ability, which enabled them the better to survive.
• As with modern corporations, the replicator molecules began to realise that if they were to progress they must begin to work together in teams. This incorporation of molecules working together towards a common goal was the inception of what we know today as the living cell.

The reader cannot have helped but notice that in the descriptions of the evolutionary process, it is impossible for the writer to avoid using terminology that suggests intelligence and planning. For instance, in the ThinkQuest article to which I have referred above we find expressions such as "they would want to", "alternative strategies", "began to cooperate among themselves". Why is this so, when we are supposed to be considering a purely mechanical process like the functioning of the computer monitor that you are looking at at the moment? I believe the reason for this to be, quite simply, that every human being knows intuitively that we did not come into being as the result of spontaneous or chance events, but that we are the offspring of design and purpose, and that implies intelligence.

We have already considered the question of design in the previous essay, so I will not repeat it here, except to note that when we consider living beings we are even more constrained to look for a designer, given the complexity that we see. Of course, hard-line evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins will continue to dispute this. Dawkins refers to living beings as "designoid" - i.e. they have all the qualities and properties of something that was designed, but it is an illusion.

efore we go on to think about purpose, I want to take a moment to home in on what I believe to be perhaps the most compelling factor in the argument about whether there is or is not an intelligent creator, and that is the mysterious question of consciousness. This is the issue that tipped me out of the frying pan of agnosticism and into the furnace of theism. Let me explain to you how it happened.

During my early search for enlightenment and the meaning of life, I set myself the task of determining what was, beyond any shadow of doubt, real and what could be dismissed as being illusory or insubstantial. As I sat in my chair and looked at the room around me, at the street outside the window, I asked: can I be certain that any of this is real, or might it be just a figment of my imagination? I concluded that I was unable to prove to myself that anything outside of me had a separate existence of its own. I could not be sure that it was not illusory or imaginary. Then what about my body? Is that real? After some time I came to the same conclusion about my own body. I could not be certain beyond the shadow of a doubt that I was not imagining it or dreaming it. I continued in this process of elimination until I thought that I must conclude that there is nothing at all in my world that must definitely have an objective reality apart from my perception.

Then the obvious suddenly dawned on me. The one thing that could not possibly be a figment of my imagination was my consciousness. After all, I could not be an unconscious entity imagining myself to be conscious, because imagination cannot exist without consciousness. Therefore, I had to conclude that my consciousness is an undeniable reality.

The two questions that lead on from this are (a) what is consciousness? and (b) where does it come from? Much has been written about the subject ( for example), but to keep it simple we can say that (a) we know intuitively what consciousness is, because we all experience it every moment of our waking lives, and (b) wherever it might have come from, we can be certain that it is inconceivable that it could be the product of any entity, event, or process that was by its very nature unconscious, or non-conscious. This is the stuff of science fiction, where the computer acquires consciousness and sets about positioning itself to take over the world.

It occurred to me that there were three possible answers to this question, namely:

1. That I was the only conscious entity in existence and that my consciousness was unique
2. That my consciousness was a function of a greater consciousness
3. That my consciousness had been generated in some way by a greater consciousness, but that it was separate and distinct from its creator

I rejected number 1, as I was aware that there were others who behaved as if they were conscious as I was, and it was more reasonable to conclude that they were, in fact, real live people rather than automatons or figments of my imagination. (By the way, I concluded that the world about me was, in fact, real and not a function of my imagination since I was unable by any act of will to control or manipulate anything outside of my own body. If I were imagining it all, surely I would have control over what was going on in my own mind.)

I was inclined towards number 2, as it appealed to my way of thinking at the time, and it agreed with the concepts of Buddhism and Taoism, in which I was interested. However, the problem for me was that if my consciousness were a function of another, greater consciousness, surely I would be able to "plug in" to that other consciousness and receive revelation and enlightenment from it. This was not happening, so I was forced to abandon option 2.

This left me with number 3. At the time I as not comfortable with that option, but I could not escape the logical conclusion at which I had arrived. It meant, in short, that there must be a "god".

f the obvious design of the world, and especially living things, points to there being a creator; if the very existence of consciousness points to there being a creator; surely the case is closed when we consider the all-important question of purpose.

Chambers Dictionary defines purpose as:

Idea or aim kept before the mind as the end of effort; power of seeking the end desired; a definite intention.

Purpose is at the very heart of human life. When a man is without purpose, he ceases to function as a man. He lies in bed, immersed in boredom. He fills himself with drink or drugs to numb the agony of his purposelessness. He achieves nothing. He has no friends. He loses all self-respect. He becomes a nothing and a nobody.

It is purpose that has motivated me to write this essay. It is purpose that has motivated you to read it. Were it not for purpose, human life - in fact, any life on the earth - would be impossible. Is it not our basic sense of purpose that causes us to fight to remain alive at all costs? It is when a man has lost any sense of purpose that he takes the ultimate one-way street of committing suicide.

Are we to believe that this purpose that defines us is but a function of random events and processes that by their very nature are devoid of purpose? Are we to believe that the incentive for men and women to climb mountains, build sky-scrapers, paint chapel ceilings, write epic poems, raise families, lay down their lives for their country, is nothing more than the oscillation of the molecules in their brains and the caprice of quantum mechanics? The very idea is so absurd that it staggers me that intelligent people can embrace it - and many of them with great passion. In fact, there are those whose purpose it is to argue that there is really no ultimate purpose; that it is all totally meaningless; it all just - happened.

ome of the sharpest minds among us have embraced atheism, and some of the sharpest minds among us have embraced theism. This has nothing to do with intelligence. Bertrand Russell, the great philosopher of the twentieth century, was a committed atheist. C.S. Lewis, the brilliant novelist and Oxford don, was a committed theist. Why is it that one man draws one conclusion, while another draws a different one? I believe that it is not so much a matter of what we are able to see, but of what we are willing to see. Are you willing to draw the logical conclusion from the evidence that is before you, or are you only willing to interpret the evidence in the light of your pre-determined conclusion?

I suppose that the ultimate frustration for the atheist is that he will never be able to prove that there is no god. He is only ever able to conclude, from his interpretation of the evidence as he sees it, that it is unlikely that there is a god. The theist, on the other hand, is in the far happier position of being able, through personal experience, to know that there most certainly is a god.