I must say: Since evolutionists claim that the appearance of similarity in nature is scientific evidence for evolution's common ancestor, then they must also acknowledge that nature's appearance of purposeful (specified) complexity--DESIGN--as being scientific evidence for an intelligent designer. Furthermore, similarity could well be because of a common designer instead of a common ancestor!
ANOTHER SERIOUS PROBLEM FOR EVOLUtUION
Somehow, evolution's "science guy" Bil Nye doesn't seem to understand the probability factor involved in a string of accidents resulting in something useful. Page 29 of his book Undeniable claims that evolution succeeds because it works with competition and selection pressure--is not random.
Unfortunately, he also claims on page 46 that "traits that are inherited, which benefit the organism, have a greater chance of showing up in the organism's offspring, providing the engine that drives evolutionary change."
So I ask you: How is any organism going to benefit from accidentally creating any part of my illustrated human hearing system? (Shown to the Right)
If the whole system is not created by accident in one person (Probability of ZERO), it is not of any benefit to that person and evolution's brainless Natural Selection will not pass it on to the offspring.
Michael Behe, in his book, Darwin's Black Box calls this problem of evolution "Irreducible Complexity." Behe's book is well worth reading. You will realize how parts of many complex systems are of no benefit unless properly combined with all of the system's other parts--thus Natural Selection will not "select" that part to be passed on.
If evolution created humans, humans would not have any hearing ability!!!
(And many other components would also be missing--I would hate to think what we would look like.)
Somebody with great intelligence is absolutely required to design and make this hearing system as well as the universe, world and all that is in it!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The "Chance" page tells more about the above human hearing system
plan . . . n. 1. A detailed scheme,program, or method worked out before hand for the accomplishment of an object: a plan of attack. . . .1
NOTE: All other definitions of plan also require a mind
Outer Ear Ear Drum Stirrup
Also, since atheists/evolutionists believe the existence of invisible gravity by seeing its effects when repeatedly dropping rocks and other objects, why do they insist on denying the existence of invisible God when they readily admit to repeatedly seeing intelligent design in living things-------to be consistent, evolutionists should be denying the existence of gravity.
(Note: All colored print is my emphasis. And, I reduced the size of the numbers referring to my sources [superscript is not available] )
What is Superstition, what is design?
Su-per-sti-tion . . . 1. A belief held in spite
of evidence to the contrary.2.a. A belief,
practice or rite resulting from ignorance of
the laws of nature or from faith in magic or
chance. . . 1
De-sign . . .1. To conceive in the mind;
invent: . . . 2. To form a plan for: …1
all other definitions of design and
plan also require a mind—check any
Evolutionists should reconsider their thinking.
The following surely shows nature's evidence of the need for an intelligent designer—not atheists' brainless evolution.
Heinz Pagelswas an evolutionist who wrote Dreams of Reason. Note his recognition of the need for intelligence--great intelligence!
Scientists know . . . that the architecture of
the universe is indeed built according to
invisible universal rules . . . No human mind
could have arranged for any message so
flawlessly [understandable], so strangely
imaginative, and sometimes downright
bizarre. It must be the work of an Alien
Mr. Pagels then shows superstition by denying what he sees. In the next page he says, "there is no scientific evidence for a Creator of the natural world . . ." 3 NOTE>>>
The late evolutionist leader Stephen Jay Gould also admitted seeing design when he wrote: "We are so overwhelmed . . .by the intricacy of aerodynamic optimality [sic][perfection] of a bird's wing, . . . we are dazzled by good design.” 4
College biology textbooks must be included among the evidence of evolutionists being impressed by the design in nature. I quote what one wrote about birds--This is just a sample of their comments about the beauty and functionality of many living things):
Knowing the function of a [body part]
provides [ideas] about its construction.
An example . . . is the aerodynamically
efficient shape of a bird's wing . . ..
The skeleton of a bird also has structural
qualities that contribute to flight, with
bones that have a strong but light
honeycombed internal structure.
The flight muscles of a bird are controlled by
neurons (nerve cells) . . . In exploring life
on its different structural levels, we will
discover functional beauty at every turn. 5
That quotation reads like a lecture at a convention for aerospace engineers where the speaker is telling how intelligent engineers can make use of the design found in nature to build an airplane. And, "functional beauty" is certainly a testimony to design, yet their book praises evolution's brainless natural selection.
Another college biology textbook tells of the design in a spider web. They write about a beautiful photo they have:
This intricate spider web is strong,
lightweight, hard to detect, and ruthlessly
effective at capturing passing insects. It's a
marvel ofefficient design, but its designer
is the simple, mindless process of natural
The same authors say: "If we cannot trust the evidence provided by nature, then the entire enterprise of science is futile." 7
Unfortunately, evolutionists are the ones rejecting nature’s evidence--the good data of intelligent design. Look at illustrations of any of today's living things in a biology textbook—especially the internal components. -Thedetails tell us thatevery aspect of any and all living things defies any possibility of mindless evolution doing the creating.
Furthermore, evolutionist Sir Francis Crick (co-discoverer of DNA--the formula for life) used the word plan when trying to describe how living things came to be. He writes:
The immense variety of nature--man,
animals, plants, microorganisms, even
viruses--is built, at the chemical level, on a
common ground plan." 8
Again, a check of your dictionary on the word plan will find the requirement of a mind in every definition. (See >>>>>>>>>)
The above spider web example reminds me of what I read in Refuting Evolution by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati. He wrote,
Evolutionists are often not consistent . . .
For example, when archaeologists find an
arrowhead, they can tell it must have been
designed, even though they haven't seen
the designer." 9
Unfortunately, evolutionists see design, talk design (or plan) but defy all reasonable thinking and are determined to show their superstition by denying the need for a mind. We must feel sorry for them--They will regret their rejection of the SUPREME MIND--GOD!
Why do they insist on being superstitiousby crediting “mindless . . . natural selection” with the world’s beauty and complexity? Surely they know that any reasonable analysis of their claims will prove them false. But that is the way superstition works--PEOPLE HOLD TO A BELIEF EVEN THOUGH THEY ADMIT TO SEEING EVIDENCE THAT PROVES THEIR BELIEF TO BE WRONG!
Attorney Phillip E. Johnson analyzed evolutionists' testimony and wrote:
"Practically all [evolutionary writers] stress the appearance of design and purpose . . . Everyone uses the vocabulary of intelligent communication . . .” 10
Evolution is a superstition!
1. American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition., 1982
2. Heinz Pagels, Dreams of Reason. (New York: Simon and Schuster. 1988) 156
3. Ibid. 157
4. Stephen Jay Gould, Dinosaur in a Haystack: Reflections in Natural History. (New York: Harmony Books, 1995) 370.
5. Campbell, Neil A., Reece, Jane B., & Mitchell, Lawrence G., Biology, Fifth ed. (Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings-Addison Wesley Longman, Inc., 1999) 7, 8.
6. Teresa Audesirk and Gerald Audesirk,
Biology: Life on Earth, 5th ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1999) 272.
7. Ibid. 9.
8. Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origins and Nature, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981) 39.
9. Jonathan Sarfati, PhD., F.M., Refuting Evolution. (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1999) 19.
10. Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993) 109, 110.