Design is obvious

 Romans 1:19-22, “Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”

There's an old, 70's song that says, “Signs, signs, everywhere a sign.” I think the evidence for creation is kind of like that song; everywhere we look, we see evidence of design. It's blatantly obvious. The complex and orderly universe seems far more likely the consequence of an intelligent mind and purpose rather than the purposeless, random origin offered by secular science.

Have you ever heard an expression like, “Cheetahs are built for speed” or “Bird wings are remarkably well designed for flying”? Most of the time, when evolutionists use these words, they don't really mean to say these things are actually designed. Yet intended or unintended, they are admitting there is an apparent design in nature. A tired complaint I hear from evolutionists is that there is no evidence for creation. Evidence for design is everywhere but evolutionists refuse to see it because of their circular reasoning. That is, they've interpreted evidence according to their theory and now they can only see their theory in the evidence. To them, a fossil can't be evidence for creation because it's evidence for evolution. As a consequence, they refuse to see some of the most compelling evidence for creation even when it is right before their eyes.

Note that I said, “they refuse to see it” and not that they can't see it. Richard Dawkins, wrote about this very thing in his book, The Blind Watchmaker. In the book, he said, “The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design. If anyone doesn’t agree that this amount of complex design cries out for an explanation, I give up.”

https://unsplash.com/@sippakorn

It's been my experience that the most obvious answer to nearly any question is usually the correct one. It's like the old joke: Why did the chicken cross the road? The first time people hear this, they usually search for some deep meaning or clever answer yet completely overlook the obvious answer – to get to the other side. I think that's what's going on here.

Q: Why does everything look designed?

A: Because it's designed!

Evolutionists may be blind and foolish, but most of them aren't stupid. They know the obvious implication of design. Yet not only do they refuse to accept design as evidence for creation, they also go to great lengths to explain to others why they too should not make that reasonable conclusion.

I normally like to link to non-creationist sources but I couldn't find a direct link to read Julian Huxley's book, Evolution in Action. In the book, Huxley is cited as saying, “Organisms are built as if purposefully designed, and work as if in purposeful pursuit of a conscious aim. But the truth lies in those two words 'as if.' As the genius of Darwin showed, the purpose is only an apparent one.”

That's just a fancy way of telling people, “I know everything looks designed but it only looks that way. It really isn't.” Huxley could see design. To even use the word, “built” implies a builder. Huxley knew that the most reasonable implication of design is the “purposeful pursuit of a conscious aim.” Nevertheless, he boldly denounced the obvious and correct answer.

Another shameless example of explaining away design comes from Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA. Crick said, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see is not designed, but rather evolved.”

Gee. How more conspicuous can anyone be? Crick is overtly saying, “I know it looks designed but keep telling yourself everything evolved!”

Evolutionists go to great lengths to explain away design but the more they explain, the more they prove my point. They would not put in such effort if they didn't grasp the clear implication of design is that there is a Designer. It's almost funny to see how they reject the most reasonable answer for such an unlikely one. It's like they're saying, “No! The chicken did not want to get to the other side!'

Best arguments of atheists: Religion is desperation

1 Peter 3:15 commands us to always be ready to give an answer to every man who asks a reason for the hope that is in us. It doesn't say to only answer the easy questions. Indeed, the more difficult the question, the more urgent should our answers be. This is the reason I blog. It's true I devote much of my blog to the creation/evolution debate but that's because I believe evolution is the greatest challenge to the Faith in our time. Even so, I'm always on the look out for other criticisms of the Bible and of Christianity.

There's an article online titled 3 Famous Atheists & Their Best Arguments. You can read them all for yourself but, as I read them, I didn't find any of them very compelling. I'm not sure if I should be disappointed or excited. //RKBentley scratches his head// I will probably be writing about all the arguments in future posts, but I wanted to start with one in particular. It's not that I think this one is the best argument; rather, it's used less often and, since many Christians may not have heard it, they might not be sure how to answer it. From the article, the argument goes like this:

https://unsplash.com/@alexagorn

RELIGION IS DESPERATION

[Friedrich Nietzsche] noticed this painful truth about religion. It's made up of people who are intensely afraid of reality, and of the truth of the human condition. Religion comes from our hatred for our loathsome existence and our deep desire to deny the actuality of death and future loss. However, if we can be united in our dissociation from real life, we can be happy. We can call this dissociation "faith" and together we can be free from the horror of existence. Religion allows people to forget that we are on a rock zipping through the cosmic abyss at hundreds of kilometers per second and that eventually our sun won't even exist, our planet will not even be a memory, and this truth is something that people desperately scurry away and hide from.

While this article attributes this argument to Nietzsche, the idea well predates him. The earliest and most famous (infamous) person who raised this point is perhaps Karl Marx who said, “Religion is the opium of the people.” Wiki actually cites the full quote as saying, “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.” The implication is, life is really hard and people use religion like a drug to escape from reality. There is such a tangle of problems with this argument that it's difficult to find the best order to unravel them.

IT'S AN APPEAL TO MOTIVE

I believe I should dive right in and start with the obvious: this is a text book example of the fallacy, appeal to motive. Think about it. Suppose I really do believe in Christ only because I'm afraid to die. How would that make Christianity not real? It would be like a person, dying from cancer, rejoicing when the doctor says, “I have good news. Here's a cure!” The sick person certainly has a reason to want to believe the doctor but his eagerness (or even his skepticism if he doubted) has no bearing on whether he is really sick or whether the doctor really has a cure. To question the motive of believers, by saying they believe in God only because they are afraid of the world, does nothing – NOT ONE THING – to establish atheism as being correct or theism as being wrong.

If we looked at the opposite side of the coin, I could make this same argument against atheists – that God is real and atheists deny there's a God so they can live their lives however they want and pretend there is no God who will judge them after they die. I could say that Hell is real and the thought of eternal torment scares atheists so much that they try to convince themselves it isn't real. I could talk about the amazing historical evidence for the Bible, about the evidence for the Flood, about the evidence against evolution but atheists won't accept any of it because to acknowledge any point means they would have to accept the possibility of a God and that's not an option for them.

If any skeptic truly thinks God isn't real because Christians want Him to be real (I still can't quite figure out what point they're trying to make), then he needs to examine his own motives. Romans 1:18-20 says, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:” I believe the evidence for God is overwhelming. Everything I know about reality affirms over and over that there is a God behind it all. The Bible says we intuitively know there is a God, I shouldn't even have to present any evidence of Him. So when atheists deny what should be obvious, I do question their motives. Are you ready for a dose of irony? Many atheists only claim to be atheists because they know God is real!

IT'S A HASTY GENERALIZATION

Besides its faulty appeal to motive foundation, Nietzsche deftly piles onto his argument still another fallacy of logic, the hasty generalization. It's true there may be people out there who fear death so much that they would leap at any promise of eternal life – even an empty promise. Yet even if that's true, it's no basis to suggest this applies to all Christians or even most Christians.

The majority of Christians believe in God and the Bible for the same reasons people believe anything, namely, they are convinced that these things are true. We become convinced through many different lines reason: logic, evidence, and our experiences. It's factually wrong to suggest the primary factor why Christians choose to believe is fear.

IT'S AD HOMINEM

It's hilarious when an atheist acts “holier-than-thou,” but in their typical, condescending fashion, they suggest it's them who are enlightened thinkers that fully grasp reality while theists are quivering cowards who couldn't leave their house without an assurance that someone “up there” is going to keep them safe. I'm not sure exactly why they does this. It could be simple ridicule borne out of a habitual contempt for theism. It could be a tactic aimed at shaming people who claim to believe. Whatever the reason, it's rather shameful.

No one wants to look like a coward. No one wants to be thought of as a person who can't face reality. Yet that's what this argument tries to do with Christians. It may be possible to embarrass a person to the point he is afraid to admit what he truly believes to be true but it's just a gimmick. It does nothing to prove what the person believes isn't true.

IT CONTRADICTS ITSELF

If people invent religion to quell their fears of reality, why invent a religion with hell? It doesn't make any sense. In fact, it's beyond senseless for someone who already fears death to create a religion where a worse punishment might await him after death! If fear were truly the motivating factor for people to believe in God, some form of universalism, the belief that all people can live happily ever after, would be the most popular religion.

In conclusion, let me remind you of the title of the article that raised this point: 3 Famous Atheists & Their Best Arguments. I'll repeat that, “their best arguments.” Really? Saying, “You only believe in God because you're afraid of reality,” is one of the best arguments for atheism? I'm sorry but it's not one of the best. It's not even a good argument. It does nothing to support atheism and the author should be embarrassed that he even included it in his article.

2 Timothy 1:7, “For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.”

Evidence for biblical creation: Mimicry

People have asked me, “What is the evidence for biblical creation?” That's a difficult question because there is often a misunderstanding about what “evidence” is. Evidence is neutral – that is, it isn't truly for any theory. Rather, theories are invented in order to explain the evidence. A theory might seem to explain the evidence rather well but then later, the theory could still be rejected in favor of a new theory. As theories come and go, the evidence is always the same. The universe just keeps chugging along like it always has and nothing has changed except the theory.

After having said that evidence isn't really for any theory, I still feel there are some things better explained by biblical creation than by secular theories. I'm not saying secular theories have no explanation for any of things things (well, I guess in some cases they don't), but that biblical creation has the most reasonable explanation and, so, is more likely the correct explanation. I'm not going to make a series of posts with the best evidence, but will make this a recurring topic that I post from time to time, with similar headings. You can find all the posts related to this topic by clicking on “Evidence for creation” in the label cloud on the left.

Mimicry

Mimicry in nature is when one species has supposedly evolved to look like another species. For example, a caterpillar might look like a snake or a moth might look like a bird. There are several reasons why looking like another species could be an advantage. It might allow the mimic to hide from predators or maybe sneak up on prey. One type of mimicry is called Batesian Mimicry, named after the man who discovered it, Dr. Henry Walter Bates. According to Study.com,

[Batesian Mimicry] describes a relationship where one organism that is harmless has evolved aposematic coloration that mimics a noxious species. A noxious species has some sort of harmful or damaging protection, and aposematic coloration is a distinctive warning marking that sets the noxious species apart and makes it easily identifiable. By imitating a harmful species, the mimic can avoid predation.

An example of Batesian mimicry is the hoverfly. The hoverfly has no bite or sting and is harmless to humans. However, you can see how closely it resembles a bee or wasp. So even though the hoverfly is harmless, predators might still avoiding eating it because it looks like a dangerous bee.

https://unsplash.com/@carolienvanoijen

The problems of evolution explaining mimicry are myriad. Evolution supposedly happens via mutation and natural selection. A mutation will occur in the DNA of an organism; on rare occasions, the mutation will offer a benefit to the host; because of this advantage, the host may live longer (natural selection) and leave more offspring which will inherit the beneficial mutation; eventually, the descendents with the beneficial mutation will replace the entire population.

In the case of Batesian mimicry, the problem becomes, how does such a striking similarity evolve gradually? Evolution is not a directed process. That is, natural selection won't select a “more like a bee” mutation; it will only select for a “more fit fly.” Every single mutation that doesn't make the fly more fit will be selected against – even if the mutation might slightly resemble a bee.

Another problem for evolution is that, while the mimic is evolving, the model is supposed to be evolving too! Think about it. If evolution is true, bees didn't always look like they do now, right? So over the millions of years that the mimic was evolving to look like the model, the model was also evolving: model changes – mimic changes – model changes – mimic changes. To arrive at similar bodies at precisely the same times smacks of incredulity.

That something like mimicry could ever happen by undirected processes is incredible. To believe it has happened the numerous times we find in nature is laughable. I've read evolutionists' fanciful stories as they seek to explain what clearly seem to be examples of design and purpose. No matter how far fetched their explanations may seem, they prefer their natural causes over the far more reasonable possibility that models and mimics were created that way!

It's because of science that I believe in creation

Per Wikipedia:

"God of the gaps" is a theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence.

Creationists are often accused of using a god-of-the-gaps argument to bolster creationism. That is, it's been said that we point to a lack of any natural explanation for some phenomenon as though that were evidence for a supernatural explanation. I suppose that happens sometimes and we should be careful not to let that be our entire argument. On the other hand, it's not entirely unreasonable to suppose a natural explanation for the evidence doesn't exist because the truth is a supernatural cause.

Consider, for a moment, that a suspect's fingerprints were found in blood at a murder scene. The most obvious conclusion is that the suspect was at the murder scene at about the time of the murder. His defense attorney might deny his client was there but without any plausible alternative of how his fingerprints got there, the jury will probably stick with the most obvious conclusion. Even if the defense suggests some alternative. The jury may still reject a far-fetched explanation in favor of a more reasonable one.

The same is true about creation. One simple explanation for the existence of the universe is that it is the creation of God. Secular scientists might object but without any credible alternative explanation of how everything came into existence, why should I summarily reject a very plausible explanation? They're welcome to say this is a god-of-the-gaps argument but that flimsy criticism would only have merit if the correct explanation is necessarily the natural one!

In a recent post, I talked about the bias held by most of the scientific community that every phenomenon must have a natural explanation but there's not an objective reason to believe that must be so. It's more of a secular dogma. So to say the lack of a natural explanation is evidence of nothing because a natural explanation must exist is itself an empty argument. It's the secular way of saying, “nature-did-it.”

Let's set all that aside, though. My belief in creation isn't limited to what can't be explained by science. I believe in creation because of the things I already know are true! I'll start with design.

https://unsplash.com/@jeremythomasphoto

If I found pebbles stacked in the shape of a pyramid, I would know they were intentionally stacked that way. It doesn't matter that I didn't see them being stacked or that I don't know who stacked them, I would still know that they were arranged with intent and purpose. How do I know this? It's because I've learned that organization is the product of design. Everyone has learned this. We recognize design seemingly without effort. In an instant, we can tell the difference between a pattern painted on the floor and paint spilled on the floor.

Scientists know this already. If the Mars Rover found a rock with weird symbols engraved on it, they would immediately know some intelligent being carved them. It wouldn't matter if they couldn't read the symbols. It wouldn't matter if they never found out who carved them. The presence of the symbols alone would prompt a barrage of headlines saying, “Intelligent life was once on Mars!”

Life is remarkably organized. The DNA molecule is exceedingly complex – far more complex than a stack of pebbles or symbols carved on a rock. Our bodies are incredible machines with thousands of intricate parts. Our circulatory, respiratory, and nervous systems are complicated and extremely fine tuned. Life is far more than a collection of chemicals – it's about organization. Simply finding amino acids in nature is a far cry from believing amino acids could arrange themselves into a DNA molecule. It's like the difference between pebbles strewn along a beach and pebbles stacked in the shape of a pyramid. It all screams of design. It screams so loudly that scientists go to great lengths to explain why things might seem designed but really aren't.

The organization of living things (from bacteria to basketball players) is evidence for creation. It's not that we don't know how life could happen so, therefore, goddidit. Instead, we know it's created because we know organization is the result of intelligence. So, yes! God did it!

But besides the obvious design we see in nature, there's another scientific principle I've learned that tells me the universe was created. I believe it was in my 9^th grade physical science class where I first heard the phrase “matter can neither be created nor destroyed – it can only change forms.” It wasn't until much later that I understood this is a scientific law called the conservation of matter/energy. You can convert matter into energy (as in Einstein's famous formula, E=mc²) but the total amount of matter/energy in the universe remains constant.

So if new matter isn't being created, where did all the existing matter come from? Scientifically speaking, I know it can't be created naturally. Therefore, it must have been created supernaturally. That is the only other option. I think secular scientists truly want to have it both ways. When pressed about the origin of matter, they sometimes weakly appeal to some quantum mechanism where electrons seem to appear out of nothing but they still refuse to abandon the trusted certainty that the total matter/energy in the universe doesn't change. They want us to believe the universe poofed into existence while simultaneously telling us matter doesn't poof into existence. It's funny. I already know matter doesn't poof into existence. Therefore, I know that matter and time and space were supernaturally created.

There are probably other examples I could give but let's wrap this up. Creation is sort of like the miracles performed by Jesus. If I lived in a 3rd world country, I might think David Blaine was a sorcerer. However, I know they're really just card tricks. They may be clever, but they're not magic. It is by that same principle that I can identify the miracles of Jesus. People can't really walk on water. People can't really rise from the dead. It is because I understand how nature works that I know Jesus performed miracles.

Matter exists but I know it can't be created naturally. Organization exists but it doesn't happen randomly.  They're miracles. And I don't believe they're miracles simply because science doesn't have any explanation for them. It's precisely because I understand science that I understand that creation is a miracle.

Lies evolutionists tell: 99.9% of all the species that have ever lived are extinct

People who militantly defend evolution (AKA evolutionists) like to look down their noses on the “lay” public and smugly drone on about how science is the key to knowledge, how evolution is the most rigorously tested theory in science, and how they only go where the evidence leads. If that were true, why do they feel the need to tell lies to support their theory? I'm not talking about a mere difference of opinion – like how I believe the earth is around 6,000 years old and they think it's 4 billion years old. I'm talking about continuously repeating things that are objectively false. The sad thing is, many members of the public have heard these lies repeated so often, they assume they are true.

I've written series in the past where I list 5 or 10 of some of the most egregious examples but I'm not going to write a series now. Instead, I'm going to visit this topic from time to time and make each, entire post about a single lie. If you want to read all the posts published under this topic, click “lies evolutionists tell” in the label cloud in the left column.

Have said that, on to the next lie!

99.9% of all the species that have ever lived are extinct

According to Wikipedia, “More than 99% of all species that ever lived on Earth, amounting to over five billion species, are estimated to have died out.” You'll have to excuse Wiki's bad grammar. What they're trying to say is, more than 99% of an estimated five billion species that have lived on Earth have died out. But even while I can correct their bad grammar, the lie remains the same. //sigh//

I've heard people citing this statistic so often and for so long that I once believed there certainly must be some evidence for it. However, there's an old joke that says, 87% of all statistics are just made up. When estimating the number of extinct species, the 99.9% figure definitely falls into the “made up” category. Let's look at some actual numbers.

According to National Geographic, “Scientists have estimated that there are around 8.7 million species of plants and animals in existence. However, only around 1.2 million species have been identified and described so far, most of which are insects.” Of course, there are certainly some species that exist and haven't been discovered. How many? I've heard estimates ranging into hundreds of millions that might exist. Lately, however, estimates have been trending noticeably downward – probably less than 10 million species total.

When we look at the fossil record, there are substantially fewer species that have been identified. When you search Google, you'll invariably run into the “estimated 5 billion” number all the time but actual named species are only a few hundred thousand. Here's an estimate from PNAS.org, “Most fossil species are invertebrates and, like most living species, are defined strictly on the basis of external morphology. About 192,000 invertebrate fossil species were known in 1970, and at least 3,000 more are named every year. Therefore, at least 280,000 have been named by now.” Of course, there are also vertebrate species so let's be especially generous and say there are 500,000 species known only from their fossil remains. Is that fair? Then let's move on.

The objective facts, then, are these: 10 million living species and 500 thousand extinct species. There is NO fossil evidence for the other 4.9+ billion species evolutionists claim existed. NONE. The absurdly high number is born out of their belief in billions of years of earth's history which virtually demands billions of species to fill in all the gaps.

In his book, The Origin of Species, p. 234, Darwin said this, “But, as by this theory [of evolution] innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” Why, indeed?! Perhaps it is because fossilization is such a rare event. Perhaps they lived but the fossil record is so incomplete there just aren't any remains of them left to find. Or perhaps the fossil record is remarkably complete and the species never existed!

I was watching a YouTube debate a few years back and the evolutionist trotted out the alleged “whale sequence” as evidence for evolution. Given that fossilization is supposed to be such a rare event, I remember thinking how unlikely it should be for such a complete series to exist. Suddenly, another realization hit me that pokes another huge hole in the story of evolution.

https://unsplash.com/@picsbyjameslee

According to FossilWiki, “More than 40 specimens of Tyrannosaurus have been identified, some of which are nearly complete skeletons.” I find it incredibly odd that 99.96% of all the species that have supposedly lived left no fossils yet this particular species has left dozens. I mean, what are the odds? It doesn't stop there, though. On HumanOrigins.si.edu, we read, “Australopithecus afarensis is one of the longest-lived and best-known early human species—paleoanthropologists have uncovered remains from more than 300 individuals!” If you agree that it should be unlikely to find t-rex fossils by the dozens, you'll agree it's downright queer that we find A. afarensis by the hundreds! Keep in mind too that these are larger, terrestrial creatures – the least likely to fossilize; we find trilobite fossils by the millions! If evolutionists are right, why are some species so over-represented in the fossil record when billions of other species aren't found at all?

As I've said, the billions of species claimed by evolutionists are merely a consequence of their belief in an old earth yet their claims don't square with the facts. What we observe in the fossils is the exact opposite of what evolutionists allege. They say there have been billions of species, the vast majority of which left no fossilized individuals. What we observe are relatively few species abundantly represented by dozens, hundreds, or even millions of fossils. The observable, testable evidence is better explained by creation: the earth is thousands of years old, most of the species that have ever lived are still alive, and the fossil record is remarkably complete yet shows a glaring lack of transitional forms.

There is no longer any room for billions of years in the fossil record. The storytelling is over. Their billions of species is a lie. What we observe (aka, “the evidence”) is much more consistent with a recent creation and a catastrophic flood.