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!'
It's been my experience that the most obvious answer to nearly any question is usually the correct one.
ReplyDeleteThat can only mean that, upon closer inspection, you usually find evidence confirming that your initial impression was correct. But what of the unusual cases where closer inspection falsifies your initial impression? Surely you will not (in most cases) decide that since your first impression is usually right, it must always be right?
If we confine ourselves to our initial obvious answers in scientific questions, it's easy to find cases where first impressions were very misleading. The Earth certainly looked flat to some very smart people three thousand years ago, but I'm pretty sure it was as spherical then as now. Aristotle, a very smart man indeed, thought the sun and other planets orbited the Earth; it was only upon closer examination over centuries that it appeared that a better explanation was that the Earth orbited the sun instead.
Upon a close inspection of life, we find features ranging from identically-disabled pseudogenes in homologous loci in humans and other catarrhine primates, to shared endogenous retroviruses, to bizarre anatomical features like the recurrent pharyngeal nerve or the human plantaris tendon. These make vastly more sense as relics of common descent with modification than of separate creation and common design. The existence of fossil skulls that straddle any dividing line you might wish to draw between humans and nonhuman apes (or birds and non-bird dinosaurs, or whales and land mammals, etc.) are a further point that ought to weigh against the initial impression of design.
Indeed, the nested hierarchy of life itself -- the way that, e.g. genera fit neatly and entirely into families, which similarly nest cleanly within orders, etc. -- is a feature that we would not expect from design (engineers are perfectly capable of copying a design feature from one "lineage" into another) but from branching descent with opportunistic modification. Design would give us things like bats with feathers or birds with mammary glands, which we don't see.
They would not put in such effort if they didn't grasp the clear implication of design is that there is a Designer.
Well, at the most general level, design obviously requires a designer. But it's less obvious that it requires an omnipotent and omniscient Designer who became incarnate and created Heaven and Hell as our eternal destinations. If one rejects design merely to avoid accountability to the biblical God, why not just point out that "design" is compatible with universalism, or an apathetic deistic God Who no more cares for us individually than we care for bacteria in a petri dish individually? The motives you ascribe to those who accept evolution are insufficient to account for that decision.