The Complexity of Life: Evolution or Design? Part 6

Listen for a moment:

Job 12:7-11(NRSV)

7 “But ask the animals, and they will teach you;

the birds of the air, and they will tell you;

8 ask the plants of the earth, and they will teach you;

and the fish of the sea will declare to you.

9 Who among all these does not know

that the hand of the Lord has done this?

10 In his hand is the life of every living thing

and the breath of every human being.

11 Does not the ear test words
    as the palate tastes food?

This is what science was meant to do.  Study the Universe and in the end discover the mysteries of God.  I do have one small recommendation should you put this scripture to the test; don’t let anyone see you talking to plants.  You might get institutionalized!

Interestingly it is not just skeptics like me, a scientist who believes in God, who find the facts of evolution to be preposterous.  Sir Ernest Chain who won the Nobel Prize for the development of penicillin in 1945.  Said this:

“To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of change mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest.”

The level of complexity involved in the existence of life, life’s interdependence and the amazingly fine-tuned material existence of the planet’s orbit around the sun, abundance of water and renewable resources simply cannot be the product of any accident of nature.  The odds are against any possibility that they are a product of material forces alone literally prove the existence of intelligent agency at the foundation of all created order.  Dr Etherige, a world renown paleontologist of the British Museum said this:

“Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts.  This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views.  In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of the species.”

In cellular and molecular biology, evolution asks us to believe that the first molecules, be they protein, RNA or DNA after falling in place in a perfectly linear fashion and somehow becoming covalently linked in this form just happen to find a coding partner, then discovered a means to transcribe the code between the two opposing chemical types and at some point was able to discover and capture the literally thousands of biosynthetic pathways to make the individual units (pathways to make each of the 20 essential amino acids, 5 nucleotide molecules, add phosphates, sugars and construct the molecules involve in polymerizing these units into their respective configurations).  Amazingly the typical simple cell has thousands of enzymes and hundreds of thousands of metabolic pathways.  Belief in evolution is paramount to a mindless commitment to religious persuasions.    Francis Crick, a contributor to the discovery of the structure of the DNA molecule, said this, “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.”  He could not bring himself to go all the way and admit to a super-natural masterpiece.  Shame on him and men like him.  They have chosen darkness over light.

I am a skeptic, of both false evolution and false religions.  Michael Denton, an Australian M.D. and Ph.D. in molecular biology wrote in his book, Evolution: A theory in crisis:

“To the skeptic, the proposition that the genetic programs of higher organisms, consisting of something close to a thousand million bits of information, equivalent to the sequence of letters in a small library of one thousand volumes, containing in encoded form countless thousands of intricate algorithms controlling, specifying and ordering the growth and development of billions and billions of cells into the form of a complex organism, were composed by a purely random process is simply an affront to reason.  But to the Darwinist the idea is accepted without a ripple of doubt.” P.27.  He further said the “The intuitive feeling that pure chance could ever have achieved the degree of complexity and ingenuity so ubiquitous in nature has been a continuing source of skepticism ever since the publication of the Origin of the Species.  Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which –a functional protein or gene – is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?”

Edwin Hoyle chose to believe the possibility that intelligent design had a significant role in life’s origin and continuation.  Known for his theory of nucleosynthesis and losing a Nobel Prize for his honest opinion, he said he was at a loss to understand ‘biologists’ widespread compulsion to deny what seems obvious; that evolution is a failed hypothesis and intelligent intervention was and is required for life’s existence.

Dr. R.L. Wysong, a biologist and practitioner of veterinary medicine, had this to say after years of study:  “…evolution asks us to break stride from what is natural to believe in that which is unnatural, unreasonable, and …unbelievable.  The basis for this departure from what is natural and reasonable to believe is not fact, observation, or experience but rather unreasonable extrapolations from abstract probabilities, mathematics, and philosophy. “

I hope we are making some headway here.  Evolutionists don’t believe the theory has explained anything but they believe it has explanatory power.  Evolutionists believe in evolution, as did the Baal worshipers believe their drunken orgies would bring good fortune.  It is nonsense, non-science and a crippling dogma in our educational systems.

There is so very much to say about the millions of life forms and their complex development from fertilized eggs, or the multiplication by binary division; behaviors, migration patterns, mating dances, knowledge of edible foods and more.  No library will ever fill the knowledge of complexity we have discovered in living things.  I will end here and prepare to take a closer look at the evidence or lack thereof for human evolution.

To date we have looked at the historical development of the evolutionary theory, the changes from metaphysical foundations of science to a purely material one, changes from global flood geology to uniformitarianism and back to flood catastrophism to explain sedimentary rock and fossilization.  We have only dabbled on the issues surrounding complexity and found evolution wanting.   To date after 5 lessons on the evidence for evolution we can summarize the scientific facts for evolution in the box below:

Notice it is empty.

 

Dan