Presentation on theme: "THE UNIVERSE: ACCIDENTAL OR DESIGNED? By David A. Prentice, M.Ed., M.A.S.T."— Presentation transcript:
THE UNIVERSE: ACCIDENTAL OR DESIGNED? By David A. Prentice, M.Ed., M.A.S.T.
Before God became a man in the person of Jesus, he existed as a spirit with infinite intelligence. Therefore it would be more correct to say that that we believe in an “invisible intelligence” that made the universe. Skeptics ridicule Christians because we believe in an “invisible man in the sky” that made the universe. Silly, right? What is the atheists’ alternative? They believe in An “invisible non-intelligence” that made the universe. In what way is it any more scientific to believe in non-intelligence than intelligence? Either way, it’s a step of faith. In what way is it any more scientific to believe in non-intelligence than intelligence? Either way, it’s a step of faith.
NECESSARY CHARACTERISTICS GOD 1. Only seen by what He does - INVISIBLE. GOD 1. Only seen by what He does - INVISIBLE. 2. Established natural laws, so is not subject to those laws - SUPERNATURAL. 2. Established natural laws, so is not subject to those laws - SUPERNATURAL. 3. Preceded the universe - ETERNAL. 3. Preceded the universe - ETERNAL. 4. Influence extends throughout the universe - OMNIPRESENT. 5. Directly or indirectly responsi- ble for everything that has ever happened - OMNIPOTENT. 5. Directly or indirectly responsi- ble for everything that has ever happened - OMNIPOTENT. 6. Nobody made Him - SELF- EXISTENT. 6. Nobody made Him - SELF- EXISTENT. RANDOM CHANCE 2. Established natural laws, so is not subject to those laws - SUPERNATURAL. 2. Established natural laws, so is not subject to those laws - SUPERNATURAL. 3. Preceded the universe - ETERNAL. 3. Preceded the universe - ETERNAL. 4. Influence extends throughout the universe - OMNIPRESENT. 5. Directly or indirectly responsi- ble for everything that has ever happened - OMNIPOTENT. 5. Directly or indirectly responsi- ble for everything that has ever happened - OMNIPOTENT. 6. Nobody made it - SELF- EXISTENT. 6. Nobody made it - SELF- EXISTENT. There is no possibility that God does NOT exist. 1. Only seen by what it does - INVISIBLE. 1. Only seen by what it does - INVISIBLE.
Despite the daily bombardment saying otherwise, evolution and creation/intelligent design are both logical systems based on unprovable axioms. Teaching made-up stories that depend on the absence of intelligent design is no more scientific, or less religious, than allowing for the presence of intelligent design. Despite the daily bombardment saying otherwise, evolution and creation/intelligent design are both logical systems based on unprovable axioms. Teaching made-up stories that depend on the absence of intelligent design is no more scientific, or less religious, than allowing for the presence of intelligent design.
The Two Most Basic Axioms of Evolution and Creation 1. Everything must be explainable by purely natural processes. a. Atheistic evolution: There is no God. b. Theistic evolution: There is a God, but he does not intervene in nature. Known as either NATURALISM, MATERIALISM, OR ATHEISM. 1. A supernatural intelligence created the universe. Though most things are explainable by natural processes, some things may not be. This is as far as Intelligent Design goes; Creation specifies that the intelligence is God. Like the Postulates of Geometry, Neither Set of Axioms Can Be Proven. They Must Be Accepted by Faith as Self-Evident. CREATION: EVOLUTION: 2. Since there could be no other natural processes besides evolution, evolution is the only possibility. 2. God is powerful enough to use any method he chooses, including instantaneous creation.
EVEN WITH CORRECT LOGIC, FALSE PREMISES CAN LEAD TO FALSE CONCLUSIONS. All dogs bark. (Or, “If an animal is a dog, then it barks.”) Fido is a dog. Therefore, Fido barks. Not if Fido is a Basenji! Basenjis do not bark. If any one of our premises is wrong, then our conclusion is unreliable.
NO POSSIBILITY BUT EVOLUTION! In other words, “Our minds are made up. Don’t try to confuse us with the facts.” In other words, “Our minds are made up. Don’t try to confuse us with the facts.” “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” "What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery," by Francis Crick (Nobel Prize winner for co-discovery of the structure of DNA)
THE SEARCH FOR DESIGN: A Normal Part of Science! THE SEARCH FOR DESIGN: A Normal Part of Science! NASA Space Flights / SETI Airplane Crash Investigation Arson Investigation Investigation of Suspicious Deaths Archaeology
IS INTELLIGENT DESIGN UNSCIENTIFIC? Intelligent Design (I.D.) is a broad concept that allows for the possibility of either direct creation or theistic evolution. Judges nationwide have bought into the atheistic claim that since the presence of a designer cannot be tested, therefore I.D. is unscientific. True, we cannot scientifically prove the EXISTENCE of a designer. But the judges have overlooked an ob- vious question: what sort of scientific test could you perform to prove the NON-EXISTENCE of a designer? In what way is teaching the IMPOSSIBILITY of intel- ligent design any more scientific than teaching the POSSIBILITY of intelligent design?
WHAT IF THERE IS EVEN ONE THING IN NATURE THAT REQUIRES GOD? This is why atheists fight so hard against Intelligent Design. This is why atheists fight so hard against Intelligent Design. “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species How many physical phenomena without a physical cause would it take to falsify evolution? Just one! Or, if something is a physical phenomenon, then it must have a physical cause. Or, if something is a physical phenomenon, then it must have a physical cause.
But if even one physical phenomenon has a supernatural cause, then all of evolutionary logic is unreliable. But if even one physical phenomenon has a supernatural cause, then all of evolutionary logic is unreliable. Methodological Naturalism, or Everything must be explainable by purely natural processes. It only takes one non- barking dog to show that “All dogs bark” is false. THE FOUNDATION OF EVOLUTIONARY LOGIC:
THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM Biochemist Michael Behe, a theistic evolutionist, likens much of mod- ern biological re- search to a group of detectives inves- tigating a flattened body. As they search for clues to the cause of death they have to keep stepping around the ele- phant in the room. However, because they have agreed in advance that there is no such thing as an elephant, none of them is will- ing to say, “Maybe the elephant did it.” Rather than go against the majority view and be labeled incompetent or supersti- tious, they keep searching for other explanations. BEHE’S POINT: LET’S QUIT OVERLOOKING THE POSSIBILITY OF DESIGN! BEHE’S POINT: LET’S QUIT OVERLOOKING THE POSSIBILITY OF DESIGN! Recommended Reading: Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box)
ARGUMENTS AGAINST DESIGN 1. Things can’t be designed because that would bring God into science. A philosophical rather than scientific argument. Besides, it’s really dumb! In order to disprove design, evolutionists would have had to be watching since the beginning of the earth. 2. Things can’t be designed be- cause we don’t like the way they are put together (e.g. the panda’s “thumb”). This only proves that if there is a designer, we either dis- agree with Him or don’t under- stand His purposes.
ARGUMENTS FOR DESIGN 1. OPINION (e.g. beauty in nature implies a designer with a sense of beauty). Not very persuasive to someone who thinks nature is ugly. 2. EXTREME IMPROBABILITY in a specific pattern. No theoretical barrier says it’s impossible for an armadillo or groundhog to make it across a busy 1000 lane superhighway - he just doesn’t.
SPECIFIED IMPROBABILITY In any collection of matter, no one arrangement is more or less improbable than any other. (Somebody is probably going to win the lottery.) However, this is not what the search for design is about. We are looking not just for improbability, but improba- bility in a specific direction. (Is Mt. Rushmore an accident? If the same person wins the lottery week after week, aren’t you going to get suspicious?) In nature, most arrangements produce meaningless junk. Only a few produce life. The question is, how improbable is it that those specific arrangements could arise by chance?
PROBABILITIES - A NORMAL PART OF SCIENTIFIC STUDY. PROBABILITIES - A NORMAL PART OF SCIENTIFIC STUDY. Could they be motivated by reasons other than scientific curiosity? Biologists often use statistical tests such as a “chi-square” distribution test to determine whether a phenomenon seems to be random or non-random (e.g., location of ant hills along a levee). Yet many are unwilling to admit that Intelligent Design is simply a reasonable application of probability testing to see if there are indications of non-randomness in nature.
OCCAM’S RAZOR: Not a hard and fast rule, but a good guideline. The fewer stories you have to make up, the better. “Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.” A principle of logic that can be paraphrased as, “The simplest explanation that fits all the facts is usually the best.”
WHO NEEDS FACTS WHEN YOU CAN MAKE UP STORIES? Darwin said, “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree...” “Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imper- fect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.” (The Origin of Species) So did he give up? NO! He made up a story! SINCE WE CAN MAKE UP A STORY, THEREFORE OUR STORY MUST BE TRUE!
SOME OF THE MADE-UP STORIES OF EVOLUTION: Origin of matter and energy How a Big Bang could have worked Development of an orderly universe from a disorderly explosion Origin of the chemical elements from hydrogen Origin of stars Origin of the solar system (sun, planets, moons, etc.) Origin of life Origin of RNA/DNA/genetic code Origin of homochirality (100% left-handed amino acids) “Pathways” to the development of various genes and structures Origin of error-correcting mechanism in cells Development of increased genetic information by copying mistakes that slipped through the error-correcting mechanism And since evolutionists make up good stories, we are supposed to shut up and believe the stories are true!
Origin of photosynthesis in the “earliest” plants Origin of the nucleus in eukaryotic cells Origin of multicellular organisms Development of irreducibly complex structures & systems throughout nature Origin of every major type of living thing Origin of symbiosis How animals came to need specific elements while plants developed the mechanism to extract exactly those elements from the soil Origin of sex Origin of parental care Origin of primates Origin of humans Origin of consciousness, morality, religion, humor etc., etc. If any one of the evolutionists’ stories is false, then evolution is falsified and ALL the stories are suspect! SOME OF THE MADE-UP STORIES OF EVOLUTION:
Hints of design: DNA, The Blueprint for Life DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is a double helix made up of millions or billions of the nucleotides Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine, and Thymine. DNA is subdivided into dozens of chromosomes, each of which may contain thousands of genes. The genes are made up of thousands of the nucleotides A, C, G, and T. Each nucleotide matches with a complementary one on the other half of the DNA strand to form a base pair. By using the nucleotides in many different combinations, DNA can spell out the instructions to produce any type of living thing. A few dozen base pairs of nucleotides, out of millions or billions on the complete strand What is the probability that DNA is accidental?
Hints of design: What Evolutionists are Overlooking DNA is a form of communication – a language written in chemicals – that specifies how to make a living thing from other chemicals. 1. All known communication starts with a concept. But evolutionists believe the letters of DNA (A, C, G, T) came first, then accidentally arranged themselves into genes (grammar), then the genes accidentally came together into meaningful instructions (the concept) for how to produce living things. They have the whole process BACKWARDS! 2. The concept is then converted into syntax and grammar in order to be expressed. 3. Once the syntax and grammar are expressed in words, THEN the concept is converted to letters and symbols to convey the message. First comes the concept, then the grammar, then the letters.
Hints of design: FUNCTIONS OF DNA 1. Cell Repair and Maintenance. DNA contains the instructions to put together hundreds of amino acids into each of the thousands of types of proteins the cell needs to work properly. 2. Cell Reproduction. It contains the instructions to link those proteins into a complete cell, as well as to reproduce itself so that offspring can also function properly and reproduce. 3. Survival and Diversity of the Kind. DNA contains far more genes than are visibly expressed in any individual. Unexpressed genes are available to pass on to future generations. DNA can carry so much extra information that if one breeding pair had the right combination of genes, they could produce an entire kind containing multiple species and breeds. The odds against chemical processes forming such an information-carrying system by accident are astronomical.
Hints of design: UNIVERSAL GENETIC CODE Every type of organism, no matter how “primitive” or “advanced,” uses the same genetic code and the same protein manufacturing mechanism of messenger RNA, transfer RNA, ribosomal RNA, ribosomes, and endoplas- mic reticulum. OOPS – THAT PART FORGOT TO EVOLVE! How probable is it that DNA could have mutated billions of steps from nothing to its present condition, while the genetic code and manufacturing apparatus it uses DID NOT CHANGE EVEN THE SLIGHTEST BIT? How probable is it that DNA could have mutated billions of steps from nothing to its present condition, while the genetic code and manufacturing apparatus it uses DID NOT CHANGE EVEN THE SLIGHTEST BIT? The first living things are supposed to have had no DNA at all. It is supposed to have evolved later, by accident. As it evolved, DNA is supposed to have experienced so many accidental copying errors that some types of organisms acquired over a hundred billion base pairs. The error-correcting mechanisms are supposed to have evolved by accidental errors that were not corrected.
N N N N H O-O- N H H+H+ H+H+ N-N- O-O- N H H N H H+H+ GUANINE CYTOSINE Ribose & Phosphate Three Hydrogen bonding sites each N N H H ADENINE N H+H+ H N-N- O N H H THYMINE O-O- N H+H+ H H C Ribose & Phosphate Two H bonding sites each Hints of design: DNA Error Checking Step 1 – Matching Nucleotides Hints of design: DNA Error Checking Step 1 – Matching Nucleotides (Hydrogen bonding sites indicated by colors. Blue = positive, red = negative.) Because of matching numbers of hydrogen bonds between pairs, enzymes make a copying mistake only about once in every 100,000 attempts.
Hints of design: DNA Error Checking Step 2 – Preliminary Proofreading Hints of design: DNA Error Checking Step 2 – Preliminary Proofreading Because of the matching numbers of hydrogen bonds, “A” and “T” align at a precise distance, as do “C” and “G.” If any of the four is accidentally paired with the wrong type, the incorrect distances produce a “bump” on the newly forming DNA strand. In a process known as proofreading exo- nuclease, enzymes move along the strand and check that all distances are correct. If they detect a bump, they snip out the offending nucleotide and insert the correct one in its place. This brings the rate of copying errors down to about one in 10 million. Correct Spacing: A - T C - G Incorrect: A - A A - C A - G C - C etc.
Hints of design: DNA Error Checking Step 3 – Final Proofreading Hints of design: DNA Error Checking Step 3 – Final Proofreading A family of en- zymes known as DNA polymerases uses the two halves of a DNA strand to make two copies of the original. After the copies are complete, some of the polymerases re- scan them to proofread for errors resulting from nucleotide mismatches. If an error is detected, one of the polymerases snips out the offending segment, then manufactures and inserts a corrected segment. This reduces the rate of copying errors to about one in 10 billion. Part of the clamp-loader complex of DNA polymerase 3 in e. coli. Model by Guenther, Onrust, Sali, O’Donnell, & Kuriyan- from the Protein DataBank of RCSB. All this is done by lifeless chemicals. How do they know what to do? An accident of evolution?
EVOLUTION: A MATTER OF FAITH Evolutionists believe that the first living things were extremely simple. Because DNA had not evolved yet, they must have used some (unknown) far simpler information storage system. They would not have had any error- correcting mechanisms at all. Atheists believe that the elaborate error-correcting mechanisms were later added to DNA one mutation at a time. They must believe that the intricate system of enzymes that prevent errors is itself the result of thousands of perfectly coordinated errors. Errors produced the error-prevention mechanism. Theists believe that God added the error-correcting mechanism much later, then overrode it millions of times because He wanted so much to have evolution. Is it probable that a multi-step error-correcting system could evolve by millions of errors that were not corrected?
Hints of design: WHY MUTATIONS ARE HARMFUL Could we replace one letter or space at a time in the phrase In the beginning God created to make it say For God so loved the world ? Of course! But how far would we get if it had to make sense every step of the way? Not very far at all. Mutations have to make biological sense. If not, they would produce a corpse rather than an evolving line of organisms.
Hints of design: Numbers of Base Pairs in DNA Bacteria have only a few million base pairs in their DNA. If everything evolved from the same one-celled ancestor, the most highly evolved (such as humans) ought to have the greatest number of base pairs. Bacteria have only a few million base pairs in their DNA. If everything evolved from the same one-celled ancestor, the most highly evolved (such as humans) ought to have the greatest number of base pairs. TYPE OF ORGANISM Simplest Bacteria Insects Birds Reptiles Most plants Humans Sharks and Frogs Newts Some varieties of beans Some varieties of lilies # OF BASE PAIRS 1 to 2 million Hundreds of millions A billion 1 to 2 billion Hundreds of millions to several billion 3 billion 4 billion 30 billion 100 billion There is no evolutionary pattern in the number of base pairs.
Hints of design: Could Viruses Add Millions of Base Pairs to DNA? Hints of design: Could Viruses Add Millions of Base Pairs to DNA? 1.The vast majority of bacteria are not harmful. Their work as decomposers makes them crucial to life on earth. They do not change the DNA of their hosts. 3. Viruses are insufficient to add billions of base pairs to DNA. a.Only a few dozen viruses affect any given species, and each virus only contains one to three genes. Even if a species gained dozens of genes this way and the process repeated hundreds of times, the number of base pairs added would be a few million, not billions. b.The process would stop once multi-celled organisms evolved. Viruses are usually not passed on to future generations in sexual reproduc- tion. They would have to infect not just any cells, but specifically the reproductive cells. 2. Only a small number of viruses affect any given species. Most viruses, too, are not harmful. They are essential to the survival of bacteria. They often DO change their host’s DNA. They act like bees pollinating flowers, allowing bacteria to exchange genetic information that helps them to survive in case of a change in their environment.
Hints of design: Could Duplication of Existing Genes Add Millions of Base Pairs to DNA? Since mutations do not add genetic information and viruses add only a small amount, where did all the extra DNA in “higher” organisms come from? Many evolutionists believe that duplicate copies of existing, fully functional genes are occasionally added during reproduction, then the extra copies mutate to produce new features. PROBLEMS: 1. Adding extra copies of genes is usually harmful, not beneficial. This is what causes Down, Warkany, Patau, and Edwards syndromes. 2. The duplicated gene contains instructions to perform a specific function. Changing it through mutations causes a loss of genetic information, not a gain.
Hints of design: Are “Pseudogenes” Junk DNA? Many species have similar segments of DNA which have no known function. Evolutionists claim that these are “pseudogenes” or “junk DNA” left over from common ancestors. THE ATTITUDE: We are SO SMART that if we don’t know the function, there must not be any function. THE TRUTH: 1. Though we know only a tiny percentage of what happens in DNA, we have already learned that some segments formerly thought to be useless -- including several “pseudogenes” -- have a definite function after all. 2. Some pseudogenes are thought to be involved in cell differentiation. 3. Some have now been found to have a regulatory function, turning other genes on and off. 4. DNA is a 3-dimensional structure, looping back on itself in many places. Pseudogenes may contain structural information to help it do so. 5. Some segments of DNA contain coding information that is not obvious because the segments are not continuous (e.g., antibodies). Some pseudogenes may fall into this category. 6. Many pseudogenes may be damaged copies of formerly functional alleles. This is deterioration, NOT evolution.
ARGUMENTS FOR DESIGN 3. IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY. A mousetrap is a good example of an irreducibly complex machine. It must have a base, hammer, spring, latch, and trigger. If any one of them is missing or not working properly, it is not a mouse- trap but a pile of junk. If any part of an irreducibly complex machine is missing or not working right, the whole thing is a useless waste of materials. hammer trigger base spring latch
MINIMAL FUNCTION A machine must have at least minimal function to be of any use. It is not possible to make an irreducibly complex machine by gradual changes in a different type of machine. You could modify a rat trap to make a mouse trap, but you could not make one out of a can opener. You would quickly have a piece of junk that could neither open cans nor catch mice. Likewise, irreducibly complex mech- anisms in living things would not have evolved from mechanisms of a different type. Natural selection would have eliminated the non-functioning intermediates.
Hints of design: Irreducible Complexity of Cell Reproduction The first living cell would have needed: 1. Enough functioning proteins, enzymes, etc. to be alive in the first place. 2. Some way to hold the information needed to make a fairly accurate copy of all these parts so that it could reproduce -- either DNA or something like it. 3. A way to move the stored information somewhere that it could be used to make copies of all the needed parts -- messenger RNA or something like it. 4. A place for the copying to happen, and a mechanism to bring the parts together -- something like ribosomes, endoplasmic reticulum, and transfer RNA. But the instructions to make all these are stored in the DNA! All the parts had to be present at the same time or the cell would have died and life would have become extinct.
Hints of design: ANTIBODIES Antibodies can bind to over 10 billion different shapes because of the billions of possible combinations of amino acids in the heavy and light chains. light chain heavy chain binding sites Small part of DNA strand (not continuous) Antibody gene cluster #1 (250 gene segments) #2 (10 seg.) #3 (6 seg.) #4 (8 seg.) One piece of the gene that will produce the heavy chain is randomly selected from the 250 segments in cluster 1. This is added to one from the 10 in clus- ter 2 plus one of the 6 from cluster 3 and one of the 8 from cluster 4. This gives over 100,000 possible heavy chains. The light chain is formed using three segments instead of four, but not neces- sarily the same parts of the segments. When light and heavy chains are com- bined, this amazingly efficient system uses fewer than 300 gene segments to produce over 10 billion distinct types of antibodies. (Source: Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box)
Hints of design: Irreducible Complexity of the Antibody System It would be wasteful to have billions of unneeded antibodies of all types floating around in the bloodstream. Antibodies are produced in large quantities only when needed. This occurs because some of them stay fastened to the outside of their cells and send messages to the manufacturing apparatus only when they capture a matching invader. The new mass- produced antibodies then move freely throughout the body to mark the invaders for destruction. Not only is the vertebrate system irreducibly complex - there is nothing in invertebrates from which it could have evolved! Source: Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box Antibody (size exaggerated) cell oily attachment patch multistage “messenger” system manufacturing apparatus All the components are needed for at least minimal function. All the components are needed for at least minimal function.
Hints of design: The Blood Coagulation Cascade Proteins in normal type promote clot formation. Proteins followed by an asterisk are activated forms. Proteins in normal type promote clot formation. Proteins followed by an asterisk are activated forms. Names in italics and arrows ending in bars indicate proteins acting to prevent, localize, or remove blood clots. (Source: Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box) If any part is missing or not working right, you either bleed to death or die of blood clots.
Hints of design: Vacuoles and Lysosomes Cells often float in a watery environment. Since they contain many chemicals, the surrounding water tries to equalize the chemical concentration through the process of osmosis. This steadily increases the pressure inside the cell. It would eventually burst and die, except for the presence of safety chambers called vacuoles which periodically release the excess pressure. Vacuoles exist because DNA codes for them. There would have been no DNA at the beginning, so early cells would have exploded before they had time to reproduce. Once a cell dies, it just wastes space. A multicelled organism would quickly became a bag of garbage, except that tiny “suicide sacs” called lysosomes rupture at death, releasing enzymes which digest the dead cell from the inside out and allow its remnants to be flushed out or recycled. Lysosomes, too, are present because DNA codes for them. Lysosomes, too, are present because DNA codes for them. Since there would have been no DNA at the beginning, life would have quickly drowned in garbage.
Hints of design: Active Transport in Plants Nature tends toward equilibrium, e.g., energy flows from greater to lesser concentration (2nd Law of Thermodynamics), water flows across a membrane in osmosis to try to equalize the concentration of chemicals, etc. Plants do exactly the opposite. Their roots contain enzymes that allow them to seek out specific elements (iron, manganese, etc.) from the surrounding soil, allowing them to reach up to 10,000 times as high a concentration of those elements as the soil. This is exactly the opposite of what nat- ural processes produce. It only happens because the plant’s DNA contains the coding to produce those specific enzymes.
Hints of design: Parallel Plant and Animal Mutations Many members of the animal kingdom need elements such as molybdenum, manganese, copper, selenium, iron, calcium, potassium, and so on. They have no way to extract these directly from the environment. It just so happens that many plants furnish exactly the minerals that the animals need, in a usable form. Since every living thing is supposed to have come from the same single-celled ancestor, there would have had to be two complementary and parallel series of mutations going on for hundreds of millions of years: 2. Plant DNA had to mutate so as to get the minerals out of the ground and make them available to the animals. Is this an amazing series of millions of coincidences? Or does it point toward design instead? 1. Animal DNA had to mutate so as to require those specific minerals.
Hints of design: Sap Transport in Tall Trees Water goes up a straw not because of suction, but because of atmospheric pressure. The highest column of water the atmo- sphere can support is about 32 feet. This means that natural processes would limit trees to about 32 feet tall - yet some grow to over a hundred feet. How does the water get to the top? Rather than rely on atmospheric pressure, tall trees have built-in pumps! The pumps are present because the tree’s DNA codes for them, not because natural selection forces them to evolve. Nature goes exactly the opposite way! Low probability of randomness = high probability of design. Low probability of randomness = high probability of design.
Hints of design: Bacterial Motors Many bacteria swim by means of rotary flagella. These are driven by reversible electric motors! Many bacteria swim by means of rotary flagella. These are driven by reversible electric motors! one direction - stationary opposite direction – forward motion Courtesy of Dr. Richard Lumsden Detail of motor/coupler/ flagellum complex flagellum universal joint/speed reducer Outer cell membrane Bushings Inner plasma membrane Stator studs C ring Rod (drive shaft) S ring M ring Rotor (After Behe, Darwin’s Black Box)
Hints of design: The Bombardier Beetle Image courtesy of Patrick Coin – from wikimedia.org An ordinary looking beetle with an extraordinary defense mechanism The whole sys- tem is pro- grammed in the beetle’s DNA. If any of the parts are missing, the mechanism is useless. Even if all the parts were present, if any one of them did not work right, the beetle’s ancestors might have exploded! The whole sys- tem is pro- grammed in the beetle’s DNA. If any of the parts are missing, the mechanism is useless. Even if all the parts were present, if any one of them did not work right, the beetle’s ancestors might have exploded! INTERNAL STRUCTURE: Glands secreting concentrated hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone Collecting vesicles Sphincter muscles Reaction chambers Ectodermal glands secreting the activating enzymes catalase and peroxidase Someone could make up a story about how this mechanism could evolve one step at a time. But what is the probability? Someone could make up a story about how this mechanism could evolve one step at a time. But what is the probability? Source: Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box
For a video of the Bombardier Beetle by Dr. Jobe Martin, go to For a video of the Bombardier Beetle by Dr. Jobe Martin, go to
Hints of design: Design of the Eye Before the eye sends the image to the brain, each nerve cell does so much pre- processing that it would take even the fastest computers months to process the information that your eye does many times each second! Ciliary Body Ciliary Processes Suspensory Ligament Iris Aqueous Humor Anterior Chamber Aqueous Humor Posterior Chamber Pupil Lens Cornea Conjunctiva Vitreous Body Eyelid Bone The retina lining the back of each eye is a multi-megapixel receiver 10 million times better able to deal with changing light conditions than the best camera. Levator Palpabrae Superioris Muscles of the Eyeball Sclera Choroid Retina Dura Mater Retinal Arteries Optic Nerve Optic Disc Periorbital Fat Muscles of the Eyeball IMSI clipart
Hints of design: Migratory Birds Though most migratory birds fly over land, a few travel thousands of miles over open ocean with no landmarks. If their navigation were off by a tenth of a degree, they would fall into the ocean and drown. Birds are supposed to have evolved over 225 million years ago. Whatever method they use to navigate would also be hundreds of millions of years old. THE PROBLEM: Evolutionists believe the continents and ocean islands were arranged much differently just 100 million years ago. Until the birds’ migratory sense evolved to match the moving continents, they would have fallen into the ocean and drowned! THE PROBLEM: Evolutionists believe the continents and ocean islands were arranged much differently just 100 million years ago. Until the birds’ migratory sense evolved to match the moving continents, they would have fallen into the ocean and drowned!
Hints of design: Camouflage Many animals (Walking Sticks, Leafhoppers, Oyster Fish, et al.) blend in with their surroundings, because they look like the surroundings. They blend perfectly with their environment not because they need camouflage but because it is programmed into their DNA. This is hard enough to explain when they look like inanimate objects such as rocks, but even harder when many of them look like surrounding plants whose features are also determined by their DNA. Either the two kinds of DNA evolved independently and just “happen” to fit together or else they were designed that way. from photospot-stickinsects.htm
Hints of design: Cleaning Symbiosis When certain species of small birds, fish, or shrimp walk or swim up to certain vicious types of predators (crocodiles, sharks, barracudas, etc.), the predator opens its mouth and allows them to enter, pick off debris, and leave safely. Any other species get eaten. If this behavior is the result of mutations, then multiple species of cleaners must have acquired mutations making them want to enter a predator’s mouth at the same time those predators acquired mutations that made them decide not to eat the cleaners. It sure is lucky for the cleaners that the predators’ mutations happened at the same time!
Hints of design: Hunting and Protection The skunk clown fish hides among poisonous sea anemones. It is not immune to their poison. They do not sting it because it brings them scraps of food.
For an amazing video of the design of the octopus and the cuttlefish, see David Gallo’s presentation at For an amazing video of the design of the octopus and the cuttlefish, see David Gallo’s presentation at
IS INTELLIGENT DESIGN UNSCIENTIFIC? Intelligent Design (I.D.) is a broad concept that allows for the possibility of either direct creation or theistic evolution. Judges nationwide have bought into the atheistic claim that since the presence of a designer cannot be tested, therefore I.D. is unscientific. It is true that no scientific test can prove the existence of a designer. But the judges have overlooked an obvious question: what sort of scientific test could you perform to prove there is NOT a designer? In what way is teaching the IMPOSSIBILITY of intel- ligent design any more scientific than teaching the POSSIBILITY of intelligent design? Either one is philosophy, not science.
CONVERGENCE OF PROBABILITIES Evolutionists make up story after story about how random chance could have produced the appearance of design. Even if an event is highly probable, you can still make up a story to explain how the opposite could be true. It is possible that your story could be right. There is no limit to the number of stories you can make up to explain away high probability. Any one of them could also be true. However, the more stories you have to make up, the less likely it is that ALL of them are true. The fewer stories you have to make up, the more likely it is that your basic idea is true. Since evolution requires everything to be explainable by natural processes, if even one evolutionary story is wrong then all of evolution is falsified!
Since evolutionists are determined that absolutely EVERYTHING must be explainable by purely natural processes, all it takes is ONE THING that’s not to falsify all of evolution. Since evolutionists are determined that absolutely EVERYTHING must be explainable by purely natural processes, all it takes is ONE THING that’s not to falsify all of evolution. THE CREATIONIST’S ADVANTAGE: All we have to do is disprove ONE evolu- tionary claim, but they have to be right about EVERY SINGLE ONE. If even one evolutionary story is wrong, the whole thing falls apart! All we have to do is disprove ONE evolu- tionary claim, but they have to be right about EVERY SINGLE ONE. If even one evolutionary story is wrong, the whole thing falls apart! No wonder they don’t want students to hear about Intelligent Design in schools! No wonder they don’t want students to hear about Intelligent Design in schools!
FOR MORE INFORMATION: or FOR MORE INFORMATION: or