Paley’s watch maker argument – an argument for the existence of God by the clearly apparent design in nature is one of the most powerful arguments for God’s existence. How do I know? One need merely take a look at all the skeptics who try (unsuccessfully) to refute it. From Youtube bloggers to high profile atheists like Richard Dawkins, doubters repeatedly try to show the argument invalid – and fail miserably. Why all the effort? Because it is so clear, so easy to understand, so obvious, that it is a powerful argument for the existence of God.
Theoretical physicist and science popularizer Michio Kaku said,
“Science, however, is never conducted as a popularity contest, but instead advances through testable, reproducible, and falsifiable theories.”
Real operational science is testable, reproducible and falsifiable. Which of course excludes Darwinian evolution, since it is neither testable, reproducible nor falsifiable – at least it can’t be falsified to the satisfaction of Darwinists. Nevertheless in the scientific spirit of inquiry it is good to examine what many believe to be the “science” of evolution. Creation.com and The Question Evolution Project have established February 12 – Darwin’s birthday – as Question Evolution Day. A day to inquire about and question a theory many erroneously think has been established as a “fact” due to the incessant cheerleading by its advocates.
Creation Ministries International has published an excellent article titled “15 Questions for Evolutionists” that covers well many of the unanswered challenges to evolutionary theory. Also for your consideration: a few years back Buzzfeed did a “listicle” featuring creationists asking questions that are either problematic for evolution or supportive of creation. The questions sought to expose a problem with evolutionary theory, but were asked in a manner that made them easy to refute, so I wrote an article to fine tune the questions called “Refining the Questions for Question Evolution day.” It’s in the spirit of these articles that I offer a few more questions (and challenges to evolutionists) for Question Evolution Day. Continue Reading
NO EVIDENCE. In what amounts to an abuse of evidence, atheists are fond of saying that there is no evidence for the existence of God. If you doubt that, take a look at this brief collection of atheists telling the world that very thing. But is that a true claim? When a proposition is not true, you would expect to find no evidence for that proposition.
Take for example the proposition in the title – that you, yes you dear reader – killed JFK on the fateful day – November 22, 1963 at Dealey Plaza in Dallas. All reading this could no doubt refute that claim. But those born after that date have a particularly easy and obvious piece of evidence that falsifies the proposition. The claim that they weren’t even born yet backed with a birth certificate to prove it. Continue Reading
The above logo was created for the 80th anniversary of the opening of the Golden Gate bridge. According to retired Security chief Bill Rumsford, they were expecting 40-50,000 people. But the turnout was closer to 250 to 275,000 people. While they were confident the bridge would hold, Chief Engineer Denis Mulligan noted “What was interesting is that’s the greatest loading the bridge has ever seen. It carries trucks and buses and cars everyday, but people packed in there like sardines in a can actually caused the bridge to sag.”
But this article is not on the structural integrity of the bridge. This is about something a bit more obvious. The above logo is painted on a building near the bridge. (Note the artist painting it.)
A Painting Requires a Painter
The obvious point that I want to make is that for a painting to exist, it needs a painter. Obvious right? Because a painting – in this case a logo – is a special case of a design that is implemented. In the previous article we looked at another special design – that of irreducible complexity. As discussed in the previous article, an irreducibly complex object cannot be made by random forces. It must be designed and assembled by an intelligent designer. And as pointed out in part 1 – a suspension bridge like the Golden Gate bridge is irreducibly complex. Continue Reading
I enjoy looking for evidences of the Creator imprinted on his creation when I travel. This past summer we had the opportunity of visiting San Francisco where we saw the awe inspiring Golden Gate bridge and I snapped the above picture. I was also reminded of the Creator – in an indirect way. Obviously God didn’t directly build the bridge – but the bridge is a reminder of the design inherent in His creation. Let me explain. It is abundantly evident that the Golden Gate bridge is intelligently designed. But beyond that, not only is it intelligently designed, it’s clear it is also irreducibly complex. And irreducible complexity is an undeniable evidence of intelligent design..
Michael Behe introduced the concept of irreducible complexity in his book “Darwin’s Black Box, and defined it this way: Continue Reading
I recently read an article by Jonathan Witt – science writer and co-author of “Heretic: One Scientist’s Journey from Darwin to Design” which describes bioengineer Matti Leisola’s (the other co-author) gradual rejection of Darwinism and embrace of intelligent design. In his article titled “A Father, an Atheist Son, and a Darwin Heretic” Witt describes the attempt of a father to get his son – a scientist and an atheist – to consider the claims of intelligent design by reading Witt’s and Leisola’s book “Heretic.”
The son rejects even reading the book with a number of excuses: Continue Reading
MIT Technology review published an online article titled, “Evolutionary algorithm outperforms deep-learning machines at video games“ I wondered to myself what do they mean by “evolutionary”? Though it’s impossible, could they really mean evolution as in Darwinian evolution, or were they just using evolution to mean successive changes in design, the way we might say something like “the evolution of the car has gone from the Model T to the Mustang”, in which case we don’t really mean Darwinian evolution – we’re really just talking about successive changes in the design of an item.
But as I read on, I was amazed to read that they were really talking about Darwinian processes: “This technique is based on the process that created the human brain—evolution.” (Darwinists believe the most complex biological organ known to man came about by ignorant, random, purposeless forces.) The technique they’re referring to is a new approach to computer programming, and the evolution they are referring to is in fact Darwinian evolution. They make that clear in the next sentences:
No doubt the first thing someone will ask me is, “what are you talking about ‘my evolutionist’? People don’t have evolutionists!” To which I say sure they do. Everyone does. Perhaps it’s your biology teacher – the one you think is so great, who so diligently teaches the evolutionary line, refusing (perhaps for fear of losing her job) to even mention the problems of evolution, or the alternatives to it. Perhaps he’s that famous author you love to quote because he makes you feel intellectually fulfilled. Or perhaps he’s that smug cosmologist you find so funny because he likes to mock those who don’t toe his materialistic evolutionary line. Well article titles are supposed to be short and attention getting. And “Lies that my favorite evolution promoting – biology teacher, author or science guy – told me” is a bit too long for a title. I trust the title, short as it is, has served its purpose. There’s nothing else to see here so let’s move along to matters of substance.
We had the pleasure in vacationing in Jamaica this past summer. Of course we made it to the beach where I waded in and sat, enjoying the warm waters. As I looked around at the sand and rocks beneath the water I found a rock which appeared to have the impressions of a leaf embedded in it. With the possibility of having found a fossil I was, of course motivated to look for more. I found another one which appeared to have impressions of some type in it. I made a mental note to find someone knowledgeable about fossils to take a look at these to confirm whether these are what I thought they are.
As I continued to look for rocks in the warm water I came across an item I didn’t expect to find. It was perfectly square, about 1/8″ inch thick, flat on the bottom with beveled edges on top. It was blue with white speckles on top with a shiny coat covering the top, and solid white on the bottom. Continue Reading
Are you ashamed to be called a “creationist”? If you’re taking cues from certain Intelligent Design (ID) proponents, you might feel like the label “creationist” is a label to avoid at all costs. Here’s why that’s both the wrong approach and dishonoring to God. Continue Reading