Design in nature: A Smithsonian July 1991 article described how engineers are looking to nature for design ideas.
“From an evolutionary perspective, the accomplishments of mindless molecules have exceeded those of intelligent men.” – Patrick Briney Ph.D.
Does the above statement seem likely or even remotely possible to you? To believe that evolution is responsible for life on planet Earth, you must believe that mindless molecules have exceeded the intelligence of an Almighty Creator God.
Patrick Briney was once an atheist and believed that evolution explains our existence here. If you follow the link, you will be able to read a little about him.
Having always believed in God and having come to Christ, and entering into a personal relationship, I am prevented from ever experiencing what Briney experienced. Recently, however, when I determined to write an essay or research paper that explores not only what creationist teach, but what evolutionist teach as well, I was pleased to find the overwhelming body of evidence in favor of creation. If you visit websites where evolution is taught, you find that they either believe or want you to think they believe that evolution is a proven fact, that the earth cannot be ‘young’, and that we all descend from a common ancestor. By all, I mean ALL – animals of every class, genus, and variety. They are not saying that man descended from Adam, but that all living beings descended from a one cell organism.
The first and most basic argument that evolutionist use is that creation cannot be proven scientifically while evolution can be and has already been proven. To those who accept the Creator, this argument seems backward. Evolution, actually, is lacking in scientific ‘proof’. Creation, on the other hand, fits perfectly with what we observe and observation is a large part of scientific discovery. Read these statements from Paleontologists:
“Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. …The history of most fossil species includes tow [sic] features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I [sic] usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.'” (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)
“Eldredge and I believe that speciation is responsible for almost all evolutionary change. Moreover, the way in which it occurs virtually guarantees that sudden appearance and stasis shall dominate the fossil record.” to p183.”Eldredge and I believe that speciation is responsible for almost all evolutionary change. Moreover, the way in which it occurs virtually guarantees that sudden appearance and stasis shall dominate the fossil record.” John Wilkins.
What evolutionists have done to overcome this enormous problem with their ‘religion’ is to change their decision on how evolution occurred. They take up the mantra of Thomas Huxley who early on recognized the problem with evolution would be the lack of fossil evidence for gradual change from one species to another. To overcome this, evolutionists have done away with gradualism.
“We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism.”
Evolutionist cannot prove that “In the beginning life accidentally began spontaneously without any word from a Creator God being spoken…”. This is their goal, rather than seeking truth and accepting what the evidence suggests, most paleontologist have a common goal. They seek to do away with any suggestion of “In the beginning, God created…”
In the following post we will explore both of these ideas.