Tuesday, August 22

Creation vs. Evolution: Every Design Has a Designer

Creation Evolution Biology

Can God’s existence be scientifically proven? Is evolution happened by accident? Or was there a Master Mind that created the Universe and all life on Earth? Although science cannot directly detect God, it can examine His creation, origin of humans and the animal kingdom to get a logical conclusion.

While a typical believer would accept God’s existence “by faith,” a nonbeliever usually needs a tangible proof that an all-powerful Being built everything. Atheist cosmologists believe the Universe came into existence as the result of a “quantum fluctuation” that occurred out of nothing or by chance. Those who study biology insist that life, in all of its variety and complexity, evolved from non-living matter by chance.

Many would want to see a physical proof of God’s existence, but one of the reasons this goal is not easily attainable is due to the Prime Directive concept. This concept says that no advanced civilization can interfere with a primitive culture by exposing them to information regarding advanced technologies or the existence of extra-planetary civilizations. That is why in order to see and identify a creator of the primitive culture, one should explore and study his creation.

There are many books and articles written on Creation vs. Evolution debate topic. Here I would like to summarize the most important key points and statements that would lead to a logical conclusion.

Many atheists offer their explanation about complexity and order of life, and they usually deny any intelligent intervention in the evolution process. They insist that the lack of understanding of something is not evidence for God. For example, John Allen Paulos, a professor of mathematics at Temple University who has explored aspects of biology, math, and physics explains how he thinks order and complexity can arise out of nothing. He admits, however, that order, complexity, entropy, randomness and related notions are impossible to describe and no Universe could be completely random at all levels of analysis.

Ramsey Order

In his article, Paulos presented a few abstract examples and called them “order for free.” His first example was about the kinetic theory of gases where the random movement of gas molecules leads to some order on a higher level regarding temperature, pressure, and volume known as the gas laws. Some order and gas laws existed, but there was no explanation of how these gas laws were generated in the first place. Do gas molecules have some intelligence of their own to follow their movement pattern? Did the gas molecules create these laws themselves?

In the second example called “Ramsey Order,” Paulos talked about the connection of a large set of geometric points where every pair by either a red line or a green line. As a result, no matter how someone colors the lines, there will be a significant subset of the original set with a unique property. Once again, the initial generation of the original subset of geometric points with a special property and why it followed this particular order was not clear.

In the third example called “Self-Organization and Order,” he explained about direct relevance to evolution by mentioning the notion of “order for free.” Comparing the idea of hundreds of genes that turn on and off other genes, he once again admits that order and pattern do exist. There was an example of an extensive collection of 10,000 light bulbs where each bulb has an input from two other bulbs in the collection. In this experiment, he compared this bulbs to our genes. When someone connects these bulbs in random order with a clock that ticks off one-second intervals, each bulb either goes on or off at each tick according to some arbitrarily selected rule. Having random connection and random assignments of rules, the collection of bulbs would flicker chaotically with no apparent pattern.

Paulos described “Self-Organization and Order” experiment as a proposition for natural selection: there is an order for free, where out of chaos would come order for no reason. That means that the complexity of points and lines would generate a spontaneous order.

Once again, this experiment presented the fact that “some arbitrarily selected rule” does exist, but once again, it wasn’t clear how the rule occurred in the first place. What set the bulbs (or genes) and their interval of random order? If some genes control the others, what controls the former?

The question remains unanswered: how this “unexpected order” brings perfect and desired final results and are turning on and off in the complete set of genes or each cell of a multicellular organism. Does evolution theory explain how genes miraculously program themselves simply by turning on or off their own “will” or “intention”?

At the end of his article Paulos did admit that God can be as well a “mathematical entity”:
Of course, we can always redefine God to be an inevitable island of order or some sort of emergent mathematical entity.

Creation Evolution Mutation

Mutation Destroys Life

According to the theory of evolution, life began in a “primordial soup” form, generated in a pond or ocean over a billion years ago. The original form was a combination of chemicals from the atmosphere and some energy to make amino acids that eventually evolved into all the species. More complex and higher forms emerged from less complicated and lower forms by a random process of natural selection, and random genetic changes called mutations.

Charles Darvin, an English naturalist, geologist, and biologist, was one of the main contributors to this evolution idea. Darvin always had a taste for natural history while he attended the Unitarian chapel with his siblings. Throughout his career, he established a scientific theory that all species have descended over time from common ancestors through a natural selection process.

Evolution is a process of an overall change in genetic composition of the population that can lead to speciation (macroevolution) under certain circumstances. The Darwinian Theory describes two processes of natural selection and random mutations that are supposed to work in agreement with each other. However, it was already proven that DNA mutation has no ability to produce new species. It is only able to negatively and permanently alter body functions.

Also, numerous modern studies prove that these theories don’t work and even contradict each other. Natural selection is a process when the healthiest organism should survive for the future generation to stay healthy and active. In this case, there should be a reduction in mutations because they are considered to be digressions from the perfect DNA code and can result in a cell death or diseases. When corrupted DNA is passed onto the offspring, it will naturally lead to weaker offspring.

Graphical-Science section of Scientific American (September 2014) published an article stating that the human genome shares only 2% of the DNA with the chimpanzee genome. They also mentioned a gene duplication process and a variety of genomes within the species where gene duplication plays an important role in the evolution process. The scientists are still looking to what point gene sequence was duplicated.

Ðœutation is not good for evolution and scientists in general call it a “genetic junk”:

The original gene is incredibly similar across different mammals. It encodes a protein that’s exactly the same in all primates, and just one amino acid off in mice. Whatever it does, it’s probably important. This is not a gene that is lightly tinkered with. The copies, however, have evolved at breakneck speed. The B and D-versions have probably mutated to the point where they’re genetic junk.

After all, chimpanzee and human genomes don’t include the effect of gene duplications creating a significant difference in the DNA structure of human and chimpanzee genome.

The Difference Between Adaptation and Mutation

Even though adaptation can be part of the dynamic evolution process, it is entirely different from the mutation process. Reactive adaptation is a power to survive and adapt to the environment. Species can adapt to the ecology and tolerate a wide range of temperatures and levels of moisture with little or no discomfort.

Adaptation is a short-term change (via gene expression) in response to environmental factors. It does not involve permanent genetic changes. It is a process of body changes and biochemical changes to increase survival ability in a given environment or condition. Mutation is some unplanned and negatively radical permanent alteration of genes that ultimately leads to significant deterioration of an organism imminent routine functions.

The studies show that many genes have minimal effect on phenotype even when they code for particular proteins, they don’t have to be expressed. One source admitted:

Living things are suited for their environment better explains the fact that they were created for it not that they evolved into it (Origins?, Ranganathan, B.G.).

There is another type of mutation or genetic alteration called Polymorphism. It is considered to be a pretty safe type of mutation, but occurs only in 1% of the population and results in natural differences between people such as eye color, hair color, and blood type. Polymorphism doesn’t cause negative effects on a person’s health, but some of these variations may cause certain disorders in people.

Chemical Components in Apes and Humans

Many evolutionists in the past were trying to prove that humans are 99% similar chemically to apes through blood precipitation. However, after the new studies on chemical components, these theories were debunked:
Milk chemistry shows that the donkey is man’s closest relative. Cholesterol level tests revealed that the garter snake is man’s closest relative. Tear enzyme chemistry showed that the chicken is man’s closest relative. On the basis of another type of blood chemistry test, the butter bean is man’s closest relative (Morris, Henry M., The Twilight of Evolution, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967).

In his book "What Is Creation Science?", biologist Gary Parker wrote:
Using descent from a common ancestor to explain similarities is probably the most logical and appealing idea that evolutionists have. Isaac Asimov, well-known science fiction writer, is so pleased with the idea that he says our ability to classify plants and animals on a groups-within-groups hierarchical basis virtually forces scientists to treat evolution as ‘a fact.’ In his enthusiasm, Asimov apparently forgot that we can classify kitchen utensils on a groups-within-groups basis, but that hardly forces anyone to believe that knives evolved into spoons, spoons into forks, or saucers into cups and plates.

Other evolutionists like William Fix in his “The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution” pointed out the obvious similarities between the skeletons of the limbs of different animals. He found that human hand, the wing of a bird, the flipper of a whale are all followed ’pentadactyl’ limb pattern follow common origin, display same gene-complex and structures via environmental selection."

Homologous organs are proved to be generated by totally different gene complexes in the different species. To believe in evolution is to think that separate gene complexes for each of these “similar” limbs all evolved independently by chance. It is evident that not one, but multiple different gene complexes would have to have evolved independently.


Ecosystem Interdependence

Since pure science is always in harmony with the facts, many other proofs come from the things that surround us where physical laws can’t just happen by chance. Many facts demonstrate a sufficient evidence that complex systems were designed and executed by a higher intelligence. There are many studies that no way such complex systems can rely and function on their own without some intelligent intervention.

Our Universe is one such complex system where there are approximately one trillion galaxies with an average of 100 billion stars. Every atom and sub-atomic particle have its complex molecular structure that serves its unique purpose. Each of the sub-systems is interdependent on one another, creating a single system. In nature, there are millions of plants created in a specific way that also creates an interdependent unique system called an ecosystem. In this system, all plants and animals depend upon each other to survive.

Some assume that all animals just exist and do everything randomly or by learning to adapt to environmental conditions. However, when looking at certain species such as bees, one would notice a particular behavior pattern when bees return to their hive every day for hundreds of years. They don’t change or “reprogram” their behavior, or change their look.

Even after millions of years, bees will return to the same location, years after years, right on schedule, as their instincts tell them to do. They do it in the same manner as every other animal on the planet knows what to do and following their instinct schedule. Numerous studies show that their behavior would not change even in a case of complete isolation from their group or when growing up in abandoned environment.

While nature’s ecosystem does seem to be chaotic and disorganized at first glance, we identify and analyze complex interdependence of the organism functions within the ecosystem, and learn that this complex system is very organized and follows some order for efficient functionality. If we compare this system to the “Self-Organization and Order” bulb experiment mentioned above, it becomes evident that the system’s functionality is far from the “unexpected order” or “chaotic flickering”.
Everyone concludes naturally and comfortably that highly ordered and designed items (machines, houses, etc.) owe existence to a designer. It is unnatural to conclude otherwise. But evolution asks us to break stride from what is natural to believe in what 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 (Wysong, R. L., The Creation/Evolution Controversy, 1976). 

Unlike animals, men don’t carry this inherent capability, but they can acquire knowledge by using their intellect. Humans have obtained either physical knowledge through the five senses - touch, taste, sight, hearing, and smell or spiritual knowledge which is necessary to develop personal relationships with others.
It was a shock to people of the nineteenth century when they discovered, from observations science had made, that many features of the biological world could be ascribed to the elegant principle of natural selection. It is a shock to us in the twentieth century to discover, from observations science has made, that the fundamental mechanisms of life cannot be ascribed to natural selection, and therefore were designed. But we must deal with our shock as best we can and go on. The theory of undirected evolution is already dead, but the work of science continues (Behe, Michael J., Molecular Machines).

Living organisms together with the non-living elements of its environment interact as a system and are linked together through nutrient energy and cycles that flow through the ecosystem and is obtained primarily from the sun. By using plants and each other as food, animals play a major role in moving energy and matter through the system, and they significantly influence the development of microbial biomass and plants.


The complex ecosystem is a living proof of intelligent design. Through research and tangible evidence one can see the proof that mutation corrupts DNA and complex forms may not develop from simple forms.

The complex interdependence of animals and plants is a real proof that random order that occurred by chance won’t work within the complex system to survive. In every aspects of DNA structure nothing will work unless everything works at the same time. Without design and order, “Quantum fluctuation” and non-living matter are destined to evolve into another non-living matter.

Does God exist? Watch this video to find out:

Related Posts

Creation vs. Evolution: Every Design Has a Designer
4/ 5