By the Numbers

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Nature Could Never Design Man

Nature Could Never Design Man

Scientists tell us a living cell has enough genetic information to fill a set of encyclopedias—it’s a virtual city of compact complex machines working in harmony. And molecules would have a number of impossibly difficult hurtles to even form a cell. But we don’t have to take the scientists word for it. Just perceptive observation can show how utterly impossible this is for unconscious mindless nature to create man in any amount of time. Take the human body as an example.

Consider the external design shown only in a person’s head. Eyes in the head on top of the body give maximum distance of vision—why aren’t they at the waist or feet? Eyes are recessed and proper distance apart for depth of vision and protection with eyebrows to obstruct drips, eyelashes to retard dust, tears to clarify vision. Ears located on sides of the head for expanded range of sound and shaped to trap sound. Nose juts out with double nostrils to insure breathing if a nostril is clogged. Mouth is in the head for food intake designed to take food downward and out of the body. It has biting teeth in front where needed to bite and  teeth behind to crush what’s bit, a tongue to move food around and internal acids to digest food. Can we suppose blind nature knew how to fix things this way even in billions of years?

Eyes, ears, nose, mouth all have many essential functioning parts to carry messages to the brain. Man’s brain is encased in a hard protective shell surrounded by hair to keep in warmth. The human brain is so compact and so complex with connections sending chemical and electrical messages in a split second and it would take a large library to match the information it can contain. Further, it’s believed we use only a small part of our brain capacity. Doesn’t all this suggest fiat creation rather than evolutionary process?

Science knows nothing can’t produce something and life doesn’t come from nonlife--that suggests an eternal self-existing living cause, namely God. Further, life forms show specified complexity not found in nature—compare arrowheads with creek stones, sand castles with sand dunes, the four known presidents faces of Mount Rushmore with natural mountains. Further, life forms are irreducibly complete and functional at the outset—no partially developed heart or reproductive system can survive.

Evolutionists make counter claims. They say human embryos go through animal stages such as a worm and fish, and the fetus’ backbone looks like an animal’s tail—they even base abortion on it. But life forms are programmed at the outset. They say bodily appendages such as tonsils, appendix and thymus gland are useless evolutionary carryovers. Over a hundred such vestigial organs were once claimed, but uses are now known for all but a disputed few. It’s said both animal and human genetic material are composed of four letters and 99% identical. But it’s not identical material but different arrangement that counts.

Could evolutionist arguments be based upon ignorance or just blind prejudice? Does true investigative science have to exempt God at the outset? Do we know so much as to say no God exists? Aren’t we supposed to follow the evidence wherever it leads? Doesn’t experimental science have its limits? Could the “gaps” in our knowledge be filled in by a naturalistic bias? Weren’t modern experimental scientists’ believers in God, creation and many even Christians? Aren’t many scientists’ Christian believers even today? And isn’t it the rational order of the Christian worldview that is the very basis for experimental science? All these questions deserve honest answers from honest open-minded people.

Inherited adaptability to environment does occur such as the changing length of the finches’ beak. But mutations are usually destructive, not passed on, and millions are required in conjunction to make a significant change—it’s not a sufficient mechanism to change one life form into another. The universe is running down, not building up as evolution suggests. A genetic plan must come from an informer, a mind. Randomness never arranges itself into order—red, white and blue confetti dropped from an airplane doesn’t form itself into the American flag on the ground. Life forms look designed simply because they really are designed by their great Designer.

The probably of this all coming together by unconscious mindless nature in an evolution of time and chance is infinitely improbable, not even in 15 billion years. Consult a textbook explaining the complexity, intricacy and compatibility of the human body. Surely, common sense compels us to admit all this marvelous design cannot be due to a common ancestor but attributed only to a common intelligent self-existing Designer or God. A love-trust relationship with our Maker may be the plan and purpose of life. We won’t know until we sinners trust in the loving Savior who died to pay for our sins.

Maybe it’s Darwinists’ and not the Bible that’s in denial—see Psalms 14:1; 19:1-2; 139:14; Romans 1:20-21. Rose Publishing puts out pamphlets with much good easy to understand information. For college students the 5 Minute Apologist, by Dr. Rick Cornish gives maximum answers in minimum time. It’s covers most subjects at a reasonably price. See book list below.

1 comment:

  1. Books I recommend for honest thinking skeptics.
    Norman L. Geisler & Frank Turek, "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist".
    Coral Ridge Ministries, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, "Ten Truths About Socialism".
    D. James Kennedy and Jerry Newcombe, "What If Jesus Had Never Been Born?"
    Jonathan Hill, "What Has Christianity Done For Us?"


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.