Some people have a hard time admitting defeat. The unethical inventor Thomas Edison certainly comes to mind. Power plants using his direct current (DC) could transmit electricity locally, but it was uneconomical to transmit it over long distances. Then along came Nikola Tesla, who introduced his far-superior system of alternating current (AC). Not wanting to admit it was better than DC, Edison set out to convince people that AC power was dangerous by using it to electrocute animals. First he paid kids to bring him neighborhood cats and dogs that he would electrocute in front of reporters. Next he electrocuted calves, horses, cattle and an elephant. Then he lobbied the state of New York to use alternating current when executing criminals with the newly invented electric chair. He did not want to admit defeat.
The evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins is as stubborn in defending evolution as Thomas Edison was in defending direct current. He has compared people who deny evolution to people who deny the Holocaust took place, saying no one should have to prove what everyone should already know. I could say the same of creation-deniers. I shouldn’t have to prove that a Creator designed biological machines more complex than those designed by intelligent humans. I’ve always believed in God, so my past resentment for Christianity was about my rejection of God’s good nature, not His existence. I got the impression the same was true for Richard Dawkins after watching his interview in the 2008 documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. He started off by saying how cruel God is, and at the end he suggested aliens may have designed life on Earth. He evidently thinks intelligent design is obvious, and if aliens designed life here, who designed these aliens? It’s a problem Dawkins created for himself with his book The God Delusion, in which he argues that if God is the answer for where life came from, it doesn’t tell us where God came from.
I get so tired of hearing about the “overwhelming evidence” for evolution. The so-called evidence for it is either fabricated or exaggerated, and the unlearned see evidence in what they don’t understand. Someone once told me that tadpoles growing legs is an example of evolution. What he didn’t consider was nothing was truly changing. Tadpoles have always had the DNA for growing legs as they age. They were born with the genetic instructions to become frogs, as is the case for caterpillars that become butterflies, maggots that become flies, etc. To call these examples of evolution is to resort to the biological ignorance of Darwin’s time. His 1859 book The Origin of Species allegedly laid the foundation for modern biology, yet DNA, the true foundation of modern biology, wasn’t discovered until 1868. Then it’s role in genetic inheritance wasn’t demonstrated until three-quarters of a century later. And guess what? Evolutionists don’t want to admit what it revealed. Instead of producing new genes, mutations either rearrange already-existing genes, duplicate genes or eliminate them. You may have seen pictures of mutant frogs with extra legs, or legs growing from the wrong part of the body, but they won’t grow a body part they have no genes for. A mutant frog with wings, for example, is as imaginary as a mutant fish with legs. Then you’ve got navel oranges, an example of lost genes. They have their origin in a mutant tree from Brazil in 1820 that didn’t have the genetic information for producing seeds in its oranges. So buds from that tree were grafted onto others, and branches from those trees were grafted onto others, and so on.
Darwinian evolution was hardly a breakthrough in science. At the time this theory developed, doctors were performing surgeries on patients with unwashed hands and instruments that were still bloody from previous patients. It’s a shame the theory of evolution wasn’t put in the grave with the advent of modern science. It’s still being used to deny creation, though creation-deniers did exist before Darwin. Back in the mid-1600s when Italian scientist Francesco Redi performed a series of tests to show that maggots come out of meat only when flies have laid eggs on it, there were people who didn’t want to hear it because the spontaneous generation of life would eliminate the need for a Creator. Then, a couple centuries later, after The Origin of Species was published, it was shown that microscopic life-forms also must come from preexisting life. Rather than admit defeat, creation-deniers are still holding onto the erroneous doctrine of spontaneous generation. I used to be that stubborn in some of my own challenges against the Bible. I continued using some of my anti-Christian arguments even after I learned they were flawed. I now admit that God’s nature is above my understanding. A lot has been revealed to me since I changed my views, but I definitely don’t have all the answers.
I’ve heard it preached that everything will make sense for Christians once they’re in Heaven, when “we shall be like [God]; for we shall see Him as He is” (I John 3:2). That’s very understanding. A heavenly mind will replace the earthly mind, which is still quite complex. Putting supercomputers to shame, human brains are so energy-efficient that 5,000 of them can be powered with the same electricity needed for a single 100-watt light bulb. The nerve cells tell body parts what to do with jolts of electricity in a binary fashion, as do computers. As for DNA, Richard Dawkins himself wrote in his book River Out of Eden that the molecule is “uncannily computer-like.” Knowing how complex life is, he still denies creation and ridicules people who challenge evolution. His intellect that he obviously thinks is higher than that of creationists is a product of random mutations according to him, so I don’t know how he can be so sure of himself. Oh, yeah, he has admitted God may exist. He just claims the possibility is very small. I’m sure he knows the truth. He’s stubborn, not stupid. Here is his poor attempt to explain away the complexity of eyes, one among many difficult challenges for evolutionists.
Eyes perform many tasks that indicate intelligent design, whether it’s their tear ducts washing them or pupils that adjust their size according to changes in light. Those are two aspects that don’t apply to all creatures, but even the most “simple” of eyes aren’t simple, and there are a variety of them with different designs to best fit certain animals. Cats’ eyes were designed for improved night vision with pupils that expand three times wider than ours, and behind their retinas is a material that reflects light back to the direction it came from. Retroreflectors, now used for things like reflective clothing and highway signs, were modeled after cats’ eyes. And owls, with large retinal areas that take in up to 100 times more light than our eyes do, have lenses similar to sunglasses that go down like eyelids during the day. It’s far-fetched enough that eyes in any creature have a natural origin, but in order for the evolutionary family tree to be valid, eyes would had to have evolved independently for insects, marine worms, mollusks and vertebrates. Evolutionists really do make that claim about eyes, as they do for wings on various creatures, and a host of other body parts. They have to make that claim, because if they don’t, their theory falls apart.
Copyright © 2018