Evolution or intelligent design - which has more science?
Where did our present day millions and millions of insect, fish, bird, and animal species come from? Evolutionists
have several answers, as well as several answers of how life itself started. They insist their various answers are scientific
fact. (As an aside, having multiple answers or explanations tells us a lot all by itself.)
Intelligent design is a recent and direct challenge to evolution. When confronted by intelligent design, evolutionists
usually employ the tactic of responding, "Intelligent design is not science". They say that (all too successfully!)
to get intelligent design dismissed without a fair hearing.
since evolutionists themselves raise the matter of science, isn't it fair to turn it around and ask.....is evolution
What is science?
what qualifies as science? I went to an impartial authority, the World Book Encyclopedia, 2006 edition, and
looked up "Science". Oh, oh!..... just the first few words gave evolution serious problems. Why say that?
Because the very first sentence was this: "Science covers the broad field of knowledge that deals with observed facts".
Evolution's problems with meeting a science definition became even worse because
the Encyclopedia went on: "In fact, for any knowledge to be truly scientific, it must be repeatedly
tested. More wow!
If that wasn't bad enough, the encyclopedia had more,
" experimentally and found to be true"
"Observed facts" - "
2) "repeated testing" - "
"experimentally found to be true".
Does evolution contain
any of those? Let's consider each requirement.
We know the heart and core of evolution is change. Change that has always
occurred and can never stop. The matter of change is put very simply in the massive 3½ pound book, "Evolution-the
Triumph of an Idea"(19) that says, "Evolution is change, nothing more or less."
We then have to ask, where are the evolutionary changes taking place as observed facts today? Quite
the contrary, as we look around at today's millions and millions of different species, instead of changes
all over the place, don‘t we basically see finished products? (Allowing for some adaptation capability,
which is not specie change.)
Moreover, as scientific sources quoted in
other Creation Corner articles tell us, there are fifteen million species of just insects. A lot
of potential changes. But wait a minute. It is even more than that high number because every specie has:
Their own food supply.
2) Their own means of protection.
3) Their own mating signals and habits.
own nesting or shelter procedures.
5) Their own programmed behavior necessary for daily living and survival.
looking at the millions and millions of species - insects, sea life, birds, animals - each with their own clearly defined
and set characteristics, none of them changing, isn't it the fair and logical conclusion that what we see
are finished products.....the very opposite of evolutionary change?
Indeed, this writer asserts that the observed facts of finished products that
we see all around us should of themselves disprove the evolution religion.(12)
there‘s so much more, so let's trudge on and really nail down this subject.
Observed Facts in the Past
If today's observed facts do not show evolution
taking place, then where are the observed facts proving evolution occurred in the past?
We are told evolution occurred for millions and millions of years, that it produced from one source
millions and millions of species. If it did, wouldn't there be overwhelming evidence? Even Darwin himself wrote that
future scientists would find a lot of changeover fossil evidence or his theory had failed.
But where are the millions and millions of past proofs that we should be able to observe? Oh, occasionally
one reads about a so-called changeover fossil. But then, much later, hidden in a small insignificant blurb, is the acknowledgement
that the "changeover" was a fake or a mistake.
fossil changeover evidence, doesn't it have to be admitted that evolution lacks the observed facts necessary to claim
scientific credibility for the development, from one source, of millions and millions of separate and distinct species?
If not observed facts, how about repeated tests?
If evolution fails the science test of observed facts, taking place both today and in the past, let's move
on to repeated testing.
We have to ask, where are the repeated
tests that prove evolutionary changes? How about just one - the classic evolution teaching that the first cell - with
all of its inter-acting 19 different parts - emerged from ocean slime?
how about the classic evolution teaching that a lightning bolt struck that first cell and brought it to life? (For more details
and analysis of that scenario, see my article about the first cell.)
from the classic first cell one, evolutionists have other suppositions of how things started. If evolution does not have repeated
testing for their first cell idea, then where are the repeated tests for evolutions other suppositions of what came
first or indeed, where life itself came from? They just don't have any repeated tests to show us, do they?
How about repeated tests for a fish changing into a reptile?
How about repeated tests for a reptile changing into a bird?
about repeated tests for molecules changing into man?
Where are all of
the millions of repeated tests that are required for evolution to be science? The answer is all
How about "experimentally and proven true"?
any facts to observe or repeated tests to perform, there is pitifully little or nothing to prove true.
Therefore, for evolution, standing on its own very shaky scientific platform, to say "Intelligent
design is not science", is shamefully misleading and amounts to an incredible amount of intellectual dishonesty.
How about intelligent design then?
design on the other hand, by its very nature, requires observed facts. Furthermore, those facts are tested repeatedly
and found to be true by researchers who continually research and study the facts.
Examples of intelligent design
Out of thousands, let's look at just twelve examples of observed
facts in nature. Observed facts that can be:
1) repeatedly tested and
2) found to be true.
In 1980, the U.S. government established
a crash standard for automobile bumpers. It was five MPH. However, the standard lasted only three years. Why? It was
too destructive! The standard was quickly cut in half to 2.5 MPH.
in the world do auto bumper crashes have to do with evolution and intelligent design?
if I told you there is a bird that hits its head against a tree at ten times the auto bumper standard - that
it does so at twenty-five MPH? What then?
What bird accomplishes
this incredible feat? The common woodpecker. Furthermore, autos have to pass a crash test one time, but the woodpecker
does not crash its head just once, but crashes it repeatedly.... minute after minute, hour after
How can a bird be stronger than an auto bumper?
can the woodpecker do it? The author of the book (1) is known world wide for his TV series and various books on Natural Science.
He is also an evolution supporter. Thus this writer feels his observations and conclusions are all the more striking. The
author explains the woodpecker is able to do its multiple crashes because it has - in his words - "special equipment".
From him and others we learn that the woodpecker has eight pieces of special equipment. What are they?
The woodpecker's bill is shaped and sharpened like a carpenter's chisel.
2) Woodpecker bills
have a special locking device. Without it, author (1) reports its bill would fly apart with each impact.
What author (1) calls shock absorbers at the base of its beak protect the woodpecker's brain. The woodpecker, you
see, would be knocked unconscious except for these special shock absorbers.
4) The woodpecker
has an extraordinary tongue. One that manufactures a glue that is required to extract insects from deep
within a tree.
5) Unlike other birds, this extraordinary tongue is made four times longer than
the bird's beak so as to reach far inside a tree.
6) This unique tongue fits into a - quote - "special
7) Woodpeckers have stiff bristles,(3) or modified feathers, that
are needed to protect the bird from inhaling wood chips and dust.
8) As the 8th piece of
special equipment, the woodpecker is equipped with a spine tipped tail(4) that acts as a brace when positioned vertically
on a tree trunk.
convinced by eight pieces of special equipment? OK, let's apply some logical thinking to other aspects of what woodpeckers
do. Let's ponder these questions -
1) Why would evolution evolve eight special pieces
of equipment to get at a food source inside a tree? Wouldn't evolution stop at a food source outside
the tree and go no further?
2) What did woodpeckers eat during the millions of years
it took to evolve 8 pieces of special equipment?
3) If they had food and survived those millions of
years without eight pieces of special equipment, why bother to evolve them? Obviously they would not be needed for
This writer thinks something about all that doesn't compute. Evolutionists look at the woodpecker's
special equipment, the observed facts, and conclude it all evolved by accident. How about you? What
do you think? By accident or by intelligent design?
As you can tell by the title, "The Encyclopedia of Evolution"(5) supports
evolution. The book contained a statement I found amazing. "A Boeing 747 airliner, a 30 story office block, and a fruit
fly are all complex structures pieced together from simpler components according to pre-existing plans...Of
these three examples, the fruit fly is by far the most complex."
for a moment about building a skyscraper or a jumbo airplane. Think of
1) the planning,
the written detailed plans and instructions needed.
3) the heating, cooling, electrical wiring, elevators,
water supply, sewage disposal, flooring, windows, extremely complex engines (in the airplane),
testing of various parts and systems,
5) all of the parts that have to fit together so exactly and
have to function so perfectly.
Now, considering all of that, to conclude
a fruit fly is more complex! What do you think?
don't become more complex with size
One hundred and fifty years ago scientists believed that
complexity came with size. In other words, they believed that the smaller the item in nature, the simpler
it was. Later on, as scientists were able to look into smaller and smaller bits of nature, such as the cell, they were amazed
to discover that instead of the expected few, that a cell has many, many parts, all perfectly working together.
Source (18) has a diagram of the complicated inter workings of just seven
of the proteins in a - guess what? - fruit fly. And the author says there are thousands of protein molecules,
all with similar inter workings, in each single cell of a fruit fly.
now we have a scientist who compares a massive skyscraper, or a jumbo jet, with a tiny, tiny fruit fly and concludes the fruit
fly is the most complex! No one would argue the skyscraper or the jumbo jet had no designer. Wouldn't such perfect complexity,
in something as tiny as a fruit fly, also require an intelligent designer?
This one about cell efficiency is from a well known evolutionist
author(6). "Each one [a single cell] can be thought of as a chemical factory which, in the course of delivering
its primary product of usable energy, processes more than 700 different chemical substances, in long, interweaving
assembly-lines strung out along the surface of its intricately folded internal membranes."
So there you have it. A single cell (you have trillions in your own body) observed as a chemical
factory processing 700 chemicals. Do chemical factories happen by accident, evolving by themselves, or do they require intelligence,
lots of intelligence?
this point when given as a speech, I hold up a copy of page 61 from the book "Weird Nature".(7) It is a picture
of a frog doing something that amazes me.
What does the picture document
- as observed facts?
It shows a frog and I quote, "Digging
a trench to supply water to his stranded young".
It seems the frog
made four conclusions:
1) His young tadpole babies are dying because they are stranded in a
spot with too little water.
2) If he can get water to them they will live.
There is some needed water over there.
4) If he digs a trench, the needed water over there
will flow into the dried up spot where his babies are dying.
the picture prove a classic case of thinking, of` cause and affect? The author also pointed out how incredibly
hard it is for the frog to dig in the dried out soil. Nevertheless, he added, that if necessary the frog will spend hours
digging the water trench.
How could mindless, accidental evolution 1) have
reasoned out those four conclusions and 2) then taught them to the frog?
Could it be that intelligence, and not mindless evolution, was responsible?
Even further....could it be the frog was programmed by an intelligent programmer to dig
a trench when his tadpole babies are calling (click-like sounds) that they are dying from lack of water? (For much
more, see my article on programming in nature.)
Our world-renowned evolutionist author(6) tells us this about DNA: "Each nucleus ...contains a digitally
coded database larger, in information content, than all 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Brittanica put together. And
this figure is for each cell, ...And....there are about 10 trillion cells in the human body."
So it seems scientists acknowledge the observed facts that DNA contains massive amounts of information
and instructions. The question then is this: Where did 30 volumes of information come from?
Could they happen by accidental, mindless evolution? The author maintains they do. Or can information and
instructions come only from some kind of intelligent mind? What do you think?
Many may have watched a video called "Unlocking the Mysteries of Life".(8)
The video supports intelligent design and is full of observed facts. One of those observed facts involves
the Flagellum pump.
There are millions of these pumps - whirling
away right now - inside your own body. If you try real hard, you can feel them at work.
Flagellum pumps are found in various bacteria, including E.Coli, which lives in your digestive system.
flagellum pump is a rotary-like-motor that contains(9):
1) 40 different parts,
2) including a rotor,
4) a driveshaft,
6) a universal joint,
7) and a flexible propeller.
flagellum pump is not powered by gasoline, but by a flow of ions.
How fast does it go? Up to 100,000 RPM.....about
ten times faster than a NASCAR racing engine! Despite its incredible speed, it can reverse direction
in just one quarter of a rotation.
That the flagellum pump - in all its wonders - exists is recognized as observed
The question is.....did it have a designer or did it evolve, part by part,
by accident? Those that think part by part then have to explain how the forty different parts waited until all forty
were evolved and in place so the pump could begin to function.
Recent research(7) reveals some surprising information about the tongue found in chameleons. The author says
if chameleons had to rely on stickiness to get food as is usual in the insect world, their tongue would have to be as big
as a baseball glove.
Consequently, like the woodpecker and so
many others, the chameleon has been provided with some special equipment. How often I run across "special"
and "equipment" as I do creation research. Evolutionists see "special equipment" all
over the place, acknowledging it dozens of times, and yet they still say they had no intelligent source. This writer can only
shake his head in wonderment.
How then do chameleons capture
It seems they are equipped with a special tongue that
when it hits their prey, the tip curves inward to form a suction cup. Suction is then increased because
as soon as the tongue makes contact, special muscles contract to draw the cup back.
chameleons have also been provided with special spiral muscles together with a special lubricant that
help increase their tongue's incredible speed.
(As added interest, the
chameleon's tongue acceleration reaches 50 g's, or five times faster than a F16 fighter jet.)
If evolution brought about the chameleon's suction cup, then it had to know suction
engineering principles, didn't it?
Do you think all that special
equipment was by accidental evolution .....or by intelligent design?
It is observed fact there are ants who gather seeds
and store them in underground granaries.(10) This is no small matter because their granaries can be up six
feet in diameter.
Now as any farmer knows, there are two potential problems
if you store grain or, in this case, seeds.
1) If too damp, they will spoil, they can only
be stored dry.
2) They cannot be allowed to germinate.
don‘t despair......the tiny ant granary experts have solved both problems.
1) They examine
each seed for dampness. If determined to be damp, (Hmmm, seems like some decision making ability here) the ants carry
the seeds outside in the sun to dry.
2) When dry enough (more decisions?), they bring the seeds back
to the granary.
3) Moreover the ants bite off the radicle to prevent the seeds from germinating.
Regarding point three, how in the world did these tiny ants learn about dampness
and about germinating?
How could mindless evolution make
the connection between the biting off on a specific part of a seed with the end result -
some months later - that germination has been prevented? And learn it, by the way, on 18 different
varieties of seeds?
Isn't what these ants
do a surprising example of thinking, of cause and affect?
better explains these tiny granary experts - mindless evolution or some kind of intelligent design? Or to
put it another way, some kind of programming from an intelligent programmer?
Some ants that live in hot areas have a problem with
the sun overheating their nests. What to do?(11)
Their solution, based on solid engineering principles,
1) seek out
2) and carry back various pebbles, charcoal, vegetation, bones
of small mammals, and the like.
They carefully place this material on the outside of the nest to absorb
Isn't this sophisticated behavior by tiny ants another surprising
case of cause and affect? How could it be a result of mindless, accidental evolution?
Those ant examples are just two from my article. To learn more about ants as:
2) livestock herders,
3) master builders,
and humidity control engineers,
5) and other remarkable things,
just go to the
Researchers have been studying honeybees
for thousands of years. Why? Honeybees accomplish remarkable feats of engineering. Take for example a well-known
scientist's description(13) of what they do:
"Many bees are employed
in the building of each individual [honeycomb] cell and they often relieve each other at intervals of half a minute of so.
Apparently each bee immediately knows what stage the construction has reached at the place she starts work."
"Right from the start the cells meet at the correct angle of 120
"The cell walls are built with a gradient of about
13 degrees from base to opening. This is sufficient to prevent the thick honey from running out. The distance
from the wall to that opposite is 0.205 inches in a worker cell, and 0.24 inches in a drone
Ponder that for a moment. Precise engineering dimensions
by workers with no instruments and no blueprints. Moreover working with the tremendous handicap that each
tiny bee works for only seconds on a tiny part of the whole. And yet hundreds of workers working separately are
able to produce a perfectly engineered finished product!
accomplishments! Are they by accidental evolution, or by intelligent design? Even further, I could it be that an intelligent
programmer put all that engineering skill into the minds of these incredible engineers?
I have written before how fortunate we are to live in the age of computers because we are able to recognize
programming when it appears in nature. We are unlike previous generations who could only label it as instinct.
The above segment was from my article titled "Engineers Without
Degrees." Many more examples are in the article.
There is a specie of butterfly(14) equipped with the image of
a snake on its wings. (Actually one half an image on one wing and one half on the other wing.) What in the world
is that for? Furthermore, the butterfly seems to know it has to put its wings together to get the complete image.
What happens then? Its predators fear snakes, consequently the butterflies built-in protection comes into play when
it brings its wings together in the face of a predator and the predator sees a dreaded "snake".
example prompts some questions:
1) How did mindless evolution even know to worry about, and
protect from, the butterfly's predators?
2) How did mindless evolution know the butterfly's predators
are afraid of snakes?
3) How did evolution reason out that the picture of a snake
would frighten away the predator?
4) How did evolution think out that both wings have
to go together?
5) How did evolution instruct the butterfly it had to put its wings together
in order to frighten away its predator?
6) The butterfly couldn't figure it out could it? After all,
it can't see the image on its back. Didn't it have to be instructed?
If we see an image on a piece of paper or canvas, we know a human artist was involved. Yet evolutionist
scientists see an image of a snake; not just a passive image, but one that performs a vital function, and they shamelessly
instruct us, "That image came from nothing all by itself without any artist or any intelligence." Somehow I am reminded
of the term "educated fools".
But more important, what do you
Another specie with "no artist"
By the way, there is another butterfly specie(14) that has the image of an eye on it to fool predators.
Why? The image is on its tail. The predator bites off the tail part, thinking it has the head. The butterfly then flies off,
The same logic and questions would apply to the eye image on this particular
every visitor to this website has seen the movie "March of the Penguins". One result of the movie I found
quite humorous. Several political commentators saw fit to trash the movie in their newspaper columns. It's as if
they said, "Wait a minute, time out from my political comments, I want to tell you about this terrible movie that you
should absolutely not go and see".
I read their slightly hysterical
comments to my wife, Fay.
But wait a minute. The movie was never intended
to have anything to do with evolution or creation, it was just a documentary. Observed facts to be sure, but facts
presented with no ulterior motive whatsoever. In fact, the documentary was a French production, from a country that
has lost most of its religious heritage.
The problem for the evolution
religion was that the observed facts, as documented in the movie, showed complexities in nature that might question
evolution doctrine. Thus the perceived need to trash the movie.
55 years, an Army memory is recalled
Back to the example. Probably only a few know what a dry
run is. When drafted into the army, I quickly became very familiar with dry runs.
"Dry runs" are practicing an action without using the tools of the action. You just go through the
motions. One of my little army jokes was when someone asked me how things were going, I would often answer, "We just
had an interesting few days practicing "dry runs" on how to open and close a door".
A humorous exaggeration, but it was nearly that bad. Imagine, then, this old soldier's surprise
to see dry runs being practiced by penguins!
Picture the setting.
Snow is all around the bleak, bare landscape. The temperature is 70 degrees below zero. The wind is blowing at 100
miles an hour. What are the penguins doing? Practicing for a future event!
As the narrator explained, after the female penguin has incubated the egg for a period of time, she will walk
70 miles to get food. This means she has to pass the egg to the male penguin for incubation.
Speed is absolutely essential
As you can imagine, at 70 below in 100 MPH winds,
the warm egg has to be passed quickly and efficiently. As the narrator emphasized, unless the transfer is
done within just a few seconds - the fragile egg will freeze and die. Some frozen eggs that didn't make it were shown in the
So penguins were filmed having a dry run of the soon coming egg transfer.
Don't you find it absolutely incredible that the mother and father penguin carefully practice for a future
How in the world can evolution predict a future event? Not only predict it, but evidently predict
it with the full realization of how critical speed and accuracy will be in that future event? So critical
it must be practiced!
For that matter, how could penguins
know to anticipate, and practice for, an event in the future? From where came the knowledge, the instructions?
Is there any way mindless evolution could have done any of that?
Doesn't it seem it took an intelligence to program practicing a future
event into penguins?
What do you think? Did it take any intelligence
We could have
looked at thousands, but we looked at twelve examples for intelligent design. They were these:
surprising feats of a woodpecker using its eight pieces of special equipment.
2) We were told
in an evolution cyclopedia that a living fruit fly is more complex than a skyscraper or a jumbo jet.
Each cell, and there are trillions in your own body, is a chemical factory routinely processing some 700 chemicals.
4) We learned of a frog who will spend even hours digging a channel to get water to his dying babies.
5) We learned a single DNA cell contains 30 volumes of information and instructions.
6) We looked at the flagellum pump with its 40 parts and amazing speed.
Chameleons that follow engineering principles as their special tongue and special muscles form
a suction cup so their special lubricant can get them food.
8) We marveled (at least I did)
at ants that operate granaries and solve the problems of dampness and sprouting.
9) Other ants
that carry out cooling engineering principles in placing objects outside their nest to absorb solar heat.
The incredible feats of precise engineering done by honeybees. Just one example of "engineers without degrees".
11) A butterfly specie that has half a snake image on one wing and half on its other wing. As a bonus,
another butterfly that has the image of an eye on its body to fool predators.
12) Penguin parents
that practice the future event of quickly transferring the fragile egg between them.
or intelligent design, which has more science?
We saw that evolution basically fails the science
1) observed facts,
well as the one of repeated testing.
3) as well as the one and proven true.
On the other hand, we saw that intelligent design - by its very nature - has
to use only observed facts, repeated behavior, all easily proven true.
An important disclaimer
As far as I know, no one claims intelligent design to
be science. But maybe evolution shouldn't claim to be science either. In fact, don't the facts in this article demonstrate
there is more actual science by definition on the side of intelligent design than there is on the side of evolution?
If so, where does that leave evolution? Could evolution be a belief, founded
more on faith than provable substance? Even further, doesn't it make evolution appear like a religion?
(For more on evolution as a religion, please see footnote (12). Indeed, don't evolutionists promote and defend their beliefs
with a fierce religion-like fervor? What do you think?
who are still examining intelligent design or Christianity may want to skip the closing below because it is for church audiences.
I think it reinforces and strengthens
our faith to remind ourselves from time to time of what an awesome creator we serve.
I hope today's message will help us to not be fooled or intimidated when we hear the evolutionist refrain....."Intelligent
design is not science".
As for me, it is a great comfort
that the God who made such a marvelous creation has promised to take care of me
. And that same
God wants the very best for his human family. And as supreme Creator, He is able to bring it all about.
References and footnotes:
General: As is my custom, bold, underling,
or italics may have been added to some quotes for emphasis.
1) "The Life of Birds" by David Attenborough,
published 1998 by Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
2) "Birdlife" by Jim Flegg, published 1986 by
Pelham Books, Ltd, London, England
3) "Bird Sounds" by Barry MacKay, published 2001 by Stackpole Books, Mechanisburg,
4) "Living Birds of the World" by E. Thomas Gilliard, published 1967 by Doubleday, Garden City, NY.
"Weird Nature" by John Downer, published 2002 by Firefly Books, Willowdale, Ont, Canada.
6) "The Blind
Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins, published 1996 by W.W. Norton & Co., Inc., NY.
7) Video jointly produced by
Illustra Media and Focus on the Family. Probably at your local library or order at 800-afamily.
8) From "American
Spectator" magazine, June, 2005, page 34.
19) "An Introduction to the Behavior of Ants" by John
H. Sod, published 1967 by St. Martins, Press, NY.
10) "Journey to the Ant" by Bert Holldobler and Edward O.
Wilson, published 1994 by Belknap Press, Harvard University.
11) "From so Simple a Beginning: the Encyclopedia
of Evolution" by Philip Whitfield, published 1993 by MacMillan Publishing Company, NY.
(12) Evolution as a religion-See
my article, "Evolution and "Humans are just Animals" or the book "Darwin's Leap of Faith" by John
Ankerberg & John Weldon.
(13) "Animal Architecture" by Eric von Frisch published 1974 by Harcourt Brace,
Jovanovich, IN. See also my book Creation Corner for many more details.
(14) From the DVD "Story of the
Butterfly" MyTinCan Multimedia Productions.
(15) For more details about harm caused by evolution, see
my article, Evolution and humans are just animals".
(16) Evolutionists offer many explanations
of how things started. Strangely enough, very few are offered as speculation, most are stated as being fact. To read
seven more of them, see my article, "The material world, non-matter, and information".
Although some try, this writer thinks it is circular reasoning to quote the Bible to prove God. So he understands evolutionists
and skeptics who put no credibility in the Bible. God himself instructs us in Rom 1:20 that if we want to see him, to look
at what he has made. Creation Corner tries to carry out those instructions. For some outside scientific
support for the Bible, though, see my booklet, "Seven discoveries that establish Bible credibility".
"The Biology of Life" by Bruce Lipton.
(19) "Evolution-the Triumph of an Idea" published 2001 by
Harper Collins Publishing, NY 10022.
Back to home page.