Here’s a link to a lovely article from The Journal of Creation, 21 (3), 2007. Astonishing DNA Complexity Demolishes Neo-Darwinism. Tis a good summary of the awesome design found within DNA, and why Darwinian evolution is not a viable theory. Thanks to Uncommon Descent for posting a link as well.
Tag Archives: Creationism
Within Philosophy in general, there usually is a discussion of whether or not “God” exists. Now, it is important to keep in mind that the starting point in philosophy is a general idea of “God” not a specific religious POV on who/what God is. So, there have been many philosophers that attempt to approach the question from a general standpoint, often formulating arguments for His existence.
One of the major arguments is the Teleological Argument for God. Many people just refer to it as the Design Argument…however, it isn’t just limited to “design” as in the design of living organisms, but also of the apparent “purposefulness” of the universe; which includes the ordered nature of it, such as the laws of physics.
This would also include things like the apparent unity, and harmony of systems within the universe. I’ve posted before on Ecological Biodiversity, and how the whole system works together to the point that naturalistic explanations fall flat.
Paley often comes up in the discussion of the Teleological Argument for God; him and his famous watch analogy. If you happened upon a watch…even laying on the moon…would you believe it just happened to assemble itself, or would you assume it was designed by an intelligence? Simplistic explanation, but you get the picture.
Of course now, the Intelligent Design movement has kind of resurrected this idea and really grounded it in more technical science. The mass amount of information contained in DNA is one example of a subject now scrutinized by ID…not only the amount contained in DNA, but also how that information is read and interpreted and if there can actually be any logical naturalistic atheistic explanation behind all of this, which, thus far, there is not.
If we want to move more to the specific, we find that indeed God Himself puts forth a teleological argument in several places in the Bible, for example;
Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
Romans 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
So, the idea that design and purpose shows forth the fact of God can be seen both in a general way, and also in a Christian framework. As always in apologetics, some people will really like to use and/or hear logical arguments such as the teleological argument that can be used either generally to point to a God, or more specifically to point to The God. Some people do not care for philosophical types of apologetics, and prefer to use other arguments. I’m not coming down on the issue either way, in this blog post, just teaching about it, but I do know that as Paul said, everyone is truly without excuse.
Answers in Genesis (AiG) is mainly known for its scientific approach to Creationism, and its literal interpretation of Genesis (for example; God created in six literal 24-hour days). The founder is Ken Ham, originally of Australia. If you want to try to find a creation-scientist’s view on something, this would be my first stop: www.answersingenesis.org
There are many Ph.D.’s involved in this ministry…and yes, the many of those degrees came from secular institutions.
One of the main teachings of the ministry is that the foundation for many Christian doctrines find their start in Genesis. Also, that a non-literal reading of Genesis contradicts several other key scriptures. It is quite interesting to follow along when the Young Earth Creationists (YEC’s) and the Old Earth Creationists (OEC’s) disagree.
Thus far, I do indeed lean YEC, though I’m open to many different ways of see the beginning of our world (and us), as long as it fits with scripture. If someone puts forth a metaphorical position, it is important to make sure the it fits logically with scripture. It also must be completely accurate.
AIG offers an extensive set of articles, and previously answered questions that you can take advantage of via their “search” on the main page. Biology, Botany, Geology, Philosophy, Chemistry, Physics, Astronomy, etc… are all included.
Any drawbacks? As always, I never agree completely with any ministry, just as one example, I believe that God could indeed have made starlight in transit to earth. AIG rejects this notion, claiming it would be deceptive of God to do so, since it would contain events that never actually happened. (Sometimes this gets thrown in with the “apparent age” hypothesis.) Instead they favor other, alternative explanations for the “starlight” question. Starlight in transit serves a purpose all on it’s own, IMO, and I believe it could indeed have been created on the way here for signs in the heavens, and also as a “declaration” of God’s handiwork.
Regardless, if you are interested in Creationism in the least, check out AiG; they are a very comprehensive ministry on the subject.
You can also see my Creation Museum Review.
Here is a vid from several years ago, you’ll need to click on the link to read the article and watch the video. Cellular Visions.
The second vid was posted by VipChannel on youtube, my hubby “The ‘Shrink” spied it first, and put it up on his blog; Intelligent Design:
We are truly without excuse! Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
I wrote before about Ecological Biodiversity, and how amazing it is, especially from an Intelligent Design POV, or a Creationist POV. An article on Science Daily shows, once more, that our planet and our continued existence are pretty special indeed: Solar System is Pretty Special. Do the authors see it as a sign of ID, or Creationism…probably not.
We must also keep in mind that this computer simulation was set up by man, and will be limited on both its scope and its knowledge base, and heavy on speculation and perhaps even bias…but I found it quite interesting, just for conversations sake. It makes us look through the lens of the “macro” and see how unique the earth is.
I’m in the middle of a book titled: In Six Days; Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation (Ashton, 2000). All the chapters (which are composed by the different scientists giving their reasons) have been informative and interesting, but one so far really stood out to me.
Dr. Henry Zuill holds a B.S. in biology, a M.A. in biology, and a Ph.D. in biology (from Loma Linda University). His chapter is the fifth chapter in the book, and he brings up a perspective that I’ve never really thought about before. Ecological Biodiversity is one of those things that I don’t set and ruminate on all that much, and I certainly haven’t pondered it fully when it comes to the Creationist vs. Evolutionist debate, or even ID vs. Evolution debate, but he got me thinking.
When ID proponents look a the world and try to spot irreducible complexity, it is usually sought at the micro level; within cells for example. Dr. Zuill urges a different perspective too; a look at the macro and complexity.
One thing he brings up is the fact that we know that ecosystems are very complex in nature, and one thing in an ecosystem affects every other thing. Take one species out of an ecosystem, and their will be changes, small or large. Ecosystems, made up of plants, animals, bacteria, fungi, etc… serve to make our planet habitable. On page 67-68 he notes:
When we look broadly at the panorama of life and ecological relationships, we see that ecological complexity is built on layer upon layer of complexity, going all the way down through different hierarchical structural and organizational levels to the cell and even lower. Thus, if we think cytological complexity is impressive, what must we think when we realize the full scale of ecological complexity?
We are reminded again and again, even in the high school science classroom, that certain ecological relationships are essential for life; therefore, it could be an interesting way of looking at something at the macro level that is irreducibly complex. For certain ecosystems to come to be, to survive, and to flourish, I’ve seen no evidence that mere naturalistic evolution could account for their existence; then it is entirely possible that they had to be designed and created in certain states.
It also has implications for the origins of life; not only do naturalistic evolutionists expect us to believe that life arose from time and chance, they would also be expecting us to believe that time and chance provided the correct ecological systems in place at the exact right time for life to 1) come to exist, 2) survive, and 3) reproduce, while at the same time balancing the ecological system itself.
Dr. Zuill points out that some naturalistic scientists do see that at the very least two species had to co-evolve, but also those same scientist see that they would have to have a close ecological relationship as a foundation for that co-evolution…that close ecological relationship would, “have to precede co-evolution.” (p. 69)
I love things that make me think in a different manner, and add to the scientific discussions between naturalistic evolutionists, creationists, and IDer’s. Dr. Zuill’s thoughts on Ecological Biodiversity have enhanced the way I look at our world in general, and also added to my thoughts on Intelligent Design, and he points out some things that just may be irreducibly complex outside the world of the micro.
Can we humans perceive design? Can we know, for example, that when we see a car that it was designed by someone with intelligence? How about other objects? The post, A Simple Perceptual Test and Intelligent Design, brings up some of these issues over on an Intelligent Design blog. Sometimes it does seem like naturalistic evolutionists can’t see the forest for the trees…or in this case, can’t see design in nature because their presuppositions are blinding them.