Most information in this article comes from Nature’s Destiny
by Dr. Michael Denton. 1
About 60% of the sun’s radiation is in the visible range, only about one trillionth of one trillionth of the entire electromagnetic spectrum. Amazingly, this same range is what the air, the atmosphere, is transparent to.
The genome of organisms contains their genetic material, which largely determines how they will develop. Scientists are learning more and more about the genome of various organisms, which is revealing more and more about the amazing wisdom of God in their design and creation. It seems that our understanding of the functioning of life is always incomplete, and the genome is always more complex than we had thought. Will we ever fully understand the functioning of life, or will it always be a mystery to us?
The phrase "intelligent design" is heard a great deal lately in the media, usually in the context of secondary school science education.
The facts and laws of physics, especially in cosmology, are best explained by intelligent design. The available evidence and best theories suggest the universe had a beginning and therefore a cause. The laws of physics and chemistry are finely tuned for life as we know it. There are no known natural laws that account for the creation of the universe from nothing with all the required properties for the existence of intelligent beings. Indeed, the idea that nature created itself is self-contradictory. Speculative naturalistic explanations involving a multiverse have no empirical support. The one known cause that can account for the origin of the universe from nothing and the fine tuning of physics is a powerful intelligence.
Dr. Dan Reynolds attended the recent Creation Superconference held in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina July 13-17. Dr. Reynolds has provided us a summary of each of the sessions at the conference.
The TASC newsletter article Fossils examined the fossil record as evidence in support of the theory of evolution. 1 The conclusion of that article, as well as of several evolutionists themselves, was that the fossil record did not provide evidence to support the theory of evolution. We might think, "Well, that doesn't matter, since evolution is so strongly supported by the genetic evidence." However, is it really? Let's look and see. We will look primarily at the genetic evidence.
Is abiogenesis irrelevant?
The idea of life arising from non-life is known as abiogenesis. It might be argued that abiogenesis is not evolution and thus is irrelevant in a discussion of evolution. The line of reasoning is that evolution deals with how life evolves from pre-existing life via natural selection, or how more complex life arises from simpler life, which does not involve the origin of life. This is still life giving rise to more complex life, not life arising from non-life. Therefore, the argument goes, the question of how life arose from non-life is not part of evolution, and is therefore excluded from any discussion of evolution as not being relevant.
I was recently invited to give a talk on intelligent design to a college philosophy class on Darwin, Marx, and Freud. I have known the professor for a number of years and had presented to his classes before. He usually has had me come in and present the case for intelligent design (ID) at the start of the section on Darwinism. The professor is an atheist but interested in discussing various views. I can only imagine what he has to say about my presentations afterwards; no doubt he tries to counter my arguments. Since I only had one chance to speak to these students, I wanted to present them with what I considered to be the best evidences for theism. This article is based on that talk. The discussion here will be brief and in everyday language.
From time to time we find it beneficial to invite our members and guests of TASC to a question and answer panel on creation versus evolution. We believe it will help your faith and your ability to “give an answer for your faith.” We did this at our recent August, 2016, meeting. Several of our TASC board members participated including Mark Stephens, MCS, moderator of the panel, and panel members, Joe Spears, MS; Gerald Van Dyke, Ph.D.; Jeff Gift, Ph.D.; and Dan Reynolds, Ph.D., who was out of town but graciously submitted written answers to questions for all our benefit.
Figure 1 - “Tidens naturlære fig40” by Morten Bisgaard. From the book Tidens naturlære 1903 by Poul la Cour. By Morten Bisgaard [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons, Licensed under Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons. "https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tidens_naturl%C3%A6re_fig40.png"