Food for thought. Evolution or Creation?

I’m naturally a science and math guy with a pension for the creative.. I guess I just got lucky. Of course we all hear that the two things you don’t discuss are politics and religion, but honestly that just flys all over me. There’s definitely a side of me that likes to push against the grain. So here I am sharing something I learned tonight that should make all of us think a little bit more about God and the creation vs. evolution argument.

As I sat in church tonight for the first Wednesday in a few weeks (Cut me some slack. We’ve just moved into a new house.), I settled in for what I expected to be yet another tedious sermon. Don’t get me wrong. Our church is solid and the speakers are good, but I’ve been attending Christian school since 2nd grade all the way through college. Not one of those washed up has been Christian schools and colleges. I was fortunate enough to attend some very solid foundational schools. Some of you may be asking, “what do you mean solid?” Well, so many of the schools today claim to be Christian, but seriously, can you call it Christian if you only get bible exposure a couple of semesters or attend an assembly service occasionally? Anyway, let’s get back to my point of this post.

I sat down tonight prepared to hear something along the lines of what I normally have experienced for the last 30 years. Jeff Duggin, the facilitator for the night, did the intro then kicked off a video. I honestly don’t recall the guys name that was on the video. He spoke mostly about philosophy and how since the late 1800s the definition for philosphy has been changed as has the definitions of morality and ethics. This was all very interesting and educating enough that I decided I’d come back for class next week. Video over.

Then something happened. Jeff Duggin came up to close out the evening. He then raised a discussion that paralleled something I normally say to people when trying to explain this world, the universe and everything in it. By pure nature of complexity, it is statistically impossible that everything should come together to operate the way that it has. If you take a box of tv parts and put them in a box, what will be in that box in 1 million years? A bunch of parts or dust. Nothing more. Jeff’s explanation and support was even more elaborate, and I think you’ll agree.

Jeff proceeded to say that he carries some pictures in his pocket so that when the opportunity arises, he can simply explain the complexity of this world’s design. He showed a picture of an electric motor’s internals (link 1, link 2) of which I am very familiar since I studied mechanical engineering in college. As I mentioned, I’ve got a bent towards science and math. Then, I was delight. Jeff proceeded to show pictures of a flagellum structure. Microscopic cells which to an untrained eye could easily be mistaken for parts of an electric motor. Cells which have been around for a seriously long time before we ever designed the first electric motor. Wikipedia Flagellum. Wikipedia also has some other interesting intelligent design information listed. Of course, they also have refuting arguments posted as well. My apologies for not having the best pictures to show the similarities, but I hope your curiosity is piqued.

It was an interesting night.

15 thoughts on “Food for thought. Evolution or Creation?

  1. Excellent food for thought. If we had the parts of a television, for example, a team of engineers could build a functioning TV out of them. The same is true of the most complex functional artifacts built by the intelligence of human beings. If we had just the parts, a team of engineers could make them into the objects they are.

    But if we have just the elemental parts of the simplest known life form, the collected knowledge of all human beings on earth cannot build them into a living organism.

    Materialist-evolutionists will claim that the flagellum, for example, was created by a blind, unintelligent, unconscious process. But this unintelligent process built a functioning apparatus and system which the collective intelligence of human beings cannot figure out or replicate.

    So, unintelligent matter and its physical properties is more brilliantly intelligent than all of the scientists on earth.

    There is a great video here:
    with Michael Behe.
    This video was actually deleted from the site that originally produced it.
    In it, you’ll hear the atheist-interviewer say that Behe’s book gave him, for the first time in his life, the idea that God may truly exist (and that evolution does not explain life).

  2. The Flagellum is actually quite well understood. See the research done by Cavalier-Smith (1987 and 2002), Musgrave (2000), Kuwajima (1988) and Miller (2003, 2004) just as some very quick examples. It is certainly not an example of irreducible complexity (in fact, no examples of IC have been yet found).

    Behe, it would seem, was extremely badly discredited at the Dover trial – where it was clearly shown he was quite ignorant of a lot of the research in the very field he claimed expertise in.

  3. Dr. Behe has more scientific credentials than you do. By comparison, you’re very ignorant of the science (although I will enjoy reading your peer-reviewed papers any time).

  4. Wow. This is fun. I actually woke up this morning thinking about this. 😉 I really appreciate your comments Matt and would love to hear a bit more about your background. I’ll share a few more thoughts.

    It seems that most anti-Christian scientists attempt to leverage the the evolution argument to disprove God and Christianity. Biblically speaking, this anti-God mindset can be seen throughout the Bible and history. I’m not sure if you’ve studied the Bible and history as much as you’ve apparently studied Evolution/Creation. Evolution is yet another angle used by man to rebel against a God that holds him to truth and law. Philosophy today and throughout history has sought to replace God with new life views. I drift a bit, so let me bring it back around.

    Evolution attempts to disprove God as creator by explaining biology. However, it is attempting to disprove God without addressing other complexities of the universe. Take for example the laws of gravity, magnetism, thermodynamics, and more that govern our universe. These laws could not have “evolved”. These laws either exist or they don’t. There is no evolving of these laws.

    You may have seen this list before, but I’ll attach it as well. Evolutionists seem to look at the biological life while disconnecting from the rest of creation. Founding fathers of science have been quoted recognizing the complexity of the universe and the impossibility of it having come into being without a “higher design”.

    I really enjoyed Ben Stein’s exploration into academic America and its ostracizing of creation scientists in the secular eduction system.

    I particularly enjoyed Richard Dawkins, famous author, appearances in the movie as he explained evolution.

    Please, tell me why a fish that supposedly existed 80 million years ago turned up in a fish shopping market after being caught alive? No evolution in 80 million years?

    Finally, I still want to know where the original material and energy came from that gave evolution the building blocks to occur. I know. Evolution isn’t supposed to address original matter. It’s just supposed to account for life, intermediate forms, etc.

    That’s all the time I have for now.

  5. Behe’s credentials are actually meaningless if his work is routinely and effortlessly revealed to be wrong time and again. This has been and is the case with Behe; his work on irreducible complexity has been shown to be groundless on multiple occasions.
    The matter still stands that not one example of irreducible complexity has been found in nature.

    tonybradhaw’s approach shows a distinctive misunderstanding of how science actually works. Science looks at the evidence and forms conclusions from it; not form a conclusion and look for evidence to support it. Thus far, no independent testable evidence has been found to support the existence of (or necessity of to explain evidence) any sort of supernatural deity figure. It really is as simple as that.

    Stein is really not credible in the least, in almost any field he’s worked. While his economic credibility is near zero currently, his understanding of science is quite literally pathetic (any person who states that the Theory of Evolution fails to explain the orbit of planets really has no clue).
    Expelled itself has been found to be false on many levels, misrepresenting people and arguments time and again. A reasonably thorough examination of what’s wrong with it can be found at

    As for the next question; if there’s no natural pressure for an organism to not change then it simply doesn’t. Some organisms find a great little niche in natural and don’t need to adapt to anything new so they don’t. Crocodiles are a common example of this genetic stability (they have a niche. there’s little to no pressure to change, so no real change happens).

    Original material? Depends how far back in time you want to go. The change in substances is easily traced back to hydrogen and basic chemistry tells you that when hydrogen merges, it forms heavier elements.

  6. Hi guys,

    I know this might be a bit off topic but seeing that a bunch of you own websites, where would the best place be to host. Someone recommended I use Blue Host for $6.95 a month which seems like a great deal. Anyone here on using them?

  7. Wow, that is off topic. It sounds like you might be marketing for Blue Host. 😉 In any case, I use and green geeks. Both have served me well.

  8. Thomas Sabo Australia is an iconic international jewelry brand that captures Tomas’s wit, spirit and heart, offering men’s and women’s jewelry with an enviable collection of charms and charm bracelets… welcome to Thomas Sabo Australia

Leave a Reply