EVIDENCE FOR A CREATOR: INCREDIBLE DESIGN AND BEAUTY

Posted on by

The new James Webb Space Telescope can ‘see’ much farther than ever, probing distant realms of the universe never observed before.

Some of its earliest images were of galaxies with highly red-shifted light, thus interpreted as very remote and among the first ones formed after the supposed Big Bang (BB).

As reported last issue, fully mature spiral galaxies were found, not ones in their early stages—much bigger than thought possible. In BB theory, gravity should not have had the time to assemble them, so headlines carried statements like “massive galaxies that shouldn’t exist”. Now a new study suggests the galaxies could be up to ten times more massive than first estimated, making the BB’s problem that much worse.

Despite this, secular astronomers are unlikely to abandon the BB, the favoured way of explaining how the universe supposedly made itself with no Creator. Rather, rescue attempts will involve ‘auxiliary hypotheses’ to try to explain the observations.

The ideas of dark matter, dark energy, and inflation were similarly postulated to overcome conflicts between theory and observation. No one has ever seen or sampled dark matter, for example, but without it, BB theory doesn’t work. So, expect various refinements and modifications to salvage the theory in due course.

Niels Bohr Institute, James Webb’s ‘too massive’ galaxies may be even more massive, phys.org, 17 May 2023.

There is increasing evidence of the remarkable stability of our solar system. CMI has reported on this previously (Creation Vol 44, Issue 3, page 8, 2022).

Medium-sized planets are common in other systems, but there are no medium-sized planets in our solar system; instead, we have gas giants and ice giants on one hand, and small rocky planets like our Earth on the other. Using the Nice model, scientists previously found that the gas giants Jupiter and Saturn regulate the orbits of the smaller planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars), and have prevented them from becoming unstable and falling closer to the Sun. A further study has recently suggested that our solar system has built-in constraints on the degree of movement of inner planet orbits, preventing them from becoming increasingly chaotic and colliding. Moreover, the latest mathematical modelling (Mogavero, F., Hoang, N.H., and Laskar, J., Timescales of chaos in the inner solar system: Lyapunov spectrum and quasi-integrals of motion, Phys. Rev. X, 13:021018, 2023), suggests that certain symmetries in the orbits of the planets restrict the chaotic forces at work. Yet such stability is not evident in other planetary systems in the Milky Way.

The remarkable stability and order of our solar system point to the wonderful design by an intelligent and benevolent God. The chaotic factors would also limit the age of the solar system, pointing to a maximum age less than naturalism allows. As the creation account in Genesis records, the sun, moon, and planets have been intelligently placed in their positions for divine purposes, “for signs and for seasons, and for days and years” (Genesis 1:14).

adapted from REMARKABLE EVIDENCE OF A DESIGNED, YOUNG, AND STABLE SOLAR SYSTEM by Andrew Sibley Creation Magazine, volume 45, Issue 4, 2023

IS DESIGN DENIAL OF LIVING THINGS DEFENSIBLE?

Posted on by

Living things certainly look designed. Some people are surprised to learn that even well-known, militant atheists and evolutionists will admit this fact, as the following three cases illustrate. Let’s hear first from British biologist Richard Dawkins: An increasing number of people in our secular society … are persuaded that design denial is an entirely sensible position. “Living things are not designed, but Darwinian natural selection licenses a version of the design stance for them. We get a shortcut to understanding the heart if we assume that it is ‘designed’ to pump blood.”2

Director of The Skeptics Society (US) Michael Shermer agrees: “The design inference comes naturally. The reason people think that a Designer created the world is because it looks designed.”3

So does American evolutionary biologist and Intelligent Design critic Jerry Coyne: “If anything is true about nature, it is that plants and animals seem intricately and almost perfectly designed for living their lives.”4

In the above instances, Dawkins, Shermer, and Coyne had living organisms in mind. But on a cosmic scale, too, top scientists affirm design. Charles Townes (1915–2015), who shared the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1964, unashamedly affirmed the universe was God-made: “Intelligent design, as one sees it from the scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it’s remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren’t just the way they are, we couldn’t be here at all. The sun couldn’t be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are for us to be here.”5

So, to repeat, wherever we care to look we observe design. This being so, why is it that many people today seem unable (or unwilling) to accept the evidence of their eyes?

Living things certainly look designed—like the intricacies of a peacock’s tail.

Design denial

Recall that Richard Dawkins actually admits that “a shortcut to understanding” living things is gained by assuming that they are designed—even though he emphatically rejects that any designing intelligence was involved; and certainly not the God of the Bible. He is very insistent upon this point, but also inconsistent! And those who disagree with him—who believe instead that the Creator God is behind all the design we see—he calls deluded. Of course, not all atheists and skeptics go as far as Dawkins in their rhetoric. Nevertheless, an increasing number of people in our secular society are buying into the lie that design denial is synonymous with (even necessary for) scientific integrity. They are persuaded that design denial is an entirely sensible position.

“In their case the god of this world (Satan) has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” 2 Corinthians 4:4

“For they loved the glory that comes from man more than the glory that comes from God.” John 12:43

‘Talk about design if you really must, but whatever you do, don’t bring God into the discussion.’ That, they claim, is bad science! I am reminded of the line from Shakespeare’s Hamlet, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” You can substitute “lady” with any spokesperson for the secular scientific establishment who claims that it is unscientific to follow the trail from designed things to the Designer—a claim that is contrary to the Bible (e.g. Romans 1:20). No, we really should follow where the scientific evidence leads us. We have nothing to fear from facts, only fact-denying dogma. Beware of those who say otherwise, whatever their credentials.

“For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” Romans 1:20

The Maker’s marks

The hallmarks of design are everywhere we care to look. In making the point that Jesus was far greater than Moses, one Bible writer wisely affirmed, “For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God” (Hebrews 3:4). This is not the place to delve further into that passage, but don’t miss the message: if the architect and construction workers are the ones who deserve the credit for an impressive house, the One who is “builder of all things” even more so. When something “looks designed” (Shermer), even “perfectly designed” (Coyne), we do indeed get “a shortcut to understanding” (Dawkins) if we acknowledge it to be so. Trying to avoid this leads to a sort of cognitive dissonance

When something “looks designed” (Shermer), even “perfectly designed” (Coyne), we do indeed get “a short cut to understanding” (Dawkins) if we acknowledge it to be so. Trying to avoid this leads to a sort of cognitive dissonance, a conflict between two contradictory ideas—as in, ‘it looks designed, let’s pretend it’s designed as it’ll help us understand it, but let’s be sure to keep telling ourselves it is not designed.’

In his most recent book, Return of the God Hypothesis (2021),7 Stephen Meyer reminds his readers that: “… many of the founders of modern science did not just assume that the universe had been designed by an intelligent agent. They also argued for this hypothesis based on discoveries in their fields of study. Johannes Kepler … Robert Boyle … Carl Linnaeus. Many other individual scientists made specific design arguments based upon empirical discoveries in their fields.”8

These great scientists of the past, rather than denying the design that stared them in the face (and suffering cognitive dissonance), delighted in it! This was a vital factor in their fruitfulness as outstanding scientists.

‘Delighting in design’ is certainly true of the editorial team of CMI’s Creation magazine, as well as the many authors and graphic artists who contribute to each new issue. Consider subscribing if you don’t already receive it—read, learn, and share it with others.

Let us avoid the foolish mistake of ascribing greatness to the things that are made. Christians should also help friends, colleagues, and family members to avoid this pitfall. Instead, we must be sure to worship the Maker whose marks we have observed in His manufactured creatures—evidence for God’s Grand Design is all around us. Merely to delight in the created designs themselves, while robbing our Creator of the glory that is rightfully His, is sheer idolatry (see Romans 1:25).

“Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.” Romans 1:24-25

References and notes

  1. This first appeared in CreationExtra, CMI-UK/Europe, March 2022.
  2. Dawkins, R., The God Delusion, Bantam Press, London, p. 182, 2006 (emphasis added). 
  3. Shermer, M., Why Darwin Matters, Henry Holt and Company, New York, p. 65, 2006 (emphasis original).
  4. Coyne, J., Why Evolution is True, Viking, New York, p. 1, 2009. 
  5. Quoted in: Meyer, S.C., Return of the God Hypothesis: Three scientific discoveries that reveal the mind behind the universe, HarperOne, New York, p. 146, 2021.
  6. Bell, P. (ed) and 10 others, Does Evolution Explain Everything About Life? Answers from Ph.D. scientists, Creation Book Publishers, Power Springs, GA, 2020.
  7. See Woodmorappe, J., The existence of specified information in the universe points to a creator God, A review of Return of the God Hypothesis: Three scientific discoveries that reveal the mind behind the universe (Stephen C. Meyer), J. Creation 36(1):26–29, April 2022.
  8. Meyer, ref. 5, p. 47.

adapted from a CMI article Delighting in Design – and in its Originator by Philip Bell1 Check out http://www.creation.com