WHAT IS YOUR WORLDVIEW?

According to the American Worldview Inventory 2021, nearly half of the millennials surveyed said they either don’t know, don’t care, or don’t believe that God exists. Only 26% of Gen X, and a mere 16% of millennials, understand and believe the basics of the Gospel. In addition, 31% of teens and young adults “strongly agree” that what is “morally right and wrong changes over time, based on society.”

Almost half of Americans consider abortion to be “morally acceptable,” the highest percentage to think so in the past 20 years of surveying the question, according to a new report by Gallup.

The health of the Christian worldview appears increasingly bleak. According to the American Worldview Inventory 2021, Only 26% of Gen X, and a mere 16% of millennials, understand and believe the basics of the Gospel.

Acceptance of and teaching of evolution and an earths history of billions of years in our schools and universities has relegated the Bible to the book category of myths and fables. And yet the scientific evidence of the universe points unequivocally to intelligent design. Particularly since the discovery of DNA which demonstrates that complex information controls the functioning of all the cells in the body. What is the origin of this complex information? It can only come from a mind that is beyond our comprehension. It cannot come from matter and energy by random chance this is nonsense of the highest order and yet this is what is taught in our institutes of highest learning.

Amazing facts about DNA

Fortunately, what has emerged is a new program for scientific research known as Intelligent Design. Within biology, Intelligent Design is a theory of biological origins and development. Its fundamental claim is that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology such as DNA, and that these causes are empirically detectable.

The Intelligent Design movement is growing and because it does not talk about God, in other words the mind behind the intelligence, it is harder for the establishment to attack it on the grounds that it is religion and not science.

Intelligent Design properly formulated is a theory of information. Within such a theory, information becomes a reliable indicator of intelligent causation as well as a proper object for scientific investigation. Intelligent Design thereby becomes a theory for detecting and measuring information, explaining its origin, and tracing its flow. Intelligent Design is therefore not the study of intelligent causes per se, but of informational pathways induced by intelligent causes.

As a result, Intelligent Design presupposes neither a creator nor miracles. Intelligent Design is theologically minimalist. It detects intelligence without speculating about the nature of the intelligence. Biochemist Michael Behe’s “irreducible complexity,” physicist David Bohm’s “active information,” mathematician Marcel Schützenberger’s “functional complexity,” and William Dembski’s “complex specified information” are alternate routes to the same reality.

Through this approach of critiquing Darwinism on the one hand and providing a positive alternative on the other, the Intelligent Design movement has rapidly gained adherents among the best and brightest in the academy. Already it is responsible for Darwinism losing its corner on the intellectual market. If fully successful, Intelligent Design will unseat not just Darwinism but also Darwinism’s cultural legacy. And since no aspect of western culture has escaped Darwinism’s influence, so no aspect of western culture will escape reevaluation in the light of Intelligent Design.

It is the empirical detectability of intelligent causes that renders Intelligent Design a fully scientific theory, and distinguishes it from the design arguments of philosophers, or what has traditionally been called “natural theology.” The world contains events, objects, and structures which exhaust the explanatory resources of undirected natural causes, and which can be adequately explained only by recourse to intelligent causes. Scientists are now in a position to demonstrate this rigorously. Thus what has been a long-standing philosophical intuition is now being cashed out as a scientific research program. 

Where does this leave special creation? Logically speaking, Intelligent Design is compatible with the starkest creationism (i.e., God creating all species at the beginning with the potential for adaptation to the environment). For Intelligent Design the first question is not how organisms came to be (though this is a research question that needs to be addressed), but whether they demonstrate clear, empirically detectable marks of being intelligently caused.

However, the good news is that Intelligent design brings God back into existence. People must consider who is this Intelligent Designer who exists outside of His creation. Could He be the God of the Bible?

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 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 1:18-20

The Creator who has gone to extraordinary lengths to make Himself known, even to sending His Son to pay the price for our redemption. His book the Bible demonstrates with fulfilled prophecy that it has been constructed by God to be His Story book of this Cosmos from its beginning to its prophesied end. We know the end of the story and the last one thousand years of this Cosmos will begin in the not too distant future.

The information on Intelligent Design is taken from the opening page of The Intelligent Design Movement, Discovery institute. http://www.discovery.org

DR SAMUEL GANN’S JOURNEY TO BECOMING A CHRISTIAN

Once again this article is taken from the latest edition of Creation Magazine – http://www.creation.com. Don Batten CEO of Creation Ministries International interviews high-profile Singapore researcher Dr Samuel Gan. You must subscribe, it will bless you and your family immensely.

Dr Samuel Gan is the principal investigator and head of the Antibody & Product Development (APD) Lab in Singapore. His qualifications are impressive. He is an adjunct lecturer at Singapore University of Social Sciences, and at Republic Polytechnic, and is an adjunct associate professor at the Singapore campus of James Cook University (Australia). His qualifications include a B.Sc. (Hons) in molecular cell biology, a B.Sc. (Hons) in psychology, an M.Sc. (merit) in structural biology, and a Ph.D. in allergy. He has a diploma in biotechnology, a graduate certificate in academic practice, a postgraduate certificate in business administration, and certificates in commercial law & technology transfer, religious knowledge, biblical studies, and English/Mandarin translation & interpretation. He is also an Associate of King’s College, London.

His journey to become a Christian who believes the Biblical view of creation is inspiring. Sam said, He has always believed that God created the universe. But he had a ‘crisis of faith’ during his mid-teens because of a childhood interest in other world religions.

Logic and rules of things appealed to me in an uncertain world, and science was presented as having answers and being logical and rule-based. It turned out the only religion that made sense was Christianity, but I ended up with a sort of blend of secular ‘science’ and faith.

No serious scientist could believe that the complexity, order, and time-sensitive interrelationships of living things came about by chance (just physics and chemistry). And the conventional theistic evolution (‘God used evolution over billions of years’) was way too slow. But given my secular training, I came to have a confused hybrid idea involving a form of accelerated evolution during the six days of Creation Week, like millions of years happening within 6 days in some time-dilation-like model that later slowed down, due to my misinterpretation of 2 Peter 3:8. I hadn’t really thought it through!

When CMI’s Dr Carl Wieland in 2014 showed the classic slide of ‘Eden on bones’ (below), in Chin Lien Bible Seminary, Singapore, this challenged Sam’s beliefs involving evolution (albeit in a sped-up form). CMI materials helped him align with God’s Word. That year he took a stand, moved back to a church that taught 6-day creation, and enrolled in Far Eastern Bible College. That provided a strong foundation on the Word of God, and it turned out to be far more important to him than all his secular education.

Animated image
A good creation could not be built on a foundation of death and suffering

This is what Dr Gan said he would say to a Christian young person thinking of a career in science.

Everyone, regardless of their choice of career, should study—online or part-time—some systematic theology from a good Bible-based seminary or Bible college. The foolishness I had in my younger days would have been avoided had I had more of the wisdom of God. The evolution confusion, the struggles, all came from the lack of knowledge of God’s Word. It is wise to get godly wisdom as early as possible.

Dr Gan’s testimony demonstrates that believing in biblical creation is clearly no hindrance to a high level of achievement in science. Rather, it is a great advantage. Understanding that a brilliant mind created the highly complex beautiful universe we inhabit, Samuel is like the German mathematician, astronomer and astrologer Johannes Kepler. Referring to his work in astronomy, Kepler said: “I was merely thinking God’s thoughts after Him.”

UNIVERSE IS FINE TUNED

The fact that the universe is tuned — that is, the fact there is any consistency at all in the laws of physics — demonstrates God’s existence. This is Aquinas’ Fifth Way, which is the proof from design. St. Thomas used the example of arrows. If we were to see arrows flying through the air, one after another, and noted that they consistently tended to land at or near a specific spot, we would correctly infer that they were shot by an archer (rather than, say, blown by the wind). Any consistency in nature implies a Mind that draws consistency out of chaos. A targeted arrow implies an archer. Note that this is not an argument from complexity. The simplest consistency in nature — a pencil falls down and not up, winter is colder than summer — demonstrates God’s existence. 

The universe is exquisitely fine-tuned for the existence of man

The second thing that fine-tuning tells us is exemplified by fine. Fine refers to the accuracy of the laws of nature, which reveals the Archer’s purposes. By observing the precision of targeting of the shot arrows, we can discern the Archer’s motives. If the arrows are merely flying into an open field, we may infer that the archer is just testing his bow. If the arrows are consistently hitting a bulls-eye target, we may infer that the archer is practicing his accuracy. If the arrows are hitting animals in the forest, we may infer that the archer is hunting. If the arrows are hitting soldiers encircling the area, we may infer that the archer is defending from an invasion. 

The tuning of nature points to God, and the fineness of His tuning points to His purpose. The anthropic fine-tuning of our universe tells us that we are God’s purpose in creation. 

This scientific reality has atheists in a panic, hence their need to fabricate countless fantasy universes and nonsensical probabilities. The fact that God created the universe and holds it in existence for us is a scientific fact unequivocally demonstrated by modern astrophysics. 

extracts from article “Multiverse” Myth Frees Atheists from Real Science by Michael R. Egnor, MD. He is a Professor of Neurosurgery and Pediatrics at State University of New York, Stony Brook. It appeared in Evolution News and Science Today March 2nd, 2021

INTELLIGENT DESIGN VERSUS EVOLUTION

Three important contributions in major scientific publications over the past three years supporting Intelligent Design indicate it is growing in support. The four general areas where ID is forging ahead are : (1) scientific advancements and peer-reviewed papers, (2) failed attempts by critics to suppress ID, (3) ID’s performance in high-level debates against top critics, and (4) a growing community of ID-friendly graduate students and scientists. 

In 2018, a paper was published in BIO-Complexity by computer scientist Winston Ewert. He applied the concept of “common design” to produce a “dependency graph” model of organismal relationships based upon the principle that software designers frequently re-use the same coding modules in different programs. Ewert tested his model by comparing the distribution of gene families in nine diverse organisms to a treelike pattern predicted by Neo-Darwinism versus a dependency graph distribution used by computer programmers. His preliminary analysis showed that a common design-based “dependency graph” fit the genetic data 103000 times better than a Darwinian evolutionary tree!

In 2019, a paper on human origins published in BIO-Complexity. This paper used population genetics to refute those who cite evolutionary models to claim that human genetic diversity indicates we could not have originated from an initial couple.

 In 2020 a major article came out in the Journal of Theoretical Biology which supported “intelligent design” by name, noting that “ID aims to adhere to the same standards of rational investigation as other scientific and philosophical enterprises, and it is subject to the same methods of evaluation and critique.” The authors predicted that we will “establish fine-tuning as a sustainable and fully testable scientific hypothesis, and ultimately a Design Science.”

Flowers that testify of beauty and design

DEBATING INTELLIGENT DESIGN

There’s no better tribute to the power of ideas than a changed mind. Erik Strandness is a physician in Spokane, WA, practicing neonatal medicine. He watched a new exchange between biochemist Michael Behe and computational biologist Joshua Swamidass on the excellent and always thoughtful series Unbelievable? with Justin Brierley. He writes to differ with Swamidass and to describe his own change of ideas, from theistic evolution to intelligent design.

Joshua Swamidass is a biologist and Christian who is strongly critical of ID. He engages with Behe on the Kitzmiller-Dover case and the ID proponent’s most recent book ‘Darwin Devolves’ which critiques evolutionary theory.

The timing and circumstances of Erik Strandness intellectual evolution aren’t totally clear from the article. It preceded the Behe/Swamidass discussion. But his account is a valuable read nevertheless. As Dr. Strandness points out, Professor Swamidass doesn’t call himself a theistic evolutionist, but “he seems to share its favorable stance towards evolution and its opposition to intelligent design.”

God in a Box

Strandness reflects on his Lutheran upbringing. He “always had a place for God in my life, but that was exactly my problem: I had a place for God in my life….Part of the reason I compartmentalized my faith was because I was a science guy and science told me I was just an evolved chemical.” The compartmentalization, characteristic of theistic evolution, was unsatisfying to him. “While Swamidass’ goal is admirably to harmonize Christianity and science, I feel like all he has really done is say it’s OK to live with the tension.”

The theme of disappointment with a theistic evolutionary approach runs throughout his essay:

Interestingly, many theistic evolutionists don’t find God under the microscope but do in the courtroom. It appears they are more convinced of God’s existence by the moral argument than the scientific argument. 

I’m glad that they find assurance for their faith in this minimalist approach, but it leaves a huge chasm between an awe-inspiring Big Bang and the appearance of morality and consciousness in human beings. A gap which they fill with a rather bland series of naturally selected mutations. 

They give God credit for the big-ticket items, but don’t want to bother Him with the mundane task of speciation. Sadly, they reduce the book of nature to a Rorschach ink blot that offers us a vague psychological rendering of God’s subconscious rather than fine biological literature that reveals the sharpness of His mind. 

Common Ground with Intelligent Design

On the other hand, Strandness, as a physician, finds common ground with Professor Behe and his arguments for the irreducible complexity of certain biological structures. Swamidass in the discussion on Brierley’s show says he believes “God was involved in the rise of humans but I don’t actually see any biochemical evidence of God’s design there.” Dr. Strandness does see that evidence, however.

I have to respectfully disagree with him because I treat my patients based on an irreducibly complex physiological template that I didn’t create, but which I dismiss at my own peril. I’m able to successfully practice medicine because my patients are fearfully and wonderfully made, not because they were naturally selected to survive.

Interestingly, a whole field of science called biomimetics has emerged that takes the superior design of irreducibly complex biological machines and tries to replicate them at the macro level. It appears that rather than dismissing design, science is beginning to imitate it as the sincerest form of divine flattery. 

Swamidass made the case that biological machines are not machines in the traditional sense. However, I think he would get some push back from the biomimeticists who know that nature has given them a template for a better mousetrap, which, if successfully replicated, will inspire the world to beat a path to their door. 

Strandness concludes:

Richard Dawkins famously said that Charles Darwin made it possible for him to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, but I found that [intelligent design] made it possible for me to be an intellectually fulfilled Christian.

For me, it was sad to observe that both Behe and Swamidass were comfortable with man evolving from some apelike creature, and yet both claim to be Christians. It is obvious from this belief that both do not believe in the inerrancy of God’s Word nor do they spend much time reading God’s Word. It is difficult to comprehend how Swamidass believes that man is made in God’s image and at the same time could have evolved from an ape.

Intelligent Design Has a Breakthrough in Biology Journal

In its September 21 issue, the Journal of Theoretical Biology published a major peer-reviewed article on fine-tuning in biology that favorably discusses intelligent design.

The article explicitly cites work by Discovery Institute (DI) Fellows such as Stephen Meyer, Günter Bechly, Ann Gauger, Douglas Axe, and Robert J. Marks. The article is co-authored by Steinar Thorvaldsen and Ola Hössjer. Hössjer is a professor of mathematical statistics at Stockholm University who is favorable to intelligent design.

Fine-tuning has received much attention in physics, and it states that the fundamental constants of physics are finely tuned to precise values for a rich chemistry and life permittance. It has not yet been applied in a broad manner to molecular biology. However, in this paper, the distinguished authors argue that biological systems present fine-tuning at different levels, e.g. functional proteins, complex biochemical machines in living cells, and cellular networks. This paper describes molecular fine-tuning, how it can be used in biology, and how it challenges conventional Darwinian thinking. It also, discuss the statistical methods underpinning fine-tuning and present a framework for such an analysis.

This is a big deal for the mainstreaming of Intelligent Design. 

The Journal of Theoretical Biology is a top peer-reviewed science journal. According to CiteScore, it is the 25th most cited journal in the area of general agriculture and biological sciences, and it is in the top 12 percent of all journals in that field. 

The Journal of Theoretical Biology is a biweekly peer-reviewed scientific journal covering theoretical biology, as well as mathematical, computational and statistical aspects of biology.

The article by Thorvaldsen and Hössjer appeared online in June. But DI didn’t want to speak about it publicly until after its “official” publication date, because they knew that once Darwinists found out, they would try to have the article cancelled. 

Sure enough, after Darwinists discovered the article, they succeeded in obtaining a “disclaimer” from the journal’s editors, who proclaimed their bias against ID. But the disclaimer actually made publication of the article all the more significant. It meant that the article survived peer-review and was accepted for publication despite the open hostility of the journal’s top editors!

Familiar with Cancel Culture

Intelligent design isn’t loved by the establishment media, or elite professors, or social media giants. In fact, ID proponents face censorship and discrimination on all fronts in getting their message out. Intelligent design supporters are well acquainted with the “cancel culture,” because creationists have faced it for a long time.

Nevertheless, we are succeeding because the evidence is so compelling — and because readers like you have been willing to go around the censorship by sharing our materials with your family, colleagues, and friends. Please circulate this article as it is a major step forward in the creation/evolution debate.

ATHEISTS, PLEASE WATCH THIS VIDEO

Three eminent Ph.D. scientists say it is impossible for life as we now know it to exist based on Darwinian evolution. Their views are based on science. Theology and Christianity are not on the agenda.

Dr. David Berlinski holds a PhD from Princeton University and has taught philosophy and mathematics at universities in France and the United States. A Senior Fellow of Discovery Institute, he is a best-selling author of such books as The Deniable DarwinA Tour of the CalculusThe Advent of the AlgorithmNewton’s Gift, and The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions. He lives in Paris, France.

Dr. David Gelernter is professor of computer science at Yale, chief scientist at Mirror Worlds Technologies, Contributing Editor at the Weekly Standard, and a member of the National Council of the Arts. He is the author of several books and many technical articles, as well as essays, art criticism, and fiction.

Dr. Stephen C. Meyer received his Ph.D. in the philosophy of science from the University of Cambridge. A former geophysicist and college professor, he now directs Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture in Seattle. Meyer’s has two landmark books, the New York Times bestseller Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design and Times (of London) Literary Supplement Book of the Year Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design

Q & A: Based on new evidence and knowledge that functioning proteins are extremely rare, should Darwin’s theory of evolution be dismissed, dissected, developed, or replaced with a theory of intelligent design? Has Darwinism really failed? Peter Robinson discusses it with David Berlinski, David Gelernter, and Stephen Meyer, who have raised doubts about Darwin’s theory in their two books and essay, respectively The Deniable Darwin, Darwin’s Doubt, and “Giving Up Darwin” (published in the Claremont Review of Books). Robinson asks them to convince him that the term “species” has not been defined by the authors to Darwin’s disadvantage.

Gelernter replies to this and explains that there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin successfully explained the small adjustments by which an organism adapts to local circumstances: changes to fur density or wing style or beak shape. Yet there are many reasons to doubt whether Darwin can answer the hard questions and explain the big picture—not the fine-tuning of existing species but the emergence of new ones. Meyer explains Darwinism as a comprehensive synthesis, which gained popularity for its appeal. Meyer also mentions that one cannot disregard that Darwin’s book was based on the facts present in the 19th century. The video is excellent and if you believe that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution provides the evidence for all you observe in this universe then you owe it to yourself to view it.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN – SILENTLY GROWING

Last November, Philip E Johnson, author of the best-selling book, Darwin on Trial, and other anti-evolution works, died at age 79. The Christian Post has since interviewed Intelligent Design proponents, as well as critics, to discuss Johnson’s legacy and the current direction of the movement.

A longtime law professor at the University of California-Berkeley, Johnson was credited with helping to ignite the modern Intelligent Design movement through his books and debates.

Douglas Axe, Maxwell Professor of Molecular Biology at the School of Science, Technology and Health at Biola University

Douglas Axe, a professor of Molecular Biology at Biola University’s School of Science, Technology and Health, told The Christian Post that Philip Johnson influenced his decision to join the movement.

“I’ve been suspicious of Darwinism as far back as I can remember, but it wasn’t until I started connecting with other Darwin-skeptics that I was able to place my own thinking within the larger body of thought that became known as Intelligent Design,” Axe recalled.

“Phillip Johnson was instrumental in this. I met Steve Meyer in 1990 and Bill Dembski in 1992 and then many others, including Mike Behe, at a meeting organized by Phil in 1993. It was at that point that I realized a movement was in the making.”

Axe believed that the “first phase of research” within Intelligent Design was centered on “settling the question of whether life really is designed.”

Considering that question basically resolved, Axe told CP that the “current phase of research is focused on developing a new design-centred way of thinking about biology.”

“For example, former Google coder Dr. Winston Ewert recently published a peer-reviewed paper that provides striking evidence that genomes have been designed in a way that resembles how humans design software,” he continued.

Dr. Michael Egnor, Professor of Neurosurgery at State University of New York in Stony Brook, has just described with mathematical precision how engineering principles are used masterfully to smooth out the heartbeat pulse in order for the capillary flow in our brains to be smooth.”

In an interview with CP, Egnor said he believes there is “abundant evidence for intelligent agency,” labeling Intelligent Design “a valid inference.”

“There is in nature very clear evidence for intelligent agency in some aspects of biology,” he said. “The intricate nano-technology that exists inside cells, the clear evidence for purpose in cellular metabolism, in physiology, in multi-cellular organisms.”

Egnor believed that, regardless of whether one believed in evolution, it was a challenge to do scientific research without presuming that there is design in nature.

“If you look for example at the genome, at the DNA inside a cell. You think of it as a computer program, as software. That helps you quite a bit in understanding how it works. If you didn’t have that inference, it would be much harder to understand what the DNA is doing,” Egnor continued.  

“We really can’t study the human heart unless you begin with the premise that it’s a pump. If you begin with the premise that it’s a pump, then the whole thing makes sense. The muscle in the heart and the valves, the chambers, all of it adds up. But the idea that it’s a pump is a design inference.”

Dr. Brian Thomas, research associate with the Institute for Creation Research, an organization that supports biblical creationism, told CP that he believes current scientific finds “bolster” Intelligent Design and creationism claims.

“Despite claims that the human genome is littered with useless evolutionary leftovers, geneticists keep confirming that almost all human DNA is used in one tissue or another at some point during growth and development,” said Thomas.

“Genome usage and sophistication continue to boggle investigators’ minds and baffle non-intelligent origins options. Even fossil discoveries keep confirming fully formed creatures at their lowest appearance.”

Astrophysicist Hugh Ross of the Christian apologetics group Reasons to Believe explained in comments emailed to CP that he believes the movement is taking a “two-pronged approach.”

One prong involved groups like Reasons to Believe developing an alternative creation model that could be tested while Johnson and groups like the Discovery Institute were devoted more to rebutting evolutionary claims and attempting to be inserted into public education.

“I’d have to say the ID prong is working well among Christians, though not especially well among skeptics, those within or influenced by secular academia,” wrote Ross.

“The RTB prong has met with receptivity in the opposite areas. Despite some resistance within the evangelical community, our creation model and presentation of evidence for our Christian faith have opened doors in universities and beyond, especially among skeptics and doubters influenced by secular academia and media.”

Ross added that he believes each of the prongs pursues “its mission wholeheartedly, and each is sustained by the generosity of those who care about their cause.”   

Silently growing?

ORIGIN OF FIRST SELF-REPRODUCING CELL?

A huge problem for naturalistic evolution is how life with its complex coded information could have arisen spontaneously in evolution’s very first living cell. I would suggest it is adequate proof for an Intelligent Designer and a good reason to take a look at the Bible’s account of Creation in Genesis. We learn God created a perfect world and humans made in the image of their Creator. Man’s SIN is the reason for death and suffering in this world. The Good News is that our loving Creator has provided the solution to restore our relationship with Him and overcome death. Jesus is His name.

Image result for picture of dna replication

Extract from editorial in Creation Magazine Vol 30 No.4 2017.

We have previously written about how scientists have attempted to determine the simplest self-reproducing cell (see creation.com/simple). This hypothetical cell was said to require a minimum of 256 genes. The problem for
evolutionists is that they cannot appeal to natural selection to explain the first cell. That’s because natural selection requires a living, reproducing cell to pass on any trait selected for! Further research in 2006 increased this figure to 387 protein-coding and 43 RNA-coding genes.
In 2016, the minimalist genome was once again increased with the creation of a synthetic self-reproducing bacterium: this time, to 473 genes (531,560 ‘letters’), including 65 whose function are unknown but which were essential for the survival of the cell. This is not much less than Mycoplasma genitalium (482 genes, 582,970 letters)—which itself is a parasite of even more complex organisms.

How then can evolutionists explain the origin of the very first self-reproducing cell? It is a mathematical impossibility for just one gene to have arisen by chance—much less 473.

The Bible says in John 1:1, “In the beginning was the WORD” and of course we now  know that every living thing has at its nucleus, DNA, a word of thousands of letters controlling all the functions of each cell. What follows in John 1:1  “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Research highlights, Nature 439(7074):246–247, January 2006 | doi:10.1038/439246a.
Glass, J.I. et al., Essential genes of a minimal bacterium, Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103(2):425– 430, January 2006 | doi:10.1073/pnas.0510013103.
Hesman, T., Scientists build minimum genome bacterium, sciencenews.org, March 2016.

EVIDENCE OF COMPLEX DESIGN

The caterpillar transforms into a butterfly. The impossibility of this ever having evolved and from what, is convincing evidence of intelligent design, and yet universities and schools can only teach evolution. Why? The only reason is not sound science, it is because “they” claim science can only deal with the natural not supernatural and intelligent design requires a designer who is outside of his creation. Science should take us to wherever the evidence leads.

Watch this 2 minute video explain why only design explains this incredible organism.

Image result for picture of caterpillar turning into butterfly

Does God give us a picture of this ugly caterpillar being changed into a beautiful butterfly that is now capable of so much more, imagine flying, to give us a glimpse of what He has promised us – resurrected bodies capable of so much more than those we now occupy.