The human genome is much more complex than anyone imagined. In fact, the level of complexity argues directly against any sort of evolutionary origin for the code that makes us. This episode features Dr Rob Carter and Gary Bates. This a must-watch video, just 19 minutes, particularly for young people to show that there is a master designer that has produced this incomprehensible complex universe. To my mind, no rational person could look at this video and think we were created by mutation and natural selection. And no one who is intellectually honest could do anything but be in awe of the genius of God.


A clinical look at life’s complexity, design, and ultimate causation

The universe, our planet, and life itself have the appearance of being designed. Even many atheists acknowledge this. But they are quick to dismiss it as an illusion—the product of time, chance, and the laws of nature. They say the science is settled: Everything just evolved; there was no intelligent input, and no design.

However, the scientific consensus is terribly wrong, as distinguished surgeon, David Galloway, shows in this new book about intelligent design. Drawing on extensive clinical experience with the human body, Galloway examines its complex, integrated systems, demonstrating that intelligent design is the only reasonable explanation. Galloway goes on to show how the idea that life and consciousness arose spontaneously is deeply unscientific and contrary to the evidence. He also helpfully explores the question, How can ‘science’ get things so terribly wrong?

Filled with fascinating examples (both from history, and Galloway’s own long medical experience), illustrated in full colour, and with a short ‘take home message’ at the end of every chapter, Design Dissected is an engaging read. It is written from an Intelligent Design perspective (i.e. it doesn’t directly discuss God or the Bible), and comes highly recommended by some of the biggest names in the Intelligent Design movement.

OVERVIEW (excerpt from the Introduction)
The structure of the book is built around three sections. Firstly, in Enigmata, I have outlined the means by which the great questions of science have been tackled. We will see how scientific truth has sometimes even been ridiculed before finding acceptance. We’ll discover how scientific conclusions can be contaminated by presuppositions of various kinds and consider reductionism as an enterprise to uncovering causation. To put it another way, we need to address the question of whether we can support the idea that natural processes are entirely sufficient to produce what we find in the living world, or not. I also offer a warning about the dangers of scientism – that is, the assumption that science is equipped to answer every ultimate question.
The second section, Layers of Perplexity, aims to reveal why the conventional understanding of the origin of life and of biological complexity fails to carry the intellectual weight it is required to bear. I have used examples from human systems and even considered the discipline of origin of life chemistry. Each of these demonstrates that a naturalistic understanding offers a completely inadequate explanation for the intricate and nuanced systems that underpin our existence.
The final section, Thinking about Thinking, opens the mystery of the origin of consciousness and asks the questions of ultimate reality that, for many, seem to be just too difficult and are therefore consigned to the ‘consider it later’ pile!
“[Galloway] argues that explaining the origin of such systematic organization [in the human body] as a result of purely unguided natural processes stretches the limits of credulity. Instead, he makes a compelling case that this integrated and informational complexity provides powerful evidence of real, not just apparent, design. A fresh and original discussion of the evidence of intelligent design in the living system. Highly recommended.” — Dr. Stephen C. Meyer
“By far the strongest evidence that a system was deliberately designed is the very structure of the system itself. … David Galloway regales the reader with tale after tale of the wonders of the human body—and of the disasters that result when a part fails. By the end of the book, his conclusion that the body was purposely designed becomes self-evident.” — Dr. Michael J. Behe
“I strongly recommend this most impressive and thought-provoking book.” — Prof. Frank G. Dunn
 AUTHOR – David Galloway is a Scottish surgeon who trained in Glasgow, London, and New York City. He conducted original research in the causes and cellular mechanisms of some common cancers and developed a specialist practice in their surgical treatment. He was a Consultant Surgeon in Glasgow and a Former President of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow. He is also a Fellow of numerous medical and surgical Colleges and has held academic appointments in Glasgow, Kuala Lumpur, and Hong Kong.

Available from Creation Ministries International –


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


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.


Stuart Burgess is a Design Engineer. In this short video he presents the case for our planet being the result of intelligent design. Evolution is a failed theory to explain the complex systems that make up this universe. There is no mechanism to go from GOO to YOU. Natural selection can only choose from what is already created. It does not create any new structures. Mutations are loss of information not adding new information. Moreover, DNA that controls all the functions of cells is complex information and complex information has only one source intelligence.