The Make-Believe World of Darwinian Evolution

© O. R. Adams Jr., 2010

(BACK TO ARTICLES)

(Pictures similar to this are common in scientific textbooks, museum exhibits, and scientific journals and magazines. They are used to show people the evolution of man from an ape or ape-like creature. It is a prime example of unproved theory being falsely taught as scientific fact.)

If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn’t. And contrarywise, what is, it wouldn’t be. And what it wouldn’t be, it would. You see? Alice in Wonderland

When scientific decisions are influenced by what is "politically correct," it is no longer science. It is a make-believe world very similar to that of Alice in Wonderland.

The April, 2010, article, The Make-Believe World of Global Warming, presented evidence of the exaggerations, misrepresentations, and falsifications in recent global warming propaganda. The same thing has been going on in the field of Darwinian Evolution, and for a much longer time.

When I use the term, Darwinian Evolution, I am referring to what is generally taught in our schools these days as evolution, which takes the theories much further than even Darwin did in his On the Origin of the Species. It includes the unproved and improvable premise that life on earth began by mere accident in some kind of "primeval soup" resulting in a one cell amoeba, from which all plant and animal life evolved. Although it cannot be proved, the evolutionists make the illogical and unfounded assumption that God does not exist. That assumption is illogical and contrary to good science, because a matter that cannot be proved should not be assumed to be true or false. Neither should there be a scientific assumption that God does exist, because that likewise cannot be proved. The general conception of the existence of God must be accepted on faith.

Also when I use the words evolution or evolutionists in this paper, I am generally speaking of Darwinian evolution, and not of provable evolution, or those who believe in it. Evidence of provable evolution is all around us, just as there is infinite evidence of intelligent design in nature. We have historical factual evidence of how dogs, horses, and people have evolved within their species. It appears to me that on the average people have gotten larger and better looking, during my lifetime. But I know of no satisfactory evidence that any species of animal has changed into another species – much less that any plant has changed to an animal or vice versa – or that roses and elephants evolved from a common ancestor. Even such an idea is illogical. And evolutionists make such claims for only one reason – because they believe that the assumption is necessary for their theory that life came about merely by accident and that there was no purposeful design or creation. They make believe that there is no intelligent design in nature for the same reason, when such evidence is all around us.

What is interesting is that nature itself has its own barriers to different species of animals interbreeding and having offsprings, which could possibly result in a new species. For example, there are even such barriers within species. A donkey and a horse are both equines, and a male donkey can be bred to a mare horse, and get a mule offspring. But it stops there, mules do not reproduce. If it were not for those barriers of nature between breeding different species of animals – which appears to me to be another example of intelligent design, we would already have had crossbreeding of apes and humans. It has been tried, and of course failed. Under the auspices of the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin an attempt was made to cross apes and humans. "The project was supported by The American Association for the Advancement of Atheism because it was seen as 'proof of human evolution and therefore of atheism.'" Apes are not even close enough to the family of humans for crossbreeding.[1] This in itself tends to refute the teaching that man descended from apes or ape-like creatures. There is of course no evidence to support the theory in the first place.   

Also, even Darwin's ideas of natural selection and survival of the fittest work toward improvement and continuation of a species, and not to destroying it by becoming some other species. All of this is contrary to the idea that one species of an animal would change to some new species. If it were true, there should be ample evidence of it in history, because if it were true that all life came from one source, the graph of life would be in the shape of a cone – beginning at nothing at the point of the cone, and expanding to the untold number of forms of life we have today. But it hasn't happened that way at all. A greater number of different forms of life than we have today appeared rather suddenly on earth during what is known as the Cambrian Explosion. That term is used because so much life appeared so suddenly that it was considered an "explosion" of life, which occurred 500 to 600 million years ago. Since that time, a number of those forms of life have become extinct. These are evidentiary facts that are completely contrary to Darwinian Evolution, which is not based on fact. It is unfounded theory taught as fact to our students in school, and it is contrary to the evidence on the subject. Charles Darwin himself recognized the Cambrian Explosion as one of the primary obstacles to his theory of evolution, and hoped that later evidence would eliminate this contradiction to his theory, but in truth it has not – it has only increased and reinforced that contradiction.[2]

The Darwinists nevertheless guard their turf with the same ferocity as the "global warmers," and have used very similar methods. Stephen C. Meyer, who has a Ph.D. in Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University, recently wrote the article, Climategate Recalls the Attacks on Darwin Doubters.[3] The following are excerpts from the article:

... For years, Darwin-doubting scientists have complained of precisely such abuses, committed by Darwin zealots in academia. ...

... One instance involved a distinguished astrophysicist at Iowa State University, Guillermo Gonzalez, who broke ranks with colleagues in his department over the issue of intelligent design in cosmology. Released under the Iowa Open Records Act, e-mails from his fellow scientists at ISU showed how his department conspired against him, denying Dr. Gonzales tenure as retribution for his views. ...

In 2004, a peer-reviewed biology journal at the Smithsonian Institution published a technical essay of mine presenting a case for intelligent design. Colleagues of the journal’s editor, an evolutionary biologist, responded by taking away his office, his keys and his access to specimens, placing him under a hostile supervisor and spreading disinformation about him. Ultimately, he was demoted, prompting an investigation of the Smithsonian by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel. ...

But what about the Darwin debate? We are told that the consensus of scientists in favor of Darwinian evolution means the theory is no longer subject to debate. In fact, there are strong scientific reasons to doubt Darwin’s theory and what it allegedly proved.

For example, contrary to Darwinian orthodoxy, the fossil record actually challenges the idea that all organisms have evolved from a single common ancestor. Why? Fossil studies reveal “a biological big bang” near the beginning of the Cambrian period (520 million years ago) when many major, separate groups of organisms or “phyla” (including most animal body plans) emerged suddenly without clear precursors. ...

Just how bad can it get for those who do no follow the politically correct line of the liberals? It can mean the end of their careers. Professor Jeffrey Koperski, Ph.D., states in his article, TWO BAD WAYS TO ATTACK INTELLIGENT DESIGN AND TWO GOOD ONES:

How many scientists would come out of the closet if there were no risk to their careers? By my estimation, there are hundreds who would like to make a contribution, who believe that there is something critically flawed about the neo-Darwinian paradigm and that design is a better explanation for what they observe. Yet they withhold their professional opinions because of what it would mean for their careers in the present climate.[4]

When scientists have to face such harsh dogmatism, there is no search for truth – the field has indeed become the land of make-believe.

Also, like Climategate, there have long been many exaggerations, misrepresentation, and fraudulent falsifications in efforts to support Darwin's theory. A good book on this is Icons of Evolution – Science or Myth,[5] by Jonathan Wells, who is a postdoctoral biologist and senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, and holds Ph.D.s from both Yale University and the University of California at Berkley. Wells criticizes the ape-like creature to man pictures such as the one at the beginning of this article, which are common to scientific textbooks, museum exhibits, and scientific journals and magazines. They are used to show the student the evolution of man from an ape or an ape-like creature. Wells explains how the transition of the ape-like creature to human is not supported by evidence; and the misinterpretations, and actual falsifications, that have been used to support the idea of that transition. In Chapter 11, From Ape to Human: The Ultimate Icon, Wells explains some of the misrepresentations made in trying to show the missing links, even though Darwin himself knew that "fossil evidence for human evolution had not been found, there was as yet no direct evidence for natural selection, and the origin of variations was unknown." Despite the lack of evidence, such drawings showing the transition were soon enshrined in evolutionary teachings. This is nothing but teaching the make-believe as fact. The "scientists" have continually tried to come up with the evidence. First, there was the "Neanderthal Man" which was considered by some to be an early man. "French Paleontologist Marcellin Boule declared that Neanderthal was not human, and not even ancestral to humans." This became generally accepted, and left no fossil evidence for the transition. Then came the fake and fraudulent "Piltdown Man" in 1912. This served as the evolutionists "missing link" for decades. "In 1953 Joseph Weiner, Kenneth Oakley, and Wilfred Le Gros Clark proved the Piltdown skull, though perhaps thousands of years old, belonged to a modern human, while the jaw fragments were more recent and belonged to a modern orangutan. The jaw had been chemically treated to make it look like a fossil, and its teeth had been filed down to make it look human. Weiner and his colleagues concluded that Piltdown man was a forgery." So there went another missing link.

There still is no real evidence to support the transition of an ape or an ape-like creature to modern man. Nevertheless, the beat goes on in the textbooks, in the magazines, and in the nature movies, speaking of apes as our ancestors or "cousins," and using the fraudulent pictures in support of those ideas. Wells in his book referred to above, explains many other frauds and misrepresentations used to try to prove links between different species of animals. I have yet to see any satisfactory evidence of any transition from one species of animal to another. As explained above, if Darwinian theories of evolution were true, a graph of life on earth would be similar to a cone, and there should be abundant solid evidence of transitions of one species to another, but the real evidence is still missing. This in itself is strong evidence against those theories, but we are continually bombarded with their propaganda teaching their illogical theories as proven facts.  

Another thing that evolutionists cannot explain is why humans are the only ones pondering these problems of evolutionary theory? Why aren't apes and monkeys and other animals doing the same thing? Why is it that only humans have evolved to where they write books, paint pictures, invent boats, automobiles, airplanes, and computers? Yet humans are comparative newcomers to this world. When I was in high school, I heard the theory advanced that it was because people walked upright and had well developed thumbs. The evolutionists seem to have left those theories and tried to develop ideas and theories on humans having a rather sudden and large increase in their brain sizes. But why? And how? None of them really answer these questions at all. There is only one explanation that I have ever found that fits the facts, and it is not science at all. It is the following from Genesis, 1:27-28, King James Version of the Bible:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

There is also abundant evidence that completely disproves the basic Darwinian premise that life on earth came about by accident. That is the evidence all around us of the intelligent design in nature. Most, if not all, of the greatest minds in recorded history have recognized this intelligent design. But the evolutionists fight the idea, and fight the teaching of intelligent design in science courses, because they know it is the death knell of Darwinian evolution. This would completely disrupt their turf – their control of education, grants, peer reviewed publications, and their complete evolution hierarchy. They know that evidence of purposeful design indicates one or more designers, and this is an idea that is fatal to both the basis of Darwinian evolution, and to atheism – the companion of evolution. Some even admit the design in nature, but illogically argue that the design came about by accident. This of course is contrary to the very definition of design – it is mere desperation. It should also be pointed out that the word, design, when used in conjunction with something constructed for a purpose, necessarily includes the premise of intelligence behind the design. The word, intelligent, when used along with the word, design, could be considered superfluous. Recognizing this, most evolutionists merely take the false position that there is no purposeful design in nature.

Great Scientists and Intelligent Design

I have selected eight of those who I consider the greatest scientific minds of the last 500 years. Each of them clearly recognized the intelligent design in nature. Some were devout Christians, who necessarily recognized that design, because they believed that God created the heavens and the earth as a part of their religion. But that of course did not prevent them from recognizing the plain evidence of that design in nature. In recognizing the purposeful design in nature, they necessarily recognized that there would have been one or more designers; and many took it a step further. They attributed the design to God, which was consistent with their religion; although this last step was necessarily by faith, as there is no evidence to prove that assumption. Take mathematics, for example – some said that mathematics was the "language of God," and others said mathematics was the "language of nature." They were both talking about the same mathematics. I will cover the eight selected scientists in the chronological order of their birth.

1. Johannes Kepler. (1571-1630) Without question, Kepler was the greatest mathematician and scientist of his time, and perhaps of all time. He "discovered fundamental laws of nature that have stood the test of time and are still widely used today.  He advanced mathematics in science to new heights, including the first use of logarithms for astronomy and the foundation for integral calculus.  He made useful inventions.  He was a major force in moving science away from its subservience to authority and onto an empirical foundation, and from superstition to mathematical law. He helped mankind understand how the universe works. When the great Isaac Newton expressed that his ability to see farther than others was due to “standing on the shoulders of giants,” he most certainly had Kepler in mind." "Kepler is considered the Father of Celestial Mechanics." He was also a devout Christian. "To him, the God of the Scriptures was the great Mathematician. Kepler’s signature work, the Harmony of the World described his conception of the heavenly bodies making a kind of celestial 'music of the spheres' as the outworking of the mind of God, perfect in geometric harmony. It expressed his belief that the world of nature, the world of man and world of God all fit together into a harmonious system that could be explored by science."[6] Kepler said:

The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order and harmony which has been imposed on it by God and which He revealed to us in the language of mathematics. (Wikipedia) 

2. Sir Isaac Newton. (1642-1727) "That the greatest scientist of all time was a Christian and a creationist should give any Darwinian pause. Co-inventor of the calculus, discoverer of the law of universal gravitation and the three laws of motion, analyzer of white light split into colors by means of a prism, inventor of the reflecting telescope and author of the most important book of the scientific revolution (the Principia Mathematica), Sir Isaac Newton is unexcelled in the roll call of great scientists."[7] He said:

This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being.  (Wikipedia)  

3. Leonhard Euler. (1707-1783) I consider Euler to probably be the greatest scientific genius of all time. He greatly advanced calculus, and he derived several direct formulas for determining Pi (the relationship between the circumference and the diameter of a circle).

"According to math professor Howard Anton, he 'made major contributions to virtually every branch of mathematics as well as to the theory of optics, planetary motion, electricity, magnetism, and general mechanics.'" "Euler was so smart it’s almost scary. In his thick textbook Calculus, Howard Anton includes brief biographies of famous mathematicians; his entry on Euler sounds like an episode from Ripley’s 'Believe It or Not' –

Euler was probably the most prolific mathematician who ever lived.  It has been said that, “Euler wrote mathematics as effortlessly as most men breathe.” .... Euler’s energy and capacity for work were virtually boundless.  His collected works form about 60 to 80 quarto sized volumes and it is believed that much of his work has been lost.  What is particularly astonishing is that Euler was blind for the last 17 years of his life, and this was one of his most productive periods!  Euler’s flawless memory was phenomenal.  Early in his life he memorized the entire Aeneid by Virgil and at age 70 could not only recite the entire work, but could also state the first and last sentence on each page of the book from which he memorized the work.  His ability to solve problems in his head was beyond belief.  He worked out in his head major problems of lunar motion that baffled Isaac Newton and once did a complicated calculation in his head to settle an argument between two students whose computations differed in the fiftieth decimal place."

In his later life, Euler became blind. "Undeterred by misfortune, upheaval and disability, Euler continued his work. With only his mind’s eye, he worked through detailed algorithms and dictated them to his sons.  Dan Graves said that his work actually became clearer and more concise.  An online biography at Ryerson Polytechnic Institute states that 'He was apparently able to do extensive and complex calculations in his head, remembering every step so that he could recite them for his sons to record. ... he published more than 500 books and papers during his lifetime, with another 400 appearing posthumously'.  Another online biography claims that his death in 1783 left a vast backlog of articles that the St. Petersburg Academy continued to publish for nearly 50 more years.  Dan Graves tallies his publications at 886, which he claims have only recently been brought together, and constitute the size of a large set of encyclopedias. The Encyclopedia Britannica says the compilations began in 1911 and are still continuing!  That’s an incredible volume of writing for anyone, let alone technical writing, especially for a blind man!"[8]

The following are quotations from the online book on Euler, Leonhard Euler – His Life and His Faith, by Dr. George W. Benthien, who has a Ph.D. in mathematics from Carnegie-Mellon University [9], p. 4, which clearly show Euler's recognition of intelligent design in nature: 

Euler was a committed Christian and frequently expressed awe at the works of the Creator. Euler was particularly impressed by the design of the eye. Here is one statement that he made concerning the eye:

though  we are very far short of perfect knowledge of the subject, the little we do know of it is more than sufficient to convince us of the power and wisdom of the Creator. We discover in the structure of the eye perfections that the most exalted genius could not have imagined.

Concerning the calculus of variations he wrote:

for the fabric of the universe is most perfect and the work of a most wise creator, nothing at all takes place in the universe in which some rule of the maximum or minimum does not appear. – Leonhard Euler, Methodist Inveniendi Unius Curvus, 1st Addition, Art. 1 (1744).

4. Michael Faraday. (1791-1867) Though a religious "nonconformist," Michael Faraday was a devout Christian. "He became the world’s greatest experimental physicist. To this day he is often admired as such, notwithstanding the ultra-tech toys modern chemists and physicists have at their possession.  The president of the Institution for Electrical Engineers (IEE), for instance, at the unveiling of a Michael Faraday statue in 1989, said, 'His discoveries have had an incalculable effect on subsequent scientific and technical development.  He was a true pioneer of scientific discovery.' ... His contemporaries would have concurred with the praise Lord Rutherford expressed in 1931, 64 years after his death: 'The more we study the work of Faraday with the perspective of time, the more we are impressed by his unrivalled genius as an experimenter and natural philosopher. When we consider the magnitude and extent of his discoveries and their influence on the progress of science and industry, there is no honor too great to pay to the memory of Michael Faraday—one of the greatest scientific discoverers of all time.'"

"Encyclopedia Britannica summarizes some of his important discoveries:

Faraday, who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century, began his career as a chemist.  He wrote a manual of practical chemistry that reveals the mastery of the technical aspects of his art, discovered a number of new organic compounds, among them benzene, and was the first to liquefy a “permanent” gas (i.e., one that was believed to be incapable of liquefaction).  His major contribution, however, was in the field of electricity and magnetism.  He was the first to produce an electric current from a magnetic field, invented the first electric motor and dynamo, demonstrated the relation between electricity and chemical bonding, discovered the effect of magnetism on light, and discovered and named diamagnetism, the peculiar behaviour of certain substances in strong magnetic fields.  He provided the experimental, and a good deal of the theoretical, foundation upon which James Clerk Maxwell erected classical electromagnetic field theory."

"Faraday could take a simple household object, a candle, and draw out of it all the diverse wonders of nature. That’s a prime illustration of Muir’s Law:

 'Any time we try to isolate something by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe.'"

Faraday, as indicated above, recognized "the unity of the forces of nature," which is an important element of intelligent design. And Faraday said:

 "To admit, indeed, that force may be destructible or can altogether disappear, would be to admit that matter could be uncreated...." [10]

Faraday's views on the forces of nature being indestructible coincide with a very important law of nature that shows its balance and design, which is the First Law of Thermodynamics: The first law of thermodynamics, an expression of the principle of conservation of energy, states that energy can be transformed (changed from one form to another), but cannot be created or destroyed.[11]  (The same applies to matter.) Faraday's beliefs of the unity of nature, and that man could neither create nor destroy the forces of nature necessarily recognized the intelligent design of nature, as did all of these great scientists.

5. Louis Pasteur. (1822-1895) Louis Pasteur was a devout Christian. Some consider him the greatest biologist of all time whose work saved more human lives than that of any other scientist. He was also a chemist. He developed the germ theory of disease, and he developed the "pasteurization" of milk and other foods and products. He developed treatment and inoculation for rabies. 

"Though best known for discoveries in medicine, Pasteur was a chemist.  One of his early discoveries still baffles evolutionists today.  While studying crystals under polarized light, he found that certain molecules come in left- and right-handed forms that are mirror-images of each other, a phenomenon now known as chirality.  Even more remarkable, he found that living things use entirely one hand.  Most natural substances are composed of fifty-fifty 'racemic' mixtures of both hands, the 'stereoisomers' of a given chiral molecule, but for some reason living things were 100% pure of one hand.  Pasteur recognized this as a defining characteristic of life, and it remains a mystery to this day.

"We now know that proteins, which are made up of 100% pure left-handed amino acids, could not function if they were racemic (mixtures of both hands), but how did life get started with just one hand, when both are equally probable?  This appears to be a clear evidence of intelligent design, because the probability of getting just one hand in a chain of amino acids is vanishingly small, like flipping a coin and getting heads a hundred times in a row.  Pasteur certainly considered this an evidence of a Creator, but today evolutionists are continuing to struggle with this observational fact, looking for some natural process that would yield even a hopeful majority to one hand or the other.  To this day, none has succeeded.  They know that close enough is not good enough; only a 100% pure chain would work.  The problem is compounded by the discovery that RNA and DNA contain sugar molecules that are 100% right-handed."[12]

The idea that life came about by accident in some kind of "primeval soup" is completely contrary to Pasteur's work and findings. Pasteur demonstrated that microorganisms do not develop from nonorganic matter. 

"Today, believers in spontaneous generation are back with a vengeance. They are called astrobiologists and chemical evolutionists.  Their slant is that spontaneous generation does not happen quickly, but can over millions of years, not from nutrient broth, but from primordial soup– organic molecules known to be formed naturally, like some amino acids.  They believe that, given enough time and the right circumstances, life arose from simple molecules and evolved into every living thing, seahorses, giraffes, dinosaurs, roses, and humans.  Do they have any evidence for this?  Absolutely not. Pasteur’s Law of Biogenesis, that only life begets life, stands as firm as it did in 1862.  Pasteur’s judgment on those who violate that law should be sternly proclaimed from the lecterns of today’s Astrobiology conferences as he proclaimed it in person: 'Those who maintain this view are the victims of illusions, of ill-conducted experiments, blighted with errors that they have either been unable to perceive or unable to avoid.'"[13] [Emphasis added.]

Pasteur said:

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.[14]

6. James Clark Maxwell. (1831-1879) Certainly Maxwell stands tall among the greatest scientists in history. He was also a devout Christian, and clearly recognized the intelligent design inherent in nature.[15]

"Do you use a cell phone?  A pager?  A remote control for your TV?  A radio?  Television?  You owe these inventions in large part to Maxwell. Radar, satellite, spacecraft and aircraft communications – any and every means of transferring information through thin air or the vacuum of space, comes out of his work.  The inventors of all these devices all built on Maxwell’s exceptional discoveries in electromagnetism, discoveries that required the best in experimental method with the best in mathematics and theory. Maxwell discovered many things, as we shall see, but his crowning achievement was the summation of all electromagnetic phenomena in four differential equations, appropriately named Maxwell’s Equations in his honor. These equations, that express natural laws, not only brought together all the work of Faraday, Ohm, Volta, Ampere, and everyone else who had studied the curious properties of electricity and magnetism, but made an absolutely astounding and important prediction: that light itself was an electromagnetic wave, and through manipulation of electromagnetic waves, it might be possible to transmit information through empty space. Thus, our modern world. The importance of these equations can hardly be overstated. Dr. Richard Feynman, Nobel laureate and influential 20th-century modern physicist, paid his respects this way: “From a long view of the history of mankind–seen from, say, ten thousand years from now– there can be little doubt that the most significant event of the 19th century will be judged as Maxwell’s discovery of the laws of electrodynamics.” Electricity and magnetism, mere curiosities when explored by Faraday and explained by Maxwell, turned out to generate more economic wealth than the entire British stock exchange. Our modern world is inconceivable without the experimental and theoretical foundation laid by these two great Christians and scientists who harnessed mysterious laws of nature for human benefit."[16] [Emphasis added.]

Maxwell understood that his equations expressed "natural law" – the laws of nature. These mathematical equations are the tools with which we are able to harness and use those laws of nature. It is indeed odd that there are people who call themselves scientists, that recognize that mathematics and the equations by which we work with the laws and forces of nature are intelligently designed, because this mathematical language of nature was developed by humans; yet they seem unable to recognize that the laws of nature themselves, which are the bases of all mathematics, are intelligently designed. Without the laws of nature, the whole idea of mathematics would be completely meaningless. I explain this in detail in the article on this website, The Bases of Mathematics are Intelligently Designed. In that article, I also refer to a number of other scientists and mathematicians who clearly understood this. Albert Einstein explained it rather succinctly in his statement: "Our experience up to date justifies us in feeling sure that in nature is actualized the idea of mathematical simplicity."

Maxwell said:

Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity.[17]

"In his new book 'Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design' (HarperOne), my Discovery Institute colleague Stephen Meyer writes about his days as a Ph.D. student at Cambridge University, contemplating the entrance to the great Cavendish Laboratory where Watson and Crick elucidated the structure of DNA’s double helix. In 1871, Christian physicist James Clark Maxwell had instructed that the great door be ennobled by an inscription in Latin from the book of Psalms: 'Great are the works of the Lord, sought out by all who take pleasure therein.'"[18]

The last two scientists I have selected were certainly not Christian, and their ideas of God were primarily based on nature and its intelligent design.

7. Thomas Alvin Edison. (1847-1931) "Edison is considered one of the most prolific inventors in history, holding 1,093 U.S. patents in his name, as well as many patents in the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. He is credited with numerous inventions that contributed to mass communication and, in particular, telecommunications. His advanced work in these fields was an outgrowth of his early career as a telegraph operator. Edison originated the concept and implementation of electric-power generation and distribution to homes, businesses, and factories – a crucial development in the modern industrialized world. His first power station was on Manhattan Island, New York." He developed many devices that greatly influenced life around the world, including the phonograph, the motion picture camera, and a long-lasting, practical electric light bulb.[19]  He certainly is high on the list of scientific geniuses. Edison 's belief in the intelligent design of nature is clearly shown by his following statements:

You have misunderstood the whole article, because you jumped to the conclusion that it denies the existence of God. There is no such denial, what you call God I call Nature, the Supreme intelligence that rules matter.[20]

I do not believe in the God of the theologians; but that there is a Supreme Intelligence I do not doubt.[21]

8. Albert Einstein. ((1879-1955) Einstein "was a German-born Swiss-American theoretical physicist, philosopher and author who is widely regarded as one of the most influential and best known scientists and intellectuals of all time. He is often regarded as the father of modern physics. He received the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics 'for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect.'

"His many contributions to physics include the special and general theories of relativity, the founding of relativistic cosmology, the first post-Newtonian expansion, explaining the perihelion advance of Mercury, prediction of the deflection of light by gravity and gravitational lensing, the first fluctuation dissipation theorem which explained the Brownian movement of molecules, the photon theory and wave-particle duality, the quantum theory of atomic motion in solids, the zero-point energy concept, the semiclassical version of the Schrödinger equation, and the quantum theory of a monatomic gas which predicted Bose–Einstein condensation."[22] 

As to mathematics and nature, Einstein stated in a lecture, "Geometry and Experience," before the Prussian Academy of Science, January 27, 1921:

One reason why mathematics enjoys special esteem, above all other sciences, is that its propositions are absolutely certain and indisputable, while those of all other sciences are to some extent debatable and in constant danger of being overthrown by newly discovered facts. ... But there is another reason for the high repute of mathematics, in that it is mathematics, which affords the exact natural sciences a certain measure of certainty, to which without mathematics they could not attain.[23]

 Einstein also said:

Our experience up to date justifies us in feeling sure that in nature is actualized the idea of mathematical simplicity. (Albert Einstein, Le Matin, March 29,1922, quoted in Abraham Pais, Einstein Lived Here, 1994)

In his essay, "The World as I See It," Einstein wrote "of the Reason that manifests itself in nature." (Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, New York, 1954, p. 11.)

That Einstein clearly considered these aspects of nature to be of intelligent design is shown by his following statement:

You will hardly find one among the profounder sort of scientific minds without a peculiar religious feeling of his own . . . . His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. (Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, New York, 1954, p. 40.) 

You cannot get a clearer statement of intelligent design in nature than Einstein's above statement. The people today who fight to keep the teaching and research of intelligent design in nature out of our science and biology classes are mental midgets compared to the eight scientific geniuses referred to above, all of whom clearly recognized intelligent design in nature. 

---------------------------------------------------------------

There are many other great scientists of history that recognized intelligent design in nature. Many are discussed on the website, The Worlds Greatest Creation Scientists – from Y1K to Y2K, by David. F. Coppedge.[24] Today there are a number of reputable scientists that present arguments for intelligent design in nature; many of whom are connected with the Discovery Institute, whose main purpose is the exploration of design in nature and the universe. However, although they are certainly important to the concept, I think that many of the papers get too complicated for the average person to grasp or to really try to understand. The explanations of "irreducible complexity" and "specified complexity" can get rather complicated. However there are simple examples all around us of intelligent design in nature. Anyone who does not have a mental block in that area, and who studies the makeup and functions of the eye, can readily see, as Leonhard Euler did, that it was designed for the purpose of seeing; and that it works for the purpose for which it was designed. Evolutionists wish to ignore that design, and theorize on how it could have come about by evolution. They just cannot face the fact that even though a particular kind of eye of a particular animal may have sometime been affected by evolution, when the eye first appeared, it could have been for no other purpose than seeing. That was the obvious purpose of its design and makeup. Common sense tells us that. Must the study of evolution be devoid of common sense?

If a person examines a camera, and learns its parts and use, common sense tells him that one or more people designed it. He merely observes how the parts work together to accomplish a purpose. Why cannot this reasoning be applied to the examination of the eye in the same way? It of course can, except by those who have a biased mental block as to such things. Their mental block is because they know that the designer or designers were not human, and they would have to forsake their unfounded assumption that an intellect capable of designing the eye has never existed. There is no way that their unfounded assumption can be proved. And even worse they ignore the evidence that is directly contrary to their unfounded assumption.

Another intentionally false argument that evolutionists make to keep intelligent design in nature from being taught or explored in science classes in our schools is that it is merely "disguised religious creationism." Both they and the liberal judges that accept such arguments have to know that they are false. Such arguments are made and accepted only because they know that the acceptance of the truth of intelligent design spells the end of modern Darwinism. Although the examination of something like an eye or a camera shows evidence of design for a purpose, and the implication would be that there were one or more designers, the evidence does not show who the designer or designers were nor how many there may have been. This claim of "religious creationism" is just one more area of the make-believe world of Darwinian evolutionists. The last thing they want is an objective examination of their claims.

The things that have always been quite intriguing to me, and that clearly establish the purposeful design in nature, are the many types of plant and animal reproductive designs. Even the most simple form of life could not continue to exist without something designed for its reproduction.

Let us consider the reproduction of humans and a number of animals. It requires a male and a female. Each has organs that are designed to work with the organs of the other sex. The female has additional organs for the formation and nurture of a baby. Then there is something that is altogether in a different place, but it is still a necessary element. That is a desire to use the organs, and the satisfaction in the use. That is probably connected with the brain of each sex. All of these elements work together for successful reproduction. Anyone who cannot see in all of this a plan and design for the purpose of reproduction has closed his or her mind to the facts.

The reproduction of certain plant life is equally interesting in the way different elements in nature work together. In the article on this website, Evidence of Intelligent Design in Nature, I have some pictures of the Devil's Claw plant. It has a seed pod in the middle, and two long horn like claws that are hooked and sharp on the end. If you become familiar with how this setup operates, the purposeful design is obvious. It also has worked well for ages. The claws are designed so that one will hang onto a passing object such as an animal or a blowing tumbleweed. The other claw grasps at things as it moves along and is brought in contact with them. Two things are accomplished – the seed pods are spread around the country, and the pulling apart of the two claws releases the seeds. When anyone looks at this plant, and learns how well it works, the purposeful design for reproduction is obvious. What is particularly interesting to me, is how so many unconnected elements in nature work together for the purpose of reproduction of this little plant. This plant does not have a mind by which it could plan this design itself. And "natural selection" is no answer. This plant has had that design ever since it was known to exist – it is in its DNA. The "natural selection" speculation – and speculation is all that it is – provides no satisfactory answer. The DNA, from the outset, had to have contained a design for the plant to produce a seed and the nature of the seed, as do all plants. Although we have no proof of it, perhaps through evolution there could have been some improvement or change in the plant, but the design for reproduction had to have been there from the outset, or the plant could never have reproduced.

Another example is the seed of the cottonwood tree. The seed is in a very light material designed so that when matured and dry it catches the wind and floats in the air, and the seeds are thus spread around the country by the wind. Another example is blackberries, which are attractive food for birds. The seeds are made so that the birds do not digest them, and they spread the seeds around to other places. There are more methods of reproduction in nature than we can count or know about, yet they all successfully work for the same purpose – reproduction of the species. For all of these different and complicated designs to have come about by the accident of "natural selection" is beyond belief to anyone with an open thinking mind. That evolutionist idea is supported by no evidence at all.

All of these things work in harmony just as our solar system works in harmony, and by which the earth, the moon and the sun are kept in their orbits. The greatest minds of history have recognized these things throughout history. Those people did not close their minds to the facts.

Evolutionists even say that there is no evidence of intelligent design. They apparently do not even know what evidence is. Evidence is merely a set of facts or circumstances, or acceptable statements tending to establish such facts or circumstances, from which a reasonable inference can be drawn in support of a point in question. The parts and makeup of the eye, the elements of various systems of reproduction, and the manners in which they operate and accomplish their purposes are well established facts. To say that a reasonable inference may not be drawn that these things were designed to accomplish what they are accomplishing is contrary to any reason and common sense. Many scientists readily admit that there is the "appearance" of design. This appearance itself is evidence. When we look at all of these things together – such operational things in nature as the eye, the various reproductive systems, and the operation and balance of the solar system – the evidence of purposeful design is overwhelming, and there is no evidence to the contrary. All there is to the contrary is merely misguided illogical speculation.

True evolution should be taught in our schools. Objective research should be done. Darwin's theory should be taught only as theory, along with all of the valid criticisms. Along with it should be taught and explored the intelligent design in nature and the universe. 

I believe that the teaching of Darwinian evolution in our schools has been the most destructive thing that has ever happened in America. It gives the agnostics and atheists the base for their ideas, and has led to a steep decline in the beliefs in Judeo-Christian values, and to the precipitous decline of morality in America. It worked with and paved the way for the sex pervert, Alfred Kinsey, and his perverted and false teachings on sexuality – leading to our "sexual revolution." Kinsey's false ideas were also readily accepted, taught in our schools, and promoted in the media, along with Darwinism. These were primary factors behind the drug and immoral culture of the 1960s, which has continued and even increased into what we have today. There has been a tremendous increase in couples living together without marriage, and almost half of our children are now born out of wedlock. In the more socialistic countries in Europe, more than half of the children are now born out of wedlock. Poverty, illegitimate children, drug addiction, violence and trouble in our schools, and children engaging in violence and murder of other children, have become a part of American life and of European life. Our prisons are overcrowded to the point that officials try to determine who they can turn lose to prey on the public that would do the least harm. Almost half of the people in this country are not sufficiently productive to even pay income taxes. We are fast becoming a socialistic welfare state. When a country loses its moral mooring, these things can be expected.

------------------------------------------

The following are other articles on this website that relate to this subject and are more detailed on various relevant matters: 

Cone of Evolution

Evidence of Intelligent Design in Nature

Intelligent Design Should be Taught in Biology Classes

The Bases of Mathematics are Intelligently Designed

The Immoral Religions of Atheism and Evolution


Endnotes:

[1] Human-Ape Hybridization: A Failed Attempt to Prove Darwinism, by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D. http://www.icr.org/article/human-ape-hybridization-failed-attempt/

[2] See the article, Cone of Evolution, on this website.

[3] http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=34935

[4]http://www8.svsu.edu/~koperski/Two%20Bad%20Ways%20to%20Attack%20Intelligent%20Design%20and%20Two%20Good%20Ones.pdf

[5] Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution – Science or Myth, Regnery (2000)

[6] http://creationsafaris.com/wgcs_1.htm#kepler

[7] http://creationsafaris.com/wgcs_2.htm#newton

[8] http://creationsafaris.com/wgcs_3.htm#euler

[9] http://gbenthien.net/Euler/Euler.pdf

[10] http://creationsafaris.com/wgcs_3.htm#faraday

[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics

[12] http://creationsafaris.com/wgcs_4.htm#pasteur

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid.

[15] http://creationsafaris.com/wgcs_3.htm#maxwell

[16] Ibid.

[17] Ibid.

[18] http://www.discovery.org/a/11601

[19] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Edison

[20] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Edison#Views_on_politics.2C_religion_and_metaphysics

[21]http://books.google.com/books?id=QJb16_AAePkC&pg=PA435&lpg=PA435&dq=%22I+do+not+believe+in+the+God+of+the+theologians%3B+but+that+there+is+a+Supreme+Intelligence+I+do+not+doubt.%22&source=bl&ots=Ku-18O5sC3&sig=cwYRxo3tAXfnXG86fFba4dJhUT0&hl=en&ei=6r7DS8rtBcaTnQeqh9DpCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CBgQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22I%20do%20not%20believe%20in%20the%20God%20of%20the%20theologians%3B%20but%20that%20there%20is%20a%20Supreme%20Intelligence%20I%20do%20not%20doubt.%22&f=false

[22] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein

[23] http://pascal.iseg.utl.pt/~ncrato/Math/Einstein.htm

[24] http://creationsafaris.com/wgcs_toc.htm

(BACK TO ARTICLES)