Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed? Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.”4 Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”5 The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer, that is not acceptable. Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes?
So, we can dig up some pottery and see that the very simple design of pottery points to a human designer; and when we see the apparently complex designs of jets, computers, traffic systems, and information systems we understand that these complex designs are the results of teams of extremely smart and intelligent designers; but when we see the even more complex designs of the creatures on this planet, and the extreme complexity of the inner workings of a living cell and the various systems involved in living creatures and even in single cells, we are supposed to believe, without any proof, that there was no designer involved? Really?
_____________________
Related Articles:
______________________
4 Dawkins, R., The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, p. 1, 1986.
5 Crick, F., What mad pursuit: a Personal View of Scientific Discovery, Sloan Foundation Science, London, 1988, p. 138.
Absolutely
ReplyDelete