Seeking to Define the Essence of the Difference
Between "Evolution" and "Creation"
18. IS THERE EVIDENCE OF A CREATOR?
At this point, i would like to submit that the dispute is NOT between "evolution" and "creation" it is "is there a creator or not" and if there is, what evidence is there to prove that a creator exists.
Thus far i have offered various points that i hold to be experientially true for me, none of which are particularly amenable to third party verification. As much as i may be passionately convinced of the veracity of these points as a consequence of personal experiences that i hold to be profound, my experiences and my faith are of no relevance to a third party seeking to make an informed decision that conforms to fundamental scientific and engineering principles.
At this stage i would like to explore some evidence that seems to me to be directly accessible to almost any person in the world and of which i think you are likely to have at least some personal experience that you can relate to.
I will do this first by considering the environment in which most human beings live, their dwelling, transport, furnishings, etc and secondly by considering some specific attributes of being a human being.
In doing this i will seek to focus on those items that i have some level of personal knowledge and experience of although at times i will also refer to items that i have had a significant number of independent confirmations of and therefore consider reasonably likely to be valid.
In each case i offer a number of points which each seem to me to offer robust empirical evidence of a creator which, individually, may not carry much weight but which i like to think collectively do offer robust evidence.
At all times, on each point and on the entire thesis, it is a matter of personal choice. It is my hope to persuade you but it is not necessary for me to do this.
19. EVIDENCE IN THE IMMEDIATE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
After much thought about the subject of this document, i eventually identified a number of factors which seemed to me to be relevant in terms of my own personal experience in my daily life and which it seems to me could be relevant to most people on the planet. This may not apply fully to every example but i hope that at least some of them will be relevant to you.
As with the rest of this document, my intention is not to present a comprehensive case for any single point but to raise some broad principles that seem important to me in the hope that the collective case will provide a basis for an informed decision, which ever way that decision may go.
I hope that each example will demonstrate in some way the probability of planned (engineered) creative evolution and therefore the existence of a creator as an intelligent external agency with a clear objective who managed and directed the entire process of development.
19.1. LAND BASED MAMMALS WITHOUT WINGS
For this example i would like to largely exclude marine mammals like whales and dolphins and winged mammals, specifically bats. I would like to focus on the land based mammals that most human beings have had some contact with, ranging from cats, dogs and rats through to elephant, antelope, sheep, cattle, apes, etc.
On reflecting on the subject of this article, it seemed noteworthy to me that the majority of land mammals in the categories i have chosen to focus on have basically similar structure and design:
1) Four legs
2) Two ears on the side of the head toward the top
3) Two eyes towards the top of the head and in front
4) A nose or breathing apparatus (trunk in the case of elephants) below the eyes and central to the head.
5) A mouth below the nose
6) The head is on a neck which connects at the base of the skull to the end of the body above the front limbs
7) Where there is a tail it is at the rear end of the body between and above the rear limbs
8) The anus is between the rear limbs, forward of the tail and behind the genitals
9) The genitals are between the rear limbs
10) The male genitals have essentially the same external structure - a penis with the capacity to become erect and two testicles
11) The female genitals are, as far as i know, essentially similar
12) The body is symmetrical in the form of a mirror image of the left and right sides - the left ear is a mirror of the right ear, the left forelimb of the right forelimb, etc
There are also more detailed aspects such as structure of the skeleton, design of the eyes, design of the internal organs, reproductive system, etc which, as far as i know, are broadly similar. I do not have detailed knowledge of this aspect and such knowledge is not readily available to the majority of people so i chose not to go into further detail.
The human body conforms largely to the same pattern with the exception of greater differentiation in certain respects from the other animals referred to in this category.
Apes seem visibly closer to humans than other mammals thereby supporting a view that apes were created as a more specialised form of land mammal and that the basic design for apes was then used as the starting point for development of humans, possibly using a progressive prototyping approach as outlined in a previous section.
I say this in recognition of my understanding that it is the view of those who favour evolution that man evolved from apes without an external creative agency, planner, designer or engineer.
It seems to me that there is remarkable consistency within this group of animals. It is my impression that this consistency becomes even more apparent if one considers skeletal structure, blood system, nervous system, eye structure, reproductive system, etc.
My engineering experience suggests to me that this level of consistency requires external management of the evolution process. All the variations of design within this group seem to me to be harmonious with an overall theme.
This suggests to me that at the very least all these animals originated from a single prototype pair and that there was only one pair of this prototype on the entire planet. It further suggests to me that all other less successful prototypes died out.
If one accepts a concept of unplanned, unengineered, spontaneous evolution, it seems to me to be impossible for two pairs with exactly the same design to originate spontaneously and simultaneously AND in such a way that they could interbreed and carry the same genetic structure in matching male and female forms. I simply do not have the capacity to visualise such duplication and therefore it seems clear to me that there must have been a single pair to start with.
I can only support this from a perspective of my own experience that it is very difficult to design and build two duplicate complex systems without careful planning and design and careful manufacturing quality control. It seems to me that anyone who has tried to make several identical copies of one item, whether a knitting pattern, a dog kennel or anything more complex will have experience that it requires time and effort. It also seems to me that anyone who has attempted such duplication will have experience that without high attention to detail the resulting products will be different at a noticeable and significant level.
I am not saying that this cannot happen with spontaneous evolution, i am saying that it seems to me to represent a very precarious point in the evolutionary process - only one pair that has no knowledge of other variants elsewhere on the planet somehow manages to survive and all other derivatives vanish.
It seems to me that in a process of spontaneous evolution it would be inevitable that evolution would proceed at different rates at different locations in the world. Accordingly it seems inevitable to me that there would be multiple variants and that at least some of these variants would persist indefinitely. At the very least it seems to me that there would be significant occurrences of such variants in the fossil record. I do not recall ever having read or heard of the level of fossil variation that it seems to me would result.
In order to try and make my point clearer, i would like to briefly address the number of legs. All these animals have four limbs. As i understand it, even bats and whales have four limbs. Insects have six legs, arthropods have eight legs, other invertebrates have ten or more legs.
If all animals evolved spontaneously without any coordinating influence i don't understand why are there no mammals with six, eight or ten legs. Or even animals with one, three, five, seven or nine legs.
In a review of a book by a professor who it has been suggested to me is authoritative in the field of evolution, i encountered the following quote: "to a first approximation, all animals fly ... because ... to a first approximation, all species are insects". Since the quote is off a web site that is opposed to what this professor has written i accept that it might be inaccurate. In the hope that this is not so i have chosen to cite the reference as it seems to support my point.
If all animals are to a first approximation insects then i do not understand why at least some mammals do not have six legs.
I raise this point because it seems to me that survival of the fittest suggests that, at least in some cases, six or eight legs would be preferable to four. In the case of a four legged animal, if is in a fight or in danger and one leg is injured, it has a significant disadvantage as far as i can see. In contrast, it seems clear to me that a six or eight legged animal would be in a much better position to survive.
When a cat such as a lion, tiger or cheetah is pursuing its prey at speed, the television programmes that i have watched suggest to me that the cat is relatively unstable when it tackles its prey and it sometimes loses the animal it is pursuing as a consequence. It seems to me that if it was running on four legs and had two legs to tackle its prey this would give a higher survival rate.
I have travelled at high speed over rough terrain in armored fighting vehicles with four, six and eight wheels. In my experience the six and eight wheel vehicles have far better stability and traction. I have also traveled at speed in a six wheeled armored personnel carrier which was missing one wheel. The vehicle remained stable and mobile. This experience gives me strong grounds to suggest that a four legged mammal is sub-optimal from a survival of the fittest perspective.
Accordingly, i don't understand why there are no land mammals with more than four legs. As far as i am aware there have not even been reports of fossils of land mammals with more than four legs. Particularly if a prominent evolutionist believes that mammals evolved from insects i have great difficulty in seeing how this can support evolution.
It seems much easier for me to believe that there is a creator who chose to create mammals with four limbs for whatever reasons He considered appropriate.
Along similar lines, it seems to me that survival of the fittest would support many animals having four eyes with two at the back of the head, certainly for those animals that are subject to being preyed upon such as antelope. It seems to me that rodents which are subject to predation by birds would benefit from eyes in the top of their heads as well.
If survival of the fittest occurred in terms of spontaneous evolution i wonder why humans do not have eyes in the back of their heads, this would surely improve survival rates? This seems to me to suggest a creator who wanted humans in particular to learn to work in teams.
Television recreations of "primitive" men fleeing from pursuers show them constantly looking over their shoulders, surely an additional two or four eyes must have come into existence spontaneously at some stage and must surely have supported survival if spontaneous evolution is valid.
Virtually every motor vehicle that travels on public roads has a rear-view mirror or a television camera at the rear again evidencing the importance of rearward vision.
On another track, there are reptiles which have similar external structure to that of the mammals outlined above. This seems to me to indicate the need for at least one additional intermediate form which branches off into warm blooded and cold blooded animals.
The left and right side symmetry (2,740,000) of most animals also seems to me to be remarkable. In many cases the external organs and structure, including the skeleton are symmetric whereas the internal organs are asymmetric. I do not understand how spontaneously evolving animals without an external design agency could decide which components should be symmetric and which asymmetric. For example, why two lungs but one heart? two kidneys but one (asymmetric) stomach? two ovaries but one uterus? etc.
Considering symmetry from another perspective, i do not understand how the molecules and cells on one side of the evolving animal knew what those on the other side were doing when they assembled themselves if there was no external creative agency with a clear plan and design. I also do not understand how these cells and molecules managed to communicate this information to the reproductive cells.
Taking this further, i do not understand how DNA knows what the body looks like and how it grows if the cells have to "communicate" this to the DNA and none of these specialist cells and material have any way of seeing how they all fit together and seeing the full picture and no way of articulating their interfaces in the context of an overall design?
I do not understand how DNA kept pace with the evolution of the body if the cells and molecules were randomly and spontaneously attaching themselves to other cells and molecules and evolving at the same time.
I do not understand how the teeth which, as i understand it, largely comprise non-living chemical material, communicate with the DNA and rest of the body about their design, manufacture and growth. How did teeth, bone, hair and toe and finger nail design keep pace with the rest of the body when these items are not alive as i understand it? How did human teeth decide to replace themselves at a certain age if there was no designer?
I find the appearance of many plants and animals to be aesthetically pleasing and proportioned in a way that appeals to me. These are subjective opinions which i understand to be shared by many human beings. The fact that human beings experience beauty and aesthetics seems, in some way, to indicate a level of non-physical complexity in human beings that i have difficulty comprehending as happening spontaneously without a creator. The fact that many human beings experience much of the world around them as being aesthetically pleasing seems to me to suggest some inter-related design concept directed at producing an environment and inhabitants that are in some way beautiful and also appreciate beauty.
The functional efficiency and effectiveness of the organs of the bodies of animals and humans and of plants and ecosystems, etc is, it seems to me from an engineering perspective to be highly complex and sophisticated and to require considerable design effort.
It also seems to me that the information about common attributes of land mammals indicates that for evolution without a creator to apply there must be a common "missing link" between the predecessor of all the above mammals and those mammals through a single pair. It seems to me that there must also be a common missing link between that missing link and all cats, another for all cattle type mammals, another for all apes, etc.
The duck-billed platypus has a large tail, a bill that looks like a duck's bill, an overall appearance that looks a bit like a crocodile, lays eggs and allegedly has blood temperature lower than other mammals. Spontaneous evolution needs to take account of how this happened. Is this animal THE "link" between cold blooded reptiles and mammals?
I have only encountered reference to the missing link between apes and humankind. While i can understand that this seems most relevant and most recent i have difficulty in envisaging the practicality and survivability of what now seems to me to be a significant number of what might be termed "evolution points" where it seems to me from a design consistency perspective that only a single pair could have survived worldwide at each evolution point.
I think that detailed mapping of all required evolution points required to trace spontaneous evolution from a very simple cell to human beings and all other plants and animals alive today would require a substantial number of "missing links".
I do understand that it is possible to develop a scenario or hypothesis to counter these objections and demonstrate that spontaneous evolution can account for all this. As an engineer i simply cannot find a basis to believe that this could possibly happen in practice.
Once more it is a matter of choice.
19.2. HUMAN HABITATIONS
I would now like to examine something that is more directly experienced and known by nearly all human beings, the dwelling in which each person lives and the dwellings their families, friends, associates and community members live in.
This dwelling is a structure created by human beings by applying their intelligence, knowledge, experience, cultural background, etc and therefore it seems to me that you are likely to ask what relevance it has to this article.
I would like to suggest that since in many countries many people specify and build their own dwellings, this gives a useful example of what happens in a situation which to me approximates spontaneous evolution.
In some countries and in some localities there are state housing regulations and standards which limit the materials, ground utilization, etc of private dwellings. These regulations vary from country to country. The standards in former British colonies tend to be similar, those in countries with other histories differ. Even within former British colonies there are noticeable differences in basic architecture with regard to traditional housing.
The building materials in different countries differ markedly in some cases. In much of the United States of America houses are built with timber frames or entirely of timber. In South Africa, where i live, houses are almost entirely built with bricks or blocks and timber houses are not frequently encountered. Elsewhere in the world there are differences.
In most of the places that i have traveled in the world, individual private dwellings are different one from another. In some locations there may be a limited range of designs on a particular housing estate but, overall, my experience is that houses in nearly all cases are distinct, unique and different from those around them and from those i have visited elsewhere in the world. They are different in terms of architecture and appearance and they are different in terms of layout of rooms, number of rooms, size of rooms, etc.
My conclusion is that when human beings undertake spontaneous creation within the limits of state imposed standards the resulting dwellings are distinct, individual and unique. Since human beings are highly intelligent and capable of learning, including being capable of discerning an optimum design, this suggests to me that there are other factors which inhibit the formation of an optimum design or that there is no such thing as an optimum design for a human dwelling place.
It seems to me that as a first approximation, any spontaneous evolution process with no external creative intervention is unlikely to produce less diversity than the example given here.
Conversely, where there is a high level of standardization with regard to dwellings, as far as i have ever encountered it, this has always resulted from state intervention or economic factors or similar. In other words, a higher authority has set limits on individual creativity and imposed standards. It seems to me that this example demonstrates that it is very unlikely that spontaneous evolution would give rise to the level of standardization of basic structure and architecture and technical components that i perceive to exist in the animal and plant kingdoms and amongst stars, planets, etc.
19.3. MOTOR VEHICLES
It seems to me that the diversity of motor vehicles, even though mass produced, reinforces this point.
Motor vehicles are produced to diverse designs by different manufacturers and, as far as i can see, there is currently little or no convergence and i think there may well be divergence. Within the ranges produces by individual manufacturers there are diverse models ranging from low cost functional low performance low luxury vehicles to sophisticated luxury models, sports models, off road models, etc. Then there are commercial vehicles, military vehicles, etc.
As far as i know, even within classes of motor vehicle that look externally similar there is considerable diversity in terms of internal structure, metallurgy, etc. It is my understanding that this diversity is far greater than in mammals. I base this observation on casual observation at motor vehicle body repair shops.
It seems inconceivable to me that there will ever be convergence on a very limited number of models unless there is a global government that imposes very harsh external standards and controls.
Military vehicles within a particular fighting force tend to be highly standardized for practical reasons, however these standards are imposed by a higher authority and are not necessarily optimal they may be commercial or political.
I infer from these examples that unless there is a higher authority imposing standards there is little or no tendency for spontaneity to lead to convergence on a single design or even a limited range. Accordingly, from an engineering perspective i cannot understand how there can be the level of standardization that i experience in the animal and plant kingdoms without an external creator who has applied rigorous engineering disciplines and standards within the scope of a clearly defined plan.
Again, i cannot prove this and leave it for your consideration and choice.
19.4. DOMESTIC FURNISHINGS, FINISHES, ORNAMENTS, ETC
My experience of visiting private dwellings in various countries leads me to conclude that at the level of the contents of a dwelling every single dwelling on the planet is different unless there is some very intense level of control, such as in a maximum security prison where inmates are prevented from bringing in personal items. Even in prison it is my impression that every inmate will do something to differentiate their cell from the others or, in other terms, to "stamp their personality" on their cell.
Again this suggests to me that spontaneous evolution is very unlikely to result in the level of conformity that i perceive exists within the plant and animal kingdoms.
In the so-called "industrialized" nations, many of the furnishings, fabrics, bric-a-brac, ornaments, etc that result in the inside of every home being different are mass produced in factories to fine manufacturing tolerances with exacting standards. Accordingly, it seems clear to me that even when there is a high level of commercially imposed standardization on the components, the end result is spontaneous, diverse and does not converge on any single outcome.
19.5. THE NUMBER OF WORDS IN ENGLISH
The number of words in the English language is another indication of constrained diversity.
These words are essentially based on twenty six letters in the alphabet if one ignores capitalization, inflections and other special forms of standard letters and punctuation marks such as apostrophes.
An article by Glenn Kersten, titled "Speaking of Language..." at http://www.sls.lib.il.us/reference/por/features/97/language.html presents an interesting discussion of the number of words in the English language.
It appears from this article that there are about 400,000 to 600,000 words depending on the definition of "word". The article states that "there are more than a million chemical names, more than a million plant species, and more than a million insect species names". In addition there are hundreds of thousands and possibly over a million technical terms. From this i conclude that there are probably over four million words in the English language.
The web site http://www.kabalarians.com lists 714,399 proper names.
The article also states that "The most important count for your patrons to remember is the one given by Bryson: 'Altogether, about 200,000 English words are in common use.'" The article also points out that new words are constantly being "coined".
This is an example of how much diversity can be generated within the constraint of twenty six basic letters. Even if one includes the additional diversity of capitalization, accents, etc it seems unlikely to me that there are more than about ninety characters that account for the full diversity referred to above.
If one considers the number of words in all languages in the world and all character sets the diversity of language is considerable.
At the opposite extreme, letting an illiterate child of three sit at a computer and punch the keyboard for hours is not likely to produce many character combinations that are meaningful words. Even placing an illiterate adult in front of a computer and letting them punch the keyboard is unlikely to produce many meaningful words. This is an indication of the degree of difficulty that i think is associated with the spontaneous assembly of molecules to produce cells and assembly of cells to produce human beings which are many orders of magnitude more complex than a word.
This seems to me to give an indication of the diversity that can result from intelligent evolution of a language with limited resources (letters). If one considers all the possible character sequences that could result with no intelligence applied to the assembly of letters this gives some indication of the challenges that i foresee in postulating unplanned, un-engineered, spontaneous evolution involving millions of possible source molecules.
I would like to suggest that this example is something that most people on the planet can relate to from practical experience. It took effort to learn a basic vocabulary and even more effort to learn to spell and write the words that made up that basic vocabulary. In my case, it did not happen spontaneously, someone taught me and incentivised me to learn.
19.6. BOOKS AND WRITING
Taking the diversity of words to the next level, it is my understanding that no two people will write the identical sentence if the sentence is more than a few words and addresses anything but the most basic concept or is based on a more widely taught phrase.
As i understand it, this is a fundamental principle of intellectual property rights legislation. If two documents contain the same paragraph this is taken as prima facie evidence that the one author copied the work of the other.
This is also an essential principle of intellectual property rights legislation with regard to computer software as well as with regard to books.
Even the shape and form of items designed by humans is subject to intellectual property rights legislation. I have heard a report of case law to the effect that the curvature of the dome of a barbecue was the subject of successful court action. As i recall the matter, it was held that two unrelated designers will not arrive at exactly the same curvature and form unless one has copied the other.
I hold that it is experientially true that i cannot repeatedly write a paragraph about the same subject and use exactly the same words and sentence structure every time unless i copy a previous version.
Accordingly, i hold that it is true that it is not possible for two animals to have the same design of any component unless they both evolved from the same source animal OR they were designed by the same designer.
As a simple example of this principle, you could try searching on the internet for random sentences that are not generic in nature. Place the sentence in quotation marks and search. Try using any sentence of more than about ten words from any document that you have ever written and you are unlikely to find that sentence on the internet unless it is a reference to the document that you have used as a source.
The same applies to using a sentence out of any book in your possession or any page on the internet. It is highly unlikely that you will find that exact sentence unless it is an exact reference to the same document that you have used as source.
My personal understanding is that it will not happen that you will find an exact match except where the match refers to the same source.
Taking one sentence or moderately long phrase off a web page is regarded as a simple and efficient way of testing whether one's web site is listed in the search engines, the expectation is that only that web site will be returned. This has been my experience and seems to me to be intuitively correct.
To me this demonstrates what i suggest is "infinite random potential" - as far as i know spontaneous generation will never generate a book unless there is an author.
This principle of infinite randomness in word assembly to form paragraphs and longer passages of text is also inherent in the forensic analysis of writing style which i seem to recall has been used in certain criminal cases as a means of identifying a suspect.
19.7. HANDWRITING AND SIGNATURES
I am under the impression that it is a generally accepted principle that the handwriting of every person is different and specifically that every signature is different unless copied. It is my understanding that this is an essential principle in contract law and even in legal process. Great reliance is placed on every signature being unique.
If one considers that a signature comprises a limited number of discrete strokes with the writing instrument in a very specific general shape, form and sequence, in a limited space on a piece of paper, generally in one colour ink or pencil it illustrates how much difference can be generated with very few resources.
This is an indication of how diverse constrained randomness can be in the domain of experience of every person who has a bank account or enters into contracts or uses a signature for any purpose.
19.8. ELEMENTS IN THE PERIODIC TABLE OF ELEMENTS
An aspect which may not be well known to many readers is the periodic table of elements which describes the systematic relationship in properties of all the atoms from which all known matter is created.
Since many readers may not have personal experience of this table i will not go into detail.
The important points for me are that there is structure in this table which suggests to me that there is a creator and also that there are 113 elements or atoms in the entire table including a number of derivatives of uranium. Other articles suggest that there are 109 basic atoms.
For the purpose of this article i would simply like to contrast the degree of diversity of words based on twenty six letters, of which we all have some degree of experience, with the degree of variability that is possible based on 109 or 113 elements. The number of combinations is enormously greater.
Spontaneous evolution requires these elements to have come into existence of their own volition and then have chosen to assemble themselves to form molecules in ways that result in the molecules that are required for the planets, suns, earth, plants, animals and humans.
My experience as a person who has written literally tens of thousands of pages of text in the form of articles, white papers, technical reports, books, etc is that i cannot even begin to conceive how all these elements could spontaneously combine to form molecules and cells such that the entire universe and everything in it could come into existence on its own even in billions of years.
19.9. NUMBER OF KNOWN MOLECULES
As an extension of the above point, i tried to find an estimate of the number of molecules known to humankind.
I could not find any estimate other than "huge".
Based on the example of words, it seems to me that this is an inevitable conclusion.
Molecules are not linear like words, they are multidimensional. Molecules are not limited in length by the capacity of a reader to interpret the letters and form a word, molecules can comprise very long chains which can include patterns of atoms repeated in different forms.
As far as i know many industrial chemicals, medical drugs and other chemical compounds, including the chemical compounds that make up the human body are extremely complex. Many industrial and pharmaceutical chemicals are in the realms of trade secrets and intellectual property. At least some of these chemicals require the use of "catalysts" to form and these require highly trained, knowledgeable and experienced chemical engineering expertise to create and operate the processes that generate the output molecules.
As an engineer i cannot begin to conceive how specific atoms formed specific molecules that formed specific cells that formed specific organ systems that formed the human body without a highly intelligent, highly visionary, highly experienced external creative agency planning, analyzing, designing and overseeing the entire process.
I would go so far as to suggest that even a highly advanced creative being would require a considerable number of incremental developments, iterations and prototypes to progress development from a collection of matter, such as i understand to be postulated as existing before the "big bang", to what exists today in terms of the universe, my immediate surroundings and the person i see when i look in the mirror.
Building on the earlier point about evolution taking place in an incremental manner, this point suggests to me that there is no need for a creator to have a precise view of the end result of any major increment of an evolutionary creative process. I believe that the creator DID have a macro objective in mind at the beginning, however, i conclude that it is not necessary for the creator to have had a detailed view of what a human would look like at the start of the creation process.
I understand that belief that the creator knew exactly what a human would look like and in fact exactly what i would look like and how i would behave and exactly what i would accomplish in my life IS widely subscribed to. I submit that such capability is NOT a necessary prerequisite for deciding whether there is a creator or not.
As an engineer, my experience indicates that exact foreknowledge of the outcome of a design process is not a requirement for commencing a design. One can commence design of a very complex system with a vague concept and refine it as one gains understanding of the parameters of the situation and the components of the solution through progressive prototyping, etc.
Once can undertake experiments in order to gain knowledge without knowing what the outcome will be. That is a fundamental principle behind the concept of "original research" (462,000) which in my experience is pre-requisite for a doctoral thesis.
All the above points point to what i consider to be enormous levels of variability, difference and unpredictably in a diversity of situations which i consider to exist under various levels of macro constraint in terms of possible outcome.
I hold that many of these examples provide substantial evidence of comprehensive randomness where spontaneity occurs even when there are intelligent creative beings involved.
I would like to develop this theme a bit further. I am NOT sure that all the following statements are fully provable, however, i have heard or read statements supporting what is reported below sufficiently frequently to consider that they have a reasonable probability of being significantly true.
They ALL rely on third party evidence which cannot be comprehensive. The points do seem to me to be widely held but the complexity of what is embedded in the statements seems to me to make it difficult to obtain significant statistics in Google. Accordingly, i have chosen to assume that these statements are valid at a statistically significant level but not to build the entire case on them.
1) "Every snowflake is different" (246)
While the occurrence of the statement that "every snowflake is different" in Google 246 times suggests that this is a widely held belief, i did not find absolute evidence and did find an indication that two nearly identical snowflakes had been observed. It seems to me that given the total number of snowflakes that have ever fallen it is probable that at some point there is duplication over time.
This example does, however, seem to me to indicate a very wide diversity of basic outcomes from the assembly of a single molecule (water) in ice crystals.
This seems to me to point clearly to the level of diversity that can be expected when different molecules randomly assemble themselves in the "primeval soup" (3,600) that i have repeatedly found referred to in the context of evolution.
Insofar as i am not aware of snowflakes assembling themselves into structures of material size and complexity, even in arctic ice packs, this seems to me to suggest that progressive assembly of systems of material size and complexity involving a more diverse combination of molecules is even more unlikely without a creator.
2) "Every fingerprint is different" (24)
Other searches result in "all fingerprints are different" (16) and -all fingerprints are different- (214,000), -all fingerprints are unique- (144,000).
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a980821.html suggests that "the chances of duplicating even a portion of a fingerprint are 1 in 100 quintillion (one followed by 20 zeros)." This same site also reports that even identical twins have different fingerprints.
The above quote refers to a "portion of a fingerprint". If this is extended to the combination of the full prints of all ten fingers the probability will increase dramatically.
I do not have any solid evidence that the above statistic is correct but i understand the complexity of the parameters that define a fingerprint to be such that it seems to me that this number is at least a reasonable approximate indication.
I DO know that computer based finger print reading devices are being used increasingly for a range of reasonably high security applications including access control, banking, etc.
I also know that i have heard of the use of finger prints in criminal trials throughout my life and that it has consistently been my understanding that this is based on the exceptionally high uniqueness of finger prints.
Given that there is so much constrained randomness in the print of one finger, i cannot conceive how the entire human being can have come into existence through a spontaneous random process without an external intelligent agency responsible for design and fabrication.
3) Every voice is different
Voice recognition is being used in computer based access control and security systems.
4) Every human retina is different
Retina recognition is being used in computer based access control and security systems.
5) Every human face is different
Photographs are routinely used to identify individuals in passports, identity documents, etc. Computer access control systems that recognize the overall facial structure also exist.
6) The marking of every zebra / ... is different
Photographs of markings on a diversity of animals are used to uniquely identify specific individuals ranging from Killer Whales to zebra, to tigers, to dogs and so on.
As i understand it, this is essentially the same principle as finger prints.
7) Other examples
As far as i know every dancer is different, every musician is different, every soccer player and other sports "star" is different. This applies no matter how well an individual is trained and coached, that is why there are called stars, they are unique.
What such people do is extremely complex and takes years to develop a high level of skill and accomplishment. In all cases a material amount of learning, practising, etc is required to reach a high level of consistent and sustainable successful outcome within formal disciplines.
This again points me to the conclusion that really harmonious and effective outcomes require a high level of intelligent input to accomplish and does not happen randomly.
I hold that it is not possible for someone to become an accomplished violinist if they have never seen a violin and heard it played. Accordingly, i hold that it is not possible for calcium atoms to assemble themselves into complex molecules and create teeth without the input of an external design and fabrication agency to create the first prototype and programme its reproduction.
Every television image (per fraction of a second) is different unless it is a replay of a previous image. It is my understanding that the number of image points and the number of possible colour values for every image point on a television screen per refresh cycle is far less than the complexity that exists in a human being. Accordingly, since i have no evidence of television producers randomly producing the same images independently of one another i hold that random generation of two identical or even similar designs for human beings or animals or plants or planets without an external creative agency is not possible.
The more complex the item the more probable that there is universal uniqueness. This is not a pre-requisite for proving the existence of a creator but it seems to me to be a useful indicator of what spontaneous evolution is likely to produce and an indication that there are serious challenges in obtaining what we have in the universe today by spontaneous evolution.
As i see it, this offers evidence of a creator who orders some things to be rigidly consistent, such as the structural and functional design of each specie of animal and plant and yet permits other things, such as fingerprints. to be completely random in order to give each individual plant or animal its own unique attributes.
19.11. DIFFERENTIATION IN STRATEGY AND MARKETING
As a management consultant, one of my areas of claimed expertise is in the field of development and detailed design of strategic plans.
A vital aspect of market focused strategic planning is the need to develop a "unique selling proposition" (25,000) to "differentiate" the organization from its competitors (1,770,000, also relates to calculus). Differentiation (2,790,000), "competitive advantage" (2,420,000).
Accordingly, it seems to me that one of the primary requirements for survival of the fittest in commerce is "differentiation". It seems to me that this is also a requirement for survival in "nature".
Insofar as many business supplying nominally similar products, such as motor cars, manage to survive for decades based on different strategies, this seems to me to indicate that survival of the fittest does NOT require that only one variety of intelligent being (human beings) should evolve.
Since it seems to me that differentiation is a natural consequence of spontaneity and randomness. It also seems to me that if spontaneous evolution is valid there are strong grounds to expect a variety of very different intelligent life forms that could evolve on different continents or in different locations on the same continents. I really cannot see why several forms of intelligent, human-like, life could not develop even coexisting within a single location and community if spontaneous evolution is a valid model that works in practice.
I have been using computers for over thirty years and studied "computer science" at University.
I have designed and built or supervised the building of computer solutions at various times during this period.
For the past fifteen years i have consulted to various organizations on the effective application of computers in business and have recently written a book on "The Critical Factors for Information Technology Investment Success".
One of the things that i a very clear on is that computers are very complex adding machines that add 0's and 1's. They are very sophisticated binary adding machines.
Computers are powerful because they are able to do these additions extremely rapidly.
The power of computers as experienced by human beings results from a number of layers of increasing sophistication and complexity in terms of the human interface languages which are used to tell the computer what to do.
This functionality is generated in various ways, the way that i understand to be most common today involves the use of characters comprising eight bits, that is eight consecutive binary digits that can have a value of 0 or 1. This eight bit character definition enables the computer to distinguish 256 discrete alphanumeric and other characters that are used in interfacing with human beings. Every letter of the alphabet, every number, every punctuation mark, every line delimiter, etc has a unique eight bit value assigned to it which is part of the widely used ASCII (American Standard Code of Information Interchange) standard.
Using these characters programmers have created increasingly sophisticated "programming languages" which provide instructions that activate lengthy and complex "machine code" commands.
These languages have been used to create "graphical user interfaces" like the "Windows" operating system which use graphics as well as text to communicate with the user.
However, even the most impressive and most sophisticated computer applications are ultimately based on a micro-processor adding 0's and 1's - on off switches.
One of the hard lessons that i have learned about computers is that they are completely unintelligent. If i type in something and make a mistake, the computer will not correct the mistake unless a human being has programmed the computer to recognize that particular mistake and given the computer instructions how to correct the mistake.
In other words, if i make a single "syntax error", a single spelling or punctuation error in a computer programme, it will either not run at all, that is "crash" or it will return an outcome that is not the outcome i intended.
All my experience with computers and the application of engineering rigour to the application of computers indicates to me that computers will never be more than binary adding machines and will never reach a point where they can make complex, abstract cognitive decisions that have not first been defined by a human being in terms of rules.
This leads me to a number of conclusions.
Firstly, when i read of "computer simulations" being used to "prove" some thesis of spontaneous evolution, i cannot even begin to consider such a "proof" valid. It was necessary for a human being to create the software application that was used for the simulation, accordingly such simulation either proves the need for a creator or proves nothing at all.
Secondly, since every computer application i have ever used and you have ever used has operated fundamentally on the basis of the extremely fast operation of millions of binary on-off switches, this indicates to me that even the most simple binary coupling of the simplest molecules in a model of spontaneous evolution is never going to produce anything of value. Since it takes considerable knowledge and experience for a human being to programme a computer to do even the most elementary tasks how can complex molecules randomly assemble themselves into anything useful, let alone a human being?
I have also found that a number of computer programmers presented with the same problem of any level of material complexity will go about solving the problem in somewhat different ways and the resulting computer programme will be different for each programmer and will look different for each programmer, UNLESS such programming takes place within rigidly defined and enforced standards which make it possible for two programmers to create something that looks the same. Even so, the source code generated by each programmer will be different.
As with text, this is the basis of intellectual property rights legislation relating to computer software. Such legal action addresses both the "look and feel" and the internal specification of the solution.
This example points to the extremely low probability, in my mind impossibility, of systems of material complexity self creating themselves in a spontaneous way without an external creative agency who has developed a concept, undertaken analysis and design and managed the fabrication and commissioning process.
If one moves away from binary arithmetic and considers the visible eight bit characters displayed in text portions of a computer display, this relates into the point about written text and again illustrates that personal experience indicates that no two people will produce the identical screen of text on a computer unless one copies the other.
If one moves to the level of graphic displays with screen resolutions in common use today, where every screen "pixel" or dot can have 256 or more different colour values, it is apparent to me that no two people will independently create a single identical screen design unless they use the same tools, same standards and same content specification. Even then, my experience indicates that it is very challenging to get two people to achieve an identical result.
This points again to the need for a creator to create what exists in the universe and the world around us.
As another example, computer viruses are very precisely designed pieces of software which require very specific knowledge of complex components of the Windows operating system. Using computer viruses as an example to support non-creative evolution, as some people do, is therefore something that i have great difficulty in not using harsh judgmental language to describe.
As mentioned above, i have recently written a book on the effective application of computers in business. One of the primary reasons for writing the book is a large body of evidence that indicates that seventy percent of all business computer system investments fail totally. That is that nothing that works is accomplished. A further twenty percent of investments fail materially to meet the original business requirement.
In addition, a recent report stated that ninety five percent of international brand name "Enterprise Resource Planning System" (E.R.P.) investments "do not deliver what is promised". This is referring to investments running to millions and even tens of millions of US Dollars made by medium to large organizations around the world.
These failure statistics occur despite information technology being a multi-billion dollar turnover industry.
I have it that millions and possibly billions of person years have so far been invested in the information technology industry over the past fifty years or so and yet the above failure rates are being recorded.
I also have it that even the most complex computer software application is less complex than a human being if one takes account of emotions, feelings, etc. Accordingly, given that my data indicates that millions of highly qualified and highly intelligent people have so far failed to develop a reliable method of designing, building, configuring, implementing and operating complex business computerized information systems, there is no basis to suggest that human beings could possibly have come into existence without an external, highly intelligent agency engaging in a process of design.
19.13. CAN A DOG KENNEL SELF CONSTRUCT?
As i understand it one of the fundamental aspects of the theory of evolution without a creator is a requirement for collection of molecules in some form of "primeval soup" to find a way of combining with one another to form a living organism over some period of time which could be millions or billions of years.
An example which comes to mind for me as some sort of parallel to use in validating the hypothesis of spontaneous evolution without a creator is the construction of a physical structure without human intervention.
I would like to suggest that my life experience teaches me that if i designed a basic dog kennel, cut all the timber to size, purchased all the required fasteners such as screws and created detailed assembly drawings and instructions and placed them outside in my back garden together with all required tools, that material would never assemble itself into a dog kennel. My experience indicates to me that depending on where i was in the world the paper and timber would rot or be eaten by insects, the fasteners and tools would corrode and, in anything from a few years in the case of a location on a tropical ocean beach to a few decades in a desert climate, there would be little if anything left of this material.
Even if these items were placed in an environment where no deterioration was possible, my entire life experience indicates to me that these materials, fasteners and tools would not assemble a dog kennel even if left for a million years or longer.
As i see it there is an inherent assumption that non-intelligent building components, whether organic and inorganic molecules or building materials have some capability to make decisions about how they join to one another in such a way that they can create something of greater and more useful complexity than the component parts.
It seems to me that an inherent requirement of spontaneous evolution is that diverse molecules decide whether a union they have formed with another molecule is "fitter" (in the sense of survival of the fittest) or not. If the union is NOT "fitter" it seems to me that it would be necessary for the molecules to break their union in order to try another combination. I hold that this is only possible if there is an external intelligent agency with a clearly defined definition of "fitter" who is able to make this decision AND apply energy and resources to separating molecules that have not formed a "fitter" union.
As an aside, i really don't understand how someone who has not successfully designed and built a reasonably complex system can express a really authoritative opinion in support of the feasibility of spontaneous evolution in a way which addresses the objections raised in this document. On the other hand, it seems to me that most human beings have enough personal experience to be able to relate to at least some of the examples used in this document and conclude that spontaneous evolution without a creator is not a viable explanation.
I cannot prove this and i leave it to you to decide.
19.14. PLANT AND ANIMAL BREEDING AND OPTIMIZATION
Many years ago i had limited personal exposure to the procedures followed in South Africa in developing pine trees capable of producing structural timber. This process included careful selection of specimens exhibiting the desired traits, breeding in a manner that prevented spontaneous fertilization and replication of prime specimens by grafting twigs onto reliable rootstock.
Over decades the South African timber industry succeeded in breeding high performance trees that today reliably produce structural timber.
Based on my observation of television programmes and my exposure to dog and cat breeders, these same basic principles are applied in many areas to produce plants and animals that are optimized in terms of some human requirement, be it structural, aesthetic, functional or whatever.
It seems to me that all these programmes are directed at producing specimens that are "fittest" for their specific purpose as defined by a specific human or group of humans.
In the case of aesthetic criteria such as the appearance of dogs, cats and other show animals, different humans have different aesthetic criteria and the criteria of the same human changes over time. As far as i can see this results in diversification of dog and cat varieties and also results in defects that result from excessive in-breeding.
The conclusion i draw is that the criteria for "fitness" are not absolute and that systematic improvement requires the active intervention of an intelligent external agency to design and manage the selective breeding process.
19.15. BINARY SPONTANEITY - WHICH SIDE OF THE ROAD TO DRIVE ON
It seems to me that one of the most visible examples of constrained spontaneity that most human beings can relate to is the issue of which side of the road to drive on.
As i see it there are only two possible options, left or right. Center or random will result in people getting killed.
Accordingly, going back to the days of horse drawn vehicles different nations have made different decisions about which side of the road to drive on. Most nations whose heritage lies with the British Empire drive on the left and many of the rest drive on the right. The countries of Europe drive on the right resulting in a challenge for any driver who travels from Britain to mainland Europe or vice versa.
These standards are entrenched in each society. The layout of roads, the location of road markings and street signs, the design of highway interchanges, the way drivers are trained and children are trained to cross the road all entrenches this standard.
Technically there is no reason to prefer left or right. Accordingly both options are widely adopted.
However, within a country left or right is a rigidly enforced legal requirement based on "traffic safety".
To convert any country with a large number of roads and drivers to drive on the other side of the road would require an investment and dislocation of society which, i submit, makes such a change unthinkable. Furthermore, it seems evident to me that such a change would result in a very substantial increase in traffic accidents, injuries and deaths for months and possibly years after such a change took place even if the logistics of reversing road markings, traffic signs, interchanges, etc could be managed.
I submit that there is NO basis on which a major road using nation could conceivably develop a case to make such a change at any time in the future.
This example suggests to me that without clear standards and overall management spontaneous evolution is not going to converge on the level of standardization that exists in animals and plants or the universe today. It seems to me that the consistency of design that i observe in mammals and many other components of the universe and plant and animal life on this planet is such that it indicates a precise and narrow specification of acceptable appearance, function and performance in terms of symmetry, balance, proportion, aesthetics, etc. I am personally convinced that what we observe in our daily lives could only have come into existence within the constraints of a development plan imposed by an external creative agency with a very clear concept of what was required.
19.16. PLAYING CARDS
Another example of constrained randomness that it seems to me that many people have exposure to is a pack or deck of playing cards.
Card games are based on the extremely large number of possible combinations that can be dealt out of a randomly shuffled deck of fifty two playing cards.
I suggest that any person who has some experience of playing any form of card game that involves "shuffling" the deck before playing will probably hold that it is impossible for a randomly shuffled deck to sort in the exact sequence of value and suite that the deck was in at the time it was manufactured. This is not entirely correct, statistically the number of possible combinations in which a deck of fifty two playing cards can sort is of the order of 52,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
What is the probability of a person taking a well used pack (deck) of playing cards, shuffling them thoroughly and finding that they are all in the predefined sequence that is widely known?
This is an example of constrained randomness.
Therefore, what is the probability of all the molecules in the human body arranging themselves into the form that we know today, ditto other plants and animals?
20. TYING UP LOOSE ENDS
The last time that i worked on this document was 14 May 2004.
On 27 September 2007 i proof read the document to this point and found that i had a further 25 pages of notes, Google statistics and partially complete passages.
In the past three and a half years since writing what you have read thus far, i have read much that reinforces my belief in the existence of a creator as well as my belief that humans came into existence in their present form approximately six thousand years ago, but in a very superior form to what exists today.
I am also convinced that there was a massive global destructive event in which the earth tilted on its axis as a consequence of a comet flyby and massive tectonic earth crust movement occurred coupled with massive flooding that covered the earth and totally reshaped it. For more information refer to www.beforeus.com.
None of this additional information is central to the thesis of this book.
Accordingly, i have decided to hold over some of the remaining notes in the document produced in 2004 towards a second document which may be produced at some time in the future.
I choose to do this because of personal time constraints at this time and also because, having read the book this far i am satisfied that while it does not necessarily provide incontrovertible evidence of the existence of a creator and the invalidity of evolution with no creator, i think that it does provide solid food for thought.
Accordingly, in the sections that follow i will pick out items that seem relevant and easy to extract and leave the rest for a book to perhaps be written in the future.
21. VARIOUS BITS AND PIECES
Following are various bits and pieces built on the notes i made three and a half years ago.
21.1. PROBABILITY OF FAILURE AND CONSTRAINED RANDOMNESS
Based on the examples given above with regard to the very high statistical variability that occurs within constrained spontaneity it is my understanding of the statistics that the probability of spontaneous (random) self assembly of a human being with all the documented and experienced functionality is too small to be expressed in any numerical system available to us other than in an exponential that runs into millions of leading zeroes.
All my engineering and statistical knowledge and experience says that there is absolutely no possibility whatsoever that human beings in male and female form could come into existence in terms of a model of spontaneous evolution without an external creative agency who has an overall design, prototypes individual components, designs them to fit, optimizes them and then codes the specification into DNA.
When i say it cannot be done, i am saying that the number of statistical permutations and combinations available are so great that they are "infinite" in the true sense of an open ended range of alternatives that will NEVER converge on a constrained outcome no matter how many billions of years pass.
Examples of evolution of mouse traps and computer simulations of the evolution of an eye, as used in some of the arguments for non-engineered evolution, do not in any way begin to address the magnitude of the range of statistical options that are available to the chemicals and molecules in existence to assemble themselves in ways that even begin to approximate the human body, let alone develop the detailed intellectual, emotional and other capabilities that human beings possess.
I am aware that others seem willing to offer explanations as to why the above is not valid. I cannot prove that what i have written is valid yet my entire engineering training and experience and my training and experience of statistics tell me that this is intuitively so.
I hold that there are many people who have this type of engineering experience who, if presented with the information contained above, would agree that this is so.
My engineering training leads me to conclude that this conclusion is absolute and indisputable. However, i have read articles by people with claimed reputations who suggest otherwise.
I don't know how to respond to this other than to suggest that unless someone has personally designed and supervised the creation of a complex system i do not see how they can possibly have an authoritative opinion on the subject.
In concluding this section, all i can say is that it is a matter of personal choice, check the above points out with your personal life experience and draw your own conclusions.
21.2. OTHER TOPICS IN MY NOTES
The following additional topics are covered in my notes and you are welcome to correspond with me about them. They are included in the hope that they will stimulate further avenues of inquiry for you to evaluate your position on this question.
Standards -- there is a high level of standardization and uniformity apparent in the world around us, whether the shape of planets, the shape of animals and plants, etc.
Standardization results from the imposition of a set of standards and guidelines imposed with discipline by an intelligent creative being with a clear view of the outcome that is required.
The reproductive process in all organisms on earth that i can think of is highly standardized. The children are recognizably standardized models of the parents and are not randomly variable manifestations of contorted randomly assembled elements comprising derivatives of the building blocks that represent the parents. There is constrained, that is managed and controlled, randomness that confirms to precise standards.
Configuration management and version control: The same argument as with standards apply -- there is careful configuration management in the creation of each new generation of plants, animals and humans. Something that in the world of engineering only occurs with rigorous formal training and disciplines.
Conformity between different plant varieties that produce whorls of leaves, fronds, etc: The existence of whorls of leaves and fronds in Aloes, Lilies, Ferns, Palms, and other plant types cuts across different specific lines in a way that suggests that these plants all originated through a single evolutionary path or that a creative intelligence found this model to be attractive and effective and introduced it into the design of various distinct plant families and species. Other components of these same plant families have correlation with families that do not produce leaves in whorls.
This is a huge subject and i am not qualified to comment in depth. My casual observation as someone with a basic qualification in botany is that there is not much evidence that all the plants that existed today could have evolved without some external creative influence.
Survival of the fittest in technology: Survival of the fittest appears to be a model that applies in the context of managed evolution directed by an external, engineering creative agency.
Small errors cause failure of the fittest in modern technology and survival of the fittest has as much to do with technical bestness as it does with best marketing -- the VHS versus Betamax video recording technology outcome is an example.
The technologically superior Betamax was defeated by VHS in the market on the basis of better marketing. So here we have survival of the fittest being influenced by soft issues relating to the human psyche and the response of human beings to persuasive advertising NOT mechanical survival of best practice in the context of a creative agency producing these items.
If development of complex systems is spontaneous then why do engineers and technicians need to be trained? Many of these examples beg the question as to why engineers and technicians spend three or four years at University or Technical College and then serve an apprenticeship of a further three years or more in order to learn how to design and build things that work. If the norm of the world was spontaneous non-engineered evolution then surely such training is not necessary?
Macro standardisation of humans, animals and plants: The macro standardization of humans, animals and plants is touched on above, how does this happen without an external creative agency apply engineering disciplines to constrain variability?
Cardiovascular system is a closed pressurized system: The cardiovascular system is a closed pressurized system that operates in very specific ways and if the blood pressure becomes too high or too low the organism becomes ill and may die. If primary arteries are punctured or severed death follows almost immediately. How did pressure build up in such a precise way in response to unstructured spontaneous evolution without an external creative agency with a clear view of the outcome that was required?
If survival of the fittest is the fundamental law of existence then why is murder a problem for those who support non-creative evolution? -- surely, if we live by survival of the fittest then murder is a manifestation of a more fit individual eliminating a less fit individual in support of evolution of the species and therefore cause for rejoicing? Yet there is an underlying fear of and abhorrence of murder that is the manifestation of a deep underlying set of ethics and morals in most societies. Again, this suggests a higher creative being who has instilled in us innate values that are widely regarded as appropriate.
How can fragments of exploding matter form into perfect spheres (suns and planets) with very different properties? If a "big bang" took place with the inherent picture of an explosion of sufficient force to fling fragments of materials into space, how did those fragments becomes spheres, how did some form into suns and some into planets, how did they develop trajectories of rotation around one another that are different to the radial trajectory that would result from a central explosion?
The order of the universe speaks to me again of some engineering agency that carefully fashioned each star and planet and assembled them in solar systems, etc in such a way as to create the huge diversity and beauty that we behold coupled with carefully balanced gravitational forces that allow these units to inter-operate in gravitational balance that enables us to see stable, gradually evolving patterns rather than huge randomness coupled with a destroyed body of matter comprising fragments that somehow magically shape themselves into perfect or near perfect spheres in a vacuum with no erosive or other formative external agency to provide the smoothing and rounding.
Massive man-made structures that are thousands of years old suggest that humans were more advanced thousands of years ago. The pyramids, Matchu Pitchu, the temple at Baalbeck, etc. Large structures, many of which we would be hard pressed to engineer today yet created thousands of years ago by human beings who were apparently evolving from apes. Search on the Internet for examples.
If human beings on earth in 2007 are the most highly evolved form of the ape, homo sapiens, then these structures are inexplicable, except through stories of men from outer space.
The story of men from outer space could be plausible but does not help at all because all that this does is to transfer the debate on earth to a wider created environment and still leaves us with precisely the same dilemma as to where those beings "evolved" from leading again to the conclusion of an external creative engineering agency that created those beings from another planet.
Incidentally, i do not believe that beings from another planet did form human beings, i believe that we were created on this planet but i cannot offer you substantive evidence other than to say that i think that the question is irrelevant for the reasons mentioned above.
We need to home in on the essence of the question -- how did what we see today come into existence of its own creative volition with the structure, order, complexity, inter-operability, etc that we see today without a higher creative agency?
Untrained people cannot use sophisticated technology: I don't think that a single person who has no knowledge or experience of tools, construction, etc and who comes from a "primitive" environment where they have not been exposed to any Western constructed products, if placed in an extremely large workshop with a comprehensive selection of hand tools and diverse construction materials would product anything useful.
One only needs to pass a wood saw once over stone or metal to blunt it. This being so, i don't understand how a molecule surrounded by other molecules can decide to join itself to another molecule in any way that has any hope of resulting in something that could eventually result in a one cell living organism, let alone proceed to self construct a human being by randomly picking other molecules and cells to join to itself.
22. SOME OTHER CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING CREATION VERSUS EVOLUTION
In wrapping up this document, i would like to return to consideration of the question of whether i can offer "provable physical evidence" of creation.
In seeking to attempt this, i would like to confirm that it seems to me that the physical evidence used in support of evolution is seldom, if ever, in conflict with a concept of "evolutionary creation". It also seems to me that the physical evidence used in support of creation, a flood, etc is not in any way in conflict with a concept of "evolutionary creation".
It seems to me that the basic point of conflict with regard to "evolution" relates to the question of whether there is a creator or whether evolution took place by developmental response to environmental factors and where the matter that exists today came from. In other words, it seems to me that the dispute relates to HOW to interpret the data, NOT to the data itself.
It seems to me that the basic point of conflict with regard to "creation" relates more to diverse points of interpretation, many of which relate to "the Bible says" rather than to what i perceive to be the essential question of whether a creator exists and whether He is willing to enter into a close personal relationship with any human being who seeks Him. In other words, reference to the Bible, while a source of certain peoples perspective of history, is not a basis to dispute evolution and, as i see it, is counter productive.
As indicated in a previous section i have chosen to ignore "argument from incredulity" for the rest of this document.
I am still left without "physically verifiable evidence" of a creator outside of what i have offered so far.
While accepting that "argument from incredulity" potentially neutralizes all that i have to offer, i would like to offer a few points for consideration which, to me, seem to clearly demonstrate the existence of a creator.
22.1. LOVE, GRIEF, PASSION, ETC
In my life i have experienced love with a woman at a level of intensity that has had what i experienced as intense, tangible and reproducible physical manifestations.
I have experienced grief in comparable ways and i have experienced intense passion with a woman.
I find much evidence to support the view that these are widespread human experiences.
Since these experiences clearly seem to me to result from a level of interaction between human beings that is not dependent on environmental factors, and since it seems to me that these experiences indicate a level of spiritual and emotional / psychological sophistication that i find amazing, they seem to me to evidence the existence of a creator who has created humankind with enormous hidden and abstract complexity.
I cannot prove this but it seems real to me and i have not encountered any non-creation evolution explanation that i can experience as valid in terms of my life experience.
22.2. HUMAN SEXUALITY, ORGANS AND REPRODUCTION
As far as i know, it is physically possible, barring limited extreme cases, for any male human being on this planet to couple sexually with any female human being on this planet, experience some level of sexual pleasure and, provided the woman is fertile, conceive a child which will be functionally and recognizably a human being with similarity to its parents.
My entire experience of engineering tells me that it would require an enormous amount of design effort and enormous intellect and creative ability to build this level of compatibility into over six billion people in the current generation with what i understand to be an extremely low failure rate.
I say this in terms of:
The level of compatibility of the process of conception. It is my understanding that any human sperm is capable of fertilizing any human ovum and that, once fertilized the developmental process is consistently the same, the division of DNA between parents is consistent and reproducible and the resulting offspring will be an exact 50:50 composite of the parents.
To me this evidences a level of precision in design, construction and sustainable reproduction over hundreds or even thousands of generations that is beyond my capability to conceive of happening except through the offices of a super natural (above nature) creator of exceptional knowledge and capability.
The biggest issue for me is that the male and female human are provably physically materially different. It is my understanding that non-creationary evolution requires that both these types evolved in parallel in response to environmental stimulus. I cannot conceive how it is possible for the matching components in the male and female reproductive cells to have come into existence without the intervention of a creator who designed them to fit.
I do recognize that argument from incredulity can be used to neutralize this point but i really do submit to you that i cannot conceive that incredulity is a valid logical construct.
2) MECHANICAL FIT
As stated above, it is my understanding that virtually any human male organ will fit virtually any human female organ on the planet. I understand this to be irrespective of racial grouping, physical size or any other parameter across over six billion people.
This indicates to me a level of flexibility and adaptability that again indicates considerable engineering design and sophistication of construction. I do not understand how this could happen with any form of parallel evolution that did not involve an external creator who designed and built these systems to do this.
Contrast this with other "male" - "female" connectors such as electrical plugs and machine screws. The male and female components need to be machined with exceptional precision to precise standards otherwise no workable coupling will be possible.
23. SOFT ATTRIBUTES OF HUMAN BEINGS
There is enormous "soft" non-physical (psychological, spiritual) complexity in human beings that seems to me to have no relevance and no way of coming into existence with a mechanical evolution from molecules model.
Following are some quotes, statistics and phrases to consider:
23.1. SELF SACRIFICING LOVE
Sir John Templeton "Agape Love: A Tradition Found in Eight World Religions" (35)
Works of love find a high-minded financier
William R. Macklin, The Philadelphia Inquirer, Winter 2002
Sir John Templeton cares so much about agape love that he's even written a book about it. But when he's asked to define it, he pauses, lets a few reflective moments waft by, then, almost cryptically, says, "It's easier to tell you what it is not."
"It is not eros love. It is not filial love. It is not tribal love," says Templeton.
Then, the one-time financier reaches into the recesses of the complex mind that helped conceive the rudiments of global investment and finds a definition that seems to belie all the hard-nosed tactics associated with the business world in which Templeton made millions.
"It is pure love for every human being with never any exception," he says.
Love, boundless and all-encompassing, a concept the ancient Greeks termed agape (AH-gah-pay) but that Templeton says exists everywhere and knows no sectarian boundaries.
"I might even say that the universe is an expression of God's love," he says.
Templeton, a lifelong Presbyterian who turns 87 tomorrow, expounds the prevalence of universal goodwill in his recently published book, Agape Love: A Tradition Found in Eight World Religions. The founder, chairman and chief donor of the foundation that bears his name - which pays upwards of $35 million a year for the scientific study of spiritual faith - Templeton is a forceful, sometimes controversial figure in the world of ecumenical theology.
Before remaking himself as a sort of Indiana Jones in search of lost spiritual virtues, Templeton made a fortune in international finance as the founder and head of the Templeton Group of Mutual Funds.
But while he once commanded the forces of global capitalism, he now seeks to understand the vast, "mysterious force" of agape.
Its disparate strands are evident in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Confucianism and American Indian religions, Templeton maintains. Agape is the charity, kindness, forgiveness and compassion expressed by believers everywhere, he says. At least everywhere that the human ego has been brought into check.
I find it very difficult to conceive how what is described above could evolve from a primordial soup.
A Tradition Found in Eight World Religions
John Marks Templeton
The tradition of agape, or unconditional love, is not exclusive to any one religion. Actually, it is a major underlying principle found in religions worldwide. The concept of altruistic love is one that challenges the spiritual person to "love your enemies," or to "love without thought of return." It is a love that flows out to others in the form of compassion, kindness, tenderness, and charitable giving.
Buddhists have a path of compassion, where caring for others becomes the motivating force behind existence. Hindus have a branch of yoga, the heart-centred path, that leads to enlightenment through an overwhelming love for God that takes the form of loving all of humanity. Eastern religions, such as Taoism and Confucianism, see transcendent love as an essential part of true wisdom.
The Jewish faith carries the essential message of agape in this passage from Leviticus: "You shall not hate your brother in your heart... but you shall love your neighbour as yourself." - Lev. 19:17f. This is very similar to the New Testament passage: "You shall love your neighbour as yourself." - Matthew 22:39.
The universal theme of love is found in all religious traditions, whether Buddhist, Christian, Islam, or others. As we begin to realize that all religions have at their core this spiritual principle of love, we can develop a sense of common humanity. The religious tradition of agape love examined in this book will serve as an inspiration for those who are learning to grow in compassion and love for all people.
Various phenomena or experiences that seem to me to be spiritual and not amenable to explanation by spontaneous evolution and yet which are referred to throughout the Internet representing the thoughts of millions of writers (statistics as at April - May 2004) -- love (122,000,000), passion (15,4000,000), telepathy (277,000), intuition (1,690,000), intuitive (3,230,000), empathy (843,000), feelings (8,320,000), feel (57,500,000), emotion (4,930,000), emotional (9,430,000), fear (18,700,000), fearful (1,130,000), laugh (7,050,000), laughter (3,110,000), joy (15,000,000), joyful (1,170,000), happy (41,600,000), happiness (5,380,000), anger (6,500,000), angry (6,580,000), numb (1,300,000), numbness (503,000), stress in human terms, other uses of this word -- stressful (1,270,000), hugs (1,640,000), hug (2,410,000).
Continuing: kiss (14,800,000), smell (4,720,000), taste (13,700,000), lust (7,660,000), lustful (294,000), lusting (121,000), covet (225,000), covetous (111,000), magic (30,500,000), luck (11,800,000), hypnosis (1,540,000), hypnotize (298,000), curses (884,000), curse (3,400,000), lucky (11,800,000), selling (34,500,000), sell (58,100,000), market (89,500,000), marketing (71,400,000), perfect (41,300,000), perfection (3,500,000), mercy (5,290,000), grace (13,400,000), intuition (2,140,000), intuitive (3,260,000).
Evidence of creativity in humans -- music (224,000,000), song (43,900,000), art (180,000,000), dance (39,400,000), imagine (12,900,000), imagination (5,970,000), vision (32,000,000), visionary (1,650,000), cognitive (5,490,000), cognition (1,520,000), experience (75,100,000), experienced (16,800,000), knowledge (51,700,000), abstract (62,100,000), abstractness (23,900), abstraction (1,800,000), concept (22,800,000), conceptualise (166,000).
There are a huge number of references to music and art.
Non tangible attributes of knowledge and ability: IQ (15,800,000), psychology (14,100,000), psychometric (277,000), psychiatric (3,180,000), semantics (2,710,000), individuality (793,000), knowledge, experience, experienced.
How did all this come to pass spontaneously and randomly when it all fits together in such a complicated and congruent manner? Why is it so difficult to believe in a creator who created this entire environment and creates us in all our complexity in order to teach us about things like love, joy, caring, compassion, empathy, passion, partnership, sacrificial love, putting others first and innumerable other intangible and abstract concepts all directed at assisting us to learn to know Him better day by day.
Surely learning about these things and how to apply them in a holistic, integrated manner for the better service of those around us is the ultimate test of fitness (as in survival of the fittest)?
Evidence of a need for plans or guidelines or other assistance in order to reliably create things -- recipe (14,700,000), plan (108,000,000), design (167,000,000), analyze (13,900,000), analysis (72,000,000), guide (103,000,000), "step by step" (7,930,000), instructions (29,900,000), teach (14,100,000), teaching (32,200,000), blueprint (1,290,000), "change management" (1,890,000), "how to" (23,000,000), coordination (8,210,000), liaison (4,670,000).
Evidence of a consideration of beauty and form -- aesthetics (1,440,000), beauty (41,500,000), beautiful (38,000,000, proportion (7.030,000) -- various meanings not necessarily what i had in mind.
People working collaboratively -- teams (25,300,000), teamwork (1,780,000), marching (2,160,000), army (27,200,000).
The numbers are offered without comment other than to say that they are an indication of the level of interest of human beings in these subjects and therefore an indication of the probability that these non-tangible attributes exist and, i submit, evidence of a higher creative authority in creating this level of abstract, non-tangible complexity.
23.2. POWER OF WORDS
You've heard of the saying, "A picture is worth a thousand words?" Well, it's also true that "a word is worth a thousand pictures!" Let me show you what I mean. Like the dentist example earlier, it's hard to picture, say, "calculus removal." Wouldn't you agree?
But with "beautiful smiles," you can instantly visualize teeth that are (among many other things): shiny, white, stainless, straight, unbroken, clean, healthy, strong and perfectly aligned!
You see, words are extremely potent! So, the words you pick are CRITICAL!
When you use the right words on your website, they all have a sort of magical power to make your visitors salivate with mouth-watering envy and mesmerize them to the point that they're whipping out their credit cards, pleading with you to sell them your products!
"power of words" (59,600)
The Power of Words
Emotional appeals, fallacies, manipulations, disinformation,
misdirection and Political Correctness
Generally, when people get their own way with others, they do it with words; they want others to agree with their point of view, give them what they want, do what they ask and buy what they are selling. From the car salesman's hard sell, the hammering of television commercials, the relative's request for a loan, the doctor's diagnosis to the child's pleading to stay up late, the seduction and/or assault of words is continuous.
In these verbal contests between one person's desires and another's, some people find they always lose, convinced they must be wrong, while others consistently win; their logic, their reasons are so powerful, so compelling, they almost force others to change their opinions, their beliefs and their behaviour to comply with what's being asked.
This enormous power is in the meaning of the words, what they mean to the person who hears them. Far more than simple communication, truth, falsehood and the infinite shades between them, words have the power to manipulate other people's thinking and behaviour. These powers have been defined as fallacious arguments.
There are 20 or so of these misleading and deceptive arguments. Their tremendous power lies in the fact that they elicit emotional responses in those who hear them. While the arguments appear to relate to the subject under discussion, they do not. In most cases they have little to do with the subject at all.
Their danger lies in the fact that decisions based on them are not based on truth, common sense, logic, legality, one's best interests or right and wrong but on emotions favouring those who put forth the more powerful arguments. They are designed to benefit someone else!
As emotions are constantly changing, opinions and decisions based on them also change. They are not stable, dependable or consistent over time. At any moment, they can be overthrown by someone else's more compelling argument. Unknowingly making choices based on emotional appeals and logical tricks, one allows others to control their thinking, and their behaviour, setting themselves up to be used for someone else's interests.
Recognizing these arguments for what they are renders them ineffective and powerless. Knowing them to be false and self-serving, one can separate their emotional responses from the subject at hand, knowing they are not the same thing.
23.3. PLEASURE AND SEX
I have personal experiential evidence that the coupling of male and female can be ecstatically pleasurable and give rise to sensations that reach great intensity. I am aware of an enormous body of evidence that this is an extremely widespread experience. There are numerous writings on the subject of sexual pleasure and the statistics below indicate that one of the most prevalent uses of the internet relates to people interested in sex.
Searches on www.google.com resulted in the following statistics -- orgasm (4,040,000), sex (214,000,000), lovemaking (545,000), "sex technique" (66,900)
Sex rates with art and music in terms of frequency of occurrence.
This compares with "argument from incredulity" (578), "reductio ad absurdem" (41,000) reported previously and bible (24,200,000), Jesus (24,000,000), Quran (1,010,000), Muhammed (393,000), Christian (48,900,000), Islam (9,540,000), Mohammed (2,010,000), Koran (986,000), Christianity (6,310,000).
Compare this with -- creation (21,200,000), evolution (18,100,000), "proof that there is no creation" (1,110,000)
There are approximately 4.4 times as many instances of "sex" than of "Christian" and 11.8 times as many instances of "sex" than of "evolution". In May 2004 Web pages with the word "sex" represent over five percent of all the web pages indexed by Google.
In April 2002 "sex" was the sixth most frequently searched word on the internet -- http://www.waller.co.uk/web.htm
The site literotica.com which publishes explicit erotic literature was ranked by www.Alexa.com as the 719th most visited web site in the world.
It seems that there is a reasonable basis to suggest that sexual pleasure is one of the most significant interests, if not the most significant interest, on the Internet and, as i see it, by extension, on the planet.
This relates to something that is not tangible and is not necessary for chemicals in a "soup" to combine together randomly to create human beings. In fact, sex is a massive obstacle to non-creative evolution -- it is inconceivable that the two parts could come together without an overarching architect come engineer.
Words indicating interest in sex: "sexual intercourse" (676,000), slang for sexual intercourse (f...) (32,200,000) and f...ing (29,500,000), vagina (6,710,000), slang for vagina (c...), (6,690,000), penis (17,200,000), slang for penis (c...), (25,1000,000), vulva (793,000), slang for vulva (p....), (39,500,000), labia (510,000).
There is a close association between the concept of love and sex "love" and "sex" (10,500,000).
Pornography as an indication of a level of interest in sex that does not seem to me to correlate with any concept of spontaneous evolution, there does not seem to me to be any reason why an evolving animal (humankind) would have such an interest in such things -- porn (70,400,000), pornography (3,850,000), "sex pics" (4,670,000), "live sex feeds" (54,600), "sex videos" (2,560,000). Particularly when the same level of sexual obsession is not evidenced at comparable levels in any of the life forms from which humans have supposedly evolved.
Sexual chemistry as a non physical phenomenon that seems to me to indicate a level of complexity that seems to me to be spiritual and difficult to explain in terms of spontaneous evolution -- "sexual chemistry" (20,700), pheromones (374,000), hormones (2,690,000), stroke (9,010,000), erotic (56,100,000), erotica (8,670,000), caress (817,000), tickle (769,000), erogenous (69,300), "cold woman" 2,970, "cold man" (10,900).
Sex is associated with religion at a seemingly significant level "sex in religion" (1,400), "sex and religion" (11,500), "sex" and "religion" (both words on the same page) (5,220,000).
23.4. NON-ESSENTIAL PARTS OF THE HUMAN BODY
The human body has a number of appendages that appear to only have relevance in the context of biblical requirements. The foreskin is an apparently unnecessary organ (472,000) except in the context of circumcision (793,000).
The clitoris is an apparently unnecessary organ which it does not seem could be explained by spontaneous evolution -- clitoris (2,560,000), slang for clitoris (c...) (3,650,000).
The so called "G Spot" in women is another seemingly redundant organ "G spot" (643,000) that only has relevance in creating human beings to obtain pleasure from sexual interaction in a way that brings about a level of sexual interaction that certainly in humans is dramatic.
It is reported that about 10% of women experience a direct stimulatory link between their nipples and their clitoris -- how did the nerves come into existence that make this possible, what evolutionary purpose do they serve, how do they satisfy any survival criteria?
Orgasm as a phenomenon that it does not seem to me could evolve without a creative intervention "multiple orgasm" (32,700), "simultaneous orgasm" (22,100). It requires the ability in both parties to stimulated and simultaneously be stimulated at a level that is at least partly psychological. How did this happen in random, non-engineered evolution -- the mechanics involved all point to a highly sophisticated design and precise engineering control and standards to enable this to be present in over six billion human beings today.
Another phenomenon that does not seem to have any useful purpose in the context of spontaneous evolution is "female ejaculation" (395,000) it seems to me that it may even work against fertilization in the same way that the design of the cervix as an outward facing cone appears also to work against fertilization. Both of these items seem to support a view that the primary purpose of the female human sexual organs is pleasure not reproduction.
Consider also masturbation as a seemingly unnecessary act in terms of spontaneous evolution, not appropriate for survival -- masturbation (6,650,000).
23.5. VIRGINITY AS SOMETHING THAT SEEMS PARTICULARLY UNNECESSARY
Emphasis on virginity as seeming evidence of creation -- virginity (642,000), virgin (20,6000,000) supported by an organ that does not seem to have any relevance in terms of spontaneous evolution the hymen (327,000).
The hymen (or maidenhead) is a membrane </encyclopedia/membrane> which completely or partially occludes the vaginal opening in human females. The term comes from a Greek word meaning "membrane". Because sexual activity would usually puncture this membrane, its presence has been considered a guarantor of virginity </encyclopedia/virgin> in societies that place a high value on female chastity </encyclopedia/sexual_abstinence> before marriage.
Yet the Bible attaches very strong importance to virginity and indicates clearly that a woman who is not a virgin is not free to marry another man.
13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
16 And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:
26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
(King James Version of the Bible)
So, circumstantially we find a passage in a book which is believed by many to contain commandments from the Almighty which has very specific commandments relating to virginity. There are other passages which support this interpretation.
It therefore seems reasonable to conclude that the Almighty created woman with a hymen and man with a foreskin for very specific covenant purposes. If this is so then the existence of these organs makes sense. If there is no creator it seems difficult to postulate the relevance of these organs in spontaneous non-engineered evolution.
23.6. BABIES AND EGGS
Surely babies and eggs cannot have evolved, they could not survive. Thus the adult must have evolved and then subsequently developed replication by eggs or babies. How did they replicate before this?
Surely the way they replicated previously must be more reliable and more survivable than replicating through eggs which can be eaten, trampled on, etc and which must frequently be left to fend for themselves or via babies who must be nurtured, fed, etc.
Surely if even the newborn child of the two most gifted (however this is defined) people in the world was left in a room with all the food it required for the first twenty years of its life it would die within a few days?
Surely if a number of newborn children were placed in an environment with all they require to grow and thrive and numerous books, tools and materials and they were somehow kept alive until old enough to feed themselves with no education, they would end up as "primitive" people with no material knowledge and experience who would survive by experimentation and accomplish little more than survive?
If not, why does no one conduct the experiment? Surely, if we evolved our new born infants must have some way of surviving without us or else there is a more reliable form of reproduction that we are overlooking.
24. DOES THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION PROVE CREATION?
It seems to me that it takes a great deal of creativity to arrive at some of the explanations i have read about evolution and about why there is not a creator.
Why reject the long history of a creator?
Surely the people closer to the event have more knowledge? -- so if ancient books like the Bible report creation then surely these sources should be regarded as authoritative at some level?
25. IF ALL ELSE FAILS ASK FOR A "SIGN"?
So, i find myself at a point where i have assembled a huge diversity of information which i can relate to in terms of my own personal life experience over nearly 54 years and all of these things suggest to me convincingly that we have come into existence and all around us has come into existence as a systematic creative endeavour by a super engineer, architect, scientist, etc who over thousands and quite possibly millions of years has progressively created and assembled building blocks to produce what we have today.
Was there an element of evolutionary prototyping and experimentation, yes i think so.
Did all this self create itself to achieve such perfection and completion and complexity all on its own, particles binding to particles to create atoms, atoms to atoms to create molecules, molecules to molecules to create planets, plants, animals and finally humans? Without an external engineering agency i do not think that it is possible to provide any substantive evidence that this is possible. But, i am still left to conclude that if you do NOT want to see this there is nothing i can do to force you to see it.
I can offer you the dozens of examples and arguments presented in this document but i cannot provide you with the one solid piece of irrefutable evidence that proves that there is a super-natural creator, that is a choice that you have to make.
If you are more comfortable with an inexplicable creative miracle that caused all that we see around us to come into existence without any creative agency, then you have greater faith than i do.
I choose to believe in the existence of a creator and i cannot prove to you where He came from but accept His existence by faith and through fourteen years of personal experience of His existence.
So, both sides of the debate have faith in something they cannot explain.
There is one remaining thing to consider: Revelation 21:8 in the Bible says "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." (King James Version of the Bible)
The Bible and other books such as the Quran, allege that people who do not believe in the creator will spend eternity in a lake of fire and brimstone (sulphur).
So the best reason i can give you to look at all that i have presented and choose to consider strongly the existence of a creator is simply that there is evidence of a strong belief in the lake of fire -- Google 3 October 2007 reports "lake of fire and brimstone" (40,500), "lake of fire" (1,990,00).
What IF it is REAL?
If you want to consider this further, my ebook, "Where will YOU spend Eternity" provides an in-depth examination of this subject. Please email me on firstname.lastname@example.org and i will send you a copy.
There is one further course of action -- pray in humility and openness and ask the Almighty to reveal Himself to you and prove to you that He is real. You will need to be open and willing to see the sign or signs that He gives you but i have great confidence that He will answer you if you are truly seeking truth.
I have written a document "Essential Principles in Seeking a Valid Sign from The Almighty" which goes into this subject in some detail. Please email me at email@example.com and i will send you a copy.
In essence you might pray something like the following:
"I am told that there is a mighty creator and that He desires a relationship with me. I ask that if you are there you will reveal yourself to me in ways that i can understand and i ask you to help me to see when you are revealing yourself to me".
I cannot guarantee this prayer will be answered but i do believe that if you pray it sincerely it will be answered, the challenge will be for you to discern that it has been answered.
The bottom line is that the essential question is a question of faith and belief, not a question of intellect.
As i hope you will see from this document, you can rationalize, argue, present facts, find fault with facts presented by others, etc and at the end of the day if you are really honest with yourself you will probably intellectually decide absolutely that there is a creator, but is unlikely that without a personal experience you will really conclude that He wants a relationship with you and that there is a high throne in heaven for eternity if you serve Him faithfully to the end versus a place in a lake of fire and brimstone for eternity if you reject Him and do your own thing.
I think that it is likely that you will not agree with all of the points in this document.
Some of my points may even have offended you, for which i apologize.
I think that it is probable that there are some points where i have missed something or have not thought of all the possibilities and therefore that some of the points could be invalid.
I am confident that most points are materially valid and i do think that taken together the entire body of evidence in this document DOES provide robust, substantive, provable evidence of a creator, perhaps not at an entirely absolute level but at a level that i am satisfied provides the best i can do.
In the end, it seems to me that if one accepts that there is a creator one is left with the question of where the creator came from.
If one decides there is no creator, it seems to me that this leaves a significant number of unsolved puzzles presented in this document that i cannot conceive can all be satisfactorily explained in terms of engineering disciplines which require proof that it works or could conceivably work under any set of circumstances.
My conclusion is that all these puzzles cease to be puzzles once one accepts a creator who has created this universe and world and all that is in them in an evolutionary, step by step manner and who is not bound to create everything in six consecutive twenty four hour periods. If one accepts that a day of judgment coupled with heaven and a lake of fire is the ultimate form of "survival of the fittest" then creation seems to me to be even easier to reconcile with most of what is said about evolution.
I find it far easier to believe that there is a creator than to believe in spontaneous evolution without a plan, without any direction and without any objective.
However, i hold that i have many personal experiences of the creator and therefore this is easy for me to say.
At the end of the day, in absolute terms, i cannot prove absolutely that there is a creator.
In closing, i leave you with this thought about how i see things:
- If there is NOT a creator then when one dies that is the end, there is nothing, one simply ceases to exist.
- If there IS a creator and a judgment then when one dies one is faced with eternity to consider what one did on earth.
- I would rather believe there is a creator and be found in error, because i will never know my error, than to die and find there IS a creator and spend eternity regretting my decision.
I think that this IS THE ULTIMATE TEST OF "SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST" -- willingness to enter into a loving relationship with the creator and learning to please Him by loving others and serving others and putting others first within the constraints of the fundamental moral and ethical laws that He has appointed.
With that, i leave the choice up to you.
I hope that you have found this article interesting and challenging and that it leads you to discover the existence of the creator if you did not know Him prior to reading this.