Microbiome and Microbiota

The term “microbiome” was coined in 2001 by Lederberg and McCray.³ With regard to the human mouth, it refers to the entire habitat of the microbial residents of every surface area of the oral cavity.⁴ These surfaces are many—including both the top (dorsum) and bottom (ventral) of the tongue, lip, teeth, maxillary vestibule, keratinized gingiva (gums), gingival sulcus (the shallow groove between the gum and the tooth surface), buccal mucosa,⁵ tonsils, hard and soft palates, the throat, saliva, salivary glands beneath the tongue, and even the plaque that forms.⁶ The word “microbiota” refers to the unique combination of microorganisms that exist within this complex oral topography.

Over 700?

The reader is surely surprised to learn of the sheer number of distinct bacterial species that naturally inhabit the human mouth. While the actual number of bacteria, archaea,⁷ fungi, viruses, and protozoa that inhabit the human mouth is unknown,⁸ “the oral cavity has the second largest and diverse microbiota after the gut, harboring over 700 species of bacteria”⁹—“one of the most heavily colonized parts of our bodies.”¹⁰

These myriad species are not undesirable intruders or invaders. The oral cavity is their permanent home—a home that normally maintains a fairly constant temperature of 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit, providing a stable environment in which to survive.¹¹ Within the overall oral cavity are “many distinct microenvironments” that provide unique and site-specific advantages for the various species.¹² The microbiota unquestionably belong there. In fact, our bodies live in harmony with literally millions of tiny micro-organisms that perform a variety of essential functions.

In Harmony?

Do these 700+ species war with each other, making the mouth a biological warzone of conflict and carnage, inflicting sickness and suffering upon the human host? Quite the opposite. In fact, “most of the microorganisms that inhabit the oral cavity live in a symbiotic relationship.”¹³ The symbiotic relationship that they sustain with each other and with their human host enables ongoing fulfillment of mutual benefits.¹⁴ Indeed, the microbes work in concert with each other to perform very intricate, specific tasks that are useful to the human host, thereby maintaining symbiotic equilibrium in a “mutualistic relationship.”¹⁵ That interaction and balance among oral microorganisms aids the human body in repelling the invasion of undesirable organisms from outside the body.¹⁶ Together they “form highly regulated, structurally and functionally organized communities attached to surfaces as biofilms, with interspecies collaborations as well as antagonisms that contribute to ecologic stability.”¹⁷

As noted, an extensive variety of microbiotas and biofilms, composed of hundreds of species, are scattered among multiple sites of the oral cavity. The species within each biofilm, as well as the other biofilms, all work in harmony—unmistakably designed to work together for the common good of human health. Not only do they not harm the human host, their commensal interrelationship helps keep pathogenic species in check.¹⁸ In fact, the microbes within the oral cavity can even aid the body’s immune responses outside the oral cavity.

That is not to say that the species never conflict with each other: “The relationship between the two bacterial species can be antagonistic or synergistic, depending perhaps on the composition of the remaining species in the biofilm or other environmental conditions.”¹⁹ Thus, even when a “clash” occurs, the overall well-being of the human host is the goal of the interactions and adjustments. Even when the microbiota is “disturbed” by any number of possible circumstances, nevertheless, “the relationship between the oral microbiome and its host is dynamic and…the composition of microbial communities is remarkably stable.”²⁰

The entrance of pathogens from outside the system can cause problems—which immediately elicit the attention of the microbiota. In fact, due to “the interplay of the host’s immune system with its microbial symbionts, acute infections of the oral mucosa are rather rare.”²¹ Not only does the oral mucosa²² serve as a physiological barrier, “the functions of immune networks within this mucosa reflect the site-specific challenges faced within the oral cavity” with the ability to “trigger immune responses to the development of pathologic microbial communities.”²³ The oral cavity is conspicuous for its “specialized immune-cell networks” that possess the exceptional capability to respond to the constantly fluctuating environmental conditions by means of “tissue-specific cues and exclusive immunologic responses that are tailored to the oral cavity.”²⁴

However, as is typically the case, we humans are “our own worst enemy.” We can be responsible for instigating the instability of our own oral microbiome. Scientists list a number of factors that interfere with that stability and hamper the effectiveness of microbial communities. These culprits include poor oral hygiene, excessive use of antibiotics, modern diet trends, alcohol, and tobacco.²⁵ Incredibly, researchers have come to believe that disrupting the delicate balance of our oral microorganism residents can contribute to additional bodily ailments, including asthma, diabetes, allergies, cancer, and obesity.²⁶ What’s more, while various types of toothpaste typically reduce harmful bacteria, they can also suppress the beneficial bacteria. Likewise, mouthwashes that claim to kill 99% of bacteria would seem to be at variance with what scientists have discovered concerning the crucial role played by the oral microbiome. Mouthwashes can also significantly reduce the ability of saliva to serve as a buffer against tooth decay and disease ²⁷ In fact, some studies suggest that the use of antibacterial mouthwash can “increase blood pressure as a result of its inhibitory effect on the oral microbiome.”²⁸

Inter-Communication?

As researchers continue to dig deeper, they discover new layers of complexity. It turns out that the synergism among the microorganisms includes actual communication between species by means of QS—“quorum sensing”:

Bacteria within a biofilm can communicate with each other by producing, detecting and responding to small diffusible signal molecules in a process called quorum sensing, which confers benefit for host colonization, biofilm formation, defense against competitors and adaptation to changes in the environment.²⁹

These signaling molecules are secreted by the bacteria themselves in order to engage in nutritional and signaling interactions with other bacteria, thereby acting in concert for the benefit of the human host.³⁰ Such intelligent synergism could not have evolved via mindless happenstances of alleged eons of evolutionary time.

Their Purpose?

But what, specifically, do these millions of microorganisms do? We are in constant contact with all types of germs, bacteria, and other microorganisms—which enter our mouths. “The oral microbiome…forms an ecosystem that maintains health in a state of equilibrium,”³¹ making it “crucial in maintaining oral as well as systemic health.”³² Scientists have discovered that this complex ecological community performs astonishing activities that regulate oral health, contributing to “critical metabolic, physiological and immunological functions.”³³ Incredibly, though only 1 out of 10 cells in our bodies is human, this prolific microbial society is responsible for performing “many biological functions that we could not perform on our own and protect[s] us from invasion by pathogenic microorganisms.”³⁴ Hence, resident bacteria are “crucial for maintaining homeostasis.”³⁵

 Keep in mind that each human body is genetically unique and different from all others. If a supernatural Creator is responsible for the existence of human bodies as well as the multitude of living organisms that inhabit those bodies, one would fully expect to discover symbiotic harmony.³⁶ Such is certainly the case with the interrelationships among the bacteria and between the bacteria and the human host. Complex relationships between humans and microbes facilitate human health while simultaneously providing the means for the microbes to survive and flourish. Humans and microorganisms literally depend on each other.³⁷

Further, “the variable microbiome…is exclusive to an individual.”³⁸ Consequently, diversity and variation of species within the microbiome are “individual specific and site specific.”³⁹ “Rather than being fixed, the composition of the oral microbiota changes throughout life consistent with the oral cavity being a dynamic microbial environment.”⁴⁰ So the oral microbiota differs from person to person.⁴¹ The microbial communities are programmed to react to varying environmental conditions by “modifying their species composition and population size.”⁴² Some oral bacteria species are site specific at one or multiple sites within the mouth. Others are subject-specific.⁴³

In fact, the bacteria possess on their surface “adhesins.” Adhesins are proteins that enable the bacteria to attach to various surfaces in the mouth. Consequently, the bacteria will select for colonization those oral surfaces that possess complimentary receptors that will adhere to and bind with their own specific adhesins.⁴⁴ This site specialization is essential for the formation of a biofilm in which the bacteria can colonize and grow. “Once established, the new community of bacteria then begins the process of replication, maturation, and formation of a complex biofilm that can contain hundreds of species.”⁴⁵

If these striking realities were not enough to convince us of divine design, consider the fact that each species of bacteria can differ markedly in its purpose and function. As previously noted, some bacteria in the mouth specifically inhibit pathogens, i.e., those bacteria that cause disease. These bacteria resist colonization by pathogens. One species, for example, manifests “direct antagonism against oral pathogens.”⁴⁶ Another such species actually produces hydrogen peroxide in large quantities which, in turn, hampers the growth of a harmful bacterial species.⁴⁷ What’s more, while diet affects the oral microbiome, scientists have come to suspect that it works the other way as well. Oral cavity microorganisms can influence a person’s dietary preferences and, thus, “modulate the expression levels of taste receptors in the mouth.”⁴⁸

Saliva

As an active and integral member of the oral microbiome, the origin of human saliva is inexplicable from an evolutionary standpoint. Its sophistication and complexity alone constitute proof of its divine design. Saliva provides a multi-purpose function for the human mouth and body—including lubrication, temperature, and digestion.⁴⁹ Yet, apart from these vital functions, saliva is a critical and essential component in the efficient functioning of the oral microbiome. It serves as “a protective system that limits the type of bacteria that can live in the mouth.”⁵⁰ “Saliva is used by oral biofilms as a delivery system, bringing nutrients, peptides, and partially dissolved carbohydrates.”⁵¹ Human saliva “keeps the bacteria hydrated and also serves as a medium for the transportation of nutrients to microorganisms.”⁵²

Saliva contains components—including enzymes, proteins, and glycoproteins—that provide the central source of nutrition for microorganisms. As many as 10⁸ microorganisms have been found in a single milliliter of saliva—an average of 100 million bacteria.⁵³ At the same time, saliva also contains elements that possess antimicrobial action.⁵⁴ In addition to these salivary components, the composition of the microbial communities in the mouth are affected by the “variation in the amount and velocity of salivary flow.”⁵⁵ In fact, salivary flow, together with oxygen concentration, nutrient availability, and gingival crevicular fluids, creates “spatial gradients,” that further demonstrate the complicated nature of the oral cavity and its inhabitants’ interaction with the human host.⁵⁶ Together, saliva and bacteria even protect tooth surfaces against acid.⁵⁷ Indeed, saliva’s multi-pronged properties help regulate and maintain a balanced oral microbiome.

Conclusion

Despite the amazing number of discoveries that have accumulated through the years, despite the progress that has been made in an effort to unravel and understand the marvelous mysteries of the human oral microbiome, when all is said and done, “little is known about the microflora of the healthy oral cavity.”⁵⁸ As always, the ignorance of man must bow to the intricacy and complexity of God’s handiwork.

How may such intricate, complicated, profound, extensive, mind-boggling symbiotic interrelationships be explained from an evolutionary perspective? “Well, over a period of millions of years, humans and the various organisms co-evolved a mutual dependency.” This “explanation” is nonsensical and meaningless. The myriad microorganisms and the human host needed each other from the beginning of their existence. How did the hundreds of species come into existence in the first place? How did they then “decide” to find an evolved human and gain entrance into that human’s mouth? How did species that are antagonistic to each other come to inhabit the oral cavity together? Was a microorganism convention conducted to discuss and decide the matter?

FACT: Every single one of these microorganisms—as well as their human hosts—possess concise design variables that prove the inability of gradual mutation and natural selection to function as causative agents. Can such design, complexity, order, purpose, and intelligence come out of mindless, evolutionary chaos? To ask is to answer. The Truth: God is the causative agent: “In the beginning, God created….”

Virtually with one accord, the scientists who have spent years of their lives exploring the layered intricacies of the human oral microbiome inevitably feel compelled—perhaps unwittingly—to use terminology that tacitly implies its divine intelligent design:

• “the finely-tuned equilibrium of the oral ecosystem”⁵⁹
• “the complex dynamics and fitness factors of key organisms in oral microbiomes”⁶⁰
• “a complex ecosystem whose equilibrium serves as a remarkable example of reciprocal adaptation”⁶¹
• “a staggering number of species”⁶²
• “astounding diversity”⁶³
• “a complex ecological community”⁶⁴
• “exceptionally complex habitat”⁶⁵
• “finely tuned…to protect from disease”⁶⁶

Yet, even in the face of tremendous strides made in recent years to unravel some of the mysteries of these incredibly sophisticated, seemingly innumerable species, researchers acknowledge that the complex processes “are still not fully understood”⁶⁷—an understatement if there ever was one.

“Finely-tuned”? “Complex dynamics”? “Remarkable”? “Staggering”? “Astounding”? “Exceptionally complex”? Follow the logic. To be candid, the human oral microbiome screams divine design.⁶⁸ Its complex marvels could not possibly have come about gradually over millions of years via blind, sheer accident. The Creator had to have literally preprogrammed millions of microscopic creatures to live throughout the human oral cavity to perform unending, ongoing tasks for the benefit of those created in His image (Genesis 1:26). The rational, unprejudiced person will surely acknowledge the conclusion that such evidence requires. The psalmist put it this way: “I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Your works, and that my soul knows very well” (Psalm 139:14).

Endnotes

¹ Antoni van Leeuwenhoek (1952), The Collected Letters of Antoni van Leeuwenhoek (Amsterdam: C.V. Swets & Zeitlinger; Committee of Dutch Scientists), 4:135, https://www.dbnl.org/tekst/leeu027alle04_01/leeu027alle04_01_0008.php#b0076; Clifford Dobell (1932), “Letter 39. 17 September 1683. To F. Aston,” Antony van Leeuwenhoek and His “Little Animals” (New York: Harcourt, Brace, & Co.), pp. 238ff.

² J.A. Gilbert, M.J. Blaser, et al. (2018), “Current Understanding of the Human Microbiome,” Nature Medicine, 24:392-400.

³ J. Lederberg and A.T. McCray (2001), “‘Ome Sweet ‘Omics—A Genealogical Treasury of Words,” The Scientist, 15[7]:8, https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c06e/e544b5e87e82f7705c401e1eff5cc8e1f780.pdf?_ga=2.78678612.1501589133.1598356620-2085924697.1588006444.

⁴ The buccal mucosa refers to the lining of the inside of the cheek.

⁵ Priya Nimish Deo and Revati Deshmukh (2019), “Oral Microbiome: Unveiling the Fundamentals,” Journal of Oral Maxillofacial Pathology, 23[1]:123,125, January-April; Akshima Sahi (2020), “What Microorganisms Naturally Live in the Mouth?” News-Medical, September 16; A. Jørn, B.J. Paster, L.N. Stokes, I. Olsen, and F.E. Dewhirst (2005), “Defining the Normal Bacterial Flora of the Oral Cavity,” Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 43[11]:5730, November; M. Kilian, I. Chapple, M. Hannig, P.D. Marsh, V. Meuric, A. Pedersen, M.S. Tonetti, W.G. Wade, and E. Zaura (2016), “The Oral Microbiome: An Update,” British Dental Journal, 221:660, November 18.

⁶ Archaea are single-celled microorganisms with structure similar to bacteria.

⁷ Maria Avila, David Ojcius, and Ozlem Yilmaz (2009), “The Oral Microbiota: Living with a Permanent Guest,” DNA & Cell Biology, 28[8]:406; Deo and Deshmukh, p. 123.

⁸ Deo and Deshmukh, p. 122, emp. added.

⁹ Kilian, et al., p. 658.

¹⁰ Deo and Deshmukh, p. 123.

¹¹ Lea Sedghi, Vincent DiMassa, Anthony Harrington, Susan V. Lynch, and Yvonne L. Kapila (2021), “The Oral Microbiome: Role of Key Organisms and Complex Networks in Oral Health and Disease,” Periodontology 2000, 87[1]:107, October; J.L. Welch, F.E. Dewhirst, and G.G. Borisy (2019), “Biogeography of the Oral Microbiome: The Site-Specialist Hypothesis,” Annual Review of Microbiology, 73[1]:335-338.

¹² Akshima Sahi (2020), “What Microorganisms Naturally Live in the Mouth?” News-Medical, September 16.

¹³ Deo and Deshmukh, p. 124.

¹⁴ Anil Kumar and Nikita Chordia (2017), “Role of Microbes in Human Health,” Applied Microbiology Open Access, 3[2]:1; Kilian, et al., p. 655.

¹⁵ Lu Gao, Tiansong Xu, et al. (2018), “Oral Microbiomes: More and More Importance in Oral Cavity and Whole Body,” Protein Cell, 9[5]:488,496.

¹⁶ Kilian, et al., p. 659.

¹⁷ Avila, et al., p. 406.

¹⁸ Sedghi, et al., p. 107.

¹⁹ Avila, et al., p. 409.

²⁰ P.D. Marsh, D.A. Head, D.A. Devine (2015), “Ecological Approaches to Oral Biofilms: Control Without Killing,” Caries Research, 49[Supplement 1]:46-54; Kilian, et al., p. 664, emp. added.

²¹ E. Zaura, E.A. Nicu, B.P. Krom, and B.J. Keijser (2014), “Acquiring and Maintaining a Normal Oral Microbiome: Current Perspec-tive,” Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology, 4:85; Kilian, et al., p. 660.

²² “The oral mucosa refers to the moist, membrane-like lining that covers the inside of the mouth, including the lips, cheeks, tongue, and floor of the mouth. It is a protective barrier that shields the underlying tissues from injury, infection, and chemical irritants”—“Oral Mucosal Diseases” (2025), UC Davis Health, Department of Dermatology (Sacramento, CA), https://health.ucdavis.edu/dermatology/specialties/medical/oral.html#:~:text=The%20oral%20mucosa%20is%20the,or%20ulcers%20on%20this%20lining.

²³ N. Dutzan, T. Kajikawa, L. Abusleme, et al. (2018), “A Dysbiotic Microbiome Triggers T_H17 Cells to Mediate Oral Mucosal Immunopathology in Mice and Humans,” Science Translational Medicine, 10[463]:eaat0797; Sedghi, et al., p. 110.

²⁴ Sedghi, et al., p. 110; “Oral Mucosal Immunity and Microbiome” in Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, ed. G.N. Belibasakis, G. Hajishengallis, N. Bostanci, M.A. Curtis (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 1197, emp. added; R.Q. Wu, D.F. Zhang, E. Tu, Q.M. Chen, W. Chen (2014), “The Mucosal Immune System in the Oral Cavity—An Orchestra of T Cell Diversity,” International Journal of Oral Science, 6[3]:125-132; A. Esberg, S. Haworth, R. Kuja-Halkola, P.K.E. Magnusson, I. Johansson (2020), “Heritability of Oral Microbiota and Immune Responses to Oral Bacteria,” Microorganisms, 8[8]:1126.

²⁵ Sedghi, et al., p. 113; E. Xiao, M. Mattos, G.H.A. Vieira, et al. (2017), “Diabetes Enhances IL-17 Expression and Alters the Oral Microbiome to Increase Its Pathogenicity,” Cell Host Microbe, 22[1]:120-128; Mi Klein, L. DeBaz, S. Agidi, et al. (2010), “Dynamics of Streptococcus mutans Transcriptome in Response to Starch and Sucrose During Biofilm Development,” PLoS One, 5[10]:e13478; A. Cekici, A. Kantarci, H. Hasturk, T.E. Van Dyke (2014), “Inflammatory and Immune Pathways in the Pathogenesis of Periodontal Disease,” Periodontology 2000, 64[1]:57-80; P. De Pablo, T. Dietrich, T.E. McAlindon (2008), “Association of Periodontal Disease and Tooth Loss with Rheumatoid Arthritis in the US Population,” Journal of Rheumatology, 35[1]:70-76; J. Wu, B.A. Peters, C. Dominianni, et al. (2016), “Cigarette Smoking and the Oral Microbiome in a Large Study of American Adults,” The ISME Journal, 10[10]:2435-2446; W. Pitiphat,  A.T. Merchant, E.B. Rimm, K.J. Joshipura, “Alcohol Consumption Increases Periodontitis Risk,” Journal of Dental Research, 82[7]:509-513.

²⁶ Kumar and Chordia, p. 131.

²⁷ Sedghi, et al., p. 121.

²⁸ Ibid., p. 113; C.P. Bondonno, A.H. Liu, K.D. Croft, et al. (2015), “Antibacterial Mouthwash Blunts Oral Nitrate Reduction and Increases Blood Pressure in Treated Hypertensive Men and Women,” American Journal of Hypertension, 28[5]:572-575.

²⁹ Y.H. Li and X. Tian (2012), “Quorum Sensing and Bacterial Social Interactions in Biofilms,” Sensors, 12:2519-2538; Kilian, et al., p. 659.

³⁰ W.C. Fuqua, S.C. Winans, and E.P. Greenberg (1994), “Quorum Sensing in Bacteria: The LuxR-LuxI Family of Cell Density-Responsive Transcriptional Regulators,” Journal of Bacteriology, 176:269-275; Avila, et al., p. 408; Kilian, et al., p. 662.

³¹ Deo and Deshmukh, p. 127.

³² Ibid., p. 122.

³³ Kilian, et al., p. 659.

³⁴ Avila, et al., p. 405.

³⁵ Kilian, et al., p. 660.

³⁶ However, one must keep in mind that through the six thousand years of human history, genetic degeneration has occurred and the application of the laws of thermodynamics continues to degrade the effectiveness and efficiency of all biological organisms.

³⁷ Kumar and Chordia, p. 131.

³⁸ Deo and Deshmukh, p. 123.

³⁹ Ibid., p. 124.

⁴⁰ Sedghi, et al., p. 110.

⁴¹ Ibid., p. 112. Also M.W. Hall, N. Singh, et al. (2017), “Interpersonal Diversity and Temporal Dynamics of Dental, Tongue, and Salivary Microbiota in the Healthy Oral Cavity,” NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes, 3[1]:1-7.

⁴² Avila, et al., p. 405.

⁴³ Jørn, et al., p. 5724.

⁴⁴ R.J. Gibbons (1989), “Bacterial Adhesion to Oral Tissues: A Model for Infectious Diseases,” Journal of Dental Research, 68:750-760; Jorn, et al., p. 5731; Deo and Deshmukh, p. 123.

⁴⁵ P.D. Marsh (2006), “Dental Plaque as a Biofilm and a Microbial Community—Implications for Health and Disease,” BioMed Central, 6:1-7; B. Rosan and R.J. Lamont (2000), “Dental Plaque Formation,” Microbes and Infection, 2[13]:1599-1607; Sedghi, et al., pp. 115-116; Welch, et al., pp. 335-338.

⁴⁶ Sedghi, et al., p. 113.

⁴⁷ Ibid., p. 122.

⁴⁸ Ibid., pp. 108,120.

⁴⁹ Avila, et al., p. 406; Michael Wilson (2004), Microbial Inhabitants of Humans (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 318ff.

⁵⁰ Maria del Mar Ferrándiz Lorenzo (no date), “Bacteria in Our Mouths: How Many and What are They?” KIN Laboratories, https://www.kin.es/en/bacterias-que-tenemos-en-la-boca/.

⁵¹ Avila, et al., p. 406. See also P.E. Kolenbrander, N.S. Jakubovics, N.I. Chalmers, and R.J. Palmer, Jr. (2007), “Human Oral Multispecies Biofilms: Bacterial Communities in Health and Human Disease” in The Biofilm Mode of Life: Mechanisms and Adaptations, ed. S. Kjelleberg (Norfolk, VA: Horizon Bioscience), pp. 175-194.

⁵² Deo and Deshmukh, p. 123.

⁵³ Kilian, et al., p. 660; Also Lorenzo.

⁵⁴ W. van’t Hof, E.C. Veerman, A.V. Nieuw Amerongen, and A.J. Ligtenberg (2014), “Antimicrobial Defense Systems in Saliva,” Monographs in Oral Science, 24:40-51; Kilian, et al., p. 660.

⁵⁵ Sedghi, et al., p. 115.

⁵⁶ Ibid., p. 115; D.M. Proctor, J.A. Fukuyama, P.M. Loomer, et al. (2018), “A Spatial Gradient of Bacterial Diversity in the Human Oral Cavity Shaped by Salivary Flow,” Nature Communications, p. 9.

⁵⁷ Kilian, et al., p. 660.

⁵⁸ Jørn, et al., p. 5721.

⁵⁹ Kilian, et al., p. 657, emp. added.

⁶⁰ Sedghi, et al., p. 107, emp. added.

⁶¹ Kumar and Chordia, p. 131, emp. added.

⁶² Avila, et al., p. 408, emp. added.

⁶³ Deo and Deshmukh, p. 123, emp. added.

⁶⁴ Kilian, et al., p. 659.

⁶⁵ Deo and Deshmukh, p. 122, emp. added.

⁶⁶ Kilian, et al., p. 652, emp. added.

⁶⁷ Ibid., p. 660, emp. added.

⁶⁸ Even as the Universe “declares” (i.e., “announces/makes known”) the glory of God (Psalm 19:1). Ludwig Koehler et al. (1994-2000), The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden: E.J. Brill), p. 766.

The post The Human Oral Microbiome: A Mouthful of Proof for God appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: Part 1 of this two-part series appeared in the February issue. Part 2 follows below and continues, without introductory comments, where the first article ended. Both articles are excerpted from our volume Does God Exist?]

It is disturbing to contemplate the fact that 100 years ago, more Americans believed in the God of the Bible. The universal teaching of the public schools was Creation as depicted in the Bible. In stark contrast, we have lived to see an unbelievable transformation in which the universal teaching of the public schools is evolution, we have filled our university faculties with atheists, and we have banned God from the public square under the guise of “separation of church and state.” The impact on the thinking of children who are now adults has been catastrophic.

But on the Day of Judgment, there will be no excuses. Every accountable human being on the planet can know that God exists. The created order possesses characteristics that inherently demand the existence of a transcendent, supernatural Creator. As a matter of fact, the evidence that exists in the material order—the Universe/cosmos, the planet Earth, the animals, the plants, and the human body—communicate the clear message that all owe their origin to the divine Creator. This message is being continually communicated all over the planet regardless of geographical location, time of day, and language spoken (Psalm 19:1-3).

In the previous article, we mentioned very briefly several marvelous, convincing evidences for the existence of God as seen in the remarkable human body and some of the features of the created order—phenomena inexplicable apart from Almighty God. We now turn to more of “the things that are made” (Romans 1:20)—additional decisive evidence—that also offers amazing proof of the great Governor of the Universe.

Symbiosis and Mutualism

One feature of the Earth that proves the existence of the God of the Bible involves symbiotic relationships. Although definitions and distinctions abound, generally speaking, symbiosis refers to a close, usually obligatory, association of two or more plants or animals of different species that depend on each other to survive. Each gains benefits from the other. These include both mutualistic and parasitic species. Obligate interactions exhibit considerable specificity and typically involve interaction with only a single species or genus.

For example, a large percentage of herbivores have mutualistic gut fauna that help them digest plant matter, which is more difficult to digest than animal prey. One species of butterfly employs complex chemical and acoustical signals to manipulate ants. Coral reefs are the result of mutualisms between coral organisms and various types of algae that live inside them. Most land plants and land ecosystems rely on mutualisms. Plants convert carbon from the air. Fungi help in extracting minerals from the soil. Many types of tropical and sub-tropical ants have complex relationships with certain tree species.

Those plants and animals that both need each other to survive would have had to come into existence close in time to each other. They most certainly could not have been separated from each other by millions or billions of years of alleged evolutionary adjustments. They would have had to have been created by the Creator to function precisely the way they function. Such massive complexity, interdependency, and sophisticated diversity scream divine design.

The Human Mouth¹

Take, for example, the interior of the human mouth. Setting aside the incredible design necessary for the mouth to function, including teeth, gums, tongue, lips, muscles, nerves, cells, etc., all of which must work together from the beginning if the individual is going to receive nourishment to survive, evolution simply cannot provide a credible explanation for the condition of the human mouth on a microscopic level.

Microbiologists estimate that over 700 distinct bacterial species are present in the mouth. How could 700 separate creatures come together in one place to create a complex ecosystem of mixed organisms that co-exist with each other to perform marvelous feats of chemical engineering—from breaking down food particles and mopping up shed body cells, to competing with intruder organisms to protect us from infection? The complexity is inexplicable in terms of evolution. This sophisticated arrangement had to have been created by God.

The Nile Crocodile and the Egyptian Plover²

Another amazing proof that divine Creation is true and evolution is false is seen in the relationship sustained by the Egyptian Plover bird and the Nile crocodile. Africa’s largest crocodilian, these primordial brutes can reach 20 feet in length and weigh up to 1,650 pounds. Their diet entails mainly fish, but they will attack almost anything: zebras, small hippos, birds, porcupines, and other crocs. They are ambush hunters—they wait for fish or land animals to come close, and then rush out to attack. They are vicious man-eaters: up to 200 people die each year in the jaws of a Nile croc.

Despite these facts regarding the deadly nature of the Nile crocodile, it is absolutely astounding to learn that the Egyptian Plover bird has a symbiotic relationship with this creature that entails entering the croc’s mouth for the purpose of cleaning its teeth and gums. The croc will open its mouth and allow the bird to enter, sometimes keeping it open and sometimes closing it gently with the bird still inside. The bird then uses its beak to remove parasites, leeches, worms, and bits of food that infest the crocodile’s mouth. The Plover enjoys a ready source of food, and the crocodile gets a valuable teeth cleaning to promote health and minimize disease. Such an arrangement could not have evolved. No crocodile could have gradually decided it was in its best interest to let a bird clean its mouth. Such sophisticated relationships among diverse creatures prove pre-planning and programming—intelligent design by the Master Designer and Creator.

The Emerald Wasp and the Cockroach³

Wikimedia.org (Chiswick Chap) 2018 license CC-by-sa-4.0

Another astounding example of symbiosis that demonstrates the existence of God pertains to the Emerald Cockroach Wasp and the American cockroach. The latter insect is six times larger than the Emerald Wasp. Yet, the wasp enacts a brilliantly strategic sting into the central nervous system of the cockroach to cause temporary paralysis of the front legs. This temporary paralysis allows the wasp to deliver a second sting into a carefully chosen spot in the brain ganglia to control the escape reflex. The brain sting causes a dramatic behavioral change: the cockroach becomes passive and zombie-like. Its breathing slows, and it makes no attempt to escape. As a result of this sting, the roach will groom itself, become sluggish, and fail to show normal escape responses.

The wasp then leads the cockroach by its antennae, like a leash, to the wasp’s burrow. The wasp does not have to drag the cockroach, since the roach willingly walks on its own legs. Inside the burrow, the wasp lays a white egg, about two millimeters long, on the roach’s abdomen. It then exits and uses debris to barricade the defenseless roach inside the burrow (to keep other predators out). With its escape reflex disabled, the stung roach remains calm and complacent as the wasp’s egg hatches after about three days. The hatched larva drills a hole into the leg of the cockroach to retrieve nutrition from the blood system of the roach for four to five days. Then the larva burrows into the abdomen of the cockroach, crawls inside, and over a period of eight days, consumes the roach’s internal organs in an order which guarantees that the roach will stay alive, at least until the larva enters the pupal stage and forms a cocoon inside the roach’s body. Six weeks from the first sting, a new adult wasp emerges from the hollowed out dead body of the roach.

The venom of the Emerald Wasp is carefully calibrated to shut down signals carried by a key neurotransmitter brain chemical called dopamine. The wasp delivers the sting with the precision of microscopic brain surgery. This remarkable skill could not have evolved. Nor was it learned. It was hardwired by the Creator into each wasp—making it a natural born neurosurgeon. The offspring of the wasp literally depend on the perfect execution of the mother’s sting. Too much venom, and the cockroach would immediately die, eliminating the wasp offspring’s fresh food source. Too little (or poorly aimed) venom, and the roach would escape. Millions of years of trial and error cannot be the source of this relationship. Failure of any one step in this complex process would prevent reproduction—and terminate the species. Can such design, complexity, order, purpose, and intelligence come out of mindless, evolutionary chaos? Absolutely not. The Emerald Wasp and the American cockroach were created by the Creator to function precisely as they do. “O Lord, how manifold are your works! In wisdom have you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures” (Psalm 104:24). The Creation declares the reality of the Creator.

The Leafcutter Ant and Fungus⁴

Leafcutter ants nest in underground chambers in the Amazonian rain forest of Brazil. They regularly leave their nests to forage hundreds of feet into the forest. Most tropical plants are permeated by toxic chemicals to deter foragers. So, using specially designed “mouth cutters,” the ants cut out portions of the leaves they find, being careful not to ingest any of the poisonous chemicals. They then transport their cargo back to the nests and deliver it to smaller worker ants. These ants clean the leaves and chew them into pulpy mulch—again, being careful not to “swallow.” They then feed the mulch to another organism that the ants actually cultivate—a fungus. This fungus breaks down the toxins in the leaves while generating proteins and sugars. These proteins and sugars constitute the food that the ants eat. The ants need the fungus for food—and will die without the fungus. The fungus, on the other hand, cannot live without the ants, since they are dependent on the ant to bring the leaves. This is a mutual co-dependency that could not have evolved.

Incredibly, this particular fungus grows only in the underground chambers of the Leafcutter ant’s nest. And the fungus will not consume all leaves, since some are toxic to the fungus. The Leafcutter ants are sensitive enough to adapt to the fungi’s preferences and, hence, cease collecting those leaves. Scientists think that the ants can detect chemical signals from the fungus which communicate the preferences of the fungus.

What’s more, researchers have identified an aggressive mold that threatens the fungus. When the researchers remove the ants from the nest, the mold destroys the fungus. Entomologists have discovered that the ants—especially the ones that tend the fungus—have a white, waxy coating on their body. The coating, which fights the mold for the fungus, has been identified as tangled mats of bacteria that produce many of the antibiotics that humans use for medicine. The ants are essentially wearing portable antimicrobials. Yet humans only discovered antibiotics within the last century. No wonder Solomon observed: “Go to the ant…consider her ways and be wise, which, having no captain, overseer or ruler, provides her supplies in the summer, and gathers her food in the harvest” (Proverbs 6:6-8).

The Yucca Moth and the Yucca⁵

About 50 species of yucca plant grace the planet. Incredibly, the yucca plant is completely unable to pollinate itself in order to grow more seeds and reproduce. It is wholly dependent on the genetically programmed yucca moth to facilitate reproduction and perpetuate the species.

From their subterranean cocoons in spring, male and female yucca moths crawl to the surface and fly to nearby yucca plants. Yucca plants are just opening their flowers. The female yucca moth collects pollen from the yucca flower and fashions it into a sticky ball, using a pair of long, curved “claws” (proboscis) protruding from her mouth area, to collect, form, compact, and carry the golden pollen ball. The yucca’s pollen is in a curved region of the plant. Only the yucca moth has the specially curved proboscis to gather the pollen from the plant’s male reproductive organs.

Having collected the pollen, she then flies to another plant where she inserts a moth egg into the ovary wall of the yucca plant, using her ovipositor—itself a marvel of engineering design. Still carrying the pollen ball in her facial claws, she climbs to the top of the ovary. She presses the pollen into the stigma, fertilizing hundreds of immature seeds inside. When the moth larvae hatch, they feed on the seeds of the yucca. If they were to eat all the seeds, the yucca plants would stop reproducing, and both they and the moths would cease to exist. God designed the moth to calibrate the number of larvae growing inside each flower so that all the yucca seeds will not be consumed.

The life cycle of the yucca moth is timed so the adult moths emerge in the spring exactly when the yucca plants are in flower. The yucca moth and yucca plant were designed to function together. They had to have been created in close temporal proximity. No wonder evolutionary biologist Dr. Chris Smith conceded: “It is pretty mind-boggling to imagine how this arose. It’s very strange.”⁶ “Mind-boggling”? Absolutely. “Strange or inexplicable”? No—unless you ignore, reject, or dismiss the obvious.

The Black Wasp and the Aphid⁷

When plants in the southeastern United States are besieged by aphids—small sap-sucking, extremely destructive insect pests—they release a chemical mist that signals black wasps to come to their rescue. Upon arrival, wasps do not kill the aphids outright. With clinical precision, the wasps inject a single egg into each aphid’s body. Each wasp can inject eggs into 200 aphids. The aphid’s body then serves as the incubator for the offspring of its predator. As the ravenous wasp larvae grow, they literally eat the aphid alive from the inside out until they are ready to emerge and begin the process all over again.

Observe that this divinely designed means of controlling the aphid population is simply one marvelous system among others. The diversity and complexity of a variety of systems, all working in concert in the natural order, imply an overarching, overruling master plan to ensure the ongoing perpetuation of the created order. In addition to the black wasp, ants also participate in controlling aphids.

The Ant and the Aphid⁸

Aphids sustain another complicated relationship. They are equipped with special, syringe-like mouth parts to pierce plants and retrieve fluid from them. Some species of ants literally “cultivate” the aphids by “milking” them without harm to the insect. Ants stroke the aphids with their antennae, causing the aphids to secrete honeydew which the ants can then consume. The aphids, therefore, provide a ready food supply for the ants. In exchange, the aphids receive protection since the ants act as a team to fight off invaders and predators, like ladybugs.

But this interrelationship goes even deeper. The sap which the aphids retrieve from plants is rich in carbohydrates, but lacks essential amino acids—which aphids cannot synthesize. Enter a third actor in this mutualistic drama: tiny endosymbiont bacteria (Buchnera aphidicola). These bacteria live in the aphid’s special cells called bacteriocytes. The amino acids are supplied by these bacteria. Neither the bacteria nor the aphid can exist without the other.

Amazing: the ant depends on the aphid for food; the aphid depends on the ant for protection; the aphid depends on internal bacteria for amino acids; the aphid provides the bacteria with energy, carbon, and shelter inside specialized cells. Symbiosis within symbiosis—decisive proof of divine design!

Evolutionary Explanation?

Such remarkable examples of divine design could be multiplied endlessly. They absolutely point to God. But, of course, evolutionists attempt to offer an “explanation” for symbiosis among the wondrous organisms that grace our planet. It goes something like this:⁹ “Organisms that depend on each other for survival co-evolved, gradually becoming dependent on each other by means of minute changes over millions of years.” Such a claim is then liberally peppered with nullifying qualifications: “Surprisingly little is known about how mutualistic symbioses evolved and persist.” “Despite their ubiquity and importance, we understand little about how mutualistic symbioses form between previously free-living organisms.” “The evolutionary sequence of events in most lineages is unknown.” “Exactly how these associations evolve remains unclear.” “Much remains to be learned about the mechanisms that maintain mutualism as an evolutionarily stable interaction.” Rationally-thinking Christians have a responsibility before God to train themselves to recognize nonsensical gobbledygook when they hear it. The fact is that any alleged “transitions” or “minute changes”—when pinpointed and examined as moments in time—are seen to be unworkable, imaginary, impossible, and nonexistent. Both organisms needed each other from the beginning of their existence. How did these creatures gain nourishment before becoming dependent? Each of these organisms possesses concise design variables that prove the inability of gradual mutation and natural selection as effectual causative agents.

Recall the debate conducted in 1976 on the campus of North Texas State University in Denton, Texas, when Thomas B. Warren debated Antony G.N. Flew—at the time, arguably the foremost atheistic philosopher in the world. Flew’s attempt to substantiate the credibility of evolution is seen in this statement: “[I]t is, it seems to me, a consequence of evolutionary theory that species shade off into one another.”¹⁰ “Shade off into one another”? Evolutionists attempt to cloud the mind by implying that all organisms came into existence as a result of very slow, almost imperceptible changes over time. But where on the planet are these alleged increments or “shades” from one kind of animal to another? We know chimps exist. We know humans exist. We know nothing of any alleged “shades.” Nor does true science.

Warren challenged Flew to face the fact that even if evolution theorizes numerous pre-human ancestors, there had to be a first human being to arrive on the scene. Where did he/she come from? The very first human being on the planet had to come into existence somehow. But how? Was this first human being a male or female? A baby or an adult? In reality, there are only two possibilities: (1) either a nonhuman had to transform into a human during its lifetime, or (2) a nonhuman had to give birth to a human. Philosophically and scientifically, these are the only two possibilities—and neither is tenable. Evolution is not only scientifically unfeasible; it is logical and philosophical nonsense! Indeed, evolution is false, and there is a God.

The smaller and deeper we go in examining God’s creation, the more complex, sophisticated, and astounding the discoveries.¹¹ One would have to be prejudiced and deliberately determined to deny God to brush aside the overwhelming evidence of Him in His creation. “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1; 53:1). “Stand still and consider the wondrous works of God” (Job 37:14).

Conclusion

If you were to toss a stick of dynamite into a print shop, and do so every day for a million years, would a dictionary ever be the result? Can such design, complexity, order, purpose, and intelligence ever come out of mindless, evolutionary chaos? The answer is an unequivocal “No!” The late British evolutionist Sir Fred Hoyle addressed specifically the many problems faced by those who defend the idea of a naturalistic origin of life on Earth. In fact, Dr. Hoyle described the atheistic concept that disorder gives rise to order in a rather picturesque manner when he observed that “the chance that higher forms have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.”¹² Dr. Hoyle, even went so far as to draw the following conclusion:

Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly miniscule as to make the random concept absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends, are in every respect deliberate…. It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect in a valid way the higher intelligences…even to the extreme idealized limit of God.¹³

Or as Dawkins conceded:

The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially, the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer.¹⁴

Indeed, the interdependent, interconnected, interpenetrating features of God’s creation are beyond the capability of man to trace out—let alone to “manage” or “assist.” Neither a pine tree nor a pinecone is sentient. They have no thinking capacity or consciousness. They possess no personhood, soul, or spirit. Pine trees did not get together and discuss the threat of forest fires to their future survival, and then decide to produce pinecones that would remain closed during a fire only to open afterwards. No crocodile convention was ever held in which crocs decided it was in their best health interests to refrain from chomping down on Plover birds while all other animals remained “fair game.” The standard explanations by evolutionists for such wonders of creation are incoherent, nonsensical, and just plain pitiful. Elihu reminded Job: “Behold, God is exalted in His power; Who is a teacher like Him? Who has appointed Him His way, and who has said, ‘You have done wrong’? Remember that you should exalt His work, of which men have sung. All men have seen it; man beholds from afar” (Job 36:22-25, NASB).

Indeed, the realm of nature literally shouts forth the reality of the all-powerful Maker Who alone accounts for the intelligent design of the created order. As the psalmist so eloquently affirmed: “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork…. There is no speech, nor language where their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world” (Psalm 19:1-4). Only a foolish person would conclude there is no God (Psalm 14:1).

The only plausible explanation for the Universe and the entire created order is “the great God who formed everything” (Proverbs 26:10). “O Lord, how manifold are Your works! In wisdom You have made them all. The earth is full of Your possessions” (Psalm 104:24). We can know there is a God. The Creation declares the reality of the Creator. To repeat Paul’s declaration in Romans: “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse” (1:20).

Endnotes

¹ See Jørn Aas, et al. (2005), “Defining the Normal Bacterial Flora of the Oral Cavity,” Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 43(11):5721-5732, November; Human Oral Microbiome Database (2015), http://www.homd.org/.

² See Leo Africanus (1896 reprint), The History and Description of Africa, trans. John Pory (London: Hakluyt Society), 3:951-952, https://archive.org/details/historyanddescr02porygoog; Robert Curzon (1851), A Visit to the Monasteries in the Levant (New York: George P. Putnam), 1:131, https://goo.gl/PRGnsJ; “Egyptian Plover” (2014), Bird Forum, http://www.birdforum.net/opus/Egyptian_Plover; “Endangered Crocodiles and Caimen” (no date), 50 Birds, http://www.50birds.com/animals/endangered-alligators-2.htm; Thomas Howell (1979), Breeding Biology of the Egyptian Plover, Pluvianus Aegyptius (Berkeley, CA: University of California), pp. 3ff., https://goo.gl/n6WCRn; Richard Meinertzhagen (1959), Pirates and Predators: The Piratical and Predatory Habits of Birds (London: Oliver & Boyd); “Nature in Egypt” (no date), http://traditionalegypt.co.uk/egypt/nature-in-egypt.php; Alfred Newton (1899), A Dictionary of Birds  (London: Adam & Charles Black), pp. 442,732-733, https://goo.gl/1y0MbY; “Nile Crocodile” (no date), MediaLibrary.org, http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/Nile_crocodile#cite_note-26; “Nile Crocodile” (2015), National Geographic, http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/reptiles/nile-crocodile/; “Nile Crocodile (Crocodylus niloticus), 2010” (2015), San Diego Zoo Global Library, http://ielc.libguides.com/sdzg/factsheets/nile_crocodile; Grace Norton, ed. (1908) The Spirit of Montaigne (Boston, MA: Houghton, Mifflin & Company), p. 78, https://goo.gl/KwULiY; Henry Scherren (1907), Popular Natural History (New York: Cassel & Company), pp. 268-269, https://goo.gl/9DLqQy; Philip Sclater (1893), The Ibis (London: Gurney and Jackson), vol. 5, 6^th series, pp. 275-276, https://archive.org/details/ibis10uniogoog.

³ See Ram Gal and Frederic Libersat (2008), “A Parasitoid Wasp Manipulates the Drive for Walking of its Cockroach Prey,” Current Biology, 18[1]:877-82, June 24; Ram Gal and Frederic Libersat (2010), “A Wasp Manipulates Neuronal Activity in the Sub-Esophageal Ganglion to Decrease the Drive for Walking in Its Cockroach Prey,” PLoS One, 5[4]:e10019, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2850919/; G. Haspel, L.A. Rosenberg, and F. Libersat (2003), “Direct Injection of Venom by a Predatory Wasp into Cockroach Brain,” Journal of Neurobiology, 56[3]:287-92, September 5, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12884267/; G. Haspel, E. Gefen, et al. (2005), “Parasitoid Wasp Affects Metabolism of Cockroach Host to Favor Food Preservation for its Offspring,” Journal of Comparative Physiology, 191[6]:529-34, June, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15864597/; Frederic Libersat (2003), “Wasp Uses Venom Cocktail to Manipulate the Behavior of Its Cockroach Prey,” Journal of Comparative Physiology, 189[7]:497-508, July, http://www.bgu.ac.il/life/Faculty/Libersat/pdf/JCP.2003.pdf; Eugene Moore, Gal Haspel, Frederic Libersat, Michael Adams (2006), “Parasitoid Wasp Sting: A Cocktail of GABA, Taurine, and -alanine Opens Chloride Channels for Central Synaptic Block and Transient Paralysis of a Cockroach Host,” Journal of Neurobiology, 66[8]:811-820, July, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/neu.20254/abstract.

⁴ See Frank Aylward, Kristin Burnum-Johnson, et al. (2013), “Leucoagaricus gongylophorus Produces Diverse Enzymes for the Degradation of Recalcitrant Plant Polymers in Leaf-Cutter Ant Fungus Gardens,” Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 79[12]:3770-3778, June, http://aem.asm.org/content/79/12/3770.full.pdf+html; Matias Cafaro, et al. (2011), “Specificity in the Symbiotic Association Between Fungus-Growing Ants and Protective Pseudonocardia Bacteria,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 278:1814-1822, http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royprsb/278/1713/1814.full.pdf; Eric Caldera, et al. (2009), “Insect Symbioses: A Case Study of Past, Present, and Future Fungus-Growing Ant Research,” Environmental Entomology, 38[1]:78-92, February, http://ee.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/1/78; Cameron Currie, Ulrich Mueller, and David Malloch (1999), “The Agricultural Pathology of Ant Fungus Gardens,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 96:7998-8002, July, http://www.pnas.org/content/96/14/7998.full.pdf; Cameron Currie, Michael Poulsen, et al. (2006), “Coevolved Crypts and Exocrine Glands Support Mutualistic Bacteria in Fungus-Growing Ants,” Science, 311[5757]:81-83, January 6, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/311/5757/81.abstract; Hermógenes Fernández-Marín, Jess Zimmerman, et al. (2006), “Active Use of the Metapleural Glands by Ants in Controlling Fungal Infection,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 273:1689-1695, March, http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royprsb/273/1594/1689.full.pdf; Hermógenes Fernández-Marín, David Nash, et al. (2015), “Functional Role of Phenylacetic Acid from Metapleural Gland Secretions in Controlling Fungal Pathogens in Evolutionarily Derived Leaf-Cutting Ants,” Proceedings B, 282[1807]:20150212, April 29, http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1807/20150212; Susanne Haedera, Rainer Wirthb, et al. (2009), “Candicidin-Producing Streptomyces Support Leaf-Cutting Ants to Protect Their Fungus Garden against the Pathogenic Fungus Escovopsis,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 106[12]:4742-4746, http://www.pnas.org/content/106/12/4742.full.pdf; Ainslie Little, Takahiro Murakami, et al. (2006), “Defending against Parasites: Fungus-Growing Ants Combine Specialized Behaviours and Microbial Symbionts to Protect Their Fungus Gardens,” Biology Letters, 2:12-16, August, http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/roybiolett/2/1/12.full.pdf; Ainslie Little and Cameron Currie (2007), “Symbiotic Complexity: Discovery of a Fifth Symbiont in the Attine Ant-Microbe Symbiosis,” Biology Letters, 3:501-504, August, http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/roybiolett/3/5/501.full.pdf; Lucas Meirelles, Scott Solomon, et al. (2015), “Shared Escovopsis Parasites Between Leaf-Cutting and Non-Leaf-Cutting Ants in the Higher Attine Fungus-Growing Ant Symbiosis,” Royal Society Open Science, 2:150257, http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royopensci/2/9/150257.full.pdf; Ulrich Mueller and Nicole Gerardo (2002), “Fungus-Farming Insects: Multiple Origins and Diverse Evolutionary Histories,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 99[24]:15247-15249, November 26, http://www.pnas.org/content/99/24/15247.full.pdf; Hannah Reynolds and Cameron Currie (2004), “Pathogenicity of Escovopsis weberi: The Parasite of the Attine Ant-Microbe Symbiosis Directly Consumes the Ant-Cultivated Fungus,” Mycologia, 96[5]:955-959, September/October, http://www.mycologia.org/content/96/5/955.abstract; Andre Rodrigues, Ulrich Mueller, et al. (2011), “Ecology of Microfungal Communities in Gardens of Fungus-Growing Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae): A Year-Long Survey of Three Species of Attine Ants in Central Texas,” FEMS Microbiological Ecology, 78[2]:244-255, http://femsec.oxfordjournals.org/content/femsec/78/2/244.full.pdf; Hassan Salem, Laura Florez, et al. (2015), “An Out-of-Body Experience: The Extracellular Dimension for the Transmission of Mutualistic Bacteria in Insects,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 282[1804]:20142957; Christopher Trantera, Lauren LeFevreb, et al. (2015), “Threat Detection: Contextual Recognition and Response to Parasites by Ants,” Behavioral Ecology, 26[2]:396-405, http://beheco.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/2/396.abstract; Mingzi Zhang, Michael Poulsen, and Cameron Currie (2007), “Symbiont Recognition of Mutualistic Bacteria by Acromyrmex Leaf-Cutting Ants,” The ISME Journal, 1:313–320, June, http://www.nature.com/ismej/journal/v1/n4/full/ismej200741a.html.

⁵ See W.P. Armstrong (1999), “The Yucca and Its Moth,” Zoonooz, 72[4]:28-31, April, http://waynesword.palomar.edu/ww0902a.htm; Henry Brean (2011), “Joshua Tree, Yucca Moth Co-Evolution Fascinates Researchers,” Las Vegas Review-Journal, April 18, http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/water-environment/joshua-tree-yucca-moth-co-evolution-fascinates-researchers; Beatriz Moisset (no date), “Yucca Moths (Tegeticula sp.),” United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, http://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/pollinators/pollinator-of-the-month/yucca_moths.shtml; Olle Pellmyr (1997), “Prodoxidae: The Yucca Moth Family (Version 13),” The Tree of Life Web Project, http://tolweb.org/Prodoxidae/11872/1997.01.13; Olle Pellmyr and John Thompson (1992), “Multiple Occurrences of Mutualism in the Yucca Moth Lineage,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 89:2927-2929, April, http://www.pnas.org/content/89/7/2927.full.pdf; Olle Pellmyr, John Thompson, et al. (1996), “Evolution of Pollination and Mutualism in the Yucca Moth Lineage,” The American Naturalist, 148[5]:827-847, November, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2463408?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents; Marylee Ramsay and John Richard Schrock (1995), “The Yucca Plant and the Yucca Moth,” The Kansas School Naturalist, 41[2], June, http://www.emporia.edu/ksn/v41n2-june1995/; Carol Sheppard and Richard Oliver (2004), “Yucca Moths and Yucca Plants: Discovery of ‘the Most Wonderful Case of Fertilisation,’” American Entomologist, 50[1]:32-46, Spring, http://entomology.wsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/yucca2.pdf; J. Arthur Thomson (1922), The Outline of Science (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons), 1:76,79; “Yucca Moth” (no date), DesertUSA, http://www.desertusa.com/animals/yucca-moth.html.

⁶ As quoted in Brean.

⁷ See “Aphid Control with Aphidius & Aphelinus Parasites” (2015), Greenmethods.com, https://greenmethods.com/aphidius/; “Cunning Super-Parasitic Wasps Sniff Out Protected Aphids and Overwhelm Their Defenses” (2012), ScienceDaily, 24, February, BioMed Central Limited, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120224110739.htm; B.M. Drees and J. Jackman (1999), Parasitic Wasp. Field Guide to Texas Insects (Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Company); Lukas Gehrer and Christoph Vorburger (2012), “Parasitoids as Vectors of Facultative Bacterial Endosymbionts in Aphids,” Biology Letters, 8:613–615, March 14, http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/8/4/613; Paul Gross (1993), “Insect Behavioral and Morphological Defenses Against Parasitoids, Annual Review of Entomology,” 38:251-27, January; Kerry Oliver, J.A. Russell, N.A. Moran, M.S. Hunter (2003), “Facultative Bacterial Symbionts in Aphids Confer Resistance to Parasitic Wasps,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100[4]:1803; Kerry Oliver, Koji Noge, Emma Huang, Jamie Campos, Judith Becerra, and Martha Hunter (2012), “Parasitic Wasp Responses to Symbiont-Based Defense in Aphids,” BMC Biology, 10:11, http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/10/11; “Parasitic Wasps & Aphids” (no date), National Geographic, Youtube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLtUk-W5Gpk; “Parasitic Wasps, Order Hymenoptera” (no date), Symbiont, http://www.drmcbug.com/parasitic.htm; E. Wajnberg, C. Bernstein, and J. Van Alphen (2008), Behavioral Ecology of Insect Parasitoids—From Theoretical Approaches to Field Applications (UK: Blackwell Publishing).

⁸ See N. Bluthgen, N.E. Stork, and K. Fiedler (2004), “Bottom-Up Control and Co-Occurrence in Complex Communities: Honeydew and Nectar Determine a Rainforest Ant Mosaic,” Oikos, 106:344-358; M. Doebeli and N. Knowlton (1998), “The Evolution of Interspecific Mutualisms,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 95:8676-8680; B. Holldobler and E.O. Wilson (1990), The Ants (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press); B. Holldobler and E.O. Wilson (1994), Journey to the Ants (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press); Naomi Pierce, Michael Braby, et al. (2002), “The Ecology and Evolution of Ant Association in the Lycaenidae (Lepidoptera),” Annual Review of Entomology, 47:733-771; V. Rico-Gray and P. Oliveira (2007), The Ecology and Evolution of Ant-Plant Interactions (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press); Bernhard Stadler and Anthony F.G. Dixon (2008), Mutualism: Ants and Their Insect Partners (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press); J.J. Stachowicz (2001), “Mutualism, Facilitation, and the Structure of Ecological Communities,” BioScience, 51:235-246, March.

⁹ Cf. Ed Grabianowski (2008), “How Symbiosis Works,” HowStuffWorks.com., March 7, http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/symbiosis2.htm; Durr Aanen and Ton Bisseling (2014), “The Birth of Cooperation,” Science, 345[6192]:29; Erik Hom and Andrew Murray (2014), “Niche Engineering Demonstrates a Latent Capacity for Fungal-Algal Mutualism,” Science, 345[6192]:94.

¹⁰ Antony G.N. Flew and Thomas B. Warren (1976), The Warren-Flew Debate on the Existence of God (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press), p. 25.

¹¹ Jerry Fausz (2007), “Design Rules,” Reason & Revelation, 27[7]:49-52, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=591.

¹² Fred Hoyle (1981), “Hoyle on Evolution,” Nature, 294:105, November 12.

¹³ Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe (1981), Evolution from Space (London: J.M. Dent & Sons), pp. 141,144, emp. in orig.

¹⁴ Richard Dawkins (1982), “The Necessity of Darwinism,” New Scientist, 94:130, April 15, emp. added.

The post The Teleological Argument for the Existence of God [Part 2] appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This is the first in a two-part series on the teleological argument for the existence of God. Part II will appear in the March issue.]

Several years ago, astronomers from more than 30 research institutions in 15 countries worked together to select a site for a giant telescope that they hoped would read TV or radio signals from alien civilizations. Slated to cost one billion dollars, the Square Kilometer Array, or SKA, would be the world’s most powerful radio telescope. Speaking at a conference of the International Society for Optical Engineering in Orlando, Florida, project astronomers said they hoped to find “immediate and direct evidence of life elsewhere in the Universe.”¹

Despite this bold venture, the scientists admitted that “such a search would have distinct limitations, to be sure.” “Distinct limitations”? Like what? For one, the scientists “aren’t sure how to recognize such signals, if they do turn up. The hope is that the signals would consist of organized patterns suggestive of intelligence, and not attributable to any known celestial sources.”² Wait a minute. Evolutionary scientists are renowned for their condescending ridicule of creationists because those who believe in God assert that evidence of intelligent design in the Universe is proof of an Intelligent Designer. No, the evolutionists counter, the Universe got here by accident through random chance, mindless trial and error, and the blind, mechanistic forces of nature. They maintain that life on Earth owes its ultimate origin to dead, non-purposive, unconscious, non-intelligent matter. Yet they were perfectly willing to squander one billion dollars on a telescope with the speculative idea that solid proof—hard evidence—for the existence of alien life would reside in undecipherable radio or TV signals that convey “organized patterns suggestive of intelligence.”³ Atheistic evolutionists want it both ways: organized patterns prove the existence of intelligent alien design and organized patterns do not prove the existence of an Intelligent Designer. Philosophers and logicians refer to such duplicitous posturing as irrational and “logical contradiction.” Apparently, evolutionists call it “science.” Nevertheless, the basic thrust of the teleological argument for the existence of God is self-evident.

THE UNIVERSE—A “Waste of Space”?

“The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.”⁴ So began Carl Sagan’s immensely popular book and PBStelevision series: Cosmos. A more atheistic, humanistic, materialistic declaration could not be spoken. Sagan (1934-1996), who was an astronomer at Cornell University who lived his entire life resistant to the possibility of God and an afterlife, maintained his unbelief—in the words of his third wife—“unflinching” to the end.⁵ She, herself, finds comfort after his passing “without resorting to the supernatural.”⁶

When people reject or avoid the implications of the design in the created order—i.e., that it is logically the result of a Supreme Creator—they have inevitably “exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator” (Romans 1:25). Skeptical of the survival of the Earth at the mercy of Homo sapiens, Sagan turned his attention to an almost obsessive dedication to finding answers and solutions from life forms beyond Earth. In his own words: “In a very real sense this search for extraterrestrial intelligence is a search for a cosmic context for mankind, a search for who we are, where we have come from, and what possibilities there are for our future—in a universe vaster both in extent and duration than our forefathers ever dreamed of.”⁷

Less than a year after his death, Hollywood released a movie on July 11, 1997 based on Sagan’s novel Contact.⁸ The film’s central character, Dr. Eleanor Arroway (played by Jodie Foster), was surely the embodiment of the formative experiences, philosophical perspectives, and spiritual beliefs of Sagan himself. On three separate occasions in the film, a pseudo-intellectual remark, obviously designed to defend the naturalistic explanation of the existence of the Universe while ridiculing the Christian viewpoint, is offered up to viewers. As a child, “Ellie” asks her father if life exists out in the Universe, to which he responds: “Well, if there wasn’t, it’d be an awful waste of space.” As an adult, she converses with Palmer Joss (played by Matthew McConaughey), and, staring up at the starry Puerto Rican sky, expresses her confidence in the evolution of other life forms elsewhere in the Universe: “If just one in a million of those stars has planets, and if only one in a million of those has life, and if just one in a million of those has intelligent life, then there are millions of civilizations out there.”⁹ Ellie is pleasantly stunned when Joss repeats the same line that her father uttered to her when she was a child. Near the close of the film, Ellie speaks the line again to a group of school children when asked if life exists in space.

This triple declaration was obviously intended to offer a “logical” proof that, rather than looking to some supernatural Being Who is transcendent of the Universe, humans had best recognize that the only life beyond planet Earth are those life forms that have evolved (like our own) on other planets in far off galaxies. The materialist is forced to follow Sagan’s presupposition: life must exist elsewhere in the Universe since there is no God. If there is a God Who created life only on Earth, then He was guilty of poor teleological design—creating a vast physical realm that serves absolutely no purpose—and thus producing a nearly infinite realm of “wasted space.”

But wait! The Bible long ago anticipated the skepticism of the materialist astronomer. At the creation of the Universe, God said: “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth” (Genesis 1:14-15). The luminaries that God made included the stars: “God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night” (vss. 17-18). One very specific function of the stars that occupy space far beyond our solar system is illumination (cf. Psalm 136:9). They are “light-bearers.”¹⁰

Another very specific purpose of the vastness of space is seen in the multiple declarations regarding the infinitude of God and the evidence that points to His existence, His glory, His eternality, and His power. Paul affirmed very confidently that “since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20). It is absolutely incredible—and, according to Paul, inexcusable—for a rational human being to contemplate the magnitude of the Universe and the vastness of space, and then to reject the only logical, plausible explanation for it all: God. We simply have no excuse for rejecting God when we are surrounded by such an overwhelming display of wonders and marvels in the created order. Indeed, atheism, evolution, and humanism are simply more sophisticated forms of the polytheism that has plagued humanity for millennia. Moses warned the Israelites of this very thing: “[T]ake heed, lest you lift your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun, the moon, and the stars, all the host of heaven, you feel driven to worship them and serve them, which the Lord your God has given to all the peoples under the whole heaven as a heritage” (Deuteronomy 4:19). Evolutionary astronomy assigns an inflated value to the vastness of space by postulating that it can provide mankind with an alternative explanation for the existence of life—an explanation that absents God. Any such postulation ultimately amounts to idolatry.

David, too, paid homage to the glory of the Creator, as evidenced by the eloquent symphony of the majestic Universe that is played perpetually—24 hours a day:

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them He has set a tabernacle for the sun, which is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoices like a strong man to run its race. Its rising is from one end of heaven, and its circuit to the other end; and there is nothing hidden from its heat (Psalm 19:1-6; cf. 74:16-17; 136:7-8).

Separate and apart from the latest evidence that confirms the movement of the Sun through space,¹¹ these verses reaffirm the fact that the created Universe loudly announces the existence of the Universe-Maker. David also declared: “O Lord, our Lord, how excellent is Your name in all the earth, You have set Your glory above the heavens! …When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, which You have ordained, what is man that You are mindful of him?” (Psalm 8:1,3). God “stretched out the heavens like a curtain” (Psalm 104:2). No wonder even a philosopher on the order of Immanuel Kant observed: “Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.”¹²

A third biblical explanation for the creation of the vast Universe was hinted at by God Himself in the attitude-adjusting lecture He delivered to Job: “Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades, or loose the belt of Orion? Can you lead forth a constellation in its season? Or can you guide the Great Bear with its cubs? Do you know the laws of the heavens? Can you fix their rule over the earth?” (Job 38:31-33). Notice the action terms that are used to refer to the movement of the constellations: bind, loose, lead forth, and guide. Observe also the “laws of the heavens” and their relationship to “ruling over the earth.”¹³ These verses imply that the heavenly bodies, and the laws that govern them, have been deliberately orchestrated, modulated, and regulated by the Creator to serve a purpose or purposes far beyond our present understanding. The text seems to hint that Earth’s status, with its living beings, is somehow affected by the phenomena of the cosmic bodies. Even as the comprehension of scientists has been lacking through the centuries on many features of the physical realm, only eventually to discover the meaning that lay behind observable phenomena, even so our present comprehension of space is woefully inadequate to justify passing judgment on the intentionality and teleology that lie behind many astronomical phenomena.

Evolutionists have far better arguments with which to attempt to prop up their atheistic stance (the “problem of evil” being the strongest, though refutable¹⁴). The “wasted space” argument is anemic, pitiful, and hardly worthy of rebuttal. However, since they brought it to our attention, the Christian is once again reminded of the unfathomable attributes of the great God Who stands above and beyond this vast physical realm. The immensity and vastness of the Universe only spurs the rational mind to marvel at the One whose own metaphysical transcendence surpasses the visible. In the words of the psalmist: “I will meditate on the glorious splendor of Your majesty, and on Your wondrous works. Men shall speak of the might of Your awesome acts, and I will declare Your greatness” (145:5-6). “He counts the number of the stars; He calls them all by name. Great is our Lord, and mighty in power; His understanding is infinite” (Psalm 147:4-5). Isaiah agreed: “Lift up your eyes on high, and see who has created these things, who brings out their host by number; He calls them all by name, by the greatness of His might and the strength of His power” (40:26). Indeed, “the twenty-four elders fall down before Him who sits on the throne and worship Him who lives forever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying:  ‘You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and by Your will they exist and were created’” (Revelation 4:10-11). The vast cosmos points directly and unmistakably to an awesome God.

The Revelation of God

You see, the infinite God of the Bible has revealed Himself to the human race by means of two forms of revelation: natural (or generic) and supernatural (or special). Special revelation consists of the Bible—the self-authenticating, supernatural book that God imparted to humanity by miraculously directing human writers to record His will (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21).

Natural revelation consists of nature: the material realm, the created order. Since God created the heavens and the Earth, His “fingerprints” are all over it. Humans can easily recognize these fingerprints—if they are unbiased, honest, and willing to follow the evidence to its logical conclusion.

Sadly, the number of those who reject the obvious is legion. Why? They are generally unwilling to accept the implications of the existence of God: the need to bring one’s fleshly appetites and actions into harmony with the will of the Creator. But that fact does not lessen the magnitude of the evidence and its availability. Indeed, the psalmist said there is no language where the evidence for God is unavailable (Psalm 19:1-2).

Teleology

The word “teleology” comes from the Greek term teleios, meaning “complete, perfect,” taken from telos which means “end,” “outcome, result.”¹⁵ The teleological argument maintains that one proof for God’s existence is the fact that the Universe is the result or outcome of intentional design, order, and purpose. The characteristics of design in the Universe demonstrate the existence of a Designer. In addition to the passages given previously, the Bible also articulates this principle when the Hebrews writer stated this rationale succinctly in Hebrews 3:4—“For every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God.” If houses with their sophisticated designs cannot just happen or evolve over millions of years, how could worlds? If a watch cannot occur by chance, neither can the systematic chronometers of the Universe. Their geometric precision is so superior to human invention that eclipses, planetary movements, and other astronomical phenomena can be predicted centuries in advance. The Universe is literally a finely tuned, organized machine. If we readily recognize that intelligent planning is behind all ordered design, how could nature’s intricate networks have no Planner? To observe the fantastic design in nature and then conclude there is no Supreme Designer is to behave irrationally. The evidence that surrounds us in the material Universe demands the conclusion that God exists.

Decisive Evidence

Do cars just happen? Of course not. Their multiple systems are interactive and integrated with each other in order for the automobile to operate. A mind—no, multiple minds—lie behind the creation of a car. Yet, compared to the Universe, or compared to the human body, or even compared to the inner workings of one tree leaf, a car is a crude and primitive invention. If the creation of a car demands the existence of the remarkable human brain/mind, what must be required for the creation of the human brain/mind? Obviously, something or Someone far superior to the human mind would be needed for its creation. Logically, that Someone must be the powerful, transcendent Creator: the God of the Bible.

The naturalistic explanation given by evolutionists for the existence of the created order cannot meet the dictates of logic that characterize the unencumbered, unprejudiced human mind. The more one investigates the intricacies and complexities of the natural realm, the more self-evident it is that a grand and great Designer is responsible for the existence of the Universe. In fact, the evidence is overwhelming and decisive.

The Human Body¹⁶

Take, for example, the human body, which possesses such complexity that it simply could not have evolved. Its amazing intricacies absolutely demand a mind—a higher intelligence—behind them. The development of the camera was based upon the human eye. Yet, for all we have accomplished with video and sophisticated photographic equipment, the living, full color optical system of the human eye is unsurpassed. What’s more, we possess a self-restoring, self-repairing healing system; a sensitive stereophonic auditory system; tireless muscular-connecting tissue systems; a well-engineered skeletal framework; a computerized memory-bank brain; a ventilation-insulation skin envelope which constitutes an efficient cooling system of 2000 pores per square inch of skin; and a cardiovascular system that constantly oxygenates our blood with every breath. The human body is absolute proof of God. Atheism cannot explain it. Evolution cannot logically account for it. Scientists have yet to fully understand it. Multiple lifetimes would be necessary even to begin to grasp the massive amount of evidence inherent in the human body.

The psalmist also stated, “I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Your works, and that my soul knows very well” (Psalm 139:14). Indeed, the human body itself is sufficient proof of the existence of the Divine Creator. Right now, your body is performing amazing feats of engineering, chemistry, and physics that no machine designed by man can duplicate. Great human minds have applied themselves to the task of duplicating the various capabilities of the human body. Some incredible things have been accomplished in their efforts to copy God’s Creation, but they simply cannot compare with the marvel of God’s design.

The Flagellum¹⁷

Consider yet another among the millions of amazing proofs of the reality of the Creator. Bacteria, like salmonella, have as part of their anatomy several flagella filaments extending from their cell body. These flagella are marvels of engineering—bio-nanomachines—that appear to possess the remarkable ability of self-assembly. The bacterium’s flagellum assembly process begins with the formation of an MS ring in the cytoplasmic membrane. Then a switch complex called a “C” ring is assembled on its cytoplasmic side, followed by integration of the protein export apparatus inside the ring. The export apparatus sends out flagellar proteins from the cell body to the distal end of the flagellum to grow the structure.

Next, the “hook,” working as an efficient universal joint, extends to the outside of the cell. Then two junction proteins, Hap¹ and Hap³, are attached, followed by the binding of the cap protein, Hap², to form a capping structure under which the assembly of flagellum molecules begins to grow the flagellar filament. Flagellum molecules are then inserted successively just below the cap, and the flagellar filament continues to grow. All of the flagellar axial proteins produced in the cell body are sent into the central channel of the flagellum and transported to and polymerized at its growing end. Some 20 to 30,000 flagellum molecules polymerize to construct a 10 to 15 micrometer long filament.

The flagellar motor is similar to manmade motors—since both were built on fundamental principles set in place by the Creator. The flagellum consists of rotor and stator units in the cell membrane, including switching unit, bushing, universal joint, and helical screw propeller. To generate thrust, the rotary motor is driven by protons flowing into the cell body. The motor then drives the rotation of the flagellum at around 300 Hz, at a power level of 10^-16 W, with energy conversion efficiency close to 100%. The resulting speed is up to 20,000 rpms—faster than the speed of Formula 1 race car engines. This highly efficient, flagellar motor is far beyond the capabilities of manmade, artificial motors. It is so sophisticated, that to suggest that it evolved is the height of irrationality and blind prejudice. Indeed, the evidence is decisive: there is a Designer.

The Pine Tree¹⁸

Consider the pine tree. Some 120 species and subspecies of the pine tree exist worldwide. The Ponderosa pine tree (pinus ponderosa) is one of America’s abundant tree species, covering approximately 27 million acres of land. A young Ponderosa pine has brownish-black bark that changes to a distinctive orange-brown color as the tree grows older. The bark is segmented into large, plate-like structures whose appearance has been likened to a jigsaw puzzle. This unusual design has a purpose. If the tree catches fire, these plates pop off as the bark burns. The tree, in effect, sheds its burning bark! This design, along with the great thickness of the bark, allows the tree to be very resistant to low intensity fires. Since design demands a designer, Who is responsible for this intricate design?

Another species of pine tree is the Lodgepole Pine (pinus contorta), so named since Native Americans used Lodgepole pine for the “lodge poles” in their tepees. This amazing pine tree grows cones that are slightly smaller than a golf ball, are tan when fresh, but turn gray with age. These serotinous cones remain closed until the heat of a forest fire prompts them to open. After the fire, the cones open and reseed the forest. The species literally regenerates itself—even though the forest fire kills the tree itself. Since such design demands a designer, Who is responsible for this ingenious design?

Yet another species of pine tree is the Whitebark Pine (pinus albicaulis). This tree possesses a symbiotic relationship with a bird species known as the Clark’s Nutcracker. The tree is dependent on this bird for reproduction, while the seed of the tree is a major source of food for the bird. This mutualistic relationship is further seen in the fact that Whitebark pinecones do not open and cast seed when they are ripe. The cones remain closed until the Nutcracker comes along, pries the cone open with its bill, and stores the seed within a pouch beneath its tongue. The bird then caches the seed to be used later as a food supply. Some of these seed caches are forgotten, or are not needed, thus enabling the tree to reproduce. Such amazing design—with no Mind behind it? Illogical!

Seed: The Dandelion, Tipuana tipu, and the Alsomitra macrocarpa¹⁹

When the Creator created the Universe in six literal days, He created seed on the third day:

Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. So the evening and the morning were the third day (Genesis 1:11-13).

God designed three main mechanisms for seed dispersal: (1) via animals (e.g., a bird eating a piece of fruit containing seed, and flying to another location where the seed passes out of its body), (2) drifting in ocean and fresh water, and (3) floating with the wind. Incredibly, each of these mechanisms points to the orchestration of a Mastermind.

Consider the ordinary dandelion. It possesses a magnificent crown of plumose hairs forming a symmetrical sphere. Upon closer investigation, this sphere is composed of numerous shafts, each equipped with its own umbrella-like canopy of intricately branched hairs. At the base of each shaft is a single seed. Each individual shaft with its canopy and single seed closely resemble the same design as that utilized in parachutes.

As breezes blow across the surface of the dandelion, the canopy of hairs catch the wind which tugs at the shaft with its host of attached seeds, gently pulling them free from the dandelion head. The parachute-like canopy of hairs then allows the entire assembly to drift with the wind. In fact, the canopy of hairs is precisely designed to achieve flight. The length of the shaft is just right to enable aerodynamic positioning of the canopy to enable it to come to a landing in another location. The attached seed can then take root and start the process all over again. The dandelion is absolute, undeniable proof of God.

Then there is the Tipuana tipu tree (also called Rosewood), originally from South America, but now planted as a shade tree throughout the world. This tree produces achenes—a type of fruit consisting of a dry, membranous sheath that surrounds a seed. The tipu tree has a unique type of achene called a samara, which facilitates a specialized form of wind dispersal. It possesses a fan-shaped wing with a slight pitch (like a propeller or fan blade) which causes it to spin like the auto-rotation of helicopter blades when it falls. The spinning creates lift that slows descent, giving more opportunity to be carried a substantial distance from the tree by the wind, depending on wind velocity and distance above the ground. The decomposed seed spirals down to the ground to become established and perpetuate the species—an unmistakable example of flawless aerodynamic wing design.

Also known for its ingenious aerodynamic configuration is the seed of a tenacious tropical climbing vine identified as Alsomitra macrocarpa. Also called the Javan cucumber, it hangs from trees high in the rain forest canopy in the Sunda Islands of the Malay Archipelago and the Indonesian islands. Each football-sized fruit/gourd is densely packed with large numbers of winged “Stealth Bomber” seeds. A single seed is enveloped by two transparent, papery wings, about five inches across, angled slightly back from and extending either side of the seed. Upon ripening, the wings become dry and the long edge opposite the seed curls slightly upwards.

Each one becomes airborne when released through a hole at the bottom of the gourd and sails through the air, majestically spiraling downward in 20 foot circles. The carefully designed aerodynamic features of the seed are such that it can glide great distances from its point of origin—a classic example of mechanical dispersal in the forest. Moving through the air like a butterfly in flight, it gains height, stalls, dips, and accelerates, once again producing lift—a maneuver known as phugoid oscillation. The seed’s stability in pitch and roll inspired the early aviation pioneer Igo Etrich. Scientists studying this amazing plant describe its lift-to-drag ratio and the rate of descent in these terms: “flight was so stable that samples were seen to take their optimal trimmed angle of attack with a value between the maximum gliding ratio and the minimum rate of descent.”

Evolutionists are confident in their conviction that their explanations for such marvels demonstrate nature’s independent, autonomous existence to the exclusion of God. They virtually “jump through hoops” and engage in “scientific ventriloquism” in their quest to achieve legitimacy for their atheistic bent. However, when all relevant evidence eventually comes to light, it fits “hand in glove” with the presence of the God of the Bible.

Wood²⁰

Prior to the invention of modern plastics, what would the Creator have humans to use for suitable containers? Wood, stone, or clay, and eventually metal, pretty much exhausted the possibilities. Yet, government agencies, like the USDA and the FDA, generally have advocated the use of plastic for cutting boards and other surfaces that sustain food contact, on the grounds that the micropores and knife cuts in wood provide hidden havens for deadly bacterial organisms. As one Extension Specialist from the Department of Human Nutrition stated: “for cleanability and control of microorganisms, plastic is the better choice.”

However, the best research available on the subject suggests otherwise. Dr. Dean Cliver, microbiologist formerly with the Food Safety Laboratory and World Health Organization Collaborating Center for Food Virology at the University of California-Davis, disputed the oft’-repeated claim regarding the superiority of plastic over wood. His research findings, conducted over a period of several years, consistently demonstrated the remarkable antibacterial properties of wood.

Dr. Cliver and his research associates tested five life-threatening bacteria (Escherichia coli, Salmonella, Campylobacter jejuni, Listeria monocytogenes, and Staphylococcus aureus) on four plastic polymers and more than 10 species of hardwood, including hard maple, birch, beech, black cherry, basswood, butternut, and American black walnut. Within three minutes of inoculating wooden boards with cultures of the food-poisoning agents, 99.9% of the bacteria were “unrecoverable.” On the other hand, none of the bacteria tested under similar conditions on plastic died. In fact, leaving microbe populations on the two surfaces overnight resulted in microbial growth on the plastic boards, while no live bacteria were recovered from wood the next morning. Interestingly, bacteria are absorbed into the wood, but evidently do not multiply, and rarely if ever thrive again. In contrast, bacteria in knife scars in plastic boards remain viable (even after a hot-water-and-soap wash) and maintain their ability to surface later and contaminate foods. Treating wood cutting boards with oils and other finishes to make them more impermeable actually retards wood’s bactericidal activity. Microbiologists remain mystified by their inability to isolate a mechanism or agent responsible for wood’s antibacterial properties. Incredible, divine design.

Do these research findings bear any resemblance to Mosaic injunctions 3,500 years ago which required the destruction of pottery that had become contaminated—while wood was simply to be rinsed (Leviticus 6:28; 11:32-33; 15:12)? Dr. Cliver concluded: “I have no idea where the image of plastic’s superiority came from; but I have spent 40 years promoting food safety, and I would go with plastic if the science supported it. I don’t necessarily trust ‘nature,’ but I do trust laboratory research.” Kudos to Dr. Cliver’s honesty. What about trusting nature’s God?

Summary

Founding Father Thomas Paine was among the small handful of Founders who rejected Christianity. Yet he was not an atheist. He believed that the created order proves God exists. In fact, he considered atheists to be “fools” for their rejection of the plain evidence of creation. In Age of Reason, he explained:

Deism, then, teaches us, without the possibility of being deceived, all that is necessary or proper to be known. The creation is the Bible of the Deist. He there reads, in the handwriting of the Creator himself, the certainty of his existence and the immutability of his power, and all other Bibles and Testaments are to him forgeries. The probability that we may be called to account hereafter will, to a reflecting mind, have the influence of belief; for it is not our belief or disbelief that can make or unmake the fact. As this is the state we are in, and which it is proper we should be in, as free agents, it is the fool only, and not the philosopher, or even the prudent man, that would live as if there were no God.²¹

Don’t be foolish. The evidence for the marvelous, creative handiwork of God is simply staggering. The only plausible, rational explanation for the existence of human beings on this planet is God. The intricacies of the created order attest to that living God.

[to be continued]

Endnotes

¹ “Sites Under Review for Telescope that Could Detect Alien TV” (2006), World Science, July 10, http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/060711_ska.htm.

² Ibid., emp. added.

³ One is reminded of NASA’s Viking mission to Mars in the mid-seventies in which scientists eagerly declared evidence for life on Mars based on initial photos that appeared to show a “B” or even a face on a rock. Such judgments soon were deemed premature and incorrect. Cf. “‘Life’ on Mars” (2006), http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/stu/mars_life.html. Also Thomas Warren and Antony Flew (1976), The Warren-Flew Debate (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press), pp. 112,156.

⁴ Carl Sagan (1980), Cosmos (New York: Random House), p. 4.

⁵ Carl Sagan (1997), Billions and Billions (New York: Random House), p. 225.

⁶ Ibid., p. 228.

⁷ Carl Sagan, ed. (1973), “Introduction,” Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence [CETI] (MIT Press), pp. ix-x.

⁸ Carl Sagan (1985), Contact (New York: Simon and Schuster).

⁹ As cited in Ray Bohlin (1998), “Contact: A Eulogy to Carl Sagan,” http://www.probe.org/docs/contact.html. Of course, the scientific evidence does not support this conclusion—see Ray Bohlin (2002), “Are We Alone in the Universe?” http://www.probe.org/docs/lifemars.html.

¹⁰ C.F. Keil and F. Delitzsch (1976 reprint), Commentary on the Old Testament: The Pentateuch (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 1:56; Herbert Leupold (1950 reprint), Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), p. 71.

¹¹ See “StarChild Question of the Month for February 2000,” High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center (HEASARC), Astrophysics Science Division (ASD) at NASA/GSFC, https://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question18.html: “[T]he Sun—in fact, our whole solar system—orbits around the center of the Milky Way Galaxy. We are moving at an average velocity of 828,000 km/hr. But even at that high rate, it still takes us about 230 million years to make one complete orbit around the Milky Way!”

¹² As quoted in Norman Geisler (1983), Cosmos: Carl Sagan’s Religion for the Scientific Mind (Dallas, TX: Quest), p. 59.

¹³ See Frank Gaebelein, ed. (1988), The Expositor’s Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), 4:1037,1042.

¹⁴ See Thomas Warren (1972), Have Atheists Proved There Is No God? (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press). Also Dave Miller (2015), Why People Suffer (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press); Kyle Butt (2010), A Christian’s Guide to Refuting Modern Atheism (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

¹⁵ Barclay Newman (1971), A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament (London: United Bible Societies), p. 180.

¹⁶ The following details were gleaned from: “The Brain Initiative” (2015), National Institutes of Health, http://www.braininitiative.nih.gov/index.htm; “The Cardiovascular System” (2008), SUNY Downstate Medical Center, http://ect.downstate.edu/courseware/histomanual/cardiovascular.html; D.D. Clark and L. Sokoloff (1999), Basic Neurochemistry: Molecular, Cellular and Medical Aspects, ed. G.J. Siegel, B.W. Agranoff, R.W. Albers, S.K. Fisher, M.D. Uhler (Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott), pp. 637–670; Brian Clegg (2013), “20 Amazing Facts about the Human Body,” The Guardian, January 26, http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jan/27/20-human-body-facts-science; “Fantastic Facts about the Human Body” (2008), DiscoveryHealth.com writers, HowStuffWorks.com, August 12, http://health.howstuffworks.com/human-body/parts/facts-about-the-human-body.htm; Henry Gray (1918), Anatomy of the Human Body (Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger); Bartleby.com, 2000, www.bartleby.com/107/; “Human Anatomy” (2015), http://www.innerbody.com/; “Human Body” (2015), National Geographic, http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/health-and-human-body/human-body/; Tanya Lewis (2015), “Human Brain: Facts, Anatomy & Mapping Project,” LiveScience, March 26, http://www.livescience.com/29365-human-brain.html; Marcus E. Raichle and Debra A. Gusnard (2002), “Appraising the Brain’s Energy Budget,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 99[16]:10237-10239, August 6, http://www.pnas.org/content/99/16/10237; Nikhil Swaminathan (2008), “Why Does the Brain Need So Much Power?” Scientific American, April 29, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-does-the-brain-need-s/; “Understanding the Brain” (no date), The National Science Foundation, http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/brain/; Carl Zimmer (2004), Soul Made Flesh: The Discovery of the Brain—and How It Changed the World (New York: Free Press).

¹⁷ See Anton Arkhipov, Peter L. Freddolino, Katsumi Imada, Keiichi Namba, and Klaus Schulten (2006), “Coarse-Grained Molecular Dynamics Simulations of a Rotating Bacterial Flagellum,” Biophysical Journal, 91:4589-4597; Anton Arkhipov, Peter Freddolino, and Klaus Schulten (2014), “Bacterial Flagellum,” Theoretical and Computational Biophysics Group, NIH Center for Macromolecular Modeling & Bioinformatics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, http://www.ks.uiuc.edu/Research/flagellum/; Howard Berg (2000), “Motile Behavior of Bacteria,” Physics Today, 53[1]:24, January, http://scitation.aip.org/docserver/fulltext/aip/magazine/physicstoday/53/1/1.882934.pdf?expires=1447448109&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=4DB7CE4D03EA780CE104B9A03A1CD811; “‘Clutch’ Stops Flagella” (2008), Photonics.com, June 23, http://www.photonics.com/Article.aspx?PID=6&VID=35&IID=258&AID=34236; Tim Dean (2010), “Inside Nature’s Most Efficient Motor: The Flagellar,” Australian Life Scientist, August 2, http://www.lifescientist.com.au/content/molecular-biology/news/inside-nature-s-most-efficient-motor-the-flagellar-1216235209; Zoltán Diószeghy, Péter Závodszky, Keiichi Namba, and Ferenc Vonderviszt (2004), “Stabilization of Flagellar Filaments by HAP2 Capping,” FEBS Letters, 568[1-3]:105-109, June 18, http://www.febsletters.org/article/S0014-5793(04)00623-4/abstract; Erato Protonic Nanomachine Project, Graduate School of Frontier Biosciences, Osaka University, http://www.fbs.osaka-u.ac.jp/labs/namba/npn/index.html; Vitold Galkin, Xiong Yu, Jacob Bielnick, et al. (2008), “Divergence of Quaternary Structures among Bacterial Flagellar Filaments,” Science, 320[5874]:382-385, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/320/5874/382, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/320/5874/382; Abhrajyoti Ghosh and Sonja-Verena Albers (2011), “Assembly and Function of the Archaeal Flagellum,” Biochemical Society Transactions, 39[1]:64-69, February 1, http://www.biochemsoctrans.org/content/39/1/64#fn-group-1; Ken Jarrell, Douglas Bayley, and Alla Kostyukova (1996), “The Archaeal Flagellum: a Unique Motility Structure,” Journal of Bacteriology, 178[17]:5057-5064, September, http://jb.asm.org/content/178/17/5057?ijkey=bb6062450f68ce38ff0bb584daab03fe3ff79f1b&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha; H. Lodish, A. Berk, S.L. Zipursky, et al. (2000), “Cilia and Flagella: Structure and Movement” (Section 19.4), Molecular Cell Biology (New York: W.H. Freeman), fourth edition, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21698/; Robert Macnab (2003), “How Bacteria Assemble Flagella,” Annual Review of Microbiology, 57:77-100, October, http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.micro.57.030502.090832; Saori Maki-Yonekura, Koji Yonekura, and Keiichi Namba (2010), “Conformational Change of Flagellin for Polymorphic Supercoiling of the Flagellar Filament,” Nature Structural & Molecular Biology, 17:417-422, March 14, http://www.nature.com/nsmb/journal/v17/n4/full/nsmb.1774.html; G.L.M. Meister and H.C. Berg (1987), “Rapid Rotation of Flagellar Bundles in Swimming Bacteria,” Nature, 325[6105]:637-640; Yoshio Nagata (2014), “Unlocking the Secrets of Nature’s Nanomotor,” Nikkei Asian Review, June 2, http://asia.nikkei.com/Tech-Science/Tech/Unlocking-the-secrets-of-nature-s-nanomotor; Fadel Samatey, Katsumi Imada, et al. (2001), “Structure of the Bacterial Flagellar Protofilament and Implications for a Switch for Supercoiling,” Nature, 410[15]:331-337; “Self-Assembly NanoMachine” (2008), ICORP Dynamic NanoMachine Project, Japan Science and Technology Agency, NHK Joho Network, Research Director Keiichi Namba, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw0-MHI_248.

¹⁸ “Lodgepole Pine” (no date), USDA Forest Service, http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/helena/resources/trees/LodgepolePine.shtml; “Ponderosa Pine” (no date), USDA Forest Service, http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/helena/resources/trees/PonderosaPine.shtml; “Ponderosa Pine” (1995), Western Wood Products Association, http://www.wwpa.org/ppine.htm; “What Are Pine Trees?” (no date), The Lovett Pinetum Charitable Foundation, http://www.lovett-pinetum.org/1whatare.htm; “Whitebark Pine” (no date), USDA Forest Service, http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/helena/resources/trees/WhitebarkPine.shtml.

¹⁹ Trevor Armstrong, et al. (2003), “Rosewood or tipuana tree (Tipuana tipu),” Weed Management Guide, CRC Weed Management, https://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/weeds/publications/guidelines/alert/pubs/t-tipu.pdf; W.P. Armstrong (1999), “Blowing in the Wind: Seeds & Fruits Dispersed By Wind,” Wayne’s Word, http://waynesword.palomar.edu/plfeb99.htm#helicopters; Akira Azuma and Yoshinori Okuno (1987), “Flight of a Samara, Alsomitra macrocarpa,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, 129[3]:263-274, December 7, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519387800012; Y. Bar-Cohen (2012), “Biologically Inspired Technologies for Aeronautics,” in Innovation in Aeronautics, ed. Trevor Young and Mike Hirst (Philadelphia, PA: Woodhead Publishing); J.W. Dunne (1913), “The Theory of the Dunne Aeroplane,” The Aeronautical Journal, April, 83-102; “Helicopter Seed Dispersal—Tipuana tipu Samara” (2012), TheNerdyGardener, YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caGTvw-CRaA; J. Hutchinson (1942), “Macrozanonia Cogn. and Alsomitra Roem,” Annals of Botany, 6[1]:95-102, http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/content/6/1/95.full.pdf; K. Jones (1995), Pau d’Arco: Immune Power From the Rain Forest (Rochester, VT: Healing Arts Press); Ch’ien Lee (2015), “Alsomitra macrocarpa,” Image # cld06121913, from East Kalimantan, Indonesia, Nature Photography of Southeast Asia, http://www.wildborneo.com.my/photo.php?k=East Kalimantan, Indonesia&p=1&i=7; P. Loewer (1995), Seeds: The Definitive Guide to Growing, History, and Lore (New York: Macmillan Company), R.A. Rolfe (1920), “Macrozanonia Macrocarpa,” Bulletin of Miscellaneous Information (Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew), 6:197-199, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4118666?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents; Tipuana tipu (no date), The Australian Government,http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/biodiversity/invasive/weeds/weeddetails.pl?taxon_id=67959; Percy Walker (1974), Early Aviation at Farnborough Volume II: The First Aeroplanes (London: Macdonald), 2:174-175.

²⁰ Dean Cliver (2002), “Plastic and Wooden Cutting Boards,” Unpublished manuscript; Dean Cliver (2002), personal letter; Karen Penner (1994), “Plastic vs. Wood Cutting Boards,” Timely Topics, Department of Human Nutrition, K-State Research and Extension; Janet Raloff (1993), “Wood Wins, Plastic Trashed for Cutting Meat,” Science News, 143[6]:84-85, February 6; Janet Raloff (1997), “Cutting Through the Cutting Board Brouhaha,” Science News Online, Food For Thought, July 11.

²¹ Thomas Paine (1794), Age of Reason, Part II, Section 21, emp. added, http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/singlehtml.htm.

The post The Teleological Argument for the Existence of God [Part 1] appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Such is the situation as it stands in the United Kingdom. The U.K. recently banned the teaching of Creation as a scientific alternative to Darwinism in all schools and academies in their country that receive any public funding. The U.K.’s new funding agreement to schools includes the following statement: “The requirement on every academy and free school to provide a broad and balanced curriculum in any case prevents the teaching of creationism as evidence based theory in any academy or free school” (“British Government…,” 2014). This new law means that all public funded schools in the U.K., presently operating or those that will be founded in the future, are banned from teaching Creation as an evidence based, scientific idea.

If the U.K. wants to ensure that its students will be force-fed false information without being allowed to properly assess it, then they have made the right move. It is in such an atmosphere of intentional censorship that truth is repressed and real learning is abandoned. Woe to the nation that refuses to recognize the all-powerful Creator Who brought them into existence.

As a note of warning to those of us in the United States, such bans are not presently in place, but they will be, if those who believe in God and Christ do not stand up to the rising tide of secularism. It is time we cast off the craven ideas that have so long muted the voice of truth and reason. “I can’t or I’ll lose my job,” “The separation of church and states says…,” “I don’t really believe this, but the government says I have to teach it, so turn to page….” Where are the brave Christian souls who will build a wall of truth and stand in the gap? Where are those formidable personalities who are willing to say, “God created you, it is the truth, and I’ll teach it as the fact it is until I am relieved of my position”? Where are those who will herald against the storms of secularism: “Evolution is a false, unscientific theory and here is why” (see Miller, 2013)?

I know there are still some courageous forces for good. I know because they have invited us into their classrooms to teach what is accurate, to distribute material, and to present the scientific evidence for Creation to their children who are starving for the truth. Just last year we were able to put approximately 1,000 copies of our book Truth Be Told into the hands of middle-schoolers across our country. God be praised that such is still legal in our country (if you would like more information on how you can get this done at your school, please contact our offices). We should look with saddened disappointment at the U.K. as a specter of what will be the case in our country in the not-too-distant future, if Christians allow the secular community to fight more boldly for their ungodly cause than Christians are willing to fight for what is right.

Reference

“British Government Finally Bans Creationism from Free Schools and Academies in Secular Triumph” (2014), Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/06/19/british-government-bans-creationism-schools_n_5511010.html?utm_hp_ref=uk.

Miller, Jeff (2013), Science vs. Evolution (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

The post United Kingdom Bans Teaching Creation as Science appeared first on Apologetics Press.

But a fresh look into the brain has revealed something amazing. This supercomputer is even more “super” than we thought. Inside the brain are short branches of cells called dendrites. These dendrites have long been thought to be simple transporters of nerve signals to brain neurons. Recent discoveries by neuroscientist Spencer Smith and his team of researchers suggest, however, that dendrites do more than passively transfer information (Choi, 2013). It appears that dendrites are actually minicomputers that process information instead of simply transferring it. Because of this discovery, Smith stated: “Suddenly, it’s as if the processing power of the brain is much greater than we had originally thought” (as quoted in Choi, 2013).

To what did Smith compare this remarkable discovery? He illustrated the results in this way: “Imagine you’re reverse engineering a piece of alien technology, and what you thought was simple wiring turns out to be transistors that compute information” (as quoted in Choi, 2013).

The implication of Smith’s statement about alien technology could not be clearer—the brain is comparable to (but surpasses) any technology humans have designed. Therefore, if we were to realistically compare it to something, it would have to be technology produced by brilliant aliens whose mental capabilities must be far superior to that of humans. But wait, the technology that we at first recognized to be superior, we discover to be even more advanced than we originally thought. What does that say about the brain? It must have been designed by a Being with incomprehensible intelligence. The idea of mindless evolution simply cannot account for the computer, no, the supercomputer filled with minicomputers, we call the brain. It really is a no-brainer, there must be a God.

References

Choi, Charles (2013), “‘Minicomputers’ Live Inside the Brain,” LiveScience, http://news.yahoo.com/minicomputers-live-inside-human-brain-113240564.html.

The post Microcomputers in the Brain Tabulate Design appeared first on Apologetics Press.

For instance, Richard Dawkins stated: “Living things are not designed, but Darwinian natural selection licenses a version of the design stance for them. We get a short cut to understanding the heart if we assume that it is designed to pump blood” (2006, p. 182, emp. added). Did you catch that? He said that things weren’t designed by any intelligence, but we can understand them more readily if we assume they were.

University of Chicago professor Jerry Coyne, in his book Why Evolution is True, wrote:  “If anything is true about nature, it is that plants and animals seem intricately and almost perfectly designed for living their lives” (2009, p. 1, emp. added).  He further stated, “Nature resembles a well-oiled machine, with every species an intricate cog or gear” (p. 1). On page three of the same book, he wrote: “The more one learns about plants and animals, the more one marvels at how well their designs fit their ways of life.” Atheist Michael Shermer, in his book Why Darwin Matters, stated: “The design inference comes naturally. The reason people think that a Designer created the world is because it looks designed” (2006, p. 65, ital. in orig.).

Consider another example. Kenneth Miller is an evolutionary biologist at Brown University and co-author of a biology textbook published by Prentice Hall that is used widely in high school classes across the country. In his book, Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul, he admits that structural and molecular biologists, as they study the natural order, routinely mention the presence of design in their explorations. He, himself, admits that the human body shows evidence of design, pointing out examples like the design of the ball and socket joints of the human hips and shoulders, as well as the “S” curve of the human spine that allows us to walk upright (2008). So powerful is the design inference, Dawkins was forced to grudgingly admit: “So compelling is that illusion [of design—KB] that it has fooled our greatest minds for centuries, until Charles Darwin burst onto the scene” (2009, p. 416).

The irony of the situation is that each of these writers contends that such design is a product of naturalistic, mindless factors. But their telling statements underscore the obvious conclusion. If an Intelligent Designer really did create the world, what would it look like? Answer: Exactly like the one we have!

REFERENCES

Brown University (2008), “There is ‘Design’ in Nature, Biologist Argues,” ScienceDaily, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080217143838.htm.

Coyne, Jerry (2009), Why Evolution Is True (New York: Viking).

Dawkins, Richard (2006), The God Delusion (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin).

Dawkins, Richard (2009), The Greatest Show on Earth (New York: Free Press).

Shermer, Michael (2006), Why Darwin Matters (New York: Henry Holt and Company).

The post Atheists Admit Things Look Designed appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Valiant’s work is truly amazing. He has spent 30 years of his life trying to help synthetic machinery “compute” more like the human brain. In many ways, however, the computers are still vastly inferior to the human brain. Reasoning through this situation leads to a very important conclusion. If Valiant is a brilliant computational scientist, and he has spent three decades trying to mimic the computational abilities of the brain, what does that imply about the brain? It means it was designed by an Intelligent Designer even more brilliant than Valiant. That is the only conclusion that adequately evaluates the evidence. Yet sadly, many in the scientific community will pat Valiant on the back for the efforts he has made to understand the brain’s computational abilities, while they will completely ignore the implication of design that is inherent in his work. In reality, God’s design of the human brain has paved the way for scientists like Valiant to mimic His work and build better computers.

REFERENCE

Robertson, Jordan (2011), “Turing Award Goes to ‘Machine Learning’ Expert”, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110309/ap_on_hi_te/us_tec_technology_prize/print.

The post Recent Turing Award Implies Creation appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Cutting-edge biological research has added some fresh insight to this ancient wisdom. Malcolm Ritter recently reported on work done by Akhilesh Reddy of Cambridge University and Joseph Bass of Northwestern University (2011). Their research, published in Nature centers on the built-in clocks that are housed in the cells of the human body. Ritter wrote, “even the cells throughout our body have their own 24-hour clocks to coordinate activities at the cellular level. Now new research suggests these internal timepieces may be more complicated than scientists thought” (2011).

How interesting! Our body is filled with trillions of cells that contain complicated clocks. Man-made clocks are complex and effective. If a person found such a device in the middle of the forest, he would be forced to conclude it was intelligently designed. The same is true of the biological clocks found in the body.

REFERENCE

Ritter, Malcom (2011), “Study of Cell ‘Clocks’ Looks at What Makes Us Tick,” http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110126/ap_on_sc/us_sci_body_clocks/print.

The post All Clocks Have a Clockmaker appeared first on Apologetics Press.

On February 14-16, Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter will be challenged by the latest in computing technology. The humans in the contest are certainly no slouches. Jennings won 74 “Jeopardy” games in a row. And he and Rutter combined to amass over 3.3 million dollars in prize money. Their challenger, Watson, an IBM supercomputer named after the founder of the company, can store the equivalent of over 200 million pages of information, is “the size of 10 refrigerators,” and is the “result of four years of work by IBM researchers around the globe.” In a practice round with the human champions, Watson outscored its opponents $4,000 to Jennings’ $3,400 and Rutter’s $1,200.

As enjoyable as contests like these are to watch, they bring to light a very serious truth that needs to be underscored. Would any person who was thinking correctly look at a supercomputer like Watson and conclude it did not have an intelligent designer (or several) behind its construction? To suggest such would be absurd. And yet it challenges brilliant humans, who are much less physically bulky, and who have proved their mental prowess repeatedly on “Jeopardy.” Does it make sense to suggest that Watson was the product of thousands of man-hours of IBM’s most brilliant researchers across the globe, but the human contestants were the products of blind chance and random evolutionary processes that lacked any type of intelligence and had no goal in mind? Certainly not. If Watson is the product of intelligence, then the IBM technicians who built it and the “Jeopardy” champions competing against it must have been designed by an even more impressive Super-intellect. As Hebrews 3:4 says, “For every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God.” One could express that sentiment in another way and just as truly state that every computer is built by someone, but He who built all things is God. Supercomputer Watson adds one more piece of evidence that puts the theory of evolution in “Jeopardy!”

REFERENCE

Fitzgerald, Jim and David Martin (2011), “Computer Could Make 2 ‘Jeopardy!’ Champs Deep Blue,” http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110114/ap_on_hi_te/us_man_vs_machine/print, January 14.

The post Computer Puts Evolution In “Jeopardy” appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: The following article was written by A.P. staff scientist Will Brooks, who holds a Ph.D. in Cell Biology from the University of Alabama at Birmingham.]

In the May 11, 2010 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), John Avise authored a paper titled “Footprints of Nonsentient Design Inside the Human Genome” (Avise, 2010). In this article, Avise highlighted several alleged evidences from the human genome which, according to him, prove it could not have been created by intelligent design, but rather must be a product of natural selection over countless years of time. The author calls his evidence an “argument from imperfection.” The thesis for his argument in favor of evolution is that the human genome, while undeniably complex, is riddled with errors and imperfections. Avise contends that the simple presence of these alleged fallibilities argues against an omnipotent Creator and, instead, is evidence for a nonsentient process (natural selection). This article addresses each of the major arguments posed by Avise.

ARGUMENT 1: FALLIBLE DESIGN—PROTEIN-CODING DNA SEQUENCES

The first argument posed by Avise is little more than an offshoot of a widespread argument questioning the existence of God: the problem of evil, pain, and suffering. In his paper, Avise describes the large compendium of known human diseases and disorders caused by genetic mutations and chromosomal abnormalities. His point: if the human genome were created by intelligent design, why would a designer intentionally infuse error into his creation, which would lead to human disease? The author contends that the flaw in this design is evidence that it was, in fact, not designed.

It is well known—even to those far removed from science and medicine—that numerous human diseases and disorders trace their causality back to DNA and genetic mutation (e.g., sickle-cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, phenylketouria, and brittle bone disease, to name a few). The question then becomes, if the human genome were designed by an intelligent designer (God), why would He infuse error, which leads to human disease? There are several answers to this question. The first was posed by Avise himself: “An apologist for the intelligent designer might be tempted to claim that such deleterious mutations are merely unavoidable glitches or secondary departures from a prototypical human genome that otherwise was designed and engineered to near perfection” (Avise, p. 8972).

In other words, God created Adam and Eve with no errors (mutations). However, spontaneous mutations arose by natural forces in successive generations, which have led to the disease-causing mutations that we see today. There is probably some truth and some fault in this line of thinking. God undoubtedly created the first man and woman with genetic perfection (cf. Genesis 1:31—“very good”). However, God in His infinite wisdom would never create perfection, only to allow it to become imperfect, without knowing that outcome from the beginning. When Adam and Eve sinned, they opened the floodgates to innumerable complications and distortions of the originally perfect creation. While God did not cause the perversion of perfection, His foreknowledge of it allowed Him to order human existence in a way that He could use the calamity to bring about His ultimate, good will.

Second, imagine a world where there is no disease—a health-utopia if you will. Without disease, there is no suffering. Without disease, there is no death. A world devoid of suffering and death due to health problems seems quite enticing. However, what would happen to our natural resources and space constraints if human longevity and fertility were extended? The Earth of six billion people present today would, instead, contain untold numbers. Extending this to all organisms, a disease-free pool of animals and plants would very quickly overpopulate the planet. Disease, while having terrible consequences that we all must face, serves in part to control the population of humans as well as that of all species.

Third, throughout Scripture we can see God using disease and the healing of disease to illustrate His own power and prove His existence. How many times in the Old Testament did God work through prophets to heal the sick? How many ailments were cured by Jesus to prove that He was the Messiah? God has used the healing of disease throughout time to serve as a sign, to bring attention to one individual and what he had to say, and for His own glorification. Disease is not just a plague on mankind, but rather a tool used by God.

ARGUMENT 2: BAROQUE DESIGN—GRATUITOUS GENOME COMPLEXITIES

The second argument brought forth by Avise to contend with creationism is one that, traditionally, creationists have championed over the years: biological complexity. Stemming in part from Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box (1996), the immense nature of biological complexity has been used widely to dispute evolution. Here the author asserts:

[G]ratuitous or unnecessary, biological complexity—as opposed to an economy of design—would seem to be the antithesis of thoughtful organic engineering. Yet, by objective scientific evidence, gratuitous and often-dysfunctional complexities (both in molecular structure and molecular operations) are so nearly ubiquitous as to warrant the status of hallmarks of the human genome (Avise, p. 8972).

Two major areas of complexity are addressed by Avise as being “gratuitous”: gene splicing and gene regulation.

Gene splicing still puzzles scientists today, more than 30 years after its initial discovery. Most eukaryote genes (DNA sequences that code for proteins) exist in their respective genomes as fragmented DNA sequences separated into these pieces by other non-coding DNA. The intervening non-coding sequences are known as introns, while the fragments of functional coding DNA are known as exons. When genes are transcribed into mRNA prior to protein production, the introns must be cut away and the fragmented exons spliced together to generate a functional mRNA molecule ready to be read into protein. See Figure 1.

Figure 1: Exons are the coding sequences of human genes that are transcribed, along with intervening sequences known as introns into a pre-mRNA molecule. The splicing process allows the pre-mRNA to be cut, the introns to be removed, and the remaining exons to be spliced together to form a functional mRNA molecule. The resulting mRNA is then used as a template to generate a functional protein.

As described in this article, a vast amount of genome space, cellular energy, time, and other resources are devoted to this splicing process. The author makes the claim that this rigmarole (to get a functional mRNA) is overly complex and thus evidence against a Creator. The problem with his logic is twofold.

First, there are known advantages attained by the human cell because we splice our mRNAs. The human genome encodes an estimated 24,000 different genes. But, through a process known as alternative splicing, our cells have the capacity to make much greater numbers of distinct proteins. Most genes whose exons are spliced may be spliced together in different ways using different combinations of exons. This allows for one gene in the human genome actually to manufacture multiple, distinct protein products, extending what we refer to as the proteome into a size much larger than that of the genome. Furthermore, alternative splicing allows a single uniform human genome to encode countless different protein combinations, making our differing cell types unique. For example, a neuron is a neuron because it produces one set of protein products, while a muscle cell has its own unique properties because it produces a distinct compliment of proteins. Likewise, red blood cells and liver cells each have their own specific repertoire of proteins that make them specialized and unique.

The second problem with this logic is that if we assume gene splicing is gratuitously complex, then why would natural selection have favored its inception and maintenance over millions to billions of years? Bacteria do not splice their genes and even lack the machinery for the splicing processes. So, if splicing arose by evolutionary mechanisms and is found in higher organisms, then according to evolutionary theory, it must present some fitness advantage. Avise argues that splicing is too complex and that the fitness costs outweigh the benefits. This simply does not conform to the paradigm of natural selection. The truth is that splicing is an advantage to eukaryotic species, including humans, and is one of many reasons why we are more complex than bacteria. Therefore, this advantageous process is not a mistake of creation, but rather a highlight of creation.

Gene regulation is one of the most complex issues in molecular biology and genetics. In a nutshell, gene regulation is the immense set of control mechanisms that determine when genes are expressed into protein, in what cell types genes are expressed, in what quantity genes are expressed, and once expressed as a protein, when that protein will become active. Without a detailed understanding of gene regulation, it is hard to grasp the full amount of complexity. The fact is: it is staggering. However, the greater the complexity a system contains, the more opportunity exists for errors and mistakes. In his paper, Avise states,

Why an intelligent and loving designer would have infused the human genome with so many potential (and often realized) regulatory flaws is open to theological debate. Any such philosophical discussion should probably include the issue of whether the designer was fallible (and if so, why?). It should also address whether the designer might have recognized his own engineering fallibility, as perhaps evidenced, for example, by the DNA and RNA surveillance mechanisms that catch some (but not all) of the numerous molecular mistakes (p. 8974).

He goes on to write that “the complexity of genomic architecture would seem to be a surer signature of tinkered evolution by natural processes than of direct invention by an omnipotent intelligent agent” (p. 8974).

The sheer arrogance of statements such as those above is astounding. Molecular biologists, such as myself, are quick to explain that we understand only a tiny fraction of the complexities of gene regulation. Science is in no position to begin discussing the problems of gene regulation on a philosophical level, because there is so much that we do not know. New layers of gene regulation are discovered on a regular basis. One of the most recent, major discoveries is micro RNAs (miRNA), first identified 17 years ago, whose full scope for regulation was not realized until this decade (He, 2004). The complexities of gene regulation are what drive every aspect of cell and organismal physiology. To put it simply, they are what make us tick. Do “mistakes” occur? Sure. But, who can know the potential advantages of these alleged mistakes in the big picture? Certainly not Dr. Avise.

ARGUMENT 3: WASTEFUL DESIGN—REPETITIVE DNA ELEMENTS

The diploid human genome is roughly six billion base pairs in length. But, it is estimated that less than 2% of the genome is composed of functional, protein-coding DNA sequences. The vast majority of the DNA sequence consists of non-coding introns, regulatory sequences, repetitive DNA elements, and other uncharacterized sequences. DNA is the basic genetic material because it codes for the proteins and RNAs needed for all biological processes. So, as Avise notes, why is there so much non-protein coding DNA sequence that some have called “junk DNA”? He makes the argument that if the human genome were truly designed, it is a flawed, wasteful design.

On the surface, the huge quantity of allegedly useless DNA does seem quite wasteful. Every cell that divides must duplicate all of its extra DNA and carry these “extra pounds” along each generation. If this DNA truly is useless, then it is a time, energy, and resource burden on the cell. But our cells seem to function just fine with the extra DNA. If the human genome arose by evolutionary means, natural selection has not favored discarding this DNA over the alleged billions of evolutionary years. So, the repetitive DNA elements would not seem to be an evolutionary fitness disadvantage.

Furthermore, as we learn more about genomics, scientists are finding new properties and new functions for much of this “extra” DNA. We have already discussed the usefulness of introns to allow alternative splicing. Additionally, the aforementioned miRNAs are encoded by intronic and other non-coding DNA elements. Another recent discovery is that of the long noncoding RNAs (Petherick, 2008). These RNAs have undefined function, but are found within non-coding DNA elements. Whether much of the human genome truly is “junk DNA”—or if its true function is yet-to-be-defined—is still unresolved. What we do know is that we are still learning about the structure of the human genome and, thus, it is too early to tell, from a scientific standpoint, whether all of that extra DNA can be defined as “wasteful.”

CONCLUSION

The human genome is an immense, complex set of nucleotides that carries all of the information needed to properly form a human being and to sustain his or her life. Since its sequencing in 2003 and even well before, there has been an explosion of scientific inquiry into the inner workings of this amazing genetic material. We know, through our scientific explorations, that the human genome across the human population does contain mutations, structural abnormalities, and other anomalies. Many of these are inert, causing no disease or harm to their bearers, while others cause a variety of human diseases and disorders. The truth is that the so-called imperfections in the human genome are neither evidence against a Designer, nor are they evidence in favor of natural selection and evolution.

A commentary to Avise’s article was published in PNAS in the July 27 issue calling into question the overall thesis of his work. Philosophy professor Michael Murray and biologist Jeffrey Schloss wrote: “Arguing that the presence of ‘genetic evil’ undercuts appeals to divine agency is superfluous and detracts from rather than advances scientific discussion…the line of argument made against ID [intelligent design—WB] is, in addition to being superfluous, actually unsound” (Murray and Schloss, 2010, p. E121).

Countless highly structured characteristics of the human genome provide evidence for intelligent design. These range from the four simple nitrogenous bases (A, T, G, and C) that make up the vast expanse of the genome, to the incredibly ordered packaging of DNA into the cell nucleus. God has clearly demonstrated His hand in the design of the human genome. The “imperfections” that Avise brings forth pale in comparison to the overwhelming functionality of this genetic marvel.

REFERENCES

Avise, John C. (2010), “Footprints of Nonsentient Design Inside the Human Genome,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 107:8969-76.

Behe, Michael J. (1996), Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: The Free Press).

He, Lin and Gregory J. Hannon (2004), “MicroRNAs: Small RNAs with a Big Role in Gene Regulation,” Nature Reviews Genetics, 5:522-31.

Murray, Michael J. and Jeffrey P. Schloss (2010), “Evolution, Design, and Genomic Suboptimality: Does Science ‘Save Theology’?” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 107:E121.

Petherick, Anna (2008), “Genetics: The Production Line,” Nature, 454:1043-45.

The post Footprints of NONSentient Design Inside the Human Genome appeared first on Apologetics Press.

To illustrate that similarity “proves” common ancestry, Shubin offered the hypothetical, humorous example of a couple he called bozos who give birth to a son with a red, rubber nose. This son passes that nose on to his offspring, one of which also inherits a mutation for huge, floppy feet. He passes on the nose and the feet, as well as a mutation for orange, curly hair to one of his offspring. Shubin concluded from this illustration that the example shows that

descent with modification can build a family tree, or lineage, that we can identify by characters. It has a signature that we immediately recognize…. The key is that the features—orange hair, squeaky nose, big floppy feet—enable you to recognize the groups. These features are your evidence for the different groups, on in this case, generations, of clowns (2009, pp. 175-176).

Shubin extrapolated from that idea: “If our lineage goes all the way back to pond scum, and does so following our law of biology, then we should be able to marshal evidence and make specific predictions. Rather than being a random assortment of creatures, all life on earth should show the same signature of descent with modification that we saw among the bozos” (p. 178).

It is important at this point in Shubin’s argument to notice the fatal flaw. His descent with modification can only work if you assume that all things are related in the first place, which is the very idea that needs to be proved by the evolutionists. His illustration gives an example of individuals that we know are related, and applies that information to creatures that we do not know are related. His illustration completely fails to account for other ways in which organisms may possess common traits without sharing common ancestry.

The most obvious, and long-held explanation as to why organisms possess similarities is that they were created by a common Designer. No one would suggest that since most cars have four wheels, rubber tires, run on gasoline, and use oil as a lubricant, then all cars must somehow be “related.” Even Shubin noted that “the great anatomist Sir Richard Owen” found “exceptional similarities among creatures as different as frogs and people” (p. 30). To what did this great anatomist attribute the fascinating similarities that he saw in these various organisms? As Shubin correctly observed, what Owen saw in the similarities “was the plan of the Creator” (p. 32). Shubin’s book is an unsuccessful attempt to counter Owen’s original assessment that similarity shows common design, not common ancestry. Shubin can only argue otherwise if he jettisons this idea and assumes common descent in order to make his case.

Near the end of his book, Shubin stretches his argument to suggest that things like hiccups or mitochondrial diseases in humans are a result of our evolutionary history. His reasoning is flawed in numerous areas. Shubin, apparently unwittingly, however, offers additional information as to why the concept of a common Designer fits the evidence better than common ancestry. Often, the concept of a common Designer is ridiculed because, the evolutionist contends, why would God make all organisms with the same genetic coding system and numerous similarities? Why would a Creator make yeast, fish, and worms with similar genes and structures as humans? Shubin gives us a very convincing reason. On the last page, just before his epilogue, Shubin notes that many recent Nobel Prizes have gone to individuals for their work on organisms like yeast, worms, or sea urchins. Shubin stated: “These discoveries on yeast, flies, worms, and, yes, fish tell us about how our own bodies work, the causes of many of the diseases we suffer, and ways we can develop tools to make our lives longer and healthier” (p. 198, emp. added). What better way for a Designer to provide humans knowledge of their own bodies, than to supply them with a never ending source of organisms that have similar structures and genes to humans, but that can be used experimentally without any moral apprehension? Sir Richard Owen’s deduction that similarities are perfectly consistent with the concept of a common Designer remains the most reasonable, scientific conclusion.

Shubin, Neil (2009), Your Inner Fish (New York: Vintage Books).

The post Shubin’s Inner Fish Can’t Swallow Proper Scientific Interpretation appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Amazingly, Petruzziello successfully manipulated the robotic hand using his mind. In fact, he stated: “It’s a matter of concentration. When you think of it as your hand and forearm, it all becomes easier” (as quoted in David, 2009). The doctors left the electrodes in the young Italian’s arm for a month. So successful was Petruzziello at controlling the hand, by the end of the month he could “wiggle the robotic fingers independently, make a fist, grab objects, and make other movements” (2009).

While it is true that science fiction movies and books like Star Wars feature such amazing technology, who would have ever thought that such astounding advancement would become a reality? Petruzziello stated: “It felt almost the same as a real hand” (2009). As remarkable as the study is, however, the new technology leaves many things to be desired compared to an “average” human hand. For one thing, no one knows how long the electrodes can be attached to the human nerves. Those in need of such prosthetic apparatuses need the technology to remain connected for years, not a few days. Second, the hand “obeyed the commands it received from the man’s brain in 95 percent of cases” (2009). Of course, the human hand is far more efficient at responding to the brain’s commands. In addition, as would be expected, the robotic hand is extremely expensive. The one-month long project cost approximately three million dollars. And, as the researchers concluded: “More must be done to miniaturize the technology on the arm and the bulky machines that translate neural and digital signals between the robot and the patient” (2009). In truth, there is still an extremely long way to go before such technology begins to approach the capabilities of
an average human hand.

Research like this underscores the astonishing intelligence necessary to produce a “working” hand. The project cost three million dollars, “took five years to complete and produced several scientific papers that have been submitted to top journals including Science Translational Medicine and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,” according to Dr. Paolo Maria Rossini, the neurologist leading the research (as quoted in David, 2009). Brilliant men and women spent thousands of hours and millions of dollars, combining their immense intelligence and experience, to enable the month-long trial to be successful. Yet “more must be done” to equip the robotic hand to function on a practical level.

As amazing as this research is, how many of us would voluntarily swap our “ordinary” human hand for the latest robotic facsimile? The rhetorical answer is: “None of us.” And yet we are being told by the majority of modern scientists and the media that the human hand arose by purely naturalistic, evolutionary processes over millions of years, while the inferior prosthetic hand was intelligently designed. The false evolutionary inference is simply untenable. If the inferior robotic hand necessitates intelligent design, by implication, the superior human hand must necessitate greater intelligence. How long will the greater-scientific world refuse to admit the truth that biological organs and systems can only be explained by an intelligent Designer? Indeed, as with all such research, this latest robotic hand points a steady index finger straight to the God of the Bible.

David, Ariel (2009), “Experts: Man Controlled Robotic Hand With Thoughts,” [On-line], URL: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091202/ap_on_sc/eu_italy_robotic_hand.

The post Robotic Hand Points to God appeared first on Apologetics Press.

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest sense (1859, p. 170, emp. added).

Of course, after admitting that such seems absurd in the highest sense, Darwin went on to argue that it only seemed absurd, but in reality had actually happened. His inept explanations attempting to dispel the obvious absurdity of the notion fell far short of sufficient. Not only does the evolution of the human eye seem absurd from a prima facie look at the situation, but it can be proven to be such from an in-depth study of the organ. In his landmark book Darwin’s Black Box, Michael Behe effectively used the biochemical steps involved in human vision to present his case against Darwinism. Regarding Darwin’s comments about the eye, Behe wrote: “Each of the anatomical steps and structures that Darwin thought were so simple actually involves staggeringly complicated biochemical processes that cannot be papered over with rhetoric” (1996, p. 22). The eye is complicated, immensely effective, and evolutionarily impossible. Darwin could not explain it and neither can his 21st-century philosophical descendents.

Not only do scientists fail to explain away the eye’s design, but they often are forced to admit it, at least implicitly. Emily Singer recently wrote an article titled “Decoding the Human Eye” which was printed in Technology Review, a magazine published by MIT. Without moving past the title, the implication of design is obvious. If there is a code, a language by which information is passed effectively, then there must be an intelligent encoder who supplied meaning to the language. For years members of the scientific community have combed space for signs of codes that would prove life exists somewhere other than Earth. Yet, in the human eye, just such a code is readily available for study.

Singer’s article reviews research done at the University of California, Santa Cruz, in which the researchers have designed a microchip that attempts to detail the process used by the human retina to encode information. Singer quotes UCSC physicists Alan Litke, as saying: “The retina is a very sophisticated visual-information-processing device” (2007). Such a statement by Litke immediately brings to mind the question of how would such an information-processing device come to be in the eye if the organ arose by mindless, chance occurrences. Even the simple word “device” is pregnant with design implications. Merriam-Webster’s On-line Dictionary defines the term as: “something devised or contrived as a plan, procedure, technique” (2007). How would mindless, purposeless evolution devise or plan anything? It could not.

Singer included many other implications of design in her article. She mentioned that the retina has its own language. She also stated: “While the retina is often likened to a camera, it is in reality much more complicated” (2007). No one finding a working camera in the woods would posit that it originated without a designer, and the retina is much more complicated than a camera.

Despite all the work being done across the globe to study and mimic the human eye, its intricacies, language, coding abilities, and technological devices continue to boggle the most brilliant human minds. Evolutionary just-so stories about the eye’s origins remain devoid of any legitimate explanatory power. The Proverbs writer provided the rational, honest assessment of the situation when he wrote: “The hearing ear and the seeing eye, the Lord has made them both” (20:12).

Behe, Michael J. (1996), Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: The Free Press).

Darwin, Charles (1859), On the Origin of Species (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary (2007), [On-line], URL: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Device.

Singer, Emily (2007), “Decoding the Human Eye: Superdense Arrays of Silicon Electrodes Will Bring Scientists Closer to an Artificial Retina that Approximates Normal Vision,” Technology Review, [On-line], URL: http://www.technologyreview.com/Biotech/19613/page1/.

The post Decoding Design In the Retina? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Take, for instance, some of the latest, cutting-edge robotics technology. Several researchers in Europe have joined together to design a robot that attempts to navigate like a human. In a recent article, Anne-Marie Corley noted that the new robot “is controlled by algorithms designed to mimic different parts of the human visual system” (2009). Mark Greenlee, the lead researcher of the project, stated that the robot mimics “several different functions of the brain—object recognition, motion estimation, and decision making—to navigate around a room” (as quoted in Corley, 2009).

How much “intelligence” would it take to tackle a robotics project of this magnitude? Corley commented, “Ten different European research groups, each with expertise in fields including neuroscience, computer science, and robotics, designed and built the robot” (2009). The amount of time, money, and mental energy wrapped up in this project is enormous. Some of Europe’s brightest minds, equipped with expertise in various key areas, teamed to make a robot that attempts to mimic human navigation skills. And yet for all that, Tomaso Poggio, the head of MIT’s Center for Biological Computational Learning, candidly admitted that there are “definitely areas of intelligence like vision, or speech understanding, or sensory-motor control, where our algorithms are vastly inferior to what the brain can do” (as quoted in Corley, emp. added).

If our brains function in ways that are superior to anything that the world’s most intelligent scientists can devise, what does that say about our origins? That fact directly implies that Whoever designed humans possesses an intelligence far superior to that of the world’s most brilliant thinkers. The psalmist accurately and beautifully portrayed this truth when he stated that humans are “fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:14, emp. added).

Corley, Anne-Marie (2009), “A Robot that Navigates Like a Human,” Technology Review, [On-line], URL: http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/22946/?nlid=2140.

The post Robot Tries to Mimic Human Navigation appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Models of the HRP-4C robot will soon be on sale for about $200,000. Japanese robotics developers, who are some of the leaders in the field, believe that the market for humanoid robots will soon be in the billions of dollars. They want to be the front-runners in this technological expansion.

As exciting as HRP-4C’s debut was, however, it was not problem-free. As Ama noted:

The demonstration didn’t all go smoothly. The robot often looked surprised, opening its mouth and eyes in a stunned expression, when the demonstrator asked it to smile or look angry. Its walk was also not quite ready for the Paris Collection, partly because its knees are permanently bent. It has sensors in its feet but it lacks the sensitive balance of a real human (2009).

If we wanted to list a few other things that limit the robot’s capabilities, we could mention that it does not have light-weight, super-strong bones that heal in a matter of weeks if they are broken, it cannot turn a banana into usable energy to keep itself going, it cannot do simple jumping jacks, does not have self-cleaning eyeballs, etc. To put it mildly, the robot’s abilities are dismal when compared to a living human.

Shuuji Kajita, the leading developer of the group, optimistically noted that HRP-4C “is just the first step” (Ama, 2009). He means this is the first step toward making a robot that can come closer to human functionality. But future steps in that direction will cost billions, consume massive amounts of research time, and require input from thousands of brilliant men and women across the globe. These things do not just happen by accident, which, of course, is the point. Robots don’t happen by accident; they require intelligent designers to bring them into existence.

Only the most obstinate mind can miss the clear implication. Robots are inferior to humans and they require intelligent, personal beings for their construction. Human beings are superior to robots in functionality and complexity; therefore they must also require an intelligent, personal being for their design. As the psalmist so aptly put it some 3,000 years ago: “I will praise You [God], for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are your works, and that my soul knows very well” (139:14).

Ama, Yuri Kagey (2009), “Walking, Talking Female Robot to Hit Japan Catwalk,” [On-line], URL: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090316/ap_on_re_as/as_japan_girl_robot.

The post It Takes Intelligence to Design a Human—oid appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: The following article was written by A.P. staff scientist Will Brooks, who holds a Ph.D. in Cell Biology from the University of Alabama at Birmingham.]

If one were to ask a clockmaker, “Could this device have constructed itself?” the reply would most certainly be “No.” Clocks are complex instruments designed to accurately and repeatedly keep time to the millisecond. The complexity reaches all the way down to the system of gears and shafts which drive the instrument. It would be inconceivable even to consider the idea that such an instrument would evolve naturalistically over time, eventually reaching a point when it is ready to keep accurate time without missing a single second. Yet, this is exactly what evolutionists would have us to believe regarding an even more complex instrument, the cell division cycle—our own biological clock. [NOTE: The following discussion of cell division is based on Alberts, et al., 2002.]

The cell division cycle is a coordinated sequence of events that drives the division and reproduction of all cells from the single-celled amoeba to cells in the human body. The complexity and coordination of this cycle is staggering. The cell cycle is divided into four primary phases: G1, S, G2, and M.

G1, or the Gap 1 phase, is the time in which cells carry out all of the normal processes of the cell. Some cells remain in this phase for very long periods of time. But, when appropriate stimuli are encountered by a cell, a round of cell division is triggered. This point of no return is known as the restriction point. Once a cell passes this point, it must complete the entire cell cycle and return once more to G1. After a cell reproduces, it must prepare for the next phase of the cell cycle: S-phase or DNA synthesis phase. This preparation requires activating countless genes and making many new proteins that are used only during this one phase of the cell cycle. Once every component is ready, S-phase may begin.

During the DNA synthesis phase, the cell must make an exact copy of its nuclear DNA. This duplication is important because both new cells that will result from cell division must contain equal and identical copies of the parental cell DNA. One human cell contains roughly four billion base pairs of DNA. Copying all of this DNA without error is no small task, yet the cell does so incessantly.

Following completion of DNA synthesis, the cell enters the second gap phase, G2. During this period, the cell prepares for physical division, which involves the production of a whole new set of proteins. At the same time, all those proteins used during S-phase are degraded, since they are no longer needed, and their presence would only promote more DNA synthesis. After all the proper proteins are made and degraded, the cell is ready for physical separation, which takes place during mitosis or M-phase.

Mitosis involves the separation of chromosomes, followed by the separation of the cell. Human cells have 46 pairs of chromosomes when they enter mitosis. Each pair must be separated in the appropriate way in order for each daughter cell to have two copies of the 23 human chromosomes. Once again, this is no small feat. Even one mistake leads to abnormal chromosome numbers in the daughter cells and is harmful—often lethal—to the cell. Yet, the cell achieves this separation without error over and over. At the conclusion of mitosis, two cells result, each identical to the other. Both cells are now once more in G1-phase, able to enter another round of cell division. This cycle is repeated time after time, like clockwork.

In a physical clock or watch, a system of gears and shafts are designed to keep the clock moving, keeping precise, accurate time. What are the driving forces, the gears and shafts if you will, of the cell division cycle? Our cells have their own mechanism for keeping things moving. Two families of proteins lie at the heart of cell cycle progression. They are called cyclins and cyclin-dependent kinases (Cdks). These two groups of proteins work in a cooperative manner to promote each action that takes place during the cell cycle. How they work to keep the biological clock ticking is amazing!

Cyclin-dependent kinases function as enzymes, with the ability to link a small phosphate group (-PO4-3) onto a variety of proteins. This linkage serves as an “on” switch for the targeted protein. By phosphorylating (linking a phosphate) to proteins in the cell, Cdks work to turn on and off other proteins that play roles in the cell cycle. But, Cdks themselves need an “on switch,” which comes from the cyclin proteins. Cyclins are able to bind to cyclin-dependent kinases in order to form a stable protein complex between the two. Once bound together, Cdks are free to phosphorylate their repertoire of targets to promote all the activities of the cell cycle.

It might seem, then, that all cyclins and Cdks are active all of the time and throughout the cell cycle, but they are not. This is where the clockwork activity of the cell is truly seen. During each phase of the cell cycle (G1, S, G2, and M), a different set of cyclin and Cdk proteins are active. Therefore, each pair of proteins is able to promote only those activities which should occur during a phase. For example, during the DNA synthesis phase (S-phase), only those proteins that play a role in making new DNA are activated. This action prevents the phases from occurring out of order or at the wrong time. But, how is only one pair of cyclin-Cdk proteins active at a time? The answer comes in the form of another cyclical event.

Unlike the Cdk proteins, which are always present in the cell, cyclin proteins come and go in a cyclical manner—which accounts for the name cyclin. Production of these proteins is coordinated with the cell cycle phases. When a cell receives signals to undergo division, the G1-cyclins are expressed by the cell. They then partner with G1-Cdks, which already are present to promote those G1 activities of the cell. Additionally, G1 cyclin-Cdks initiate expression of the next group of cyclins—the S-phase cyclins. Once expressed, S-phase cyclin-Cdk partners promote activities of S-phase and turn on the G2-cyclins. This cycle continues for each phase of the cell cycle. Figure 2 illustrates this feature by showing the levels of S-phase cyclin throughout the cell cycle.

This amazing process of cyclin expression is also coupled with cyclin destruction. Once a new cyclin is present in the cell, the previous cyclin is destroyed, which effectively ends the previous cell cycle phase. This constant repetition of cyclin protein production and destruction is the driving force behind every event in the cell division cycle.

Together, the cell cycle and the cycle of cyclin protein production/destruction are an amazingly designed system of events. Such complexity is inexplicable on the basis of naturalism. In this case, the clockmaker is the intelligent Designer, God. It would be impossible for a six-foot-tall grandfather clock or even a small watch to construct itself gradually and start ticking. Equally impossible, the cell could never appear, ready to “tick” through the highly coordinated process of cell division. Just as clocks are constructed by an intelligent designer, the cell cycle is clear evidence for intelligent design in the Universe.

Alberts, Bruce, et al. (2002), Molecular Biology of the Cell (Oxford: Garland Science).

The post Biological Clocks: Evidence for a Clockmaker appeared first on Apologetics Press.

One step toward better prosthetics is the ability to feel, also known as tactile sensation. “[S]cientists from Northwestern University, in Chicago, have shown that transplanting the nerves from an amputated hand to the chest allows patients to feel hand sensation there” (Singer, 2007). This new technology has the potential to enable amputees to feel sensations such as cold and hot, distinguish between surface texture such as smooth (like marble) or rough (like sandpaper), and various other sensations that biological hands can feel.

Todd Kuiken, the lead doctor in the research that was presented in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Kuiken, et al., 2007), said that improving and refining the technology will take time. Emily Singer, writing for Technology Review, commented on the process of creating usable, “feeling” prostheses, saying, “The task is likely to be difficult” (2007). Kuiken further noted: “Our hands are incredible instruments that can feel things with exquisitely light touch and incredible resolution; to emulate that through a device is incredibly challenging…. All we’re giving our patients is a rough approximation, but something is better than nothing” (as quoted in Singer, 2007).

Notice the necessary inference implied in this research. Humans are brilliant, creative beings. They are using existing nerves to design prostheses that have “a rough approximation” of the sense of touch that a biological hand has. Millions of dollars are being spent, thousands of hours used, and massive amounts of various other resources are being employed to make this muted sensation available. Yet, evolutionary scientists expect thinking people to believe that the original, biological limbs that have an “exquisite” sense of touch and “incredible resolution” arose due to blind processes and random chance over multiplied billions of years of haphazard accidents overseen by no intelligence? Such a conclusion is irrational. Design demands a designer. If the “rough” prostheses have a designer, the human limbs after which they are modeled must, of logical necessity, have one as well.

Kuiken, Todd, et al. (2007), “Redirection of Cutaneous Sensation from the Hand to the Chest Skin of Human Amputees with Targeted Reinnervation,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, [On-line], URL: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/104/50/20061.

Singer, Emily (2007), “Prosthetic Limbs that Can Feel,” Technology Review, [On-line], URL: http://www.technologyreview.com/Biotech/19759/?nlid=689.

The post Feeling Design appeared first on Apologetics Press.

These “useless” vestiges of evolution, however, turned out to be nothing of the sort. Dr. Houts noted that these organs were “useless” only in the sense that scientists and medical doctors were ignorant of their functions. As the medical community applied more research to the human body, the list quickly dwindled to a tiny fraction of the original number. Today, there is not a single organ that scientists can accurately and confidently proclaim to be a useless vestige of evolution. This realization, however, has not yet trickled down to the popularizers of evolution.

Live Science posts several “Top 10” articles that give the alleged Top 10 items in a given category. For example, there is a list of the “Top 10 Killer Tornadoes” and another of the “Top 10 Ways to Destroy Earth.” One of their lists is titled, “Top 10 Useless Limbs (and Other Vestigial Organs)” (Miller, 2007). Listed as number one in that article is the human appendix. Concerning the appendix, Miller wrote: “Biologists believe it is a vestigial organ left behind from a plant-eating ancestor” (2007). He then reiterated ideas that Alfred Romer penned in 1949, stating “that the major importance of the appendix would appear to be financial support of the surgical profession, referring to, of course, the large number of appendectomies performed annually” (2007).

As one would expect if God designed the human body, aspects of the body would exist that our finite human minds could assess only after years of intense research. Such is the case with the appendix. Elsewhere in this issue of R&R, Dr. Houts notes several functions and uses already known for the appendix. A recent article published in Theoretical Biology, however, adds another interesting function to the appendix’s increasing workload. Researchers from Duke University believe they have stumbled upon another reason humans have an appendix, and it is not because it is an evolutionary leftover (Borenstein, 2007).

Human digestion requires huge amounts of beneficial bacteria. Certain illnesses, however, destroy or remove both good and bad bacteria from the intestines. In order for digestion to continue, cultures of the good bacteria must be regrown to repopulate the gut. That is where the appendix comes in according to the latest research. Borenstein noted: “Diseases such as cholera or amoebic dysentery would clear the gut of useful bacteria. The appendix’s job is to reboot the digestive system in that case” (2007). Bill Parker, co-author of the latest research, said that the appendix “acts like a bacteria factory, cultivating the good germs” (Borenstein, 2007).

Evolutionists should simply admit that the idea of vestigial organs is false, they should promptly remove it from their arsenals, and reevaluate the data that supposedly prove evolution true. But that is not what happens. Because evolution is so “plastic” and can be expanded to fit any data, even data that is exactly the opposite of what has been used in the past to teach evolution is twisted as new “proof” of evolution. Borenstein quoted Brandies University biochemistry professor Douglas Theobald as saying that the explanation for the function of the appendix “seems by far the most likely” and that the idea “makes evolutionary sense” (2007). So, we are told that the appendix is a useless leftover, and that “fact” proves evolution to be true. Then we are told that the appendix has a very important function and that fact “makes evolutionary sense.” Which is it? In truth, that which proves too much proves nothing. Finding an important function for the appendix is exactly what one would expect if the human body was designed by God.

As for other organs in the human body that have been dubbed vestigial in the past, those who use the vestigial argument should proceed with extreme caution. Borenstein wrote: “The theory led Gary Huffnagle, a University of Michigan internal medicine and microbiology professor, to wonder about the value of another body part that is often yanked: ‘I’ll bet eventually we’ll find the same sort of thing with the tonsils’” (several functions of which already are known, see Bergman, 2000). The only thing that appears to be useless in this discussion is the theory of evolution and the false evidence used to support it.

Bergman, Jerry (2000), “Do Any Vestigial Organs Exist in Humans?” Technical Journal, [On-Line], URL: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i2/vestigial.asp.

Borenstein, Seth (2007), “Scientists: Appendix Protects Good Germs,” [On-line], URL: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071006/ap_on_he_me/appendix_s_purpose;_ ylt=Ak5.0FtXAiVHNNcRPfiNLsus0NUE.

Miller, Brandon (2007), “Top 10 Useless Limbs (and Other Vestigial Organs),” [On-line], URL: http://www.livescience.com/animals/top10_vestigial_organs-1.html.

The post Appendix Not Useless, But Evolution Is appeared first on Apologetics Press.

What do they have to show for their efforts? Little Zeno has a face covered with a patented rubbery, skin-like substance Hanson calls frubber. Zeno can learn to recognize a face and associate it with the name of a person. Hanson comments that, due to these abilities, Zeno “can build a relationship with you” (as quoted in Slagle, 2007). Zeno is attached to a wireless computer that can tell him “how to frown, act surprised, or wrinkle its nose in anger” (2007). Hanson hopes to market thousands of Zenos in the years to come, at a cost of $200 to $300 each.

Slagle also mentioned another boy named Zeno. Hanson’s 18-month-old toddler has the same name as the robot. The article says that baby Zeno is a “rambunctious toddler who frolics with free rein among priceless electronics” (2007). Baby Zeno has self-repairing skin that is well-designed to let heat and waste out, or to conserve heat as needed. Baby Zeno needs no wireless computer to tell him how to frown, smile, or laugh. His body produces energy from such everyday items as green beans or sweet potatoes—no battery needed. His eyes see, his nose smells, his stomach digests, his feet run, and his hands feel and grab. He is a boy, just a regular boy. But he is lightyears ahead of what robo-Zeno will ever be.

Zeno the robot is the culmination of five years of intelligent design and engineering. Yet the toddler Zeno is much more advanced in every significant way. If we asked an evolutionary scientist if robo-Zeno was designed, no doubt he would respond in the affirmative? But if we ask him if baby Zeno exhibits intelligent design, how would he respond? No?

It is amazing that design is so easy to recognize in both robots and humans, but so often missed by evolutionary scientists when they study humans. In truth, every human is “fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:14). Each human being testifies loudly to the conclusive fact that there is a God in heaven.

Slagle, Matt (2007), “Robot Maker Builds Artificial Boy,” [On-line], URL: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070913/ap_on_hi_te/robot_boy;_ylt=Akjd5h 1ia0Ou5Id.iunSns.s0NUE.

The post Hard to Miss Design In RoboBoy appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Dawkins does this at the peril of being found guilty of heinous irrationality, since it can easily be proven that systems (like human vision) have design. In syllogistic form, the argument looks like this. Complex structures such as video cameras or computers made by intelligent beings (i.e., humans) exhibit recognizable characteristics of design (If they did not, no one would be able to tell the difference between a camera designed by engineers and a rock). Biological structures (such as human vision) exhibit the same recognizable characteristics of design. Thus, biological structures (such as human vision) were designed by an intelligent designer. After establishing the validity of this argument, we need only to prove that human vision exhibits the same characteristics of design that are recognized in man-made mechanisms such as cameras and computers.

With that in mind, we turn to a recent article in Technology Review titled, “Biologically Inspired Vision Systems.” Duncan Graham-Rowe, the author, explained: “Neuroscientists at MIT have developed a computer model that mimics the human vision system to accurately detect and recognize objects in a busy street scene, such as cars and motorcycles” (2007, emp. added). He further noted that scientists have been attempting to copy biological vision systems for many years because these systems “are so good.” A large portion of the article discusses challenges to programming a computer system with the ability to recognize and identify objects to any useful degree. Graham-Rowe then documented how researchers used human vision as a model for a visual computing system.

This system, based on the properties observed in human vision, worked remarkably well in several performance tests. Graham-Rowe quoted David Lowe, a computer vision and object recognition specialist from the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, who said: “Maybe we shouldn’t be surprised. Human vision is vastly better at recognition than any of our current computer systems, so any hints of how to proceed from biology are likely to be very useful” (emp. added).

In the final paragraph of his article, Graham-Rowe stated: “At the moment, the system is designed to analyze only still images” (emp. added). So we have a visual computing system that is designed by intelligent humans who took their ideas from characteristics of the biological system of human vision, which is still vastly better than the computer. The evolutionist’s conclusion is that the one made by humans is designed, but the vastly better one found in the human eye, even though it possesses similar (although superior) characteristics, is not the product of design. An honest observer would be forced to recognize the heinous irrationality of such a conclusion. Indeed, the rational conclusion is the one recorded by the Proverbs writer so many years ago: “The hearing ear and the seeing eye, the Lord has made both of them” (20:12).

Dawkins, Richard (1996), The Blind Watchmaker (New York, NY: W.W. Norton).

Graham-Rowe, Duncan (2007), “Biologically Inspired Vision Systems,” Technology Review, [On-line], URL: http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/18210/page1/.

The post Having the Vision to See Design appeared first on Apologetics Press.