Either... Or: The Two Basic Origins Choices, Part 2

By Kenneth Poppe

CBN.com – Excerpted from Reclaiming Science from Darwinism

Choice #2

Now the Design point of view would be quite different. It goes something like this:

KEY CONCEPT:

First of all, that a ground-nesting duck was lucky enough to adapt into a tree-nesting duck hardly proves the entirety of natural evolution. Assuming ducks arose from other waterfowl that sprouted from other birds that diverged from other chordates that developed from other animals that originated from protozoans, can you just assume an estimated 30 million other life forms also received new and radically different DNA codes from their progenitors through the blindness of chance in the time allotted? Also, is it fair to assume unintended processes could accidentally piece together the complex biochemistry necessary for the initial cell? Finally, is evolution automatically allowed to spot itself a suitable planet in a stable solar system, both of which were random products of a violent explosion?

Even if evolution is allowed to answer yes to all the above questions, there still must be some proof for how ducks suddenly took to trees. It must have been rather instantaneous because there are no intermediates. In other words, past or present biology cannot provide evidence of a duck that could nest in both locations and finally the safety of trees.

And while we are at it, where did the duck suddenly get its webbed feet, strainer bill, and oily feathers? Surely not from the penguin. However, the penguin is genetically closer to a chicken than a duck. Besides, evolutionists say, as a flightless bird, the penguin is a much later arrival than the duck—the penguin’s increasing swimming ability eventually rendered its wings unusable for flight and turned into a fish-eating carnivore.

So it must be that the chicken—which is at least a duck’s barnyard cousin and is said to have been a flyer farther back in time—has to be the progenitor of both the duck and the penguin. However, since there is no fossil evidence of a prehistoric chicken that could “almost” swim, we must ask if primitive chickens spent too much time close to water and began to gradually pick up swimming adaptations while hiding them from the fossil record. If not, then did chickens just fall in the water suddenly and quickly get the necessary adaptations before they drowned, with one group swimming to North America and the other to the Antarctic?

Sorry. The unique existence of the male wood duck, or any life-form for that matter, can never be fully explained by the natural forces now governing the world. To try to reduce such complexity to a series of random events leads to scientific and mathematical futility. Rather, the explanation for the duck’s existence ultimately requires an intelligent designing entity responsible for, and undefined and unfettered by, these natural forces.

Humans have intuitively acknowledged such an entity in every culture ever known, calling Him by many names. But by whatever name, this “God” is the creative power behind all the science that now operates. Certainly He employed several of the scientifically observed change mechanisms and operational principles studied today (for example, colorful male birds help draw attention away from nesting females), yet it all depends on the science He alone created and fully understands.

Therefore, the rhythm of life is not a cacophony of random and banging noises that somehow fell together, but a symphony by a Master Composer in which all players are unfamiliar with the composition and their assigned instruments…and yet never miss a note. So in the final summation, if the Designer is responsible for the existence of the universe, fashioning a beautiful duck by the method and in the time frame of His choosing is a small task.

The foregoing explanations offered by natural evolution and Design pose an interesting choice. The first explanation appears organized, documented, researched, quantified, and so…well…“scientific.” In contrast, the second explanation could be viewed as a lot of magic-wand waving and smoke and mirrors—rather like the “God of the gaps” notion. (Instead of searching for the real scientific cause, just say, “God did it.”) On the other hand, it’s obvious the Darwinian explanation is full of gaps as well. It has always been easy to make evolution attractive at first glance, but it only takes a bit of digging to show how much is based on broad speculations.

So in the end, no matter how you look at it, the choice is still one of only two. Either all science is filtered through natural theories, with God being irrelevant or nonexistent. Or science is only properly interpreted in light of the Creator who made it.

Again, I suggest both approaches are not of equal value. Only one leads to more truth and resolution of the origins issue, while the other leads to more misconceptions, blind alleys, and questions without answers. The next chapter will examine preconceptions leading to mind-sets that rob a person of needed objectivity on such crucial issues.