Blind Chance or Intelligent Design?

How did everything, including life, come into existence? Was there a Creator or was it merely by chance that everything in the universe, including all life forms came into existence. The only other option is that everything that exists, materialized out of nothing. Immanuel Kant versus the Princes of Serendip: Does Science Evolve through Blind Chance or by Intelligent Design? attempts to answer this question. Kant's response is: "Accidental observations, made in obedience to no previously thought-out plan, can never be made to yield a necessary law, which reason alone is concerned to discover... Reason must not approach nature in the character of a pupil who listens to everything the teacher has to say, but as an appointed judge who compels the witness to answer questions that he himself has formulated".

Scientists must not remain under the dominance of experience. We should neither heed the accidental observation nor listen to Nature as if we were naive pupils. We should strive to seek the objective truth in facts. For example, the glaring lack of evidence is what has kept evolution as a theory for a hundred and fifty years. Evolution remains hypothetical...unproven. Here's why.

Evolutionists and anthropologists claim that the Stone Age lasted for at least 100,000 years, during which time the world population of Neanderthal and Cro-magnon men was roughly constant, between one and 10 million. All that time they were burying their dead with artifacts. By this scenario, they would have buried at millions and millions of bodies. If the evolutionary time-scale is correct, buried human bones should be able to last for much longer than 100,000 years. Like the dinosaurs presumably have, there should have been uncountable fossils.

By their time-scale, it is supposed that there should have been at least multiple millions Stone Age skeletons, and certainly countless hundreds of buried artifacts. There should be multiple millions of them in fact, given the enormous time-frame they claim, yet only a few thousand bones and fragments have ever been found and these are far too few to fit the Stone Age theory and the thousands of years it was supposed to have taken place. Why worry about a "missing link" when the entire chain is missing!? In fact, not even one single set of transitional fossils (like reptiles becoming birds) has ever been found in all of human history. They can not find what has never existed.

An accidental world, with chance as a mechanism for life forms, must fall upward against science's axiom that out of nothing comes nothing. Cause and effect demands some Causer prior to nothingness. Chance, to Emanuel Kant, is an excuse for ignorance. Chance is not even a noun, it can do nothing of itself, it has no power to effect, it is not an x-factor, as many are convinced. And chance is not composed of physical matter. Regardless of those facts, to those who believe in evolution or carry a disbelief in Creationism or Intelligent Design, chance was the x-factor in everything coming into existence. Otherwise, they must admit that they don't know how matter, and thus life, came into existence. They simply don't know and can only placate theories (subjective). We should expect science to deal only with facts (objective), approaching things rationally and logically. They have not. Evolution remains in the textbooks. Believing in something does not make it true. Humanity once believed the earth was flat, however their belief in that did nothing to change the fact that it was spherical.

Another consideration is that it is impossible for matter to create itself, spontaneously, out of nothing. Evolutional theory is of no help: it doesn't explain how matter was formed and thus by extension, it can not explain the origin of life. In fact over time, cells do not gain additional DNA (which, in evolution, must be present for transitional stages), they lose DNA integrity. Each cell is like a carbon copy of the original. With each passing day, the cells are making copies of each other and becoming a little less like the original. The cells are not evolving, they are aging. I've got more wrinkles today than ten years ago. Natural Selection produces extinction of the species, not a proliferation of it. Cells do not improve or become superior over time, but in fact do just the opposite. The Law of Entropy says that cells break down or smooth out over time and lose their cellular integrity. It is the polar opposite of a theoretical, evolutional process.

The general approach for those who don't believe in a Creator, the argument or theory is an equation: Space + Time + Chance = Everything. How can, in what in reality is, 0 + 0 + 0 = everything!? The space did not cause matter to come into existence, nor did time. Neither can chance influence or create events. Can being come from non-being... spontaneous generation of matter from nothing? Can chance actually do anything or cause something to happen? No. Chance is only the likelihood of something occurring. There must first come "cause" before an effect can occur. An a cause logically demand a Causer...and a Creator. Chance is powerless. It can not make something happen or create something from nothing. It is a non-being.

I met an old intermediate school classmate far from our hometowns in a big city. I thought, that's incredible. What are the chances of that? Lot's of zeros I am sure, but I did not go to this city to meet him. He did not come to the same city to meet me. It was pure coincidence or by mere chance. But the chance did not make me go to this city. I did. But I had already existed before having this chance meeting. I caused myself to do so. Same for him. Chance is a possibility quotient, a mathematical equation. But you have to have numbers to begin with or you can't even write an equation. Chance is powerless to create or to cause something to happen. That leaves only one possibility. The cause must be from an Intelligent Designer, a Creator. There is no other way in which to explain the reason for all matter...the universe and all life forms.

Defects in Evolutional Theory

In Darwin's Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection believed that fossil evidence to prove his theory of gradual progression from one species into another, would eventually be found. It has been 150 years and no such evidence exists. Where is the fossil evidence of lizards transitioning into birds? This I would like to see, since their lung functions are so radically different, it could not have happened gradually nor rapidly. No fossil transitions equal no proof. There is not even one fossil showing a transition from scales to feathers, as the theory goes. There is not even one single example of this anywhere on earth. Who cares if they claim a "missing link"...excuse me, you have to have a chain to attach a link, right? Well, the whole chain is missing!

Darwin and most scientists at the time, believed that cells were simple, living organisms, with only a few parts. This was thought to enable easy mutation or change into different kinds of cells. Cells are extremely complex, with over one trillion different functions and processes. More complex than the New York City Metro Transit's transportation system (including the computers that help run it). Scientists claim they know all of the key elements that were present when life began on earth, but the fact is that when they bring these elements and conditions under a similar environment, (even voltage equal to lightning, so often claimed as the catalyst), they have not once created life or a life form.

Hundreds of thousands of fossils have been examined in the last 150 years, and not so much as one time, anywhere, has there ever been discovered a record of a progression of transitional fossils, from one species to another. Instead, what has been found and widely known as the Cambrian Explosion (of nearly every species) shows life forms showing up, all at once!. It isn't called an explosion because it happened slowly. It is astonishingly instantaneous; almost like a rapid creation event.

Cellular mutation is not an improvement of the organism. As cells age, it is like the original copy of the cell has a copy made of itself. Then, this copy is copied. That copy is likewise copied, until it becomes much less like the original and has lost much of it's original cellular integrity. It is not mutating, it is decaying. Entropic change moves into a more disorderly, chaotic state, not an improved one. Simply put, it is a dispersal of it's mechanical energy, not a reorganizing or improving of the specie's cellular integrity from one type into another, superior specie. It is a smoothing out process, not a building up process and is consistent with the 2^nd and 3^rd Law of Thermodynamics. Darwin realized there was not sufficient fossil evidence in his day to prove his theory of gradual progression, that is from one species into another. And even his own colleagues noted flaws in his naturalistic speculation. The search for the missing link seems ludicrous when the entire chain is missing.

Does Fossil Evidence Support Evolution?

Sir Arthur Keith, a noted anthropologist and devout evolutionist, admits that "Evolution is unproved and un-provable. We [evolutionists] believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable?". Can intellectuals believe in God? Absolutely! Many intellectuals believe in God. As a matter of fact, your intellect has very little to do with your belief in God. Out of all of the secular professional groups, do you know what professional group has the highest number of believers in God? The astronomers do. Over 90% of the world's great astronomers believe in God. Why? Because they have studied the heavens. It's not a sign of intelligence not to believe in God. If you're intelligent, you have to say, "This must have all been created and organized."

It is also no coincidence that an increasing number of scientists are withdrawing their support of the theory of evolution. Scientists may see this as an embarrassment many years from now like their predecessors who were once convinced that the earth was flat. Frankly, fossil records simply do not support any credible evidence for evolution. Why continue looking for what does not exist when a simple reading of Romans 1:20 explains it all? "For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."

Excerpt from Blind Chance or Intelligent Design?, Empirical Methodologies and the Bible