Transcendental design

The advocates of Darwinism have declared that the debate about origins is over — firmly settled in favor of descent over design.

Quite frankly, I wish the debate were over.

I’ve gotten tired of circular arguments with Darwinists about their exaggerated claims that misinterpret some scientific evidence while completely ignoring equally important evidence that threatens their ultimately atheistic worldview.

These tedious arguments get old pretty quick. It’s a terrible waste of time. Frequently, my opponents become angry and impolite. And I also have constructive work to do, meaning novels to write.

But I remain unconvinced that descent actually explains why and how humans came to exist, and I simply can’t abide an inferior argument winning by default.

At a casual glance, I would expect the creature shown above to be most likely found in the jungle, a zoo, or National Geographic video…not living as my neighbor in the house next door.

In fact, I’m fairly certain that “people” have never looked like the creature depicted above.

Yet according to advocates of Darwinian theory, that the female ape-like creature shown in the picture had sexual intercourse with a male ape-like creature that looked pretty much exactly like her. Over generations the baby apes shape-shifted to lose their fur and get smarter in the process of becoming human, all attributable to the vagaries of a powerful, mystical factor known as Deep Time.

Isolation of the gene pool and genetic drift allegedly caused this clearly ape-like creature to eventually “evolve” into a sentient human, which we may safely assume if we allow enough time for it to happen. From furry primate to Australopithecus, Homo Habilis, to finally humans. All via sexual reproduction. Nice and neat, isn’t it?

Because then we don’t need to worry about invoking a supernatural God to credit.

It would probably never happen that way again, but remember, it only had to happen once…right? <that was sarcasm, in case you weren’t sure>

One rather significant problem is that idea is not logical, given what we know about hybrids and modern zoology. Bluntly stated, hybrids are a biological dead-end. The offspring are sterile.

At least, that’s what we can normally observe when we mate a horse with a donkey — the offspring, a mule, is sterile. Therefore, we may assume that future evolution theory will occur when two humans have sex, but produce non-human offspring…that actually sounds like the plot of a bad science-fiction movie, doesn’t it?

Time allegedly makes the unobservable not only theoretically possible, time makes the impossible become inevitable when descent is asserted to be the primary catalyst for the origin of species.

The alleged “evidence” for descent is found in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, and DNA analysis. Ironically, biologists claim the very same evidence only creates the illusion of design.

The biological mechanism for descent is sexual reproduction. We can observe descent — my wife and I have children, and grandchildren. But we cannot observe metamorphosis into new body plans, because those require Deep Time.

But even if descent were the most reasonable explanation for the diversity of modern life, the bigger problem in the big scheme of things is that it only offers an alternative to design for existing life.

Can the whole universe also be the product of descent, from a hypothetical multiverse?

Can a living organism “descend” from chemicals?

Clearly, the answer to both of those questions can only be “no.” Descent cannot explain the existence of this universe, or the origin of life.

Because life cannot evolve until it exists.

The universe, in fact this allegedly fine-tuned universe according to experts in physics, must exist and be capable of supporting life before descent is possible. Before descent can even become an option, creation has already occurred.

Our “fine tuned” universe was either created by accident, or on purpose — as part of some grand design.

Therefore, the debate must shift from design versus descent, to design versus descent + incredible good luck.

Descent is a purely biological function. It completely fails to explain the existence of immune systems and food chains and assumes random mutations are sometimes beneficial, not always detrimental.

Unless the argument for descent transcends the limitations of biology, it utterly fails as an explanation for the origin of the universe, and the origin of life.

The mechanism that creates design is intelligence. Therefore, design is the output, or product of coherent thought.

The biological evidence for design is the same scientific evidence that can be argued to indicate descent — the fossil record, DNA, and comparative anatomy. Descent by natural selection is clearly the mechanism of design for the proliferation of an existing species.

However, descent is limited to offering a possible explanation for the existence of modern life.

Descent offers nothing to explain the origin of the universe or the origin of life. Conversely, the evidence for design can easily be found in patterns that transcend biology.

Fibonacci spirals are ubiquitously observed in nature — they exist on scale as small as the double helix spiral shape of DNA to the spiral formation of galaxies.

Benoit Mandelbrot discovered the existence of fractals that demonstrate a repeated pattern in Nature revealing more complexity as the pattern is enlarged.

Evidence of design can literally be found everywhere, if we merely open our eyes and consider the possibility of design when we see it. The evidence of design can be seen everywhere from the composition of the universe to the design of the human body.

The most remarkable thing any doctor has ever said to me was my surgeon, just before he operated on me. He said this: “the body wants to heal itself.”

Please, contemplate that profound statement for a moment. How does my body “think” for me and understand that a broken bone, or surgical incision, needs to mend?

Why does the immune system even exist? We take so much for granted…and then grouse about our human frailty and perceived imperfections.

Humans don’t know how to make anything out of nothing. We don’t know very much about too many things, but have the hubris to act as if we do. Patterns exist. They are observable phenomena.

But patterns don’t occur by descent, or by accident. They occur by design.