Seeking Proof Finding Grace

Send us Fan Mail

Can natural selection explain a complex machine like the semicircular canals that control our balance or in our experience is an intelligent designer a much more likely explanation.   God loves you and designed you with the care and attention of a loving Heavenly Father!

“The balance is controlled by something called the semicircular canals in your ear, and these are 3 different tubes basically pointed in X, Y and Z axis.  And each of these tubes is filled with a fluid, a very thick fluid.  When the fluid moves within the tube it actually pushes the different hair-like nerve cells in the tube in different directions.  And that sends signals to your brain telling you that you are moving in a certain direction.  And so, when you get off the carousel those nerve cells are all still pointed in the direction they were pointed before.  They tell you, you are still going around in a circle, but your eyes see that you are not moving so there is a conflict there, and that is what causes dizziness.” Adam Ruben, Outrageous Acts of Science, Moped Merry-Go-Round

Picture credit to https://www.aboutkidshealth.ca/middle-ear-effusion

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.  But I can find out no such case.”  Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 1859

Send us Fan Mail

Can random mutation and natural selection best explain the assembly of complex working parts into a machine designed to accomplish a specific function, or is an intelligent Creator the best explanation for the irreducibly complex parts that make up so much of us?  

“The simplest organ which can be called an eye consists of an optic nerve, surrounded by pigment-cells and covered by translucent skin, but without any lens or other refractive body.”  Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 1859

“…How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated…”  Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 1859

“You see, a system or device is irreducibly complex if it has a number of different components that all work together to accomplish the task of the system, and if you were to remove one of the components, the system would no longer function.  An irreducibly complex system is highly unlikely to be built piece-by-piece through Darwinian processes, because the system has to be fully present in order for it to function.” Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator, 2004, quoting Michael Behe

“Searching for particular examples of irreducible complexity is a fundamentally unscientific way to proceed: a special case of arguing from present ignorance…gaps shrink as science advances…”  Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, 2006

“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 degree…”  Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 1859

“It has been objected that in order to modify the eye and still preserve it as a perfect instrument, many changes would have to be effected simultaneously, which, it is assumed, could not be done through natural selection; but as I have attempted to show in my work on the variation of domestic animals, it is not necessary to suppose that the modifications were all simultaneous, if they were extremely slight and gradual.”  Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 1859

Send us Fan Mail

This week we see whether or not random mutation can save the theory of natural selection, or is an intelligent Creator (who loves you) a far better answer?

“The simplest organ which can be called an eye consists of an optic nerve, surrounded by pigment-cells and covered by translucent skin, but without any lens or other refractive body.”  Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 1859

Send us Fan Mail

Darwin’s Eye Problem: Podcast 70

This week we look at some problematic conclusions Darwin reaches when looking at his theory. Can his unguided process start the journey up Mount Improbable, or do we need the guiding hand of intelligence?

“The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several paleontologists…as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of the species.  If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection.  For the development by this means of a group of forms, all of which are descended from some one progenitor, must have been an extremely slow process, and the progenitors must have lived long before their modified descendants.  But we continually overrate the perfection of the geological record, and falsely infer, because of certain genera or families have not been found beneath a certain stage, that they did not exist before that stage.  In all cases, positive paleontological evidence may be implicitly trusted; negative evidence is worthless, as experience has so often shown.  Charles Darwin,The Origin of Species,1859  

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.  But I can find out no such case.”  Charles Darwin,The Origin of Species,1859

“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 degree.  Reason tells me, that if numerous graduations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case: and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though inseparable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.  How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.”  Charles Darwin,The Origin of Species,1859

“The simplest organ which can be called an eye consists of an optic nerve, surrounded by pigment-cells and covered by translucent skin, but without any lens or other refractive body.”  Charles Darwin,The Origin of Species,1859

“…the difficulty ceases to be very great in believing that natural selection may have converted the simple apparatus of an optic nerve, coated with a pigment and invested by transparent membrane, into an optical instrument as perfect as possessed by a member of the Articulate Class.”  Charles Darwin,The Origin of Species,1859

“It has been objected that in order to modify the eye and still preserve it as a perfect instrument, many changes would have to be effected simultaneously, which, it is assumed, could not be done through natural selection; but as I have attempted to show in my work on the variation of domestic animals, it is not necessary to suppose that the modifications were all simultaneous, if they were extremely slight and gradual.”  Charles Darwin,The Origin of Species,1859

Send us Fan Mail

This week we look at the spark that would have been needed to animate some miraculously preassembled building blocks into a living cell.  What is the best explanation for an event like that?  Don’t forget, God loves you so much He gave everything for you!

Send us Fan Mail

This week we take a look at how the complex traits that life displays could have begun their development.  Was it evolution, or was it a Creator that loves us?  Which is the most likely answer?

“In Climbing Mount Improbable, I expressed the point in a parable.  One side of a mountain is a sheer cliff, impossible to climb, but on the other side is a gentile slope to the summit.  On the summit sits a complex device such as an eye or a bacterial flagellar motor.  The absurd notion that such complexity could spontaneously self-assemble is symbolized by leaping from the foot of the cliff to the top in one bound.  Evolution, by contrast, goes around the back of the mountain and creeps up the gentle slope to the summit: easy!” Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, 2006

Matthew 6, “27 Which of you by worrying can add one cubit to his stature?”   The Holy Bible, New King James Version, 1982, Thomas Nelson, Inc 

“It has been said that I speak of natural selection as an active power or Deity; but who objects to an author speaking of the attraction of gravity as ruling the movements of the planets?”  Charles Darwin, The Origin of the Species, 1859

Send us Fan Mail

We find ourselves with life suddenly, and very unlikely, having arrived on the scene.  But now we have to ask ourselves where things are going?  This week we start to lay out the very complex journey that lies ahead.  Can natural selection do it without the guiding hand of a Creator (a Creator who loves you)…

“Nevertheless, it may be that the origin of life is not the only major gap in the evolutionary story that is bridged by sheer luck, anthropically justified.  For example, my colleague, Mark Ridley in Mendel’s Demon, has suggested that the origin of the eukaryotic cell (our kind of cell, with a nucleus and various other complicated features such as mitochondria, which are not present in bacteria) was an even more momentous, difficult and statistically improbable step than the origin of life.  The origin of consciousness might be another major gap whose bridging was of the same order of improbability.  One-off events like this might be explained by the anthropic principle, along the following lines.  There are billions of planets that have developed life at the level of bacteria…  Dawkins, The God Delusion, 2006

Firstly, life – even a single, ‘simple’ cell – is a miracle of complexity.  Every cell in your body, for example, has molecular machines for moving itself, tagging and transporting molecules, processing food, defending against invaders, DNA duplication and repair, producing proteins and receiving and processing outside signals.  On top of all that, this entire machine can tear itself in half and produce a complete working copy in about 20 minutes.  Lewis and Barnes, A Fortunate Universe, 2016

“Owing to this struggle, variations, however slight and from whatever cause proceeding, if they be in any degree profitable to the individuals of a species, in their infinitely complex relations to other organic beings and to their physical conditions of life, will tend to the preservation of such individuals, and will generally be inherited by the offspring.”  Charles Darwin, The Origin of the Species, 1859

“I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term Natural Selection, in order to mark its relation to, man’s power of selection.”  Charles Darwin, The Origin of the Species, 1859

“On the other hand, we may feel sure that any variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed.  This preservation of favorable individual differences and variations, and the destruction of those which are injurious, I have called Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest.”  Charles Darwin, The Origin of the Species, 1859

“In Climbing Mount Improbable, I expressed the point in a parable.  One side of a mountain is a sheer cliff, impossible to climb, but on the other side is a gentile slope to the summit.  On the summit sits a complex device such as an eye or a bacterial flagellar motor.  The absurd notion that such complexity could spontaneously self-assemble is symbolized by leaping from the foot of the cliff to the top in one bound.  Evolution, by contrast, goes around the back of the mountain and creeps up the gentle slope to the summit: easy!” Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, 2006 

“Religion is so wasteful, so extravagant; and Darwinian selection habitually targets and eliminates waste.  Nature is a miserly accountant, grudging the pennies, watching the clock, punishing the smallest extravagance.” Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, 2006 

Send us Fan Mail

This week I address a long comment submitted by a viewer in Episode 63: The Lies of Evolution.  

“First, why, if species have descended from other species by fine graduations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?” Charles Darwin, The Origin of the Species,1859

“I believe that species come to be tolerably well-defined objects and do not at any one period present an inextricable chaos of and intermediate links.” Charles Darwin, The Origin of the Species,1859

“Origin-of-life researchers now know that Miller’s simulation experiment has little, if any, relevance to explaining how amino acids–let alone their precise sequencing, necessary to produce proteins–could have arisen in the actual atmosphere of the early earth.” The Return of the God Hypothesis, Stephen Meyer,2021

“Life cannot have had a random beginning…The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.” Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (London: J.M. Dent & Sons,1981)

“What happens if you replay the experiment using an accurate atmosphere?”…“I’ll tell you this: you do not get amino acids, that’s for sure,” he replied “Some textbooks fudge by saying, well, even if you use a realistic atmosphere, you still get organic molecules, as if that solves the problem. ”He goes on later to identify the molecules: Formaldehyde and cyanide. “The idea that using a realistic atmosphere gets you the first step in the origin of life is just laughable. ”The Case for a Creator, Lee Strobel, 2004

“I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially to the extent to which it has been applied, will be one of the greatest jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity it has.” Malcolm Muggeridge, Pascal Lectures, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

Send us Fan Mail

This week I address a long comment submitted by a viewer in Episode 63: The Lies of Evolution.  My contention is that evolution, as a theory, is taught to us on several pillars, nearly all of which, are full of holes if not completely disproven.  I think by answering the viewers comment we might expand on this important issue and perhaps convince all of us to dig a litter deeper and not just accept what we are told is settled science.    God loves you!!

excuse any curtness, I lost the original comment when I accidentally clicked off your video.  4:05 please read what Darwin said before and after these quotes. you go off as if he says nothing. but he does address these questions, because he was bringing them up rhetorically. and if he's wrong, then I'm wrong, and nothing you said has convinced me that I should look into it further. @cediviannareeda4305 

I think it would absolutely blow your mind to see what atheists have to say about these things. textbooks aren't written to tackle every tiny nitpick from every rapidly shrinking community with a vested interest in not believing in Evolution…@cediviannareeda4305 

Arthur Eddington, who famously proved Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity once said, “philosophically, the notion of a beginning to the present order of Nature is repugnant.”  Arthur Eddington, The End of the World: From the Standpoint of Mathematical Physics, Nature 127 (1931) pg 447

“Of course, dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads are immune to argument, their resistance built up over years of childhood indoctrination using methods that took centuries to mature (whether by evolution or design).”  Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, 2006

“Atheists do not have faith; and reason alone could not propel one to total conviction that anything definitely does not exist.”  Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, 2006

“If all the evidence in the universe turned in favor of creationism, I would be the first to admit it, and I would immediately change my mind.  As things stand, however, all available evidence (and there is a vast amount of it) favors evolution.  It is for this reason and this reason alone that I argue for evolution with a passion that matches the passion of those who argue against it.  My passion is based on evidence.  Theirs, flying in the face of evidence as it does, is truly fundamentalist.” Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, 2006

The physical constants, things like the speed of light, the gravitational constant, the strong and weak force things, physicists agree, most physicists agree, that if you change any of those constants by even a very, very small amount, than we don’t come into existence.  The universe doesn’t come into existence.  They have to be like that in order for galaxies to form, for stars to form, for chemistry to form actually.  And then for the prerequisite for life to evolve, need that as well.  So that is the nearest approach to a good argument.”  Richard Dawkins, Fine-tuning is a good argument for God - Richard Dawkins - YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apWOkC7krfQ

Send us Fan Mail

This week we continue to look at the scientifically disproven examples that supposedly support Darwin’s theory that continue to be sold to us in textbooks and in popular culture today.  Could it be that an intelligent creator who loves us is a far better explanation?

Resources:

Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator, 2004

Stephen Meyer, The Return of the God Hypothesis, 2021

Hugh Ross, Improbable Planet, 2016

Jay Richards and Guillermo Gonzales, The Privileged Planet, 2004

I realized while preparing the last two episodes that they are in many ways a summary of the interview Lee Strobel conducts in the Case for a Creator.  I want to give full credit to Lee Strobel for doing an amazing job introducing this topic into my awareness and helping encourage me to dig deeper with some of the other resources listed.

“First, why, if species have descended from other species by fine graduations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?  Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?” Charles Darwin, The Origin of the Species, 1859

“Experimental evidence of such an evolution being impossible, the professor is not content to say (as most of us would be ready to say) that such an evolution is likely enough anyhow.  He produces his little bone, or little collection of bones, and deduces the most marvelous things from it.  He found in Java a piece of a skull, seeming by its contour to be smaller than the human.  Somewhere near it he found an upright thighbone and in the same scattered fashion some teeth that were not human…If they all form part of one creature, which is doubtful, our conception of the creature would be almost equally doubtful.  But the effect on popular science was to produce a complete and even complex figure, finished down to the last details of hair and habits.  He was given a name as if he were an ordinary historical character…Popular histories published portraits of him like the portraits of Charles the First or George the Fourth…A detailed drawing was reproduced, carefully shaded, to show that the very hairs of his head were all numbered.  No uninformed person looking at its carefully lined face and wistful eyes would imagine for a moment that this was the portrait of a thighbone, or of a few teeth and a fragment of a cranium.”  G.K. Chesterton, The Everlasting Man, 1925