Five Questions Evolutionists Would Rather Dodge – William A. Dembski

Five Questions Evolutionists Would Rather Dodge

By William A. Dembski

Evolutionists are masters at covering the flaws and weaknesses of their theory. Here’s how you can clean house.

Most evolutionists give the impression that evolution is a settled fact of science, on the order of the Earth being round or revolving around the Sun. Evolution, we are assured, has been overwhelmingly confirmed. Only rubes and ignoramuses debate evolution. Any resistance to it is futile and indicates bad faith or worse.

For instance, Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins accuses those who refuse to accept evolution with being “ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).” To this he recently added: “I don’t withdraw a word of my initial statement. But I do now think it may have been incomplete. There is perhaps a fifth category, which may belong under ‘insane’ but which can be more sympathetically characterized by a word like tormented, bullied, or brainwashed.”

Despite such bluster, evolutionary theory is in sad shape. Cambridge paleontologist Simon Conway Morris, writing for the premier biology journal Cell, recently remarked:

“When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: ‘It happened.’ Thereafter, there is little consensus….” To the public, the evolutionary establishment presents a united front. But this illusion of consensus quickly evaporates once you know where to look and what questions to ask.

What follows are five key questions you can use to lay bare the inflated claims of evolutionists. Evolutionary theory is not a slamdunk. It is an exercise in storytelling that masquerades as a scientific theory.

1. The Fossil Record

According to Darwin, the absence of intermediate fossil forms “is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” What new fossil finds, if any, have occurred since Darwin wrote these words nearly 150 years ago? Do they overturn Darwin’s bleak assessment of evolutionary theory? If the absence of intermediate fossil forms holds as much today as it did back then, why should anyone accept evolution?

Dodge: Evolutionists have gotten quite good at sidestepping this question with what looks like an answer but really isn’t. Typically they’ll lay out a bunch of organisms or biological structures and say, “Look at how similar these are. They’ve obviously descended from a common evolutionary ancestor.” Evolutionists will then ply you with a mass of details about supposedly wellconfirmed evolutionary transitions (like those supposedly describing the evolution of horses, whales, or reptiles into mammals).

Comeback: Don’t get lost in the details. Yes, the fossil record contains organisms that can be placed in a progression suggesting gradual change. But most of these progressions result from arbitrary picking and choosing among the totality of fossils. With millions of fossils to choose from, it is likely that some gradual progressions will be found.

Also, such progressions invariably come from organisms with the same basic body plan. In the “evolution” of the horse, we are always dealing with horse-like organisms. And even with the “evolution” of reptiles into mammals, we are dealing with land-dwelling vertebrates sharing many common structures. What we don’t see in the fossil record is animals with fundamentally different body plans evolving from a common ancestor. For instance, there is no fossil evidence whatsoever that insects and vertebrates share a common evolutionary ancestor.

The challenge that here confronts evolution is not isolated but pervasive, and comes up most flagrantly in what’s called the Cambrian Explosion. In a very brief window of time during the geological period known as the Cambrian, virtually all the basic animal types appeared suddenly in the fossil record with no trace of evolutionary ancestors. The Cambrian Explosion so flies in the face of evolution that paleontologist Peter Ward wrote, “If ever there was evidence suggesting Divine Creation, surely the Precambrian and Cambrian transition, known from numerous localities across the face of the earth, is it.” Note that Ward is not a creationist.

Evolutionists sometimes argue that the necessary transitional fossils are there but haven’t been found or that they’ve all been destroyed. But this is wishful thinking. The challenge of the fossil record that Darwin identified 150 years ago has not gone away. To his credit, the late evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould conceded this point: “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.” The point you need to press is whether this inference is reasonable at all.

2. Natural Selection

According to evolutionist Richard Dawkins, the “evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design.” Yet he also states, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” How does Dawkins know that living things only appear to be designed but are not actually designed?

Dodge: Evolutionists pretend that the design of living things is a dead issue. Accordingly, they tell us that before Darwin, scientists mistakenly viewed the living world as the product of design but that afterward they came to their senses and rightly rejected it. For Dawkins and most evolutionists, Darwin’s idea of natural selection, in which nature weeds out the less fit and allows the more fit to survive and reproduce, is supposed to be all that’s needed to explain the appearance of design in biology.

Comeback: The great fallacy of evolution is that it claims all the benefits of design without the need for actual design. In particular, evolution attributes intelligence, the power of choice, to a fundamentally irrational process, namely, natural selection. But nature has no power to choose. Real choices involve deliberation, that is, some consideration of future possibilities and consequences. But natural selection is incapable of looking to the future. Instead, it acts on the spur of the moment, based solely on what the environment right now deems fit. It cannot plan for the future. It is incapable of deferring success or gratification. And yet, so limited a process is supposed to produce marvels of biological complexity and diversity that far exceed the capacities of the best human designers.

There’s no evidence that natural selection is up to the task. Natural selection is fine for explaining certain small-scale changes in organisms, like the beaks of birds adapting to environmental changes. It can take existing structures and hone them. But it can’t explain how you get complex structures in the first place. That’s why cell biologist Franklin Harold writes, “there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.” Remember the phrase “wishful speculations” whenever anyone starts touting the wonder-working power of natural selection.

3. Detecting Design

The search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) is a scientific research program that looks for signs of intelligence from distant space. Should biologists likewise be looking for signs of intelligence in biological systems? Why or why not? Could actual intelligent design in biological systems be scientifically detectable?

Dodge: Evolutionists admit that intelligent design is scientifically detectable in many areas of science, such as archeology, forensics, and cryptography. They even admit that nonhuman intelligence could be scientifically detectable, as with SETI. But they reject out of hand the possibility of detecting design in biological systems. Any intelligence responsible for biological complexity would have to be an unevolved intelligence, and for evolutionists there is no such thing as an unevolved intelligence. For them, intelligence is always the product of evolution.

Comeback: The double-standard here is obvious. There are reliable methods for identifying the effects of intelligence. These methods apply in many areas of science already. They even apply to the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, in which the intelligence detected would be nonhuman. It is therefore completely arbitrary to say that such methods of design detection apply only to evolved intelligences but not to unevolved intelligences.

Usually evolutionists attempt to get around this double-standard by saying that we have experience of human intelligence but no experience with the sort of intelligence that would be involved in the formation of life. That’s why SETI is such a powerful response to the evolutionists’ double-standard. If an extraterrestrial intelligence communicated with Earth via radio signals, we would have no more experience of the extraterrestrial intelligence than we do of any intelligence responsible for the formation of life. In each case, we would know nothing about the actual workings, motivations, and purposes of the intelligence.

But we would still recognize the intelligence from its effects. Recall the movie Contact, based on a novel by Carl Sagan. In that movie, SETI astronomers discovered a radio signal consisting of a long sequence of prime numbers (these are numbers divisible only by themselves and one). Because the sequence was long, it was complex and thus hard to reproduce by chance. Also, the prime numbers are mathematically significant and thus represent an objective, independently given pattern, or what is called a specification.

There is now an increasing scientific literature that takes the joint occurrence of complexity and specification as a reliable marker for detecting design. My books The Design Inference (Cambridge University Press) and No Free Lunch (Rowman & Littlefield) lay out such methods. These methods are very widely employed in science as well as in ordinary life. There is nothing to prevent their legitimate use in biology.

4. Molecular Machines

Do any structures in the cell resemble highly intricate machines designed by humans? Evolutionists claim that these structures evolved. But if so, how? Could such machines have features that place them beyond the reach of evolution?

Dodge: Evolution is a divide-and-conquer strategy. It tries to explain the complex in terms of the simpler. Thus, when confronted with a molecular machine or any other complex structure in biology, evolutionists merely point out that the structure has components that are simpler and thus could be the target of natural selection. Hard to believe, but from this unremarkable observation, evolutionists blithely conclude that natural selection is able to build all complex biological structures.

Comeback: You really need to hold the evolutionists feet to the fire here. The important thing is not to let them retreat into generalities. There are structures in the cell that don’t just resemble humanly built machines—they actually are machines in every sense of the word. Don’t focus on how such machines might have originated in the abstract. Focus on a specific machine and force the evolutionist to try to explain in detail how it might have evolved.

Take, for instance, the bacterial flagellum, which is now referred to as the “Icon of Intelligent Design” by some evolutionists because it has been so effectively used to criticize evolution. The bacterial flagellum is a marvel of nanoengineering. Biologist Howard Berg at Harvard refers to it as “the most efficient machine in the universe.” The flagellum is a little bi-directional motor-driven propeller that sits on the backs of certain bacteria and drives them through their watery environment. It spins at 20,000 rpm and can change direction in a quarter turn. It requires approximately 40 protein parts for its construction. If any of the parts are missing or not available in the right proportions, no functional flagellum will form. So, how did it evolve?

Despite thousands of research articles that have been written about the structure and function of the flagellum, biologists don’t have a clue how it could have evolved. Evolutionists have only one straw at which they continually grasp when trying to explain how the flagellum might have evolved, namely, that the flagellum contains within it a structure similar to a microsyringe found in some bacteria. Having found this sub-structure, evolutionists merrily conclude that the microsyringe must have evolved into the flagellum.

Such pathetic lapses in logic are everywhere in the evolutionary literature. The challenge for evolutionary theory is not to find components of such systems that could be grist of natural selection’s mill. Rather, it is to provide detailed, testable, step-by-step scenarios whereby such components could reasonably have come together to bring about the marvels of nano-engineering that we find in systems like the flagellum.

What exactly had to happen to that microsyringe to transform it into a flagellum? To see what’s at stake, consider what exactly has to happen to a motor to transform it into a motorcycle. Sure, there are a number of steps that can transform a motor into a motorcycle. And there probably are a number of steps that can transform a microsyringe into a flagellum. But what are those steps? How gradual is the progression? And is it reasonable to think that those steps could be taken apart from design? Not having a clue about how these systems did or might have evolved, evolutionists never answer such questions.

5. Testability

What evidence would convince you that evolution is false? If no such evidence exists, or indeed could exist, how can evolution be a testable scientific theory?

Dodge: In the theory of evolution, organisms gradually transform as the result of purely material factors such as natural selection and random genetic changes. What would it take, therefore, to refute such a theory? Darwin sidestepped the question as follows: “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.” Although Darwin here seems to be opening evolution up to criticism, in fact he is doing the opposite. Indeed, he is protecting evolution from all effective challenges and rendering it untestable.

Comeback: To see this, consider the following reply to Darwin by University of Texas philosopher Robert Koons: “How could it be proved that something could not possibly have been formed by a process specified no more fully than as a process of ‘numerous, successive, slight modifications’? And why should the critic [of evolution] have to prove any such thing? The burden is on Darwin and his defenders to demonstrate that at least some complex organs we find in nature really can possibly be formed in this way, that is, by some specific, fully articulated series of slight modifications.”

It’s important here to see the big picture. The evolutionist J. B. S. Haldane, when asked what would convince him that evolution was false, replied that finding a rabbit fossil in pre-Cambrian rocks would do quite nicely. Such a fossil would, by standard geological dating, be out of sequence by several hundreds of millions of years. Certainly such a finding, if rigorously confirmed, would overturn the current understanding of the history of life. But it would not overturn evolution.

Haldane’s rabbit is easily enough explained as an evolutionary convergence, in which essentially the same structure or life form evolves twice. In place of a common underlying intelligent design, evolutionists invoke evolutionary convergence whenever confronted with similar biological structures that cannot reasonably be traced back to a common evolutionary ancestor.

So long as some unknown or unexplored evolutionary pathway might have led to the formation of some biological structure or organism, evolutionists prefer it over alternative explanations such as intelligent design. And since the unknown and unexplored allow for an infinity of loopholes, the committed evolutionist regards Darwinian and other materialist explanations of life’s origin and subsequent development as always trumping alternative explanations, regardless of the evidence.

Note that intelligent design does not stack the deck in this way. Unlike evolution, intelligent design is refutable. To refute intelligent design, it is enough to display specific, fully articulated Darwinian pathways for the complex systems that, according to intelligent design, lie beyond the reach of the Darwinian mechanism (systems like the bacterial flagellum in question four). Though evolutionists mistakenly charge intelligent design with being untestable, it’s their theory that in fact is untestable.

Why is it important to ask these questions? In his book The Right Questions, prominent evolution-critic Phillip Johnson shows how the pursuit of truth requires the unmasking of falsehoods. What’s more, he points out that falsehoods are unmasked only by knowing where to probe and what questions to ask. Because the truth about biological origins is so important, ultimately defining our place in the universe, truth demands that we ask the right questions about Darwin and evolution.

Richard Halvorson, writing for the Harvard Crimson, has aptly remarked, “We must refuse to bow to our culture’s false idols. Science will not benefit from canonizing Darwin or making evolution an article of secular faith. We must reject intellectual excommunication as a valid form of dealing with criticism: the most important question for any society to ask is the one that is forbidden.”

Evolution has become an ideology, and the one thing that ideologies fear is exposure. That’s why evolution forbids certain lines of questioning. But the questions need to be asked. Too much is riding on evolution for it to escape proper scrutiny. For a more thorough examination of the questions posed here, as well as many others, see my new book The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions about Intelligent Design

(InterVarsity, 2004).


About defendtheword

To contact us please send e-mail to
This entry was posted in Apologetics. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to Five Questions Evolutionists Would Rather Dodge – William A. Dembski

  1. James Brown says:

    Has any evidence FOR intelligent design been found?
    I am involved in SETI and I am NOT looking for a complex signal. In fact I am looking for a very simple signal.

    SETI and ID are simply not comparable.

  2. John Sutton says:

    Your comments reveal a superficial knowledge of evolutionary theory along with a deep misunderstanding of its process. In order to deal with all of this I would need to take you back to your early childhood and re-educate you. I take heart in the knowledge that even if we are faced with hoards of indoctrinated religious idiots in the present the mountains of evidence for a world without supernatural intervention continues to grow for the benefit of future generations.

  3. Thanks for your comments, just a note to say that this document was completed by Dr William A. Dembski not me. Whilst I completely agree with his findings and analysis I can’t claim the glory. By the way SETI was used as an example of search for the design and therefore is not different to ID theory.

    Also note the comment by Mr John Sutton calling evolution doubters “Religious idiots” and supposed acquisition of greater biology knowledge and deeper understanding, but without documenting what it is that he has to say. This type of “argument” only confirms Dr Dembski claim that evolution is also a religion and its followers have to make massive leaps of faith in order to explain the unexplainable.

  4. James Gilbert says:

    This kind of misrepresentation of science incenses me.

    When doing science (note science is a process, not an edifice), you don’t test a theory, you test its PREDICTIONS. No theory is testable – it’s the predictions.
    Your “show me all the transitional fossils” is the same as complaining to physicists that they couldn’t actually show you gravity. Evolutionary theory doesn’t predict that there should be a perfect set of fossils, so how is this a refutation?

    Evolutionary theory has generated hundreds of thousands of testable predictions. I challenge you to name one prediction from ID, and a suitable test.

  5. James Brown says:

    Mr. Defend… Saying that evolution is a religion is like saying that baldness is a hair color.

  6. Thanks again for your additional comments. On the Testing of the theory I have to respectfully disagree with you, how do you explain disproved theories, yes when the predictions do not match the actual results we then accept that we had faulty theory if we say that there are transitional links you should be able to point to some kind of transition specimen especially between different species.

    I find this to be a common misunderstanding and I blame our education system as it is not teaching us to think for ourselves but to accept without questioning. At this point I would like to draw you attention to the fact that there are many non religious people who have very strong reservations about the theory of evolution.

    I hope you are aware that many “transitions ” which are in our museums are in fact just one individual pigs tooth or part of one bone yet somehow “scientists” manage to construct the entire missing link.

    I have to agree with your assessment that there are many thousands of fossils out there, however I will have to remind you that this is always open to interpretation in deed there are many evolutionary biologists who will disagree with each other.

    Simply saying that something is a “link” does not make it so, there has to be a logical and matching steps between two stages as in fact this is precisely what evolution is claiming, so please lets not neglect this most basic of evolution principles.

    Also when you say science is a process I guess you mean by that, if the theory is not proven or our findings don’t match our expectations we can still try it again and again with different variables no mater whether these are applicable to our research until “like by magic” we finally find something that could possibly be used to explain our “untouchable” and holy and out of bounds beloved theory.

    I would like here to use the example of vestigial organs, evolutionary biologist would say “here is your prove that we have evolved”, somebody else looking at the same information could draw completely different conclusion by saying actually, change in our environment will lead to the loss of certain functions as conditions in our environment have so drastically changed that this previous functions are not used anymore and therefore may have now been lost.

    We can both agree that certain functions and organs have reduced their use and functions but this does not mean we would have to agree that this will somehow lead to the increase in functions somewhere else and that this would then result in a further progress elsewhere.

    This in my humble opinion is the observer who is jumping to the conclusion, any analyst would tell you this, you need to continue asking same basic questions like, what or who, why, where, and when.

    Many agnostic scientist agree that this issue of mutation would only lead to the loss of function and would not be producing any net gain, and this is one of the main reasons why so many people have doubts when analyzing theory of evolution.

    To me evolution is like religion and philosophy of life I could not accept it as a science if you take away testability which some people advocate we should do and remove any questioning and continue to ridicule the opposition by simple saying “most scientist agree with these findings” or “only a fool would not accept evolution” etc. one would very quickly come to conclusion that this is intellectual bullying, patronizing and manipulative maneuvering. Often this is described as school playground tactics.

    When drawing parallels between different branches of science we have to be very careful too. Making statements like “you can’t see gravity but you can feel it’s force is not same as saying evolution stipulates that mutation is the positive and beneficial process but we will then ignore the missing links as we would rely on some “unseen evidence”.

    Two are completely different, bones we have and can see as physical artifacts and the time that one specie supposedly progressed from one stage of evolution to the next stage should be therefore testable and traceable with the “numerous in between missing links” skeletons which should be found under the next level of sedimentary rocks. This continues to trouble many scientist who so eagerly endeavor to prove that theory of evolution is correct.

    Finally let me conclude that that anyone not afraid to explore facts of life should not deny that there is a possibility that eventually there could be a dramatic change within the global scientific community at which point they would simple say after extensive research, analysis and observations we can more less conclude that evolution is unlikely.

    Personally I think it will take some time, possibly few hundreds of years but eventually I would say if we continue to exist as a species, humanity would look back and say how wrong we were.

    I wish you long and fruitful life, and urge you not to give up the search, to continue to critically examine everything and don’t take anyones word but do your own digging, compare the notes on both sides of the argument and check the “opposition” regardless of who is “right” I urge you to continue to be objective. Remember in the same way people say religious people have been indoctrinated please check if the opposite is not the truth.

    Your friendly observer – Defend the word

  7. James E Gambrell says:

    Logic tells us there must be one before than can be many. Darwnists tell us that humans are descendents of nonhuman animals. They want us to believe that a nonhuman female animal gave birth to a human child. Evolutionists ask us to believe that many female animals continued to do this until we had enough humans to sustain reproduction of this new species. Then the animals stopped giving birth to human babies. The animals died and their species disappeared because they were incapable of reproducing their own kind.
    This description is mine, but is is the logical conclusion of the presentation of the the theory of evolution.
    The universe is not static, everything is in motion. Motion is change and every material thing is constantly changing. Some changes are regressive, some are progressive. You may call progressive change evolution if you like. Evolution is an excellent descriptive verb but it does not logically establish the orgin of species.
    The defining quality of biological species is their ability to interbreed within their own members but not with the members of another specie. For one species’ progeny to be be another, or a new specie is not logically consistent. It is Bio-Logic-ally inconsistent. The process of evolution as presented by Charles Darwin not only fails to show initial orgin, it ignores causality,and destroys the concept of species and speciation.
    I suggest that Mr. Darwin’s book should have been titled “The Origin of The Specious”.
    James E Gambrell

  8. James Brown says:

    You might want to read the current issue of Scientific American. They have an piece “What is Species?” that should clear up your mis-understandings on the subject.
    Regards…. Jim

  9. Jim

    Thank you very much, feel free to send any material of relevance to me at

    Kind regards

    Defend the word

  10. James Gilbert says:

    Thanks for the long answer!

    Firstly, as I said before, it is NOT a prediction nor a requirement of evolutionary theory that there be a complete record of transitional forms in the fossil record. Why is an incomplete fossil record evidence against evolution?

    In fact, since you asked, there are actually several examples of perfect LIVING transitional forms between species: look up “ring species”. For example, herring gulls (Larus argentatus) get darker and darker in form as you go west from Europe. By the time you’ve gone round the world and reached Europe again, they are a different form which cannot interbreed with herring gulls. We call them lesser black-backed gulls, and give them a different species name (L. fuscus). What better example of transitional forms could you imagine? The same is true in deer mice and Ensatina salamanders in the USA, Greenish warblers in the Himalaya, and lots of others.

    Secondly, I challenged you (or anyone) to name a testable prediction based on the religious view of biological history, and a suitable test. Can you?

    Lastly I don’t agree that our education system teaches us to “accept without questioning”. Science done properly is composed entirely of questioning, and the scientific curriculum in schools increasingly so. Kids do science experiments at school, which consists of asking questions. If the curriculum were religious, what experiments could they possibly do?

    Rather, it is the religious lobby that accept “the word of God” without question. They NEVER provide realistic alternatives to evolutionary theory, or any kind of support, or even one single test that might provide support for a religious interpretation of biological history. Why should their viewpoint be credible?



  11. Just a quick response hope this will clarify what I believe and also to say that misunderstanding mis quotation and presuppositions which are not checked could easily misguide the argument rather than answer the question.

    1 Christianity could rightly take a credit for the development of modern since in the west (Western Europe and America) from early 16th Century if you were part of the educated elite often by the end of your education if you selected to study theology you had options open to you i.e. there was enough education to allow you to choose from 3 different professions. I.e. You could decide to be a Church Minister, Lawyer or Doctor.

    Often many great scientist of the time were theologically educated this did not stop them from making new scientific discoveries.

    2 Most people who agree with intelligent design would agree that there is evidence for a micro evolution in other words there is a mutation within species but this does not lead to net gain for the next generation of birds. In other words the environment that we live in will influence how we develop.

    Some 25 years ago when I was interested in martial arts I was told that your fingers, joints and bones would strengthen and thicken after while as you start using your hands and legs more. I can confirm this as correct as eventually I was able to brake thicker bits of wood which I never though possible at first. If you walk barefooted most of your life it’s the fact of life that your feet will be wider as there will be no support for them etc, etc.

    3 Don’t let your understanding and experience to limit what something is or is not. Often when talking to others about what I stand for they tend to be surprised as it’s not what they are use to when benchmarking my statements against their understanding of what “Christians” believe.

    You are right we need to be challenged in the same way we challenge others, all I would say is I do agree with you that the Bible should remain the foundation of “our faith” but how one interprets it is also very important but I will leave this for the next discussion

    Kind regards

    Defend the word

  12. Bubli Sagar says:

    Thank you ..

    We all know that we are not monkeys, or wahtever names Darwinists call us.

    the choice is whether to be on the side of Angels or Animals: I choose to be on the side of Angels..

    If there is no God, then there are no moral values and no moral bounds: that is the difference between men and animals.

  13. Muslim ID says:

    It is no accident that science was first championed in Europe by men of theistic faith rather than for purely secular motives. The foundations of the Western renaissance and the modern scientific method were lade during several centuries of tolerant Muslim rule.

    While Western Europe languished in the “Dark Ages”, Muslim scientists collected translated and synthesised knowledge from all over the Muslim empire and beyond. In this effort, they enlisted the help of other cultures and faiths (particularly Jews and Christians). It was the first international effort to pursue science in a systematic way under a common language (Arabic). It provided a blue print for what was to follow.

    This effort was in part driven by the need for practical knowledge required to run a huge empire and partly by tenants of Islam which require Muslims to seek knowledge wherever they can. The Western scholars and theologians who initiated the renaissance did so after study under Muslim scholars at the great Muslim universities such as Cordoba. 1400 years ago Allah SWT revealed the following prophetic ayat (verse) in the Holy Qur’an:

    Soon will we show them
    Our Signs in the (furthest)
    Regions (of the earth), and

    In their own soul, until
    It becomes manifest to them
    That this is the Truth…” (41:53)

    ID is clearly a universal idea which transcends many faiths. To me it is the idea that through careful study of the evidence, all reasonable people will eventually conclude that life and the universe could only be a product of the Divine. Before being driven to this conclusion, we are to expect every possible alternative to be considered by those who would rather not entertain the idea of a purposeful universe with free will and accountability etc. We are now entering a phase in Materialistic science where any unprovable speculation is being positively considered, provided that it is unguided.

  14. Mad Bluebird says:

    Theres been many fruads and hoaxs in evolution including PILTDOWNMAN,NEBRASKAMAN,LUCY,and the dino-bird and hynkles fruadulent embryo still used in text books today

  15. sandrar says:

    Hi! I was surfing and found your blog post… nice! I love your blog. 🙂 Cheers! Sandra. R.

  16. Hi Sandra

    Thanks for stopping by, and for you nice commnet.


    Defend the word

  17. deptyreese says:

    Oh, there are so many arguments that could be brought up in favor of creation. Here are just a couple. For instance, for us to reach the point that we are at now, there would have to be literally hundreds of thousands if not millions of radical changes to our physical makeup. I’m still waiting for my third arm to grow making it easier for me to carry groceries, lol. But really, ignorance alone is the reason evolutionists still believe as they do. When is the last time you’ve seen any “significant” changes to our, or any other species physical makeup? Then there is the problem of moon dust. When man landed on the moon, astronaughts brought back a rock that was sectioned off into several parts. Those parts were sent to labratories all over to be carbon 14 dated. Results from one million years, to four point six billion years were reported by these independant labrotories. So what do they do? They go with the oldest number available of course, thats the easy way out and that is the way they always take. The main problem with evolution is “over simplification” of complex, unexplainable problems. Anyway, moon dust. When these astronaughts landed on the moon, they fully expected to land in several feet of talcolm powder like dust on the surface of the moon because, after all, they KNEW that the moon was gozillions of years old. From previous missions, they knew the moons gravity, how much dust was in space, and that the moon did not have an atmostphere. All of these facts combined equalled one very large vacuum cleaner sucking up space dust for supposedly millions of years. Most do not know that collection plates were placed on the surface of the moon to actually see how much dust accumulated on its surface between lunar lander missions. These collection plates were placed well away from the landing sights so that the lunar lander would not taint the results. The collection plates were gathered up and studied under a microscope and the ending result was dust gathers on the moon at a rate of approximately one and a half inches per million years. Well……there is a problem. At that rate of accumulation, and given the age of the moon that is taught to school children ( 4.6 billion yrs. ) there would be over three and a half thousand feet of extremely fine, talcolm powder like dust on the surface of the moon. I’m sure evolutionists will come back with something to explain away painfully obvious faults in their theories, so that is why I have stopped arguing the point. I just really don’t appreciate this…..for lack of better words, “TRIPE”, being forced down the throats of my sons classmates as if it were true or something. If you are an evolutionist, ask yourself these questions; what formed the plateaus, why does Niagra falls still exist, and why in the world am I still so wantonly ignorant! The only message that needs pressed is this; Whether you like it or not, we are created individuals with a need to be closer to God. The only way we can do this is by following the example and teaching of Jesus Christ. There is no other way. Take it or leave it. No amount of special prayers, or prophets, or canters full of incense will get you there. Only Jesus can do this. Except Christ into your heart and be saved, please. If you refuse this message, then go your own way and don’t say no-one warned you when your standing before God looking up going “Uhhhhhh…………”.

  18. Thank you very much for your comments, they are very welcomed, these days most of the comments I get are people who are trying to show how our faith in creator is illogical. But what becomes painfully obvious is the frequency with which theory of evolution had to EVOLVE many changes and never accepting that all the modifications were all due to challenges raised by sceptics. This is not self imposed critical thinking they would like rest of us to think. In fact if it was not for the ID proponents we would still teach same things that we did 100 years ago. But most importantly we need to remember that this kind of philosophical brainwashing that there are no constant values that we constantly evolve, e.g. what is right today may change tomorrow, relativism that is subject to cultural and historical influences are common place even in our churches. Because we don’t spend time with our children teaching them the critical thinking and why we should trust the Bible we will continue to lose our young people unnecessarily, we must take some responsibility as we have given up our right completely to the state governed education system.

    Biblical call to influence and teach our children that is so prominent in book of proverbs is ignored in our churches, at lest here in UK and we are happy to give them airy fairy teaching that has no foundation in Church history, theology or apologetics. It is bit like our school system where we are happy to employ the dumbing down strategy, with no teaching and ironically our sermons are frequently more of a place to be entertained rather than share the teaching from the Bible.

    Thank you again for coming and commenting here.

    Kind regards

    Defend the word

  19. Are you saying that criticism of the theory of evolution did not have impact on the current changes in the theory? Or that your resentment is that something so “stupid” as ID could point out gaping holes in the theory that is “so much superior”? Note my sarcasm shared here in the nicest possible way. I take your comments that creationism is same as ID to mean that you will not accept specific declarations from many ID proponents that it simply says that other intelligence must have been involved therefore leaving it up to the receiving party to finish that interpretation. I have already mentioned that this cold also include Aliens which is exactly what Richard Dawkins at one point seam to suggest, check Ben Steins video, I would suggest that anyone who is reasoning and is intellectually honest would understand real issues that are facing those who are not in agreement with the “beautiful” theory of Evolution. I maintain that the only positive thing about this theory is that due to many changes and mutations eventually may get it right. But I reserve my right not to choose the time, as we have proven over many generations that admitting error is just not a quality we humans are ready to adopt as noble tradition.

    Kind regards

    Defend the Word

  20. Actually your argument does not work here, because note that there are many PhD qualified people that believe all kinds of things. Just look at the theory of evolution you have many who disagree with it that are highly qualified, yet you call them ignorant, likewise from our perspective, all that data that is being interpreted liberally any way they chose is right to be ladled ignorant when they look for consistency rather than looking at objections and modifying their theory even further. Ignorance is not simply not knowing, but also knowing only limited resources and deliberately ignoring the opposition. That way your mind is only open to one sided “Evidence” and no wonder that it becomes “scientific fact”. This is however disputed by many scientist even those who are not religious, it just goes to show how Evolution alongside atheism does hold much metaphysical and far less factual teaching. With such pretensions as we have proven this conclusively and Evolution is science but ID is not. I think one limits his thinking and therefore is unfortunately ignoring much data which makes him/her ignorant of many problems with the theory.

    I say this in the nicest possible way, but keeping it secret would only make me part of the conspiracy to hide this data, have you noticed how many evolutionists would give their right hand to see many ID proponents stop their “propaganda” question is why, what is in it for them? Do they get some kind of release, are they paid by the underground Evolution movement, just what is their reasoning I don’t know. Freedom of speech is not on their agenda and looking at the evidence that contravenes the existing dogma needs to be buried by all means possible.

    I just wish that this is removed from many childish debates, like who is right and who is wrong but what is truth. It is not about personality it is about facts.

    Kind regards

    Defend the word

  21. ID is clearly a universal idea which transcends many faiths.

    Transcends is a rotten word here: you mean informs many faiths, and it does this because it isn’t science but a basic theological concept of a creator. Hence, ID is creationism, meaning the final explanation is goddidit.

    Defend the word: As I mentioned before if you have revelation of Biblical proportion which is supported by much of Archaeology, church history and ordinary historical studies one is therefore right to examine claims that are disputed like Evolution process or involvement of intelligent being. Note that even Evolution takes suppositions and then builds on it.

    To me it is the idea that through careful study of the evidence, all reasonable people will eventually conclude that life and the universe could only be a product of the Divine.

    Um, no.
    Reasonable people who don’t understand evolution, will not understand basic reasoning that not proving something adds nothing to some other idea, who are incapable of admitting that the answer “I don’t know” is okay when one has no evidence to back up any specific reason, will conclude that the default must therefore be god.
    Actually, that doesn’t describe ‘reasonable people’ very well, does it? The word ‘reasonable’ must have something to do with reason, don’t you think? It is the ABSENCE of reason that informs faith (by definition) in general and creationism in particular, so it is only honest to admit that reasonable people will rely on reasons that are informed, and evolution has that is both quantity and quality. By comparison, creationism has nothing but belief. Therefore, to choose to believe in divine creationism is not reasonable at all. Just the opposite.

    Defend the word: This is not factually correct, note that much of what is said in theory of evolution is theoretical and therefore not factual. I have mentioned constant goal post movements and redefining of the “evidence”. As I said before give people broad enough data and they will make what they want out of the data.

    Before being driven to this conclusion, we are to expect every possible alternative to be considered by those who would rather not entertain the idea of a purposeful universe with free will and accountability etc.

    This is awful thinking.
    One does not consider ‘alternatives’ to make-belief; one considers the evidence and tries to find a framework to explain it. It is the job of those who prefer the make-belief to show why it is superior in content and explanatory power against the evidence. One does not refute make-belief because one would rather not; one refutes make-belief because it is LESS explanatory, LESS able to account for the evidence, LESS able to withstand scrutiny in comparison. In the specific case of creationism, the explanation godditit is equivalent to saying nothing whatsoever.

    Defend the word: How is that different when we don’t have time travel machine yet we take “measurement” of radiometric data material that could have been corrupted to many external influences. This is precisely why different laboratories will give you different data on material taken from same sights. So how is your method not faith based? Secondly it is also factually inaccurate, you know as I have mentioned this before there are number of well educated people who have written extensively on the subject. People with relevant qualifications and not avoiding the questions but addressing them head on.

    We are now entering a phase in Materialistic science where any unprovable speculation is being positively considered, provided that it is unguided.

    Materialistic science? There’s science. Period. Just because it doesn’t accord make-belief – therefore immaterial, presumably) any merit is also just plain old science. Recasting plain old science as ‘materialistic’ as if that said anything at all about some different kind of science is quite dishonest. Those who practice purposeful deceit to better present their side of an argument are hardly bolstering their case, now are they?
    Why examine any ‘unprovable’ speculation? To then assert that science is ‘positively’ considering any ‘unprovable’ speculation is just word salad nonsense. The last bit, “provided that it is unguided” adds nothing but more gibberish.

    Defend the Word: Materialistic science is used by many philosophers of science to explain why there is inconsistency in how many scientist treat data, I have mentioned atomics and subatomic world, which we indirectly observe. We don’t call that detailed understanding, it is true that we know something but we still aim to learn more, likewise we know that there are mutations but it is of greatly questionable standards to make claims that many evolutionist do when they say, these are scientific facts. When in fact they are simply put just guestimates that are acceptable to some scientist who have developed preference to certain ideology.

    Kind regards

    Defend the word

  22. Hi Sorry but I have to say that made me laugh, your assertions are so typical of those who are “in the know”, but question that is not asked and is often ignored is: do we know that the “evidence” we are given as evolutionist is correct. Your lack of enthusiasm to consider this is what is worrying me. You are obviously very bright man, but you need to take into account what others are saying without simply dismissing them. If your argument is “I will reject everything that is not standardised answer that I was thought in school” then I have to question your willingness to learn. As you know modern science is changing very quickly, and if you understand philosophy of science you, you will see that it stands against everything that evolutionary biologist try to portray as “correct” science. Indirect observation are constantly included in the “doctrine” of science so it is completely irrational that this would be denied to people that are qualified and have written extensively on the subject of ID. But lets stop just sharing our opinions, backing up would be far more desirable. Fact that today we know with Global Warming UK is this week advocating that acidity in our Oceanic resources is going to deplete our food source, and linking this with so many other issues we will face on this earth. This shows greatly accurate balance that we should not mess with, yet when you point this out as ID component of the theory it is dismissed. You should ask yourself why are we so willing to ignore the obvious and accept complexity elsewhere that demanded alteration in order to keep our beloved theory still afloat.

    Hope you will take notices of many things that I have raise and not only in this reply.


  23. Sorry but how is a strategy going to be a proof, a magic bullet against ID? I fail to understand that logic, every organisation has their own objectives. This is simply part of any business structure. It is clear from what we observe that there is well established unwritten policy that is present amongst those who propagate Evolution. If you are going to be successful against the theory that discriminates so readily against anyone who is not in agreement with it then you have to fight, in the way that is going to be effective. For far too long People have written disjointedly, it is about time that they group their resources in the same way much of the evolutionary propaganda is being spread and peddled as science when in fact much is based on faith. And often when evidence is strongly pointing to creation it is dismissed simply because God did it is not acceptable to such mentality. Fact is that true scientist will accept whatever the truth is, regardless of what they would prefer. I am sorry that your rejection of title is so short when it comes to accepting credentials of those who are of the opposing view. That shows preferential treatment and fact that legal system is not perfect should warn you against reaching your conclusion that we must accept Evolution because judge and law said we should. I class that as false evidence and should not be misunderstood as anything else. That is simply put; pretension on the behalf of those who have no evidence but anything would do, when all other fails.


    Defend the Word

  24. harry says:

    Because we don’t spend time with our children teaching them the critical thinking and why we should trust the Bible we will continue to lose our young people unnecessarily, we must take some responsibility as we have given up our right completely to the state governed education system.

    What a completely brainwashed fool you are.

    Because we dont spend time teaching children how think critically… BY TELLING THEM TO TRUST AN UNREFERENCED 2000 YEAR OLD DOCUMENT WITHOUT QUESTION.

    HOW do you reconcile in your head the complete and utter idiocy of that statement. By saying your children are not being taught to think critically in schools and not even in the next sentence, the same sentence infact, you say that they should trust the bible without giving ANY REASON (THE FOUNDATION OF CRITICAL THOUGHT) WHY.


  25. Harry, Harry, Harry

    Don’t throw your toys out of your pram. Accept that not everyone will agree with you.

    You continue to show impulsive nature and at same time lack of willingness to learn. Because you are hurt, and are under the pressure you are readily rushing to judgement and bullying. However you have failed to notice that I don’t get frightened and list of all intimidated. I have to say that I am very grateful that I had reasonable tough childhood. In all likelihood you would not understand what I’m talking about. But the good thing is that I have had to learn things the hard way. You equate reasonable thinking, with agreeing with your ideas. And guess what; there are plenty of things I have told my children that I disagree about the state of the church in UK today. Critical thinking is important regardless of the topic in question. I am only surprised that I have to tell you this, if you closely examined what I said many times on this blog you could have worked that out for yourself. I am only surprised that you needed me to tell you this.

    Despite your insults, I am more than happy to continue our friendly exchanges, but note that you should take note of what is being said. Not just make things up as you go. What you said in your comment, just don’t make any sense.

    And yes Harry I do know the definition of Critical thinking it involves evaluating information against your experiences and your data that you have good grasp of. In other words you work from known to the unknown. Challenge statements that are generalisations and sweeping comments that are disconnected from reality.

    I love philosophy and, I would say that my critical thinking in this instance brings my judgement that man that is commenting I.e. you, is deeply hurt. I feel sorry for you and would like to help you. But this is not possible if you continue to call me names and ignore what is being said.

    I wish you happy holidays and good time with your family.

    Hopefully this time of rest will be of some benefit to you.


    Defend the Word

  26. harry says:

    I am not insulting you.

    I am pointing out that you can not teach somebody to trust a book implicitily and at the same time teach them to think critically.

    It is not about relative truths and that wishy washy stuff you love so much, that allows you to pick and choose what you pay attention to.

    Its simple, obvious, fact. I know fact doesnt mean anything to you, its something to be bent and twisted and debated. Everyone’s opinion counts on facts. But that does not matter, the FACT IS you can not

    teach somebody to trust a book implicitily and at the same time teach them to think critically.

    It is a total oxymoron.

  27. You resort to same tactics that are nothing to do with evidence, strategy is completely different subject to reasonable explanation. Also note your attitude, on the methodology we have talked about that subject before, I maintain that inference and reconstruction of known data is precisely what is still being used to support any theory, this is not new. Only difference is that this is OK to be used when used by evolutionist but it is unacceptable when used by ID proponents. Also as I said irreducible complexity was predicted and can be found in many places, we see that from sudden burst of life from 530 Mill Years ago this is according to your theory, we see many examples where organs would have to evolve multiple points at the same time or otherwise they would be useless, and I quoted knee and eye and I still challenge your assertion that “Biblical literalist” is the only kind of scientist who disagrees with the theory of evolution. This is just not factually correct, or did you not know that? Your references to geo-centrist teaching in the past could also be used as argument against theory of evolution, or did you fail to spot obvious similarity in your argument, when science is incorrect it needs to be amended. Its simple as that.


    Defend the Word

  28. [“I am not insulting you. I am pointing out that you can not teach somebody to trust a book implicitily and at the same time teach them to think critically. It is not about relative truths and that wishy washy stuff you love so much, that allows you to pick and choose what you pay attention to.”]

    Defend the Word: Could you not see that all you have done is given me my very own argument against many of your statements. All I see is regurgitated information, I’m guessing you are trying to get me to raise to your challenge, note that my arguments are much more structured and have directly addressed number of your issues.

    [“Its simple, obvious, fact. I know fact doesnt mean anything to you, its something to be bent and twisted and debated. Everyone’s opinion counts on facts. But that does not matter, the FACT IS you can not teach somebody to trust a book implicitily and at the same time teach them to think critically.”]

    Defend the Word: yet again you are ready to dish out judgement, that I don’t believe to be founded on facts. I have not stopped you, or ignored your issues, what I did do was show inconsistency and distortion of facts.

    Let me give you a simple example that is going to capture precisely what had been happening all along our exchanges. There is inconsistency in your logic here, you come with prejudged well established opinions and then accuse me of being the guilty party. I on the other hand had to research your material and find appropriate reply that was merited and structured to address your objections.
    Listen, here is why your argument does not work in regards to the Bible being old book and therefore we should believe in evolution.
    1. Bible does not oppose the evolution, it is the other way round. Noticeable we have to agree that there are many who indorse evolution and Believe in the Bible. However as I said before to quote Dr Dawkins “Evolution allows atheists to have intellectually satisfying answer against God as the creator” (My paraphrasing). It is therefore inappropriate to accuse Christians of something that is done by atheists.
    2. You could think critically and defend truth regardless of how old is the subject matter. Therefore age of the book is irrelevant. Bible can be true even when critically examined!!!
    3. Our interpretation or misinterpretation should be challenged, what that means is that we should not limit our understanding of the Biblical text to one simple explanation. You may have heard this before, and I strongly believe this “Bible explains Bible”, in other words if you don’t understand part of the text, you should look to other parts that will shed more light on that subject. It is therefore correct to conclude that we have incorrect interpretations of Bible and it is also correct to conclude that there is a possibility that correct explanation may not be displayed, however note that my judgement on any given issues does not disprove Bible. I could be wrong and Bible could be correct, in fact I would go so far to say that often we attribute too much to the biblical texts when in fact Bible is silent on many such subjects.
    4. Bible is clear that some parts of it are not meant to be interpreted literally but have interpretive values. There are many Christians who believe that Devil has horns and that Hell fire is precisely that, and only that. However there are many including me who believe that suffering of separation from God will be massive punishment in itself. Having to share your life with many others who have also rejected God is also going to be hell. Just imagine, all your problem neighbours you so carefully avoid today may be spending your eternity together. When Jesus says he is the “bread of life” we know we don’t eat him, we know this is going to require interpretation. It is actually deliberate libelling and misrepresentation that all Christians are literally interpreting Bible that is at fault here and that Christians are all fundamentalist idiots that you have to admit is a massive laps in logic.

    [“It is a total oxymoron.”]

    Defend the Word: Contradiction that you allude to does not exist except in your perception, however I would urge you to think and look beyond your personal experiences. I would also encourage you to look for interesting books that are not in agreement with your own world view. I will very soon start writing some of my personal reviews of the books I had pleasure of reading recently.
    And finally let me share with you what I think is an oxymoron here, using your assertion as a “logic” to disprove my call to critical thinking. Yet you don’t provide most basic ingredient, your proof is a hunch from your past negative experience, rather than factual statement based on our exchanges of views. Everything and I repeat, everything I give you shows critical analysis of information you supplied and not only examination but also clear and concise explanation why I disagree with some of your statements. Note also that on many occasions; subject was diverted, often providing information that was disconnected to the subject at question. By building a straw man argument you could not dismiss connection between critical thinking and Biblical text the obvious lack of substance is clear and to charge foul play where there is clear and sincere call to critical thinking is therefore not act of dishonesty as you would like to portray it to be.

    Note that I’m not offended and I welcome your comments, precisely because they answer many questions that are asked so frequently. And I believe that by answering your objections many readers can judge for themselves if these are logically consistent and honest rebuttals. I just wish for you to see that as I got to know you little bit more and share much of myself that you would appreciate all the effort and enthusiasm on my part to engage you and likewise spell out where I come from.

    I may not be able to, to answer your queries after the Christmas period, however I believe that all your objections and questions have been answered. So until next time, I wish you all the best.


    Defend the Word

  29. Moi says:

    Thank you for this post. I found it very informative.

    FACT: Evolution is NOT a fact.

Comments are closed.