We are taught that evolution is true.

Supposing you were a herdsman in a remote desert and knew nothing of technology. One day you take your camels to a new location looking for grass or plants and you find a strange large contraption partly buried in the sand. It is as long as three camels and has "wings" out each side, each about the length of a camel, as if it might be copying a bird. Each wing has a bulky mass with several swords mounted on the front, but bent over against the sand. You know which way it was going because the swords are bent against the sand and the two arms with round black things left behind.

You can open the lid and there is a comfortable seat inside and you are confronted with many strange things. There are little pointers in small shallow boxes there are strange squiggly marks from the right to the left where the pointers may have pointed. But now with all the pointers at the left it must mean that all the time has been used up and it cannot be pushed any further.

You can see design in every part but cannot work out what it could have done. It couldn't have flown like a bird as it is far too heavy to be lifted even by several strong men. You ask other herdsmen about it. They all say it occurred somehow and cannot suggest a purpose, nor understand anything about it. None would go near it again as the evidence of strange design frightened them.

This is the problem with Intelligent Design, as the design is obvious and as the research goes into each aspect the more is discovered of how each part depends on the design of other parts. The possibility that it all happened without guidance seems to go from unlikely to horrendously improbable in every case. If evolution can explain this better then why not have open honest discussions? Why defame anyone who wants to openly discus the possible design aspects? Many have had their carers ruined, been sacked or forced to resign simply because evolutionists don't want to have honest discussions in case the design inference is seen to have greater merit. But suppose that design is true in all life, then what does that imply? Surely education should be based on what is true, rather than speculation of how life evolved in the distant past, if no actual evidence of the transitional progress can be confirmed.

We are taught that evolution can produce many clear examples of "intermediates" that track the upward evolution from pond scum to humans, but as clear evidence is not produced, but only peoples assumptions about the evidence, and depends on mutations and natural selection as the essential mechanism, all of which show loss of the original potential in each species, even to extinction, there has to be some doubt of the efficacy of evolution to explain life.

Even Francis Crick co-discoverer of how information is stored in the DNA now believes that life could not have started here on earth, so must have started somewhere else and drifted in through space. Ask an astronomer about the conditions it would face on such a journey, it won't happen! If life cannot start here on earth in randomly occurring chemicals, then it cannot start on another planet, as the chemistry would be the same and restricted by the same requirements. To put life's chemistry together requires intelligent planning and ability to manipulate chemicals forcing them to join in the required order, evolution can never cope with this requirement.

All life and each species had to start on earth, and always reproduce after it's own kind. There is no contrary evidence. By open honest discussions we can help others to come to a proper understanding of science and evolution and the reasons for the claims of Intelligent Design.

Return to the Index.