The Bible and Society

How God’s Word is True

Archive for December 17th, 2008

Invisible Realms

Posted by Mats on 17/12/2008

http://www.livingwaters.com/articles_ray_archive/articles_ray_07-09-16_invisiblerealms.shtml

I was having a tough time. I couldn’t draw a crowd. In fact, I couldn’t draw a thing. That’s why I had photocopied a picture of John Wayne onto a large piece of paper and was coloring it in with paints. I couldn’t figure it out. When my friends used a sketch board while speaking in public, at least a few people gathered. This day, no one bothered to give me a second look. I was planning to color in the picture and speak about how John Wayne lived and died as portrayed by Hollywood, and how he lived and died in real life. Death was no problem to the Duke; it was commonplace in the westerns in which he starred. So when it came to real life, one would think it wouldn’t have bothered him too much. Naturally, it did. He called for Billy Graham to come to his bedside as he lay dying of cancer. The fact is, there’s a Hollywood world, and then there’s a real world. It is one thing to go out in a blaze of glory in a cowboy movie, but it’s another thing to fade away under the merciless hand of a terminal disease. Anyway, there was no point in having a good illustration when there was no one to hear it.

Just as I was about to throw in the brush, a woman in her mid-twenties walked up to me. With an air of confidence she asked what I was doing with the paints and brush. I told her, and found out that her name was Jacqueline. I felt as though I had stepped into a John Wayne movie. She reminded me of the flashy-eyed female with a flower in her mouth and castanets in her hands, who twirls around the bar room, then jumps up and dances on a table amid the drooling of lust-filled, drunken cowboys. Jacqueline had no castanets or flower, but she had those same flashy eyes. As she spoke, I sensed that this sweet little kitten could, at the drop of a hat, turn into a ferocious wildcat. My first impression was an accurate one.

About two months later, I preached for about twenty minutes and was winding down. Thirty people had gathered to listen to the message and to wait for food. It was Friday, and the whole week had been a good one, with orderly lines for the food and quite a number of people making commitments to Christ.

Earlier in the week, my wife, Sue, had bravely come to the park to help me. I felt proud of her. Since she was 4’11”, most of those who took sandwiches from her hands towered above her. She was able to get a firsthand glimpse of what I had been telling her about, seeing all those hungry hands grasping for food.

On this Friday, each person stood quietly behind the line I had drawn in the dirt about ten feet in front of me. As I spoke, I saw Jacqueline heading for me. I told her to stay behind the line. She took no notice, walked right up to me and demanded food. I told her to wait like everyone else, behind the line. She refused, and instead sat on the box I was standing on and hollered, “I feel like sex. I haven’t had it for two days!”

I was annoyed because she had burst in just as I was about to challenge those listening to get right with God. The timing couldn’t have been worse. I was also amazed at how her presence affected the men. Instead of continuing to stand orderly behind the line, they now pressed forward and were yelling and shoving one another. The atmosphere had suddenly changed.

She quickly grew bored and picked up a plastic bottle of water I had brought to bathe Pop’s leg. Like the saloon girl with the proverbial whiskey, she took the lid off and began to guzzle it down. I saw Pop move to another location. As he left, I asked him to take the first-aid kit away so that it wouldn’t be stolen. I told the crowd, which now numbered about fifty, that they wouldn’t be fed if they didn’t line up. No one moved back into a line. Other regulars, trying to be helpful, began to yell. Still no one moved. Even Preacher couldn’t budge them.

The cowboy movie was still rolling. I was the local sheriff. I had the sandwiches under lock and key, and the lynch mob was there to bust them out of jail and gnash on them with their teeth.

A friend of Preacher’s had a stick, and like a riot policeman began using it to push the crowd back. I jumped out of the way as they suddenly rushed the jailhouse. It was hard to see what was going on in the midst of that mass of bodies, but I could see someone lying across the top of the box, trying to stop the mob from busting up the jail. I could hardly believe this was all happening for the sake of a box of sandwiches! As I watched the fight for the food, I heard a bottle that someone had thrown smash behind me. I looked at Jacqueline, who was standing some distance away. She cringed as our eyes met. The little kitten had a twinge of conscience at the trouble she had caused.

A moment later, there she was, transformed into a wildcat, right in the middle of the men, screaming for food. She looked back at me and let out a string of hair-curling four-letter words. I made my way up to the empty box, turned to a guy who was holding on to six sandwiches and told him to give me one. As he did so, I passed it to Jacqueline, who snatched it from my hand and cursed me again.

I picked up the empty box and headed for Pop. As I did so, I saw that Jacqueline still had the bottle of water that I brought to cleanse Pop’s leg. When I asked for it, she simply spat out more curses. I smiled because she reminded me of my regular hecklers back in New Zealand. Then I turned and walked away. As I did so, she called my name and threw the bottle at me.

Pop’s leg was still a mess, but thankfully there was no sign of the gangrene returning. As I bathed the wound and applied a bandage, the little kitten came alongside. I told her to hold the bandage while I taped it up. She was a completely different person from the one who had so viciously poured curses on me a few minutes earlier. Afterward, without my asking, she helped me carry the empty box to my car.

Who’s Pulling the Strings?

The first time I saw the television show “The Muppets,” I couldn’t understand how some of the puppets were manipulated. They were so well done, so realistic, that a small child could be forgiven for thinking that the puppets were real personalities in themselves. Those who are either babes in Christ, or are not yet born into the kingdom of God, could be forgiven for thinking that this day’s happenings at the park were merely personalities enacting the play of daily life. However, those who are adults in the faith know better. Behind the actions of someone like Jacqueline, there is an unseen manipulator. She is just a blind puppet for spiritual powers.

Before I became a Christian, you would have had a hard time convincing me that there was a spiritual realm. If you had said, “Man is a spirit in a natural body,” I would have been very skeptical. However, if you reasoned gently with me, saying that when someone dies the invisible spirit leaves the body, you may have been able to convince me of the fact.

Take for instance the doctor who says that a particular patient has just “passed away.” You ask him, “What do you mean ‘passed away’?” He tells you that the life has left the body. You inquire, “How do you know it left?” To which he replies that he didn’t see it, but the invisible life-force, the spirit, left. What remains is a shell, commonly referred to as a corpse.

Many people find it difficult to believe in an invisible spiritual world, so let me relate it to a few things to make it more understandable. Think of an electrical current running from a battery to a remote-controlled car. We can’t see the current, but we can see the car move as it is motivated by the invisible force. Or think of television waves. At this very moment, there are images of news reporters, cowboys, soap operas, etc., floating around us. We can’t see them because they are invisible; they are in another realm. We need a television receiver to pick up the signal. The same is true with invisible radio waves.

For untold centuries, the hidden worlds of television and radio lay untapped. Two hundred years ago, the most progressive contemporary thinker couldn’t have dreamed of what we have discovered hidden in the mysteries of the universe. Why then should it be so offensive to a reasoning mind to think that there are other invisible realms that haven’t yet been discovered, realms such as the spiritual world?

Think of a man who has been involved in a terrible car accident, where both his arms and his legs have had to be removed. Literally half of his body has been taken from him, but he is still a whole personality. His soul is still complete. If man were merely flesh and not spirit, as some would have us believe, he would now be only half a personality.

Imagine if I were born blind. I’m standing on a street corner. You approach me, not knowing I am blind, and comment, “Nice day. It’s good to see a blue sky.”

I say, “I was born blind; could you tell me what blue looks like?”

You reply, “Sure, it’s…it’s…gree…no, it’s…I’m sorry, blind man, I can’t describe it to you. The only way you will understand the color is to experience it for yourself–you need light.”

The same applies spiritually. According to the Bible, non-Christians have their “understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart” (Ephesians 4:18, KJV). My earnest prayer is that those who have never experienced the spiritual birth are open-minded enough to receive the light of understanding from God, through these few thoughts.

Perhaps some have more insight than I had before my conversion. They may have looked into the occult and discovered that there is a spiritual realm. Or perhaps they have seen the incredible increase in satanic worship, accompanied by human sacrifices, cannibalism, etc., and know that this is a manifestation of a spiritual realm outside of accepted human behavior. Maybe they have read of people who are said to be “demon-possessed,” or heard of serial murderers who claimed to be motivated by spirits.

I know what it’s like to be Spirit-possessed because One possesses me. Since April 25, 1972, I have been possessed by the Holy Spirit. Every Christian is: “Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His” (Romans 8:9). But the Bible also speaks of another “spirit”–the “spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience” (Ephesians 2:2). Let’s take a look at this spirit.

Hair-Raising Experiences

Allow me to share a couple of hair-raising experiences with you. Because I know that no liar will enter the kingdom of heaven, the following incidents, which are only two of a number of similar experiences, don’t have even a tinge of half-truth or exaggeration. They are the “gospel truth,” exactly as they happened.

While I was the speaker at a church youth camp, an eighteen-year-old named John stepped into my cabin late at night and told me he was having problems.

After talking with him for a while, I told him that we would pray about his troubles. As I began to pray, he slumped off the bunk on which he was sitting onto the floor.

Then he groaned, rolled onto his back, arched his body, and began pushing himself backward across the floor. Having the gift of perception, I realized that this wasn’t normal behavior.

In the Book of Mark, Jesus said, “These signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons,” so I began to use the name of Jesus in what is called “exorcising prayer.” The demons in John screamed, hissed, and manifested with such velocity that saliva from his mouth hit a chest of drawers eight or nine feet from where he lay.

With the help of God, I cast the spirit of rebellion from him, then asked a friend, who had come in to see what the noise was about, to get John a drink of water. When John came back to himself, I asked him what he had been involved in that got him into such a state. It turned out that he had been listening to occult-based heavy metal music and drinking blood. He and his girlfriend, under the influence of marijuana, would get a cup of blood from the local butcher and drink it in a satanic rite.

Excerpt from, Out of the Comfort Zone–Ray Comfort

Posted in Bible | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Letter From an Atheist

Posted by Mats on 17/12/2008

“You are really convinced that you’ve got all the answers. You’ve really got yourself tricked into believing that you’re 100% right. Well, let me tell you just one thing. Do you consider yourself to be compassionate of other humans? If you’re right, as you say you are, and you believe that, then how can you sleep at night? When you speak with me, you are speaking with someone who you believe is walking directly into eternal damnation, into an endless onslaught of horrendous pain which your ‘loving’ god created, yet you stand by and do nothing.

If you believed one bit that thousands every day were falling into an eternal and unchangeable fate, you should be running the streets mad with rage at their blindness. That’s equivalent to standing on a street corner and watching every person that passes you walk blindly directly into the path of a bus and die, yet you stand idly by and do nothing. You’re just twiddling your thumbs, happy in the knowledge that one day that ‘walk’ signal will shine your way across the road.

Think about it. Imagine the horrors Hell must have in store if the Bible is true. You’re just going to allow that to happen and not care about saving anyone but yourself? If you’re right then you’re an uncaring, unemotional and purely selfish (expletive) that has no right to talk about subjects such as love and caring.”

This is an excerpt from an e-mail sent to Evangelist Ray Comfort of Living Waters.

Posted in Bible | Tagged: , , | 2 Comments »

“Scientific” vs “Supernatural”

Posted by Mats on 17/12/2008

DonaldM

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/scientific-vs-supernatural/#more-4140

An invitation to provide initial posts for discussion here at UD was recently extended to me.  My name is Donald M and for those who have posted here for a while, I’m probably not a stranger.  I’m a strong proponent of ID and I have serious doubts and reservations about several aspects of Darwinian evolution.  My main area of interest is in the Philosophy of Science and the philosophical assumptions of science and scientific practice.  While I am not a working scientist, I do hold a Masters degree in a scientific field.  I’m grateful for the opportunity to share some thoughts here, and hopefully provide some fodder for useful discussion among participants. 

With that brief intro, I’ll dive into my first contribution.

The January issue of Scientific American is focused entirely on the Evolution of Evolution. There are several articles on different aspects of Darwin and evolution. The article I want to focus on here is a critical piece by Eugenie Scott and Glenn Branch of the NCSE (National Center for Saving Evolution Science Education). Entitled The Latest Face of Creationism in the Classroom, the article laments the fact that Science still has to deal with “creationism”…the favored term over Intelligent Design for purely pejorative reasons.

Indeed the comment right under the title says “Creationists who want religious ideas taught as scientific fact in public schools continue to adapt to courtroom defeats by hiding their true aims under ever changing guises.” In the body of the article Branch and Scott lament that Lousiana Governor Bobby Jindal signed the Lousiana Science Education Act into law this past June, over the strenuous objections of scientists. Convinced a creationist conspiracy is afoot they opine:

As always in the contentious history of evolution education in the U.S., the devil is in the details. The law explicitly targets evolution, which is unsurprising—for lurking in the background of the law is creationism, the rejection of a scientific explanation of the history of life in favor of a supernatural account involving a personal creator. Indeed, to mutate Dobzhansky’s dictum, nothing about the Louisiana law makes sense except in the light of creationism.

Laying aside any real or imagined conspiracies on the part of “creationists”, I want to focus on the contrast Branch and Scott make between a “scientific explanation” and a “supernatural account” of the history of life. There are so many assumptions built into this particular contrast its hard to know where to begin. First the clear implication is that a scientific explanation represents fact whereas the supernatural account represents some fuzzy religious idea. In other words, its an epistomological assumption about what represents true knowledge (science) and what does not (religion).

Secondly is the assumption that the naturalistic worldview of science takes precedent over the theistic worldview of anyone who purports that a supernatural creator had something to do with bringing about the existence of life on earth. So much for methodological naturalism. Clearly full blown philosophical naturalism is equated to science here, since the contrast is between science and the supernatural.

Third, is the unspoken assumption that somehow the science classroom is a worldview-free zone.  Since they’ve contrasted science with supernatural, they clearly equate science with naturalism, so the real issue is which worldview ought to prevail in the science classroom and why. I wonder what Branch and Scott might say about a Bill to promote the teaching of philosophical naturalism in the disguise of science in the classroom?

Posted in Science | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Who Designed Woodpeckers?

Posted by Mats on 17/12/2008

Answers to my Evolutionist Friends
Who Designed Woodpeckers?
by Thomas F. Heinze

http://www.creationism.org/heinze/Woodpecker.htm

Dr. Luther Sunderland, a scientist who is an expert in design engineering, was fascinated by the skeleton of a woodpecker that he found which had recently died out in the woods. Its bones had been perfectly cleaned off by insects. As he examined the skeleton, he noticed a very strange thing: Small flexible bones exited from the woodpecker’s right nostril, circled around behind its head and neck, and went into its beak on the other side of its head. What were these strange bones? Quite a number of animals have bones that that stiffen the base of the tongue, and this is essentially the purpose of these bones in the woodpecker’s tongue (called hyoid bones). In the woodpecker, however, the fact that the tongue starts out backward and circles around behind the head is exceptional!
    The Woodpecker’s Tongue

The woodpecker catches its food with its tongue which has barbs and a bit of glue on the end, so it can pick up grubs hiding in their little tunnels inside a tree. Circling around behind the head and neck under the loose skin gives the tongue enough extra length so it can shoot out about six inches into Mr. grub’s burrow inside a tree trunk!

Something or somebody gave the woodpecker’s tongue a unique design. It is long, but instead of dangling down and getting tangled around branches when it flies, the slack is kept under the loose skin behind its neck. Back there, the tiny bones divide into essentially two tongues, coming back together before entering the beak. This design detail no doubt gives greater accuracy as the woodpecker guides its tongue toward a target grub.

A woodpecker’s skull (to the right)
showing the bones of the tongue
There are five bones, thin and flexible with tiny joints.1 What made them exit through the right nostril and attach their sheath there, 2 circle behind the head and neck 3, and come back into the hollow between the two halves of the beak? 4

    Evolution?

According to the theory of evolution, every step up from a single cell has been caused by gradually accumulating small changes which have come about through errors in copying the information that directs the construction of living things. These errors, called mutations, are claimed by evolutionists to have come about by accident, that is, with no intelligent direction by God. Errors in copying information don’t make better instructions for making more complex beings. That is why technicians who work with X-rays protect themselves with lead shields or aprons.

Evolutionists, however, have faith that mutations have gradually made biologists out of bacteria, or Adam from an amoeba. They believe that over millions of years, natural selection has selected the organisms with mutations that add a little to the creature’s ability to survive and leave offspring, while those with harmful mutations die. The reason they believe these changes take lots of time is that most mutations represent chance changes in the commands to make proteins which are the main ingredients of cells. The tiny proteins are long strings of even smaller amino acids. Almost all mutations are harmful, so the organisms which survive are generally those with mutations that just change one amino acid in one protein.

Since even a simple organ like a tongue is made up of many many proteins, nerve cells, blood vessels, etc. which must be quite perfectly coordinated, it is very difficult to imagine changes of one amino acid in one protein bringing any organ into existence. Why not claim that a big cluster of mutations affected the bone, muscle, nerves, etc. all at once? Because almost all mutations are harmful. If you got a cluster of a thousand mutations, and one of them was helpful, hundreds of them would cause genetic diseases, that would wipe out the organism. In insisting that God did nothing, and that accidental mutations have produced everything, evolutionists have painted themselves into a corner, with no decent way to account for the origin of any complex organ.

Evolutionists surmise that the woodpecker must have evolved from some other bird with a normal tongue that went straight out of the beak. The mutation scenario, however, could never have evolved a normal bird’s tongue into woodpecker’s tongue. Why? After a normal bird’s tongue had turned around and started growing under the skin toward the back of its head, the tongue would have been completely useless until it had completed the entire circle. Only the last step in the evolution of the woodpecker’s tongue, when it came back out of the front of the beak again would have had survival value.

After a tongue came out through the nostril and headed backwards behind the head it would have given the bird a great survival disadvantage until the moment the tongue and its bones had grown long enough to go all the way around the neck, back into the base of its beak, and extend far enough out the end to reach food. Since this involved bone, joints, blood vessels, and nerves as well as flesh, it would have required many mutations, presumably spread out over millions of years. Its tongue could not help it catch any food at all for the millions of years that it would take to complete the circle around the back of the head, by changing one amino acid in one protein at a time. Loosing the tongue’s contribution to gathering food would have put the woodpecker at a great disadvantage compared to normal birds in the struggle to survive. Adding two joints and an inch in length, for example, would have added no survival advantage at all as long as it was growing in the wrong direction. Therefore, this kind of mutations would never have been preserved.

The woodpecker’s tongue must have come all at once, a product of complex design. This would have required an intelligent creator. If the woodpecker’s tongue were not designed, but had formed by chance mutations, only the first mutations which moved its tongue into its right nostril and pointed it backward could have happened. After that it would have starved to death.

Evolutionists tell us that an organ which goes unused for generation after generation will be eliminated, even if the animals continue to live. If, by some miracle, the woodpeckers themselves had not been eliminated, a tongue which had been useless for many generations, would itself have been eliminated. The woodpecker’s tongue gives strong evidence of being the product of intelligent design and creation, rather than of evolution. Some evolutionists have realized this, and have thought up another story of how it might have evolved. When I was first told about it in an email, it seemed such an impossible suggestion that I was sure that I had not understood, so I kept on asking until it was absolutely clear that it really was what he was saying.

This evolutionary speculation claims that the woodpecker’s tongue evolved from that of a normal bird: rooted back in its throat and extending straight out through the beak like that of other birds. Then, not the point end of the tongue, but the root end little by little uprooted itself from its normal attachment in the back of the throat, gradually rerooting itself step by tiny step out through the back of the opening of the bill, and taking root ever farther around the back of the head. In this way, according to the story, each little movement was favored by natural selection because the tongues length increased, and the longer the tongue was, the farther it could stretch out into the passageways the grubs had dug in the tree trunks. This would, of course requited two completely different types of mutations which were more or less perfectly coordinated: The mutations which moved the root around the head, would have to have been coordinated with those which increased the length of the tongue. Otherwise, as the tongue moved farther back, less and less of the tongue would have even reached the end of the beak, much less extended out of it. This would have given a survival disadvantage. The fact that more or less coordinated mutations would have been necessary makes this whole story much less likely.

However, when I had gotten used to this strange scenario, I could see how it might sound possible to an evolutionist who had so much faith in the theory of evolution that he had to believe that everything had come into being by natural selection acting on accidental mutations. After all, if a tongue did extend farther and farther out of the beak, it really could reach farther into the grub’s burrow, and the more grubs it could catch, the more offspring it could bring to maturity.

Then it hit me! This theory neglects to mention that for the first inch or so the tongues root had to move in the wrong direction! Evolutionists state that the woodpecker’s tongue started out rooted back in the throat, just like other birds because they claim that it evolved from some ordinary bird. The only way the tongue’s root could get to where it could exit from the side of the beak was to move foreword from its spot in the back of the throat. Its first inch or so was moving foreword, not backward! Since, in the scenario they have made up, moving the tongues root backward increases its probability of being chosen by natural selection, then moving forward from back in the throat up to the point at which it could exit through the opening of the back part of the beak would decrease its chance of being chosen.

If, on the other hand, moving forward put more of the tongue out of the beak and increased its chance of survival, then moving backward would have decreased its chance of survival. The evidence free argument that the woodpecker’s tongue became what it is today by migrating root first around the head is self contradictory and logically unsound.

It gets worse. After working its way around the neck according to this theory the root jammed itself back into the bill through the nostril. Why would it do that? If lengthening the tongue increased the bird’s chance of survival, the birds with tongues which continued to lengthen by moving under the skin down to the bird’s tummy, tail, or foot, would have been chosen by natural selection. The birds whose tongue evolution stopped half way and jammed the root back into the bill through the nostril would have been eliminated.

Both the forward and the backward evolutionary scenario lead to absurdities and to elimination by natural selection. The woodpecker’s tongue gives strong evidence of design.

    Other Systems

The woodpecker’s bill works like a specialized chisel, capable of slicing right into a tree. By hammering on a steel chisel, men can cut into trees like the woodpecker does with his bill. However, as we chisel, our steel blade becomes dull. After we chisel a certain number of holes, we must sharpen our chisels. Otherwise they get more and more dull until they are unusable. God made woodpecker beaks self sharpening. If it were a simple thing that could happen by small accidental changes, some blacksmith, or metallurgical scientist would have figured out how to make self sharpening steel chisels.

If a man were trying to catch grubs like a woodpecker, no matter how sharp he kept his chisel, he would not know which direction to go to connect with the tunnels which have grubs in them. Until the woodpecker had obtained the complex mechanism for locating and hitting a tiny grub inside a tiny tunnel inside a great big tree, its specialized tongue would have been of no value. Neither would the bug location mechanism been of any value without a tongue long enough to reach the grub. In fact, neither the long tongue nor the location mechanism would have been of any use if the tongue were not equipped to stick to or into the grub to bring it back out of the hole. If any of the three had evolved much before the others it would have been of no use, and would not have been selected.

If all of the above systems came into place in an ordinary bird, the impact with the tree would kill it; something like taking driving a steel chisel into a tree with the end of your nose. Had it survived the first blow, it would probably have quit trying. The woodpecker, however, not only comes equipped with a strong self sharpening beak and a grub detector, but also a marvelous shock absorbing system that protects its head from damage. The first woodpecker to evolve the equipment for drilling holes in trees would have quit pounding or died young if the shock absorbers were not already in place.

In addition, compared to other birds: “The tail feathers (especially the central one or two pairs) are stronger in woodpeckers, resisting the wear caused by their use in propping up the bird’s body as it hammers with the bill. The toe structure and associated arrangement of tendons and leg muscles form a functional complex of features enabling the woodpecker to climb tree trunks and to maintain its position while pecking the tree.” (Encyclopedia Britannica CD 98, “Birds: Major Bird Orders: Piciformes, Form and Function”). What good would the stiff tail feathers, the specialized toe structure, the grub detector and the grub puller have been even with the wrap around tongue and the shock absorber if after drilling a few holes the beak had gotten dull and wouldn’t cut any more? When a number of systems must be in place all at once before a thing will work, it is called irreducible complexity and it is an evidence of intelligent design.

    Conclusion

According to evolutionary theory, any system without a function will be eliminated by natural selection. If one of the woodpecker’s systems evolved much before the other systems that had to be there for it to function, it would have been eliminated. The evidence is strongly against the woodpecker’s special systems having been developed by chance mutations because a number of different systems had to work together. The fact that they are all present and functioning indicates that these various systems were designed and created to work together.

Since the evidence indicates that woodpeckers could not have been developed by random mutations, why should mutations be considered the universal builders of every part of every living being as most evolutionists insist? It is OK to believe that things were caused by mutations when there is good evidence leads to this conclusion. Most genetic diseases are examples. A slight change in the order of the amino acids in a protein will often change a functioning protein into a disease. But let the evidence be a guide also in cases such as that of the woodpecker where the evidence so strongly indicates intelligent design. Why jump to the conclusion that if mutations cause diabetes, they must also have formed the pancreas, the liver, the fish, the monkey and us? If you see someone knocking down a building with a crane equipped with a wrecking ball, you don’t assume that all of the world’s buildings were constructed by cranes with wrecking balls.

Unfortunately, for many the evolutionary faith is a part of a total religious structure into which everything must be jammed whether it fits or not.

Dr. Sunderland, the owner of the skull in the picture, writes, “The woodpecker’s skull has been more effective in convincing scientists of the inadequacies of the evolution theory than perhaps any book in the author’s library. Other birds have hyoid bones also, but it would seem obvious that some sort of miracle would be needed to get them rooted in the right nostril. One prominent evolutionist on the staff of a prestigious scientific magazine confided after examining it ‘There are certain anatomical features which just cannot be explained by gradual mutations over millions of years. Just between you and me, I have to get God into the act too sometimes.'”

Another scientist, while examining the woodpecker’s tongue bones under a microscope commented, “It is very easy to tell the difference between man-made and God-made objects. The more you magnify man-made objects, the cruder they look, but the more you magnify God-made objects, the more precise and intricate they appear.” (Luther D. Sunderland, Creation Research Society Quarterly, vol. 12, March 1976, p. 183)

Posted in Biology | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

 
%d bloggers like this: