Undeniable Evidence: Life is Designed

“Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made” (Rom. 1:20, NRSV).

Written by Steven Barto, B.S., Psy.

DOUGLAS AXE WRITES “Of all the controversial ideas to come from modern science, none has brought more awkwardness than Darwin’s idea of evolution through natural selection” (1). Darwin defines natural selection as “the principle by which each slight variation [of a trait], if useful, is preserved” (2). Darwin is notoriously noted for failing to answer the question of origin itself. In particular, our origin. Ravi Zacharias (1946-2020) listed four questions everyone asks: (1) How did we get here? (2) What is the purpose of life? (3) How do we determine good and evil (morality)? and (4) Where are we going when we die?

It is clear we cannot find consensus regarding the big question of where we came from, but Axe says, “…we should all agree on the importance of finding the answer” (3). So, if we’re all similarly curious about the beginning of things, what could be the source of our disconnect when discussing origin? Scientists who deny the existence of God accuse creationists of placing God in the gaps of our scientific knowledge. However, this criticism cuts both ways. A functional atheist also can reach for pat explanations in the face of mystery. But for him, the explanation will never be God (4).

Bioinformation: The Code of Life

As a molecular biologist, Douglas Axe was interested in commonalities between genetic code and computer code. In software programs and in human languages, it is not uncommon to encounter non-functional sequences. Leisola and Witt remind us that random changes to a software program will degrade its meaning or function. They add, “[This] is why attempts to evolve meaningful sentences or functional software code through a truly neo-Darwinian process have failed” (5). Every bit of code (genetic or computer) is vital to the process, and cannot be changed by one letter (A, G, C, T) or number (0s and 1s). Axe took this concept further, focusing on proteins (enzyme proteins in this case) because they demand sequence specificity and a measurable chemical function.

What Axe discovered was the rarity of functional proteins needed for life. In reporting Axe’s findings, Leisola and Witt writes, “You can’t evolve fundamentally new and functional information through a blind process because there is just too much non-functional gibberish to wade through” (6). Axe found that the ratio of functional proteins to non-functional gibberish was 1 in 10 to the 77th power. That’s a 1 followed by 77 zeroes! Axe concluded that if all the life on Earth for billions of years was busily searching via random mutation for even one new protein in the cosmic-sized ocean of non-functional protein gibberish, it couldn’t find it. A new life form requires not one but many hundreds of new protein types along with lots of tricky epigenetic information.

We are familiar with JavaScript and Python, the most prevalent computer coding languages in the world today. Whether developers prefer Python with its indentation style or JavaScript’s curly braces, there would be no programs without coding. Software can sometimes contain a bug—an error, flaw or fault in the program that causes it to produce incorrect or unexpected results, or to behave in unintended ways. The process of debugging these errors uses formal techniques and tools to pinpoint the exact nature and location in the code where the bug has occurred. 

A binary code represents text, computer processor instructions, or other data using a two-symbol system of 0s and 1s from the binary number system. The code assigns a pattern of binary digits, also known as bits, to each character, instruction, etc. Human genetics also uses a coding system which allows for gene sequencing. The genetic code for living organisms is based upon a four-letter coding system that uses A, C, G, T (adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine), four nitrogenous bases containing an organism’s DNA information. Douglas Axe says the chemistry happening inside growing cells is “highly active and complex,” adding the amazing “elegance of the automatic decision-makers working on the molecular scale to keep the various chemicals of life at the right level” (7). Imagine if a coding bug were to occur in the genetic “programming” of a living organism. Depending on the variation, the results could be catastrophic.

Nothwithstanding the foregoing, “information” needs a source. Computer code simply cannot write itself from scratch. It needs a “programmer” who knows the coding language. The same is true of genetic code. The collection of biological data points on the molecular biology of cell structure, growth, development, differentiation, division and function is called bioinformation. Collection of biological data points requires simple to complex analysis of small, medium and large scale data describing cell structures and events. Walsh writes, “I am not a theologian with an intimate acquaintance with the Bible. I do know enough about science and religion, however, to know that science points the way to understanding God’s creation” (8). Walsh adds, “God is purposely in the shadows, but there is enough light for those who wish to see, and enough obscurity for those who do not” (9).

Darwin’s proposal that all of life can be pinpointed by natural selection on variation has been given full-reign in schools and universities throughout the world. Amazingly, this is allowed even though the basic mechanisms of life remained a complete mystery until a few decades ago. What have we learned? Life is a molecular phenomenon of remarkable intricacy. All life forms (including us) are comprised of molecules that “…act as the nuts and bolts, gears and pulleys, of biological systems” (10). Life forms come down to bio-molecules. Accordingly, “…we cannot rightly study the science of biochemistry, which studies those molecules, unless we examine the very foundation of life” (11).

Behe believes cells swim using machines, copy themselves with machinery, ingest food with machinery. He writes, “In short, highly sophisticated molecular machines control every cellular process. Thus the details of life are finely calibrated, and the machinery of life enormously complex” (12). Indeed, life forms take in and metabolize “fuel”via tiny combustion engines. Molecular machines raise questions not answered by Darwinism’s universal reach.

What About the Blood?

Blood behaves in a remarkable way.* You’ve notice that when a container of liquid springs a leak, the fluid drains out. No active process resists the flow. Eventually, the container is empty. But when a person suffers a cut it only bleeds for a short time before a clot stops the flow. The clot hardens, and the cut heals. Clotting is something most of us don’t think about. Biochemical analysis of this process has shown that blood clotting—also called coagulation—is a very complex system dependent on several key protein parts. Bleeding causes a “domino effect” in which a series of steps are set in motion. When your body detects a bleed, the clotting factors are switched on in a particular order, one after the other. Each factor activates the next until they form a clot. This is known as the coagulation cascade.

Coagulation is one of many “automatic” processes performed by our bodies. Clotting requires extreme precision. When a pressurized blood circulatory system is punctured, a clot must form quickly or the animal will bleed to death. If the blood congeals at the wrong time or place, the clot may block circulation as it does in heart attacks and strokes. A clot has to stop bleeding all along the length of the cut, sealing it completely. Remarkably, blood clotting has to be confined to the cut or the entire blood system might solidify, killing the animal. Consequently, the clotting of blood must be tightly controlled so that the clot forms only when and where it is required.

“Proteins are the machinery of living tissue that builds the structures and carries out the chemical reactions necessary for life… proteins carry out amazingly diverse functions.” —Michael Behe.

Behe writes, “About 2 to 3 percent of the protein in blood plasma (the part that’s left after the red blood cells are removed) consists of a protein complex called fibrinogen. The name fibrinogen is easy to remember because the protein makes “fibers” that form the clot” (13). Fibrogen is a weapon waiting to be unleashed. Behe says, “Almost all of the other proteins involved in blood clotting control the timing and placement of the clot.” He notes that fibrogen is a composite of six protein chains, containing twin pairs of three different proteins. Fibrogen is a rod-shaped molecule, with two round bumps on each end of the rod and a single round bump in the middle. It sort-of looks like a set of barbells. Fibrogen typically floats around in the blood, waiting until a cut or injury causes bleeding. A protein called thrombin slices off several small pieced from two of the three pairs of protein chains in fibrogen. This produces fibrin. These molecules are “sticky,” allowing for a clot to form.

Concluding Remarks

Darwin stood out loud-and-proud in 1859. Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection—subtitled The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life—sold out in a matter of days. Then and now, philosophers have been trying to teach the story of origins without any reference to God. We have discovered that cells are far more complex and sophisticated than Darwin could have conceived of. How did mere chance produce this, when even human planning and engineering cannot? In fact, no laboratory has come close to replicating even a single human hair! He didn’t know about the type or quantity of information embedded within the cell. In fact, he assumed it would be very elementary, requiring only a few instructions to tell the cell how to function. Each human cell contains thousands of uniquely codified instructions that have to be translated, transported and reproduced. Today, we know these instructions are based in the human gene. Information is not made of matter—it has no mass, length or width—but it can be conveyed by matter. The origin of this “information” has not been explained by science. 

Darwin was aware of what is called the “Cambrian explosion”—fossils of a bewildering variety of complex life-forms appearing suddenly, without predecessors, in the same level of the fossil record. This obviously did not fit his evolutionary model of simple-to-complex life. Instead of a few related organisms appearing early in the fossil record as he hoped, there was an explosion of life—where the various main body types (called phyla) of living creatures seem to arise around the same time—in fact, 32 of the 33 phyla that we see today. Comparing this development to the progress of man’s inventions, it would be as if a toaster, a washing machine, a refrigerator, an air conditioner and a car suddenly came on the scene with no mechanical devices preceding them.

If macro evolution were a scientific reality, we should expect to see the many difficulties of Darwin’s theory solved by now. Moreover, we would hope evolutionists would have explained how many living creatures of varying complexity appear around the same time instead of slowly, through “intermediary” species, over millions of years. Incidentally, intermediary fossils have not been found. Madeline Nash says, “Creatures with teeth and tentacles and claws and jaws materialized with the suddenness of apparitions. In a burst of creativity like nothing before or since, nature appears to have sketched out the blueprints for virtually the whole of the animal kingdom. This explosion of biological diversity is described by scientists as biology’s Big Bang” (“When Life Exploded,” Time, Dec. 4, 1995, p. 68) (bold italics added). Douglas Axe believes biology such as this confirms our intuition that life is designed, and that a great amount of living organisms appeared suddenly and without intermediary stages of progression.

Footnotes

(1) Douglas Axe, Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life is Designed (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2016), 3.

(2) Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (London, UK: John Murray Publishing), 1859.

(3) Axe, 9.

(4) Leisola & Witt, Heretic: One Scientist’s Journey from Darwin to Design (Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute Press, 2018), 11.

(5) Leisola & Witt, 39.

(6) Ibid., 40.

(7) Axe, Ibid., 14.

(8) Anthony Walsh, God, Science, and Society (Wilmington, DE: Vernon Press, 2020), x-xi.

(9) Ibid., 1.

(10) Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York, NY: Free Press, a Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc., 2006), x.

(11) Ibid., x.

(12) Ibid., 5.

(13) Behe, Ibid., 79.

* My two paragraphs following the asterisk are derivative of Michael Behe, found on pages 11-12 of Darwin’s Black Box.

Evolution: Augmenting God?

Evolution must now be understood and explained at the molecular level.

Evolution is a rather malleable term. It can be used by me, for example, to mean something as simple as change over time. You might use it to mean the descent of all life forms from a common ancestor. In its full-on, biological sense, however, evolution means a process whereby life arose from non-living matter and ultimately culminated in an estimated 8.7 billion species on Earth. Approximately 1 to 2 million of those species are animals.

Not surprisingly, Darwinian evolution is being stretched to its limits by recent discoveries in biochemistry: the branch of science concerned with chemical and physiochemical processes and substances that occur within living organisms. This field looks at the molecules that make up our cells and tissues and those that catalyze the chemical reactions to digestion, photosynthesis, immunity, and more. Biochemists mainly study the structures and functions of enzymes, proteins, carbohydrates, fats, process of metabolism and the molecular basis of the action of genes.

EVOLUTION BY NATURAL SELECTION

When Darwin published On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection in 1859 he consciously avoided discussing the origin of life. It is assumed by many that Darwin was the first to theorize evolution, natural selection, and the development of species. However, scientists were kicking around the idea of evolution before Darwin. Darwin’s contribution was specific to natural selection—organisms vary, and sometimes these variations can better suit individuals to their environment, thus boosting their chances of passing down these traits to future generations. Even if we assume, for the sake of discussion, that life did begin as a single cell [of course, I’d be of the belief that God created that original single cell], the chief defect of Darwin’s theory is that it throws no light on the origin of that primitive organism. 

Darwin’s theory is basically quite simple. He observed variations among species: some are bigger or taller; some are slow while others are fast; some live under water and some live deep in the Amazon. He reasoned that since food supplies are limited, the ones whose chance variation gave them an advantage in the struggle for life would tend to survive and reproduce, beating out others of their species. His theory, as taught in high schools across the country for decades, is a biological “explanation” of how creatures have supposedly evolved or developed progressively through natural selection and variation (now known as mutation) over eons of time from a tiny cell to the largest creatures on earth today.

What is taught in classrooms is not mere micro evolution—small changes within a species—but macro evolution, the change from one type of creature to another quite distinct life form. And it is being taught in most schools as the only plausible explanation for the origin of life itself.

John M. Wynne wrote in The Fossil Record and the Fall of Darwin’s Last Icon,

“Given the historical consequences of Darwinism—namely, its foundational role in the ideologies leading to World War I, World War II, the spread of communism, the humanist takeover of public education and the judiciary, the legalization of abortion and the on-going culture of death, as well as much confused theology and various attacks on the family—continued belief in human evolution constitutes a tragedy of immeasurable proportions and is arguably the most harmful deception in the history of the world since the Fall of Adam and Eve.”

CHANCE—AN INTEGRAL PART

We can’t deny that chance is an integral part of the evolutionary process. Mutations—capable of leading to hereditary variations—often arise completely at random, independent of whether they are beneficial or harmful. This random process comes up against natural selection. Typically, the end result is preservation of those traits that prove useful and elimination of those that are harmful. There would be no evolution without mutation. Natural selection plays a key role in the mutation process—keeping things from becoming disorganized and out of hand, which can ultimately lead to mutations. Most mutations are disadvantageous. As a rule, they tend to degrade genetic material.

Chance variation did not originate with Darwin. William Paley (1809) argued in Natural Theology that living things and most everything about them are the products of design, not chance.

Paley wrote,

“What does chance ever do for us? In the human body, for instance, chance, i.e. the operation of causes without design, may produce a wen, a wart, a mole, a pimple, but never an eye. [Never was] an organized body of any kind, answering a valuable purpose by a complicated mechanism, the effect of chance. In no assignable instance hath such a thing existed without intention somewhere” (Paley, 1809, pp. 62-63).

Randomness remains the disturbing center of Darwin’s theory.

According to Curtis Johnson, political theorist at Lewis and Clark College, the central controversy in Darwin’s work is not the theory of natural selection itself, but Darwin’s staunch reliance on randomness to explain natural phenomena. Perhaps not wanting to “water down” his science, Darwin tried to cover up this issue by replacing the words “accident” and “chance” with terms like “spontaneous variation” in later editions of his work. Nevertheless, the change was a matter of semantics. Darwin would argue that chance stood in for unknown laws—consistent rules which were not yet known, but would [eventually] explain why individuals, both within and across species, were different. Amazingly, it is reported that in his more private and less guarded moments Darwin suggested that “the cause of at least some variations is unknowable, even in principle.”

Darwin put it this way,

“[Evolution by natural selection] absolutely depends on what we in our ignorance call spontaneous or accidental variation. Let an architect be compelled to build an edifice with uncut stones, fallen from a precipice. The shape of each fragment may be called accidental; yet the shape of each has been determined by the force of gravity, the nature of the rock, and the slope of the precipice—events and circumstances, all of which depend on natural laws; but there is no relation between these laws and the purpose for which each fragment is used by the builder. In the same manner the variations of each creature are determined by fixed and immutable laws; but these bear no relation to the living structure which is slowly built up through the power of selection, whether this be natural or artificial selection” (1875, 2:236).

Attributing variation to chance leads to a rather sticky theology. If God is all powerful, how can he roll the dice with each infant, doling out disadvantages and, at worst, crippling, painful, terminal birth defects? Please realize, I do not believe God is responsible for deformity, deficiency, weakness, flaw, or imperfection. I don’t hold the opinion that God gives birth defects to babies or causes the birth of albino deer or cats with two faces. Incidentally, Darwin had no answer for this issue, which led to his loss of faith in God. Some have suggested it is likely he kept his commitment to chance from his God-minded colleagues and the public. Eventually, Darwin adopted a full-blown materialistic determinism. Darwin concluded that because unknown laws of chance were responsible for individual character and appetites, there was no space left for free will. Matter determines.

There was a problem with Darwin’s theory of natural selection. He had no idea how it worked. Offspring had a mix of their parents’ features, sure. But how? What was the mechanism at work at the exact moment of conception? This was a huge hole in Darwin’s theory.

WHAT DARWIN DIDN’T KNOW

New aspects of evolution have come to light with the introduction of advanced technologies that didn’t exist during Darwin’s era.

What would it take for the accidental spark of a single living cell? Before you respond, remember even the most elementary form of life is more complicated than any man-made thing on earth. The entire workings of New York City are less complicated than the makeup of the simplest microscopic cell. Scientists say the structure of a single cell is unbelievably intricate. The chance for a proper combination of molecules into amino acids, and then into proteins with the properties of life, is entirely unrealistic. Charles Eugene Guye, a Swiss mathematician, computed the odds against such an occurrence at merely one chance in 10 to the 160th. That means 10 multiplied by itself 160 times—a number too large even to articulate.

Frank Allen, PhD, Cornell University Professor of Biophysics, expressed it this way,

“The amount of matter to be shaken together to produce a single molecule of protein would be millions of times greater than in the whole universe. For it to occur on earth alone would require many, almost endless, billions of years” (The Evidence of God in an Expanding Universe, p. 23).

Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection—which he tried to parlay into an explanation for the origin of all species—had been considered settled beyond challenge by the majority of biologists and other life scientists, as well as public school teachers and college professors, until recently. So what has changed?

Nathaniel T. Jeanson has claimed in Replacing Darwin: The New Origin of Species, “…the events of the last 130 years have rewritten the history of life on this planet” (pg. 9). Frankly, this was inevitable. We’ve come to see the substance of life as being made up of billions of interconnecting jigsaw puzzle pieces. I remember my first IMAX movie at the Air and Space Museum at the Smithsonian. It was called The Power of 10. The premise of the documentary was a look inward (inner space) then outward (outer space) by units of ten for as far as technology allows us to see. I was struck by how the molecular level of all matter—whether living or not (air, water, or solid)—is tenaciously yet remarkably cohesive.

This is true across all life. Mammals, reptiles, birds, amphibians, fish, starfish, sea urchins, crustaceans, arachnids, insects, worms of all sorts, shellfish, octopi, snails, corals, jellyfish, sponges, mosses, ferns, conifers, grasses, orchids, fruit trees, fungi, algae, bacteria, and all the other life forms on earth possess unique combinations of traits, which are stored at a molecular level. DNA is the code that allows us to read those combinations. Jeanson believes the question of the origin of species is rooted in the origin of traits. He writes, “If you want to know the origin of zebras, you need to discover the origin of stripes…” He says, for example, the origin of eagles goes hand in hand with the origin of white feathers. The origin of the rest of the species is found in the origin of the traits that define them.

It’s been said that since species are defined by their traits, the origin of traits constrains the picture of the origin of species. Any attempt to understand the origin of traits must include an explanation of how DNA controlled the behavior of traits. And if we got to the mystery of the how—if we cracked the code for the mechanism by which traits got coded or programmed—could we then learn to cause a complete shift in the program? Could we cause leopards to become whales, for instance? Is it possible to use CRISPR technology to create our own spotted whale? CRISPRs (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) are sections of DNA.

The point of all this conjecture is to spotlight the complexity of DNA and genetic traits. 

I Though Darwin Didn’t Know Genetics!

If Darwin had no background or understanding in genetics, how could he write a book he brazenly claimed to explain the origin of species? Moreover, if genetic data were absent from his thesis, then how could he have made any semblance of a scientific argument for the origin of species? It was agreed by most scientists of that time period that offspring did indeed get their physical characteristics from their parents, but how and in what ratios was unclear. This was one of the main arguments opponents of Darwin at the time had against his theory. He was unable to explain how inheritance happened. Sadly, because the field of genetics did not exist until the 1900s, scientists of Darwin’s time did not know to look for the molecule that carries genetic information from generation to generation.

Further, consider the weakness of the data available to him. Fossils don’t directly record genealogical relationships. What’s worse, fossils can only tell us about ancestry after a model of genetics has been assumed. Accordingly, any great insights into the question of traits and ancestry must follow the discovery of genetics. Of course, Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species before genetics was even a scientific field. Consequently, for Darwin fossils were unable to unilaterally answer the question of traits and ancestry, which he didn’t admit in his writings.

Darwin never addressed the concept of epigenetics: heritable changes in gene expression that do not involve changes to the underlying DNA sequence. An epigenetic change can be caused by factors such as age, environment, lifestyle, or disease. Simply, epigenetics is the study of biological mechanisms that will switch genes on and off.

Convergence

I am a proponent of the convergence of science and religion. Additionally, I am hoping to have an impact on aiding the integration of psychology and Christian theology. I believe truth is truth; further, all truth is God’s truth. We know truth—that which has been settled as verifiable fact—cannot contradict truth. Scientific and religious truths, by their very definition, are reconcilable. Moreover, science and faith can enrich each other. They tell the same story, albeit from different perspectives. This is not a problem. Believers and theologians need not adjust their thinking about God because of Darwin any more than they did after Copernicus disproved the church’s theory of a geocentric universe.

Interestingly, many Christians and followers of other religions have been enthusiastic about the advent of evolution. For example, immediately after On the Origin of Species was published, the learned Anglican priest and theologian Charles Kingsley publicly thanked Darwin for demonstrating how ingenious and creative evolution is, and how this exciting new picture of life had enlarged his understanding of the Creator. He said, “A God who can make a universe that can make itself by way of natural processes is much more impressive and worthy of worship than one who is always tinkering with the world or keeping it tied to divine puppet strings.” And where would the free will be in such a universe?

NATURAL SELECTION IS NOT EVOLUTION!

The fossil record gives no support to the idea of one species gradually changing into a completely distinct and other species. Ten times in the book of Genesis we read God’s decree concerning the reproduction of each of His creatures—”after its kind.” The word kind refers to species, or family. Each created family was to produce only its own kind. Natural selection cannot generate brand new genetic information. It simply doesn’t work that way. Instead, it filters information that already exists. Darwinian evolution holds the basic tenet that single-celled organisms gained new genetic information over millions and billions of years, and eventually arrived at higher life-forms such as man. For this whole “microbes-to-man” evolution to be true, evolutionists should be able to point to thousands of examples of information-gaining mutations, an uphill process, but they can’t.

Genetic variants may cause differences in survival, but that has nothing to do with explaining their design. What requires explanation is the origin of the biological apparatus with the ability to generate, save, and pass on variations in the first place. Darwin’s argument was circular: nature’s designer is nature itself. Attributing design to natural selection is also circular—but at a deeper level—making it harder to spot.

It is worth noting that God did not create all the varieties of dogs, cats, horses, insects, and other animals in the beginning. (Varieties of animals are different than kinds of animals.) For example, there were no Labradoodles in the Garden of Eden. There were male and female of each species, with many changes occurring over the centuries to produce a wide assortment of varieties within the family. But let’s be real: cats have always remained cats; dogs are still dogs; men are still men. Mutation has only been responsible for producing a new variety of the same species, but never originating a new species. In addition, selective breeding has brought tremendous improvements such as hornless cattle, white turkeys, adorable puppies, and seedless oranges. Regardless, all organisms continue to reproduce exactly as God decreed at Creation—after its kind.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

I would be remiss if I did not admit that at the core of this argument between evolutionists and creationists lies a struggle between opposing worldviews. It’s not a matter of their facts versus ours. Actually, it has never been about the facts. As I’ve stated, all truth is God’s truth. All facts are available to scientists of both camps; all scientists have the same data available to them. The data is identical, but the “lens” through which it is viewed is not.

I agree with Phillips, Brown and Stonestreet (2008) that truth is absolute. If not, then nothing is true. They consider (p. 64), “If a worldview is true, we can expect to find at least some external corroborating evidence to support it. This does not mean that something is true because there is evidence for it, but rather evidence will be available because something is true.” [Italics mine.] It is critical to note that evidence is always subject to interpretation, and interpretation also can be subject to bias. As it’s been said many times, worldviews function somewhat like eyeglasses. When you put on your eyeglasses for the first time the rims can be quite distracting. In a short time you lose your awareness of the rims and even the lenses. It’s as if you forget you’re wearing glasses. A worldview is like that.

Regardless of dueling worldviews, according to standard evolutionary theory today, evolutionists look to mutations as being the process responsible for generating the new genetic information evolution requires, which is then acted upon through natural selection. When pressed over the years, evolutionists have been unable to give specific evidence of mutations that increase the information in the genome. Natural selection is essentially an observation about genetic variants and how they play a role in survival and nothing more.

As a tool for explaining design, natural selection is completely worthless. Darwin seems to distort the design process by falsely attributing power to the environment to “select” traits. In fact, the ability to generate traits is a property of living things enabling them to diversify, multiply, and fill environments. Whether or not these traits fit an environment is what determines survival. Darwin further failed to explain how the ability to generate traits in living things—the real source of information for design—originated. He simply said this capacity is simply assimilated into nature.

References

Monsma, J. (1958). The Evidence of God in An Expanding Universe. New York, NY: Putnam.

Paley, W. (1809). Natural Theology. Philadelphia, PA: John Morgan Publishers.

Phillips, W., Brown, W., and Stonestreet, J. (2008) Making Sense of Your World: A Biblical Worldview, 2nd ed. Salem, WI: Sheffield Publishing.

Wynne, J. (n.d.). The Fossil Record and the Fall of Darwin’s Last Icon. Retrieved from: http://kolbecenter.org/fossil-record-and-fall-of-darwins-last-icon/