- It appears that there are numerous gaps within the fossil record linking a multitude of organisms.
- It appears that at times life did not evolve slowly over time as predicted by Darwin, but, in fact, life appears suddenly (i.e. Cambrian explosion).
- It appears the simple animal cell is incredibly complex, especially the component parts that allow the cell to operate properly.
- It appears that the parts of the cell exhibit irreducible complexity. In other words, the parts had to all be in place at the same time for the cell to properly function. It appears the cell parts were not added slowly over time.
- It appears that Darwinian evolution does not have enough time to evolve into the complexity we see today, if life exploded (Cambrian Period) some 600 million years ago.
- It appears mutations will not facilitate Darwin's evolutionary model, given that most mutations are degenerate and do not add new parts.
- It appears that DNA exhibits specified complexity and chance evolution does not suffice as an adequate answer. The DNA information seems to cry out for an informer or God.
- It appears that the beginning of the universe by way of the Big Bang needs to have a banger or God.
- It appears that nothing pops into existence by chance, because for anything to begin there needs to be a causer or God (i.e. Kalam Cosmological Argument).
- It appears that the universe is fine-tuned for life and would need to have a tuner or God.
- It appears that objective morals exist meaning an objective moral law giver or God exists.
- It appears that the conscious mind cries out for an ultimate mind or God.
- It appears that science is not able to answer all questions such as why we have 1st person awareness and the laws of logic. In other words, science cannot test why certain quantities exist in the universe.
- It appears the best explanation of the empty tomb and the eyewitness accounts of Jesus after his death is the bodily resurrection of Jesus.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
In Richard Dawkins' book, The Blind Watchmaker, he makes this startling comment in the preface, "The problem is that of complex design." Dawkins realizes that design is present and further states, "The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design. If anyone does not agree that this amount of complex design cries out for an explanation, I give up." Of course, Dawkins would never admit that the complexity of living organisms was designed by God, but what if the argument were developed further for not just the complexity of life, but for all the complex questions of the universe?