text10

Based on the theory proposed by Charles Darwin, the current view in biology – the one taught in schools - is that evolution is non-intelligent, naturalistic (i.e., solely the result of natural causes) and purposeless, and that human beings evolved from lower life forms by accident. Nevertheless, recent discoveries in the natural sciences demonstrate that they must be the product of intelligent design, that the ultimate goal is the evolution of human beings, and that for this to occur a God is necessary. (Click here for paper.)

THE KEY EVIDENCE

THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE
The requirements of human life determine the nature of the universe.

Astrophysicists and cosmologists have found that the arrangement of the Universe is regular to within one part in one thousand and that, as far as can be determined, it has been that way from the beginning. Clusters of galaxies make up superclusters that are separated by vast areas of emptiness. Yet the Universe as a whole is both homogeneous and isotropic, i.e., it is the same no matter in what

direction measurements are taken. Concerning the cause or causes, however, scientists are divided into two camps depending on what role they believe gravity has played in this process. One group maintains that the regularity of the Universe is inherent due to conditions of self-consistency and stability. This means that the force of gravity shaped the substructure of the Universe, i.e., the galaxies, stars and planets, but not their location with respect to each other. The other group holds that the properties of the Universe as a whole are the result of evolutionary processes caused by gravitational natural selection.

The Anthropic Principle validates the second hypothesis. Proposed by the British astrophysicist Brandon Carter in 1974 and so named by him, it states that intelligent life selects out the actual universe from among the different possible universes. In other words, the only real universes can only be those that contain intelligent life. This means that the fundamental features of the universe such as size, shape, age, properties, and laws of change must be of a kind that provide for the evolution of intelligent beings. (Click here for article.)

www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0106/articles/barr.html
www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/teleo.html
Barrow, J. D. and Tipler, F. J., The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986)

THE CONSTANTS OF NATURE
The features of the universe are determined by their numerical values.

In the book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, the British astronomer John D. Barrow and the American mathematician Frank J. Tipler write: "The sizes of stars and planets, and even people are neither random not the result of any Darwinian selection process from a myriad of possibilities. These, and other gross features of the Universe are the consequences of necessity; they are the manifestations of the possible equilibrium states between the competing forces of attraction and

Constants of Nature

repulsion. The intrinsic strengths of these controlling forces in Nature are determined by a mysterious collection of pure numbers that we call the constants of Nature" (p.5). The force of gravity, the speed of light, and the quantum of action are a few of these constants.

www.2001principle.net/2005.htm
McRae, W.H. and Rees, M.J. (eds.), The Constants of Physics, (London: The Royal Society, 1983)

                                                      THE FOSSIL RECORD
                        There are no intermediate links. New species appear suddenly.

Beginning in the 1950s, several studies have been carried out of natural selection in operation which show that new species can slowly and gradually evolve from earlier species to whom they are related through a sequence of subspecies. (This is called micro-evolution.) Nevertheless, scientists have not been able to prove that this slow, step-by-step process has ever produced new forms of life above the level of species, such as the genus and family, or that it has given rise to species that are fundamentally different. New species of cats, for example, such as the lynx, tiger, and lion, or birds such as the eagle, ostrich, and penguin could have evolved slowly and gradually from an ancestral form of cat and bird respectively because they are related, but could not, and thus did not, evolve the same way from an earlier species common to both because each has features that are unique and unrelated. By the same principle, fishes could not and did not evolve into amphibians, then reptiles, then birds, and finally mammals, and no itermediary fossils have ever been found that validate this presently held belief. Therefore, contrary to the belief that Nature does not make jumps, there is ample evidence which indicates that it does. (This is called macro-evolution.) Likewise, although evidence has been found that apes (gorillas, chimpanzees, gibbons and orangutans) and humans are similar in several ways, to date no fossil evidence has been uncovered of the existence of a fully functional intermediate life form, a missing link, between humans and apes that would indicate a slow and gradual evolution from the former to the latter.
(Click here for article in paper.)

www.rae.org/natsel.html
Thaxton, C. B., Davis, P. and Kenyon, D. H., Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins (Dallas, Texas: Haughton Publishing Company, 1989)

IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY
Systemic change takes place as a unit.

In The Origin of Species Charles Darwin wrote: "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."

In the book Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge of Evolution, the American biochemist Michael Behe demonstates such impossibility by virtue of the principle of irreducible complexity. He calls a system irreducibly complex one that cannot function if even one of its components is missing. Using the eye and the cilium as two of several examples, he shows that their functional complexity could not have been produced by slight, successive modifications of antecedent organisms because the absence of any newly evolved feature would have made the respective precursors unable to function. He explains that natural selection would have affected their evolution only if they had arisen as a unit and this, he states, could take place only if their evolution as well as the evolution all other biological systems was intentionally designed.

www.arn.org/ (In the “Search” box type Behe. Go to "Examples of Irreducible Complexity" located toward the bottom of the list.)
Behe, M. J., Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge of Evolution (New York: Free Press, 1996)

                                                          HOMOLOGY
                                       Descent-from-common-ancestor theory disproven.

     In The Origin Of Species, Charles Darwin wrote: "...the members of the same class, independently of their habits of life, resemble each other in the general plan of their organization. This resemblance is often expressed by the term "unity of type"; or by saying that the several parts and organs in the different species of the class are homologous. ...What can be more curious than that the hand of a man, formed for grasping, that of a mole for digging, the leg of the horse, the paddle of the porpoise, and the wing of the bat should all be constructed on the same pattern, and should include similar bones, in the same relative positions? How curious it is, to give a subordinate though striking instance, that the hind-feet of the kangaroo, which are so well fitted for bounding over the open plains, - those of the climbing, leaf eating koala, equally well fitted for grasping the branches of trees, - those of the ground-dwelling, insect or root-eating bandicoots, - and those of some other Australian marsupials, - should all be constructed on the same extraordinary type, namely with the bones of the second and third digits extremely slender and enveloped within the same skin, so that they appear like a single toe furnished with two claws. Notwithstanding this similarity of pattern, it is obvious that the hind feet of these several animals are used for as widely different purposes as it is possible to conceive. The case is rendered all the more striking by the American oppossums, which follow nearly the same habits of life as some of their Australian relatives, having feet constructed on the ordinary plan. Professor Flower, from whom these statements are taken, remarks in conclusion: "We may call this conformity of type, without getting much nearer to an explanation of the phenomenon"; and he then adds "but is it not powerfully suggestive of true relationship, of inheritance from a common ancestor?" (p. 434-35)

Answering Darwin, in the book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, the American molecular biologist and evolutionist Michael Denton writes: "...the forelimbs of all terrestrial vertebrates are constructed according to the same pentadactyl (five fingers or toes) design, and this is attributed by evolutionary biologists as showing that all have been derived from a common ancestral source. But the hindlimbs of all vertebrates also conform to the pentadactyl pattern and are strikingly similar to the forelimbs in bone structure and in their detailed embryological development. Yet no evolutionist claims that the hindlimb evolved from the forelimb, or that hindlimbs and forelimbs evolved from a common source." (p. 151)
Denton concludes: "Invariably, as biological knowledge has grown, common genealogy as an explanation for similarity has tended to grow more tenuous. Clearly, such a trend carried to the extreme would hold calamitous consequences for evolution, as homologous resemblance is the very raison d'etre of evolution theory. ... Like so much of the other circumstantial "evidence" for evolution, that drawn from homology is not convincing because it entails too many anomalies, too many counter-instances, far too many phenomena which simply do not fit easily into the orthodox picture." (p. 154)

www.rae.org/homology.html
Denton, M., Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, (Maryland: Adler, 1986)

MATHEMATICS
The impossibility of life being a random event.

Much like the information content of this and every sentence is specified by the rules of grammar, the meaning of the words used, and their sequence, likewise the right amino acids, their correct sequence, and the way they fold are necessary elements needed to build proteins. Scientists maintain that there are no known laws (or properties) of physics or chemistry which would have been sufficient to dictate the sequential order of the amino acids to build the many kinds of proteins necessary for life. The same is true for the DNA.

The French mathematician Emile Borel (1871-1956) showed that if an event has a chance of occurring that is less than one out of 10 to the 50th power, then such probability could be considered to be zero. Most mathematicians and scientists accept Borel's law of probability. Because living proteins are made of 50 to 1000 amino acids, with the average of about 300, for life to begin the odds against assemblying at random even 50 amino acids into the correct sequence in order to construct a single functional protein is one out of 10 to the 65th power. Since the probability of spontaneous biogenesis is lower than Borel's limit, the probability of this occurrence is also zero.

www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/8830/mathproofcreat.html

                    THE URANTIA PAPERS
   EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF SUPERINTELLECTS AND GOD

In his book The Intelligent Universe, the distinguished British astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle writes: "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature."

Evidence of the existence of superintellects and God is given in the URANTIA PAPERS, a divine revelation to our planet on science, history, philosophy, religion, and related subjects. Urantia is the name of our planet and the papers were authored by an assortment of celestial personalities between the early 1920s and mid-'30s. They were published as The URANTIA Book in 1955. The following statement is on p. 32 of Paper 1 titled The Universal Father:

" I am commissioned to sponsor those papers portraying the nature and attributes of God because I represent the highest source of information available for such a purpose on any inhabited world. I have served as a Divine Counselor in all seven of the superuniverses and long resided at the Paradise center of all things. Many times have I enjoyed the supreme pleasure of a sojourn in the immediate personal presence of the Universal Father. I portray the reality and truth of the Father's nature and attributes with unchallengeable authority; I know whereof I speak."
(Read about the book in my paper following the Introduction.)

The Circlemakers

Chilbolton, Hampshire, UK - August 17, 2001

(The URANTIA Book, The Midwayers, p. 855ff) "Most of the inhabited worlds harbor one or more groups of unique beings existing on a life-functioning level about midway between those of the mortals of the realms and of the angelic orders; hence are they called midway creatures. Midwayers are not men, neither are they angels, but secondary midwayers are, in nature, nearer man than angel; they are very understanding and sympathetic in their contact with human beings; they are invaluable to the seraphim in their work for and with the various races of mankind, and are indispensable to the seraphim who serve as personal guardians to mortals.

Midwayers are engaged in important missions on earth. They exist just outside the range of mortal vision and possess sufficient latitude of adaptation to make, at will, physical contact with material things. They are the skillful ministers who compensate the gap between the material and spiritual affairs of Urantia. They are likewise your elder brethren, comrades in the long struggle to attain a settled status of light and life on Urantia. They will faithfully enact their part in planetary evolution until this world attains the goal of the ages, until that distant day when in fact peace does reign on earth and in truth there is good will in the hearts of men."

*******************************************