In Disney’s story of Aladdin, a Genie (voiced by Robin Williams) befriends the hero and uses his considerable power to help him win the day. At the end, however, the villain of the story uses the Genie to grant him a final wish — to be transformed into “an all-powerful Genie.” Of course, the makers of this fabulous animation, loved by millions of children (and adults) probably didn’t intend to lend this film to a philosophical discussion; however, it serves the purpose of this illustration. For the Genie to be “all powerful,” the question of “Who put the Genie in the lamp?” springs naturally to mind, in as much as this one must be superior to overpower another who claims to be ultimate.
Whilst there are certain questions that science does not concern itself with, this is a matter of logic, the science of correct reasoning. Is it logical, reasonable, rational, even plausible to maintain that matter has always existed? Really, then, is matter eternal? Scientists have no definitive answer. If there were an intelligent Designer of the universe, is it feasible that he has never had a beginning? Indeed, this one would need to be the ultimate of all existence. There could be no-one and nothing having superiority over this one in any way. This seems to be an unacceptable notion to some; interestingly, these same individuals often have no problem contemplating the eternal existence of matter!
How many scientists claim to have a full understanding of the concept of time? Time has been described, metaphorically, as a one-way flow providing, together with space, the matrix of events. Does anyone have the knowledge and ability to control time? This work endeavors to prove that the universe and life had a Designer; and, clearly, the Designer also created time. To this one, the word “beginning” could have no real application, save to provide a context for interaction with his design. Of course, some scientists dismiss such reasoning as philosophy that cannot be proved. By “proof” they mean the kind of experimental methods they are familiar and comfortable with. This “unknown” Designer could not be put into a petri dish and examined by any methods currently known to science. Therefore, to such scientists, he cannot exist, or at least such matters are not of any concern to them.
One explanation proffered by evolutionists is that proponents of Prescient Design believe in science only until a rational explanation fails them, and then they invoke theology! How utterly banal such a view is. It is not the simple arrival of a puzzle that produces some strange madness causing the investigator to inexplicably invent some myth! Such is the absurdity and narrow-mindedness of some evolutionists whose understanding of Prescient Design is wholly lacking. Compare, though, the genuinely faulty reasoning of the Darwinian atheist who would no doubt quite readily marvel at the designer of a sophisticated computer, along with the carefully constructed software programs purpose-built for it — a paltry effort compared to all the impressive design features of the human body!
Just like the illustration of the inscription on the rock in The Mastermind Effect, it is a perfectly natural conclusion that Prescient Design requires some intelligence. And intelligence inevitably leads to sentience. How often evolutionary scientists are heard attributing personality to the blind process of evolution (anthropomorphism)? For example, they discuss how a particular defense mechanism in a certain animal came about, usually as a result of a need for survival, or perhaps simply a need for improvement. What are they actually implying here? That a need arose within a biological organism and therefore an impersonal, lifeless, apparently “mathematically probable” process filled that need? How often supporters of Darwin use terms such as “evolution is intelligent,” or that a certain creature “evolved a defense system.” Even the highly respected professor, the late Carl Sagan, on his TV show Cosmos some decades ago, regarding the need for greater informational storage capacity than DNA, said that, after this need arose, “we invented the brain!” Does that sound plausible to you?
Let us take blood vessels in the human body as an example. Darwinian evolutionists explain that molecules, DNA, and life evolved over many millions of years by a gradual process? “Given enough time,” they insist, “complex systems are inevitable.” Are we to understand that the heart, for example, “developed” from some primitive state and, when complete, began to pump blood? What about the essential blood vessels that carry that vital fluid?
If all the blood vessels in a human body were extracted and laid out end-to-end they would measure somewhere between 60,000 and 100,000 miles! Almost every single one of the 100 trillion cells in the human body is fed a rich supply of blood by this complex network of veins, arteries, and capillaries. Did every inch of these vessels happen to grow in the right direction, knitting up with other vessels, and with the heart, to provide life-giving blood to the entire body? If this development was so slow, as evolutionists are very determined to emphasize, how did the body function until the network of blood vessels was complete?
In addition to this network of blood vessels, the human body also has a network of nerve fibers. The amount of nerve fibers in the human brain alone (not to mention the rest of the body) if laid out end-to-end, would stretch even farther than the blood vessels — four times around the earth! The same question above regarding blood vessels could be applied also to nerve fibers. How did they develop “gradually”? How could certain critical organs function without this vital connection to the brain? Indeed, how could they function until the entire network of “gradually developing” blood vessels ensured they received their required supply of blood? (For a further discussion of the relationship between blood vessels and nerve fibers and their place in the Plexus Cube, see the article ‘Prescient Design.’)
Even the pro-evolutionary Encyclopædia Britannica once said:
“There is, however, nothing in the study of living forms alone definitely to exclude the possibility that (as indicated by a strict interpretation of the Book of Genesis) we are part of a special, direct creation, and that, although modification of the animals thus created may occur, these modifications have been only of a minor nature, not meriting the designation of a major evolutionary process.”—1965 Edition, Volume 17, page 108.
Does the fossil record provide the full picture evolutionists claim?
Just as The Mastermind Effect article shows, theories can easily be built up from only a few fragments of evidence. For instance, note the following:
By far the majority of meaningful fossils available to scientists are fragments, such as this one. Given that there are a huge number of textbook illustrations produced by evolutionists showing a gradual transition from ape to man, any layman, or even a student of evolution, could be forgiven for concluding that the evidence is more than sufficient proof. But, if you were given the task of building a complete illustration of homo sapiens based on just the fragment of teeth above, would you honestly have sufficient information to build, not just the rest of the jaw, but the skull, complete skeleton, muscular form, nails, skin color, hair distribution and color, etc.? And what about the stance of the completed homo sapiens? Evolutionists draw progressive stages of development from bent and squat like an ape to upright modern man. These illustrations have a powerful effect on the mind of students. They give the impression that the evidence is plentiful. Is it?
The National Geographic magazine, in 2004, likened the fossil record to “a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1,000 frames have been lost.” If you paid for first-class seats at the movie theater to watch the latest blockbuster, and only 1 frame out of 1,000 was shown, how much of the plot, the characters, the scenery, the dialogue, etc., would you catch? Could you later piece all of those things together and get it right without knowing anything else about the movie? If someone else claimed to have done this, how much confidence would you have in the resulting movie being identical to the original?
Sadly, confidence is not something that all scientists engender! It is embarrassing for some evolutionists to be reminded of deliberate frauds such as Piltdown Man and Java Man. These may seem like isolated cases of fabrication. But are you aware that some science textbooks do not accurately portray the relative size of fossilized skulls? By fudging the size of the images in science textbooks, they make it appear that progressive changes have been quite common. Note the following illustration:
If the fossil record was sufficiently complete to provide the comprehensive explanation provided by Darwinian evolutionists, why would any scientist choose to misrepresent the facts in this way?