In Case You Missed It : Creation or Evolution?

Creation or Evolution?


Now before you roll your eyes and dismiss this topic as something that has already been proven by Science as fact, and is not worthy of consideration, I’d like to bring to your attention a few things about Evolution that you may not be aware of.

What you think you know about Evolution, what is currently being taught about Evolution and what scientists are actually saying about Evolutionary Biology behind closed doors are not necessarily one and the same.

Take a look at this link: Scientists Confirm: Darwinism Is Broken

Or this 2014 post: renowned-chemist-says-evolutionists-do-not-understand-the-origin-of-life/

Or this recent post: evolutionary-theorist-concedes-evolution-largely-avoids-biggest-questions-of-biological-origins

And what-evolution-controversy-scott-turner-gets-high-praise-from-quarterly-review-of-biology/

A direct quote from the Darwinism is Broken link above reads as follows:

“The technical literature in biology is now replete with world-class biologists routinely expressing doubts about various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory, and especially about its central tenet, namely the alleged creative power of the natural selection and mutation mechanism.” “Nevertheless, popular defenses of the theory continue apace, rarely if ever acknowledging the growing body of critical scientific opinion about the standing of the theory. Rarely has there been such a great disparity between the popular perception of a theory and its actual standing in the relevant peer-reviewed science literature.”

And this article which presents an up-to-date overview of the sheer improbability of evolution evolving via mere chance:

Or this article authored by Nathaniel T Jeanson. Dr. Jeanson has a Ph.D. in cell and developmental biology from Harvard University.

And this quote ” I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence. Believe me, everything that we call chance today won’t make sense anymore. To me it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance. — Michio Kaku (cited in, String Theory Co-Founder: Sub-Atomic Particles Are Evidence the Universe Was Created)

Franklin M. Harold, Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at Colorado State University wrote the following concerning the origin of life: “I do not mean to disparage serious scholars who are doing their level best to crack the hardest nut of all. Quite the contrary: I would argue that, if our purpose is to understand life, the origin of life is the most consequential question in all of biology. It holds the key to understanding the relationship between the living and the inanimate, the quick and the dead. Each new bit of evidence strengthens our belief that organisms obey the laws of chemistry and physics; and scientific investigations have turned up no traces of a vital force to nurture the wellspring of life. We assume, then, that cells are material systems that arose by some sort of evolutionary process four billion years ago here on earth (or conceivably, someplace else). I share this premise, but feel obliged to note that, in the absence of evidence as to how this came about (or even of a plausible hypothesis), this explanation is merely a belief–a leap of faith. … Of all the gaps in our understanding of life, this one is the widest. Until we bridge it, we cannot lay to rest lingering doubts as to whether science has read nature’s book of biology correctly.”

If you would like to read a well documented and eye opening lengthy history of how the “Theory of Evolution” evolved itself, to it’s current status of “fact” versus “theory”, I would strongly encourage you to read this article authored by Bert Thompson, Ph.D. : Is Evolution a “Fact” of Science?

Do all critics on the validity of Darwinian Evolution come from a “religious” perspective? No they do not, as this link validates but it does bear witness to the intense opposition that will quickly surface should anyone question Darwin. Becoming “persona non grata” is a reality that nonreligious scientists and scholars who challenge neo-Darwinism and/or sympathize with ID, often face, in pressuring them to conform to the materialist party line.

I know this is a complex science and I am by no means any type of authority on this subject matter, but ….. and this is important, there are many highly qualified scientists who ARE authorities on this subjectand they disagree with the basic tenets of evolution and what they are saying needs to be heard and considered.

What is Intelligent Design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

Is Intelligent Design the Same as Creationism?
No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.

Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he “agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement.” Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are “the easiest way to discredit intelligent design.” In other words, the charge that intelligent design is “creationism” is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.

If one is to believe all the information that is put forward with regard to “Intelligent Design” by the scientific community, one could easily make the assumption that belief in “Intelligent Design” is pretty much a joke. This link provides a typical overview of ID:

The problem being, it isn’t a joke and there are many Peer-Reviewed and Peer-Edited Scientific Publications being produced that support the Theory of Intelligent Design. Of course, if you didn’t actually check to see if these scientific papers are being produced in support of ID, you’d never be aware of this fact. The list of scientific papers that have been submitted total 107 pages and have been updated as of 2017.

You may download the full bibliography of these Scientific Publications in Adobe pdf format.

There are multiple hubs of ID-related research. Biologic Institute, led by molecular biologist Doug Axe, is “developing and testing the scientific case for intelligent design in biology.” Biologic conducts laboratory and theoretical research on the origin and role of information in biology, the fine-tuning of the universe for life, and methods of detecting design in nature.

Another ID research group is the Evolutionary Informatics Lab, founded by senior Discovery Institute fellow William Dembski along with Robert Marks, Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Baylor University. Their lab has attracted graduate-student researchers and published multiple peer-reviewed articles in technical science and engineering journals showing that computer programming “points to the need for an ultimate information source qua intelligent designer.”

Other scientists around the world are also publishing peer-reviewed scientific papers supportive of intelligent design. These include biologist Ralph Seelke at the University of Wisconsin Superior, Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig who recently retired from the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany, and Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe.

These and other labs and researchers have published their work in a variety of appropriate technical venues, including peer-reviewed scientific journals, peer-reviewed scientific books (some published by mainstream university presses), trade-press books, peer-edited scientific anthologies, peer-edited scientific conference proceedings and peer-reviewed philosophy of science journals and books. These papers have appeared in scientific journals such as Protein ScienceJournal of Molecular BiologyTheoretical Biology and Medical ModellingJournal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent InformaticsQuarterly Review of BiologyCell Biology InternationalRivista di Biologia / Biology ForumPhysics of Life ReviewsQuarterly Review of BiologyAnnual Review of Genetics, and many others. At the same time, pro-ID scientists have presented their research at conferences worldwide in fields such as genetics, biochemistry, engineering, and computer science.

Collectively, this body of research is converging on a consensus: complex biological features cannot arise by unguided Darwinian mechanisms, but require an intelligent cause.

Am I aware that the majority of scientists currently reject Creationism and Intelligent Design? Yes I am. But does a materialist mindset or worldview that denies or rejects that a supernatural being (the Creator or Designer) could possibly have anything to do with what we see in our universe and our world, have anything to do with this determination? Check this link out if you don’t think it is a factor: reiss-resigns-as-royal-society-stifles-debate-on-evolution or this link. Many learned scholars think it is a factor. Does all the new evidence being discovered support this materialist worldview? Many learned scholars don’t think it does.

This page will present a lot of information, a substantial amount of which you may not currently be aware of. Take the time to look at it, evaluate their collective findings and then make your own decision.

What science is discovering right now is simply amazing. You owe it to yourself and those you love to honestly look and consider. God says in His Word (Romans 1:20 NIV) that “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”

If you would like to examine the actual probability of simple life beginning by chance I would highly recommend you view the following discussion (including all of the comments) at the following link:

Honestly take a look at all of creation within our universe and gain an understanding of what has been made, how it’s been made, the utter complexity, the razor sharp balance, the replication processes involved and the order of it all. It’s all around you, everywhere you look, both within and without. If the probability of all this happening by sheer chance (e.g. without an intelligent cause) is deemed highly unlikely if not downright impossible and we find that even the simplest single cell contains detailed DNA intelligent information that surpasses our wildest expectations, the question on how this intelligent information got there in the first place needs to be answered. By chance (without an intelligent cause) or by intelligent design (with an intelligent cause), you be the judge.


does-the-cumulative-case-for-design-point-to-a-divine-designer  Just type in “Intelligent Design” in the Search Option at the top right of your screen on the website for many more posts on this subject.

RECOMMENDED INTELLIGENT DESIGN WEBSITES – many links – many links  Dr Douglas Axe Greg Neyman Dr. Frank Turek   Experimental particle physicist Dr Michael G Strauss Luke Nix   Dr Hugh Ross – Douglas Axe

Apologetics And Worldview: An Introduction – Science and Personal Knowledge
Apologetics And Worldview: An Introduction – The Myth of Naturalistic Science
Apologetics And Worldview: An Introduction – Scientism and Circularity
The 3 above lectures given by Paul Martin Henebury, PhD.
The Scientific Evidence for Intelligent Design
The Mounting Evidence for Design
The Human Genome: ENCODED for Design – Dr. Fazale Rana
The Case for Intelligent Design in Biology
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, PhD talks about the Case for Intelligent Design
Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design
The Edge of Evolution: the Limits of Darwinism | Michael J. Behe, PhD
Creation and Evolution: The Biological Evidence
The Great Debate: Creation, Evolution, or Both?
Why the Universe is the way it is
The Fine Tuning of the Universe
How the Fine-Tuning of the Universe Points to the Existence of God : J Warner Wallace
The “Simple” Cell: Abolishing Abiogenesis
The Case For A Creator: Lee Strobel
Do Scientific Discoveries Point to God?: Dr. Michael Strauss
Unlocking the Mystery of Life
Journey Inside the Cell
ATP Synthase: The power plant of the cell
The Workhorse of the Cell: Kinesin
Information Enigma
The Privileged Planet
The Privileged Species
Seminar on Intelligent Design by Stephen Meyer
Darwin’s Dilemma
Michael Behe and the Mystery of Molecular Machines
Water, Ultimate Giver of Life, Points to Intelligent Design
The Cambrian Explosion
David Berlinski Explains Problems With Evolution
Irreducible Complexity vs Evolution | RE: Intelligent Design | Michael J. Behe, PhD
Evolution: A Theory in Crises | Thomas Woodward, PhD
The Evidence of the Fossil Record
Honest Challenge Of Darwinian Evolution (Sean Mcdowell)
Author Douglas Axe presents his book “Undeniable”
Undeniable (Part 1 – Chapters 1 and 2)
Undeniable (Part 2 – Chapters 3 and 4)
Undeniable (Part 3 – Chapters 5 and 6)
Undeniable (Part 4 – Chapters 7 and 8)
Undeniable (Part 5 – Chapter 9)
Undeniable (Part 6 – Chapter 10)
Undeniable (Part 7 – Chapter 11)
Undeniable (Part 8 – Chapter 12)
Undeniable (Part 9 – Chapters 13 & 14)
Jonathan Wells (Icons of Evolution)
Jonathan Wells (Zombie Science)



  1. Wow, Bruce! This is an amazing post! I don’t know how you find time to write such thorough and deep posts, but I am truly grateful for all that you put into this! What a wonderful post this is. It will take me some time to unpackage it all. And to read through the resources that you have offered here. Thank you; thank you, though, with all my heart for digesting it all for us. What a blessing your blog is!


    • Thanks Lynn, actually that is a page of my blog that I just reposted as a post. I’ve been working on that puppie for quite some time. Grace and blessings!


  2. Wow, you gave us a lot to read and think through. Some of the information is beyond my understanding, since my education didn’t include university. It was gratifying, however, to see that there are many highly educated scientists finding fractures in the case for evolution. We can only hope that the Holy Spirit is able to reach them to the point of salvation, whether or not they entirely give up the notion of evolution publicly.


Comments are closed.