Intelligent Design vs. Evolution: The Miracle of Intelligent Design

By Rory Roybal


Intelligent Design vs. Evolution

Do We See Evidence for Intelligent Design?

“Seeing is believing.”

This common saying reflects the first and most important basis of the scientific method, which is the ability to observe any supposed scientific hypothesis, theory or law in action. Science observes physical evidence, and attempts to reason from that observed evidence to form ideas, tests and conclusions about how things work. If processes operate consistently, scientists attempt to represent their behavior in mathematical formulas for more precise understanding.

In the Bible, God declares that seeing things He made from the creation of the world is the reason why people can understand what cannot be observed, including His existence and awesome power. Moreover, He says visible evidence is so powerful that men have no excuse for not believing He exists:

“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:” (Rom. 1:20).

Amazingly, leading evolutionists, naturalists and atheists agree with intelligent design and creation advocates that our universe appears to be carefully designed. Considering this complete agreement, why is there an intelligent design vs. evolution debate at all? The reason for disagreement is that evolutionary atheists and naturalists don’t believe there is a conscious, intelligent designer. They disbelieve what they clearly observe, choosing instead to believe what they see is a grand illusion, and that incredibly complex design, including life, came about by natural means and not an intelligent, conscious Creator.

Evolutionist Scientists See Evidence of the Supernatural

An increasing number of evolutionist scientists have concluded there is some sort of supernatural plan or agency behind the laws and constants of physics, because of how minutely precise they must be for the universe or life to exist at all.

A Wall Street Journal article reported:

“Scientists … often change their minds when they see new evidence. I was reminded of this a few months ago when I saw a survey in the journal ‘Nature’. It revealed that 40% of American physicists, biologists and mathematicians believe in God — and not just some metaphysical abstraction, but a deity who takes an active interest in our affairs and hears our prayers: the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.”

Jim Holt, Science Resurrects God, The Wall Street Journal, December 24, 1997, Dow Jones & Co.

‘Science’ is the most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal in the United States. Its August 1997 issue featured an article entitled Science and God: A Warming Trend? in which it said:

“The fact that the universe exhibits many features that foster organic life — such as precisely those physical constants that result in planets and long-lived stars — also has led some scientists to speculate that some divine influence may be present.”

What Leading Evolutionists Say About Intelligent Design

Physicist Dr. Stephen Hawking is regarded as one of the most brilliant scientific minds of this age. Although he declares himself an agnostic, he is clearly also an evolutionist, since he said:

“We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star.”

Stephen Hawking (quoted), Der Spiegel, October 17, 1988.

In an apparent turnaround, however, Hawking said:

“It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us. The whole history of the universe can be said to be the work of God.”

Stephen Hawking, The Theory of Everything: The Origin and Fate of the Universe, Agawam, Massachusetts: New Millennium Press 2002, p. 117.

In a similar vein, Hawking conceded:

“The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the Big Bang are enormous … I think clearly there are religious implications whenever you start to discuss the origins of the universe.”

Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes, New York New York: Bantam Books 1998, p. 128.

Richard Dawkins is the leading evolutionist and spokesperson for evolution today. In his famous book The Blind Watchmaker, he says:

“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”

“Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.”

Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, New York, New York: Penguin 2006, pp. 1, 21.

The following quotes are from Dawkin’s book, The God Delusion:

“One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect, over the centuries, has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.”

“The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself. In the case of a man-made artifact such as a watch, the designer really was an intelligent engineer. It is tempting to apply the same logic to an eye or a wing, a spider or a person.”

Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, Boston, Massachusetts: Mariner Books 2008, p. 157-158.

Phillip E. Johnson cites the renowned geneticist Francis Crick in order to illustrate the fact that the biological world has the strong appearance of being designed:

“One of the world’s most famous scientists, probably the most famous living biologist, is Sir Francis Crick, the British co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, a Nobel Prize winner… Crick is also a fervent atheistic materialist, who propounds the particle story. In his autobiography, Crick says very candidly biologists must remind themselves daily that what they study was not created, it evolved; it was not designed, it evolved. Why do they have to remind themselves of that? Because otherwise, the facts which are staring them in the face and trying to get their attention might break through. What we discovered when I developed a working group of scientists, philosophers, et al., in the United States was that living organisms look as if they were designed and they look that way because that is exactly what they are.”

Phillip E. Johnson, Essay: Evolution And Christian Faith.

Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery, New York, New York: Basic Books 1990, p. 138.

Moreover, Crick has written several times that problems with an undirected origin of life on earth are so great that we should consider the idea that space aliens sent a rocket ship to the earth to seed it with spores to begin life. Crick also stongly recommends Dawkin’s book The Blind Watchmaker, which says plainly that living things have the appearance of design.

Crick also wrote:

“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going.”

Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, New York, NY: Simon & Schuster 1982, p. 88.

Sir Fred Hoyle was a distinguished British astronomer and Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University, evolutionist and agnostic. He developed the steady state theory of cosmology and was considered for the Nobel Prize, though it was given to his underlings. In 1982, Hoyle presented Evolution from Space for the Royal Institution’s Omni Lecture. After considering the very remote probability of evolution he concluded:

“If one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of …”

Hoyle, Fred, Evolution from Space, Omni Lecture, Royal Institution, London, January 12, 1982, pp. 27–28.

After years of study, Hoyle estimated the chances of the random emergence of even the simplest cell:

“The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that ‘a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein’.”

Hoyle on Evolution. Nature, vol. 294, 12 Nov. 1981, p. 105.

He also compared the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a solar system full of blind men solving Rubik’s Cube simultaneously.

“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe: A New View of Creation and Evolution, London: Michael Joseph Limited 1983.

Hoyle further said:

“The likelihood (probability) of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to number with 40,000 noughts after it … It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.”

Sir Fredrick Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, New York, New York: Simon & Schuster 1984, p. 148.

Even non-living things appear intricately and carefully designed, including our entire galaxy. Cristina Chiappini is a research scientist at the Osservatorio Astronomico di Trieste. Aside from her theoretical work on the Milky Way’s formation, she also observes planetary nebulae to trace their contribution to the galaxy’s chemical evolution.

In 2001, Cristina Chiappini wrote the following regarding the Milky Way galaxy:

“… it is an elegant structure that shows both order and complexity … The end product is especially remarkable in the light of what is believed to be the starting point: nebulous blobs of gas. How the universe made the Milky Way from such simple beginnings is not altogether clear.”

Cristina Chiappini, The Formation and Evolution of the Milky Way, American Scientist (vol. 89, Nov./Dec. 2001), p. 506.

Ilya Prigogine was an eminent chemist and physicist who received two Nobel Prizes in chemistry. Regarding probability of life originating by accident, he said:

“The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero.”

I. Prigogine, N. Gregair, A. Babbyabtz, Physics Today 25, pp. 23-28.

Paul Davies is a noted physicist, cosmologist, astrobiologist and author, was Professor of Mathematical Physics at The University of Adelaide, and helped found the Australian Centre for Astrobiology in Sydney, Australia.

However, Davies stated:

“The impression of design is overwhelming.”

Paul Davies, The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature’s Creative Ability To Order the Universe, New York, New York: Simon and Schuster 1988, p. 203.

“The laws [of physics] … seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design … The universe must have a purpose.”

Paul Davies, Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature, New York, New York: Simon & Schuster 1984, p. 243.

“I belong to the group of scientists who do not subscribe to a conventional religion but nevertheless deny that the universe is a purposeless accident. Through my scientific work I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as a brute fact. There must, it seems to me, be a deeper level of explanation. Whether one wishes to call that deeper level ‘God’ is a matter of taste and definition.”

“I hope the foregoing discussion will have convinced the reader that the natural world is not just any old concoction of entities and forces, but a marvelously ingenious and unified mathematical scheme … these rules look as if they are the product of intelligent design. I do not see how that can be denied.”

Paul Davies, The Mind of God: The Scientific Basis for a Rational World, New York, New York: Simon & Schuster 1993, p. 16, 214.

Christian de Duve is an internationally acclaimed organic chemist, and received a Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine for describing the structure and function of organelles in biological cells. Regarding chance assembly of even a single bacteria, he says:

“If you equate the probability of the birth of a bacteria cell to chance assembly of its atoms, eternity will not suffice to produce one. Faced with the enormous sum of lucky draws behind the success of the evolutionary game, one may legitimately wonder to what extent this success is actually written into the fabric of the universe.”

Christian de Duve, A Guided Tour of the Living Cell, New York, New York: W.H. Freeman & Company; 1984.

Stephen Weinberg is a Nobel Laureate in High Energy Physics and self-described agnostic. Writing in Scientific American, he said:

“… how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.”

John Wheeler, the eminent theoretical physicist who helped invent the theory of nuclear fission and coined the term “black hole”, said:

“A life-giving factor lies at the center of the whole machinery and design of the world.”

John Wheeler, from John Barrow and Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, Oxford, England: Clarendon Press 1986, Introduction, p. vii.

Alan Sandage, world renowned cosmologist and winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy, said:

“I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.”

Alan Sandage, J.N. Willford Sizing up the Cosmos: An Astronomers Quest, New York Times, March 12, 1991, p. B9.

George Ellis, astrophysicist is considered one of the leading theorists in cosmology, and co-authored the book The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time with physicist Stephen Hawking. Regarding complexity of the laws of our universe, he said:

“Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word ‘miraculous’ without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word.”

George Ellis, The Anthropic Principle: Laws and Environments The Anthropic Principle, F. Bertola and U. Curi, ed., New York, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993, p. 30.

The eminent astrophysicist Arno Penzias was co-awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for discovery of a faint microwave background radiation throughout the universe, which lent strong support to the big-bang model of cosmic evolution. However, he admitted:

“Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.”

Arno Penzias, Cosmos, Bios, and Theos, Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed., La Salle, Illinois: Open Court Publishing, 1992, p. 83.

Michael Turner, the widely quoted astrophysicist at the University of Chicago and Fermilab, describes the fine-tuning of the universe as follows:

“The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bulls eye one millimeter in diameter on the other side.”

Robin Collins “The Evidence for Fine-Tuning” in God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science, ed. Neil Manson, New York, New York: Routledge, 2003.

What Charles Darwin Said About the Creator and Designed Laws

Charles Darwin himself conceded in The Origin of Species:

“all existing terrestrial life must have descended from some primitive life form that was called into life “by the Creator”!”

Charles Darwin The Origin of Species, 1900, p. 316.

The eye on the tail of the peacock is a thing of awesome beauty, with an intensely blue center surrounded by iridescent concentric colored circles. It is enjoyed as the peacock raises and displays his plumage, and seems to have no purpose but to please the observer. Darwin called the peacock the most splendid of living birds. Of this, Darwin writes:

“That these ornaments should have been formed through the selection of many successive variations, not one of which was originally intended to produce the ball-and-socket effect, seems as incredible as that one of Raphael’s Madonnas should have been formed by the selection of chance daubs of paint made by a long succession of artists, not one of whom intended at first to draw the human figure.”

Darwin said:

“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states the following candid admissions of Charles Darwin:

In an 1860 (post ‘Origin of Species’) letter to Asa Gray, Darwin says:

“I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance.”

Darwin to Asa Gray, [a minister] May 22, 1860.

In 1885, the Duke of Argyll recounted a conversation he had had with Charles Darwin the year before Darwin’s death:

“In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the ‘Fertilisation of Orchids’, and upon ‘The Earthworms’, and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature — I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of Mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin’s answer. He looked at me very hard and said, “Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,” and he shook his head vaguely, adding, “it seems to go away.””

Duke of Argyll, Good Words, April 1885, p. 244.

Thomas Huxley, often known as “Darwin’s Bulldog” for his strong advocacy of Darwin’s theory of evolution, was an English biologist. He wrote:

“’Creation,’ in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence, and that it made its appearance in six days (or instantaneously, if that is preferred), in consequence of the volition of some preexisting Being. Then, as now, the so-called a priori arguments against Theism and, given a Deity, against the possibility of creative acts, appeared to me to be devoid of reasonable foundation.”

Thomas H. Huxley, L. Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. I, 1903, p. 241.

Since Evolutionists Agree the Universe and Life Appears Designed, Why Don’t They Believe What They See?

Special creation by God is obvious, since experience throughout history reveals advanced complexity always comes from an intelligent designer. Complexity in our most advanced technology and machines exists only because it is designed by living intelligence, so how can people believe otherwise with infinitely more complex and purposeful machinery throughout the entire inorganic universe and in every form of life?

Professor Robert Jastrow was founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute, and is now director of the Mount Wilson Institute and its observatory. He observed:

“This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible: In the beginning God created heaven and earth… [But] for the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; [and] as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, New York, NY: W.W. Norton and Co., 1978, p. 116.

Seeing is believing, according to God and genuine science, but leading evolutionists have concluded seeing is not believing. They fully acknowledge that the universe and life appear to be designed, but unscientifically and irrationally conclude it was not designed. Instead of reasoning from observed evidence to the logical and scientific conclusion that there is a designer of the universe and life, evolutionists assume against all odds that there is no designer, force fit all observed evidence into their idea, and ignore the obvious. To support this materialist notion, they even imagine that there must be vast numbers of additional universes and dimensions without the barest shred of observational evidence. It is profound how far people will go to avoid God’s existence.

Simply put, there can never be enough evidence to convince someone of something they don’t want to believe. More information doesn’t help if one isn’t open in advance to go wherever the evidence leads. Knowledge is vital, but when it comes to knowledge of God, Pascal said it well:

“Human knowledge must be understood to be loved, but divine knowledge must be loved to be understood.”

Many claim they don’t have enough information to believe in a Creator, and for some this is true, but often this is just a cover up because people don’t want God, and have already rejected Him in their hearts. To evade addressing vast and consistent evidence we already have for a living, intelligent Creator, evolutionary atheists often accuse people who believe in God of calling anything that is not yet scientifically understood ‘god’, while clinging steadfastly to the hope that conclusive evidence will eventually be found for evolution. This kind of belief without a single working example is blind faith in the ‘religion’ of evolution, not science.

As a world leader in evolutionary biology, atheist, and self-proclaimed Marxist, Richard Lewontin admitted:

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, January 9, 1997.

People can gain substantial information intellectually, but when it comes to God the Bible says our natural minds are devoid of truth and our understanding darkened. We are alienated from new life in God because of ignorance, but the root cause is hardness and callousness of our hearts.

The Creator Was Pushed Aside

Today, many people believe evolution simply because that is what they were taught by trusted sources in the educational system. However, blind faith in anyone for issues that may affect the eternal welfare of us and our loved ones is not a wise or scientific approach. This isn’t the first time that the majority of scientists are mistaken, despite modern day promotion of evolution as scientific fact.

For the source of evolutionary belief, one must consider how the world largely forgot the true Creator long ago, choosing to worship the created objects of the universe instead of the Creator Himself. The Bible explains how this occurred:

“Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things … Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen … And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind.” (Rom. 1:21-23, 25, 28a).

The popular myth of evolution is one of the most fundamental deceptions throughout the ages, and began in basic form thousands of years before Darwin. Its primary intent is to show the universe and everything therein was created by natural, random processes, and that a Creator was unnecessary.

All mankind originally recognized the existence of the true God, but due to man’s thanklessness and vain imaginations, mankind’s heart became foolish and darkened, and the great lie of evolutionary naturalism was created as the foundation for atheism and the vast majority of false religions and cults, to worship the things of nature God created instead of their Creator, denying Him. Whey people resolutely deny God, their reasoning becomes vain, they proudly affirm their own wisdom while becoming fools, and their mind eventually becomes unfit, losing even the ability to reason accurately on this essential matter.

Naturalistic atheism and polytheism are two sides of the same counterfeit coin. Among all major ‘religions’ today, the only belief systems based on a Creator are orthodox Christianity, Judaism and Islam, and the rest have an evolutionary basis for their ‘gods’ or are atheistic philosophies of this present life. Some religions retain the concept of a Creator hidden in a dark corner of their beliefs, but from a practical standpoint the Creator has been pushed aside to worship nature-based false gods.

God said ungodly men “hold the truth in unrighteousness” (Rom. 1:18b), literally meaning irreverent and unjust men are holding back the truth unjustly, to deceive others that there is not a personal Creator, as is done with the lie of evolution. Naturalism is fundamentally worship of the creation instead of the Creator, imagined because of man’s thanklessness, vanity, and foolish, darkened heart.

Evolution is the ultimate exercise in illogic, imagined to work exactly opposite from observed science, and reveals how deeply man’s desperation is to deny the true God so he can be his own self-centered little ‘god’. Rather than create order or life, evolution is a spiritual cancer that corrupts and strangles to death anything it infiltrates.

Ignoring the Obvious

The word ‘obvious’ means easy to see and perceive, and complex design in nature is obvious to anyone willing to see it. Science demands that one reason from the evidence to draw objective and accurate conclusions, but evolutionists ignore evidence they see that clearly reveals a Creator, claim evolution is assumed fact, and force fit all observed evidence into the evolutionary story no matter how absurd the explanation is.

Creationists and evolutionists agree that the universe and life appear to be designed. However, creationists and intelligent design advocates acknowledge that an intelligent Creator exists and evolutionists do not. Why do naturalists/evolutionists reject the obvious? According to God, those who deny His existence simply do not want to retain God in their knowledge, that is, they simply do not want to acknowledge God, and because of their resolute and steadfast denial, God gives them up to the unfit mind they freely chose.

Spiritual Light and Darkness

Jesus Christ said:

“Light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.” (John 3:19b-20).

If there is an extremely intelligent Creator, then it logically follows that the Creator had a specific purpose in designing and creating us. Moreover, since we have the power of independent choice, conscience and reason, it logically follows that the Creator will evaluate each of us according to how well we fulfilled His purpose. However, many find the idea of accountability to anyone but themselves repulsive, and most intensely accountability to a Creator who knows all our true motives, thoughts and actions.

Therefore, people first reject God in their hearts, and then find a way to rationalize this irrational decision in their minds. Men don’t want to expose themselves to God’s absolute light of holiness, which reveals every single person as corrupt and in desperate need of a Savior to reconcile us with God. As man’s Creator and only Savior indicated, a person’s natural response is to hate and spurn spiritual light and hide in the darkness of rationalized ignorance, so he can proudly remain his own ‘god’, and vainly imagine he is accountable to no one but himself.

For those who have seen the movie The Matrix, ignoring God’s existence and perfection and our need of His salvation is like taking the blue pill in denial, going back to sleep and living in a pretend world, instead of taking the red pill, seeing ourselves and this world from God’s true perspective, and revealing how self-centered and corrupt we all are. Only if we have the humility and courage to face this unpleasant reality about ourselves, can we avail ourselves of the one true cure God has mercifully and graciously provided us in Christ.

Whenever God’s light illumines our heart, we can either follow Him or turn away. When anyone is humbly willing to turn from their own self-centered life and truly consider God, God will provide them spiritual light, reveal Himself to that person, they will know He is real, and He will transform them by the renewing of their minds. When one isn’t willing to turn from a self-centered life in rebellion against God, they will be blinded to any amount of evidence no matter how obvious, and deny what children can easily see and believe. Only if human pride and self-righteousness die can true hope for anyone begin, and may it be possible to rise again in new life.

The underlying reason behind rejection of God is not normally a lack of information or intellect, but a stubborn unwillingness to turn from spiritual darkness to light that overrides and blinds reason. People often pretend they have intellectual problems with the existence of God, but it is usually a spiritual problem at heart. When people are opposed to the idea of God, more information is only a useless band-aid when spiritual heart surgery is the only cure for survival. The key reason people reject the idea of an intelligent Creator is because they reject genuine spiritual light. This includes the light of God’s revelation, the light of conscience, and the light of knowledge.

The fundamental problem of man is not ignorance, but his willingness to turn from his inherent sin nature and follow after the true God in good conscience, as best as he is aware. When people are genuinely willing to turn to God, God gives them more light. Many simply do not want God, and have already rejected the light of God whether or not they have already heard the gospel of Christ.

The Folly of Atheism

The vast majority of atheists falsely claim evolution is a proven scientific fact, and therefore that the Bible is also false starting at the very beginning Creation account.

In the Bible, God says:

“The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God.” (Psalm 14:1a).

God says those who deny His existence are fools, and the word for fool (Heb. nabal) means senseless or insane. Atheism is what is called a “universal negative.” One of the laws of philosophic logic is you can’t prove a universal negative. To prove there is no God or no anything else is impossible, since one would have to examine every part of the universe simultaneously throughout eternity, ironically requiring the power and omniscience of God! Therefore, atheism is patently illogical, and those who persist in this deluded belief are not reasonable.

Neither evolution nor atheism can be evaluated according to the scientific method, and atheism, as a universal negative, is a logical fallacy. Evolution is an unscientific concept, although many scientists ardently believe it.

Every part of the universe can’t be examined simultaneously at any one time, let alone for all time, so it is impossible to know there is no intelligent, conscious Creator (God). This is why atheism and all universal negatives are irrational, as logical fallacies. Atheism is based on a completely unprovable assumption there is no God, not a proven fact as atheists insist.

Unlike atheism, it is not a logical fallacy to claim something exists, though people may disagree whether something exists or not. God exists, and intricate and precise design and purpose is extremely powerful evidence for the Creator’s existence. To say one doesn’t know if God exists is often an honest position, but to categorically say God or anything doesn’t exist is irrational according to the laws of logic.

Although falsely promoted as science, evolutionary naturalism is an irrational attempt to deny existence of a Creator that is incompatible with true science, including the laws of thermodynamics, paleontology, and genetics.

Christ’s Gracious Offer of New Life

Although our world has been temporarily corrupted by evil, the precise design, magnificence and purpose of God’s original creation remains evident and obvious. Despite modern day dominance of naturalism in academia, the vast majority of people intuitively grasp that life must have come from an intelligent designer, not random chance via evolution, and continue to believe in a Creator. For an intricately ordered universe and life to suddenly appear out of nothing, believing in an intelligent Creator is much more reasonable and intuitive, requiring much less faith than naturalism, and there are no other choices.

Comparing intelligent design vs. evolution, evidence for the miracle of God’s Creation is all around us, if we are only willing to see it. Moreover, rock solid historical, scientific and prophetic evidence shows conclusively that the Creator is Jesus Christ. His love for each of us is so great that He redeemed His fallen creation through His own ultimate sacrifice. The least each of us can do is acknowledge God’s existence, thankfully accept His unspeakable gift of new and eternal life in Christ, and abide in His love.

If you have not already done so, don’t wait, but reconcile yourself to Christ now.

About the Author


Go to Miracles or Magic? home page.

18 thoughts on “Intelligent Design vs. Evolution: The Miracle of Intelligent Design

  1. Hello Mr. Roybal,

    I am visiting your website after meeting you today. Today, I felt consumed with stress, as I have been stressing about the purchase of our first home. However, after meeting and talking to you and I was humbled and reminded of the goodness of God. I also wanted to share with you that I have read your article “Intelligent Design vs. Evolution” during one of my religious courses and it was a pleasure to be able to put a face to an influencial article. I hope you continue to inspire people by spreading the word of God with your talent, as you have inspired me.

  2. Can I just say what a comfort to find someone that actually understands what they are discussing online. You certainly realize how to bring an issue to light and make it important.

    More and more people need to read this and understand this side of the story.

    I can’t believe you’re not more popular given that you surely have the gift.

  3. Intelligent Design and evolution need not conflict. In quantum physics, there is a concept called “complementarity”, for example, the electron is both a particle and a wave depending upon the nature of the observation. This is sometimes illustrated by Gestalt images, such as the one which can be perceived as either a duck or a rabbit. To say that it is the image of a duck is correct and to say that it is the image of a rabbit is equally correct, although neither gives the whole truth. The issue of mental state vs brain state may be looked at in a similar manner (the “double-aspect” theory of mind and brain) and so, I suggest, may the ID/evolution-by-natural-selection issue.

  4. According to the writing, Adam and Eve were the first humans created by God, who lived approximately 6,000 years ago. According to the science, humans existed a long time before. The two lines of thought can be easily united, thanks to the omnipotence of God, who in the beginning created humans in a reality where there was no concept of “evil”. Metaphorically speaking, Adam and Eve were expelled from this heavenly reality, find himself in another reality, namely in today’s reality that we all know, where there is the concept of evil, as well as that of the well; not necessarily a reality where they were the first humans, but the first who experienced firsthand the life God had reserved for them (so they were the first humans in the “perfect” reality). From here it is clear that the story of Adam and Eve does not upset in the least bit the evolutionary linearity. In practice, they were the first men of God; whereas prehistoric man lived before Adam and Eve was a man, but it could be considered as an animal evolved from apes or created by something else, which had two arms and two legs, and that may have hybridated with the descendants of Adam And Eve after they were “moved away” from the “perfect reality”. God has endowed man about the concept of “infinity” and “eternity”, as well as other questions can not be explained through the use of the scientific method, thus making humans free to believe in God or not, in a reality for us tricky and necessary for the construction and continuation of his project.

  5. Alister McGrath, with whom I find myself in agreement on virtually ever occasion, wrote, in “The Dawkins Delusion” (page 30), a paragraph condemnatory of intelligent design:

    “The real problem here, however, is the forced relocation of God by
    doubtless well-intentioned Christian apologists into the hidden recesses
    of the universe, beyond evaluation or investigation. Now that’s
    a real concern. For this strategy is still used by the intelligent design
    movement—a movement, based primarily in North America, that
    argues for an “intelligent Designer” based on gaps in scientific explanation,
    such as the “irreducible complexity” of the world. It is not an
    approach which I accept, either on scientific or theological grounds.
    In my view, those who adopt this approach make Christianity
    deeply—and needlessly—vulnerable to scientific progress.”

    I am flabbergasted, and in total disagreement. I am however, at a loss for words.

    I would most appreciate your thoughts on this.


    (Dr.) Sandy Kramer
    8908 East Altadena Ave.
    Scottsdale, AZ 85260

  6. Enjoyed examining this, very good stuff, thankyou . While thou livest keep a good tongue in thy head. by William Shakespeare.

  7. Thomas,
    Electromagnetic waves (Radio waves) travel at the speed of light. What you refer to as magnetic waves are alternating magnetic fields (which means that the magnetic field is produced by an alternating electrical current applied to a coil) Such a field propagates faster than the speed of light. The same is true for alternating electrical fields.


  8. The author’s use of the quote by Darwin is incomplete and deceptive:

    “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”

    Darwin’s full statement was as follows:

    “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei [“the voice of the people = the voice of God “], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.”

    The point he makes is obvious, what may seem absurd is not necessarily unfeasible. He gives the example of the Earth revolving around the Sun, which may seem initially absurd as it is not intuitively obvious. We can find examples of simpler forms of eyes which still benefit the creature, which show that apparent absurdity are meaningless, unless one can scientifically disprove the notion.

    This is dishonest quote mining. One shouldn’t have to lie in order to support a true idea.

    The following is a small bonus, to those who may not understand that being called a theory is not, in any way, a detriment to the theory of evolution:

    That evolution happens is an observed scientific fact, and the theory of evolution is the explanation of that fact, and the other facts of biology, i.e. the similarities between organisms, how differences arise between populations of organisms.

    In the same way, gravitational theory explains the facts we see in the world regarding the movements of objects near earth, as well as the movement of the Earth and other planets around the Sun.

    The germ theory of disease explains the facts we see regarding how infections spread, within an individual or a population.

    • There is no lie or misrepresentation in the quote from Darwin you mention.

      The point of the quote and quotes from other evolutionists is that they clearly see what appears to be complex design, although they believe in evolution and often claim it as scientific fact nonetheless.

      • Darwin’s full quote explains that it is not absurd for the human eye to be as complex as it is (in fact it has some flaws that an intelligent designer would not design into it), because his new theory gave a framework to explain it.

        Anyway, regardless of what Darwin said or believed, we know that evolution happens, the evidence is overwhelming.

        The appearance of design is the result of natural selection, organisms are designed by their environment, it sometimes “rewards” or “punishes” the natural variations that arise in populations as a result of our imperfect DNA replication mechanisms; It is what makes Darwin’s discovery of it important. We now understand how organisms may gain the appearance of design, and how life on Earth could become so diverse, even without an intelligent designer.

        • Darwin’s ‘theory’ was not new, since evolutionary concepts appeared in mythology and pagan religions for many thousands of years. Darwin just provided a pseudo scientific framework for this belief.

          Evidence for design is overwhelming, but evidence for evolution has consistently been found wanting. You may wish to read my articles on The Fossil Record and Creation or Evolution on this same site for further information.

    • Actually given that Darwin’s theory as described in his own book is so thoroughly debunked (by all parties) that Quoting him is like a teacher quoting Alchemists on the search for the philosopher’s stone as gospel truth in chemistry class, one would think Darwin’s opinions on the topic would have zero validity, regardless of what he said.

      • Although many evolutionists today might disavow some views and comments of Darwin, he is still regarded as the father of modern evolutionary thought, and this makes him relevant.

        In any case, the article’s conclusions would remain unchanged even without the Darwin quotes.

  9. My comment is not on evolution particularly but on scientists in general. Many so called scientists want to turn theories into facts rather than to let the facts speak for themselves. Einstein said that if the facts don’t agree with the theory, we simply change the facts. He must have said it as a joke, but I believe that many self proclaimed scientists follow that rule.
    It appears to me that mainstream science has two main branches: “Darwinism” and “Einsteinism”, neither one should be considered a science since both are based on arguments rather than facts. Michelson himself did not accept the outcome of the 1887 “Michelson-Morley” experiment. I think he proved it with the “Michelson-Gale” experiment later. Then there is the Sagnac effect which let to the modern “Laser Gyro”; it contradicts Einstein also. If facts do get into the way of their theories, then followers come out of the woodwork to defend their religion, as it was the case with Cern’s faster than light speed neutrino experiment.

    My brother and have discovered that magnetic fields and electrical fields when acting separately (not in form of an electromagnetic wave) propagate infinitely faster than the speed of light. Our experiments are described in the web pages: and Has any one tried to duplicate our experiments? No. All we get is ridicule, insults, and lame explanations that we are reading our results wrong. One explanation is that what we see is a near-field evanescent wave which is quite common. The only problem with that theory is that we have measured the speed of the individual fields over several wave length.

    Anyway, what I am trying to say is that in my opinion the followers of Darwinism and Einsteinism try to get some of the glory that comes with these two major “religions” for themselves.

    My brother and I feel that when it comes to science, you can not become emotionally attached to one theory or another; let the facts speak for themselves, otherwise, science becomes scientism.

    Adolf Erdmann

    • That evolution happens is an observed scientific fact, and the theory of evolution is the explanation of that fact, and the other facts of biology, i.e. the similarities between organisms, how differences arise between populations of organisms.

      In the same way, gravitational theory explains the facts we see in the world regarding the movements of objects near earth, as well as the movement of the Earth and other planets around the Sun.

      The germ theory of disease explains the facts we see regarding how infections spread, within an individual or a population.

    • CERN’s apparent reading of faster-than-light neutrinos turned out to be the result of errors in the experiment as you can see here:

      I’d like to give your experiment a try. Obviously, I’m skeptical, my understanding is that electric and magnetic waves are inextricably linked, and I think perhaps the conclusions you draw from your data are not the correct ones; I’m not sure that the readings on the oscilloscope mean what you think they do. First I need to learn more about oscilloscopes and do the experiments.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *