Believers in creation point to such complex structures in organisms as evidence for intelligent, purposeful design, i.e., for creation. On the other hand, believers in evolution claim that evolution provides mechanisms to explain their origin. Does it? The answer is NO! Dr. Macnab, in his review article referred to earlier, closes with the following admission: "As a final comment, one can only marvel at the intricacy, in a simple bacterium, of the total motor and sensory system which has been the subject of this review and remark that our concept of evolution by selective advantage must surely be an oversimplification. What advantage could derive, for example, from a 'preflagellum' (meaning a subset of its components) and yet what is the probability of 'simultaneous' development of the organelle at a level where it becomes advantageous?"(CRC Crit. Rev. Biochem., 5, Dec. 1978, p. 333) In 1980 Prof. Howard Berg of the Calif. Institute of Technology, another authority on the subject, made a similar admission in a phone conversation with this writer, as did also Prof. William Thwaites of San Diego State University in a phone conversation aired live on talk radio in April of 1983.

It must be admitted, then, that neither evolution or creation provides a scientific mechanism to explain the origin of bacterial flagella. The actual situation is that evolution is the faith that there is a materialistic mechanism, and creation is the faith that the explanation is to be found in the intelligent, purposeful design effected by the infinite-personal Creator. And in view of the fact that, as we have shown in the outlined analysis on the next page of this essay, there is as yet no scientific evolutionary explanation for the origin of any complex biological structure or system, the only alternative explanation, special creation, appears logically to be the more satisfactory one. Only a fool would insist that the design of a watch could or did originate by chance. Since all designs which man has ever observed in the process of formation originated as the result of applied human intelligence directed toward the solution of particular problems, and since scientists who believe passionately in evolution have failed after more than a century to show how evolution have produced the designs of biological systems, it is entirely logical to conclude that biological system originated in the Mind of the Creator of all things.

To believe in divine creation does not make one "unscientific." It is logical and satisfying for the person who desires to place his faith in the intelligent, purposeful Creator God, rather than in dumb atoms. This faith is not satisfying to the person who desires to trust in chance and dumb atoms in a purposeless evolved universe. The choice between these two faiths is a religious choice, not a scientific one. It is an act of faith. But the believer in the God of Creation finds that he has much scientific evidence which supports his choice. This evidence is the whole vast system of interdependent design features which can be seen in the nuclei of atoms, the laws of physics and chemistry, in the fitness of the earth-sun-moon-galactic environment which affords the human race the only known habitable home in the entire universe, in the complex designs of living things, and, most persuasively, in the personal nature of man--intellect, affections, moral capacity and will. to believe our personal nature was designed and created to show forth and glorify the Creator is better than to believe we are nothing but slime improved by chance without purpose, goal, without goal, without reason for existence.

No Scientific Theory Explains the Origin of Complex Biological Designs

The two most basic elements of evolutionary explanations of the origin of new complex biological designs are still random genetic variation and natural selection. Random variations which appear occasionally in individuals in a population are considered to be the result usually of mutations (changes) in the genes or chromosomes. Natural selection is the combined effects of the environment which cause certain variants in the population to be advantageous, so that individual possessing those variations are more successful in leaving descendants which shore those variations.

1. Mutations and natural selection:

a. Can only alter what already exists. They cannot alter what does not exist or explain how it came into existence.

b. The vast majority of mutations are deleterious or neutral at best.

2. Mutations and natural selection:

a. Have never been observed to produce a new complex structure or organ or new kind of animal.

b. The changes or variations observed in living populations are always limited. The change can go only so far and then ceases.

c. All organisms seem to be able to vary around an average type, but never far from the average.

d. Artificial selection, i.e., selective breeding by man of new varieties of plants and animals likewise reveals the same tendency for limited variation only. Cats are still cats, dogs still dogs, roses still roses. Large accumulated change leads to sterility.

3. The theory of evolution is built on the assumption that the limited changes that have been observed in nature, continued for millions of years, could indeed transform primeval slime into modern people.

a. This kind of thinking is called extrapolation. In extrapolation an observed set of data is the basis for inferring or assuming that other things not observed are also true.

b. Science deals with that which is observable and reproducible. But evolution of new kinds of plants and animals is not observed and cannot be reproduced in the laboratory.

4. The new discoveries in the four decades of molecular biology about the detailed structure of DNA molecules comprising the genes have failed so far to give evolutionary scientists a scientific theory for evolutionary change, i.e., the origination of complex new biological designs.

a. Molecular structures and rearrangements in DNA are so amazingly complex and puzzling that it has not been possible use them in a theory to explain the evolution of new complex biological designs.

b. If any scientist were given a complete catalogue of all the DNA coded information in the chromosomes of any organism:

1) He would not be able from the DNA to tell what the structure, functions and behavior of the organisms are. Therefore, there is no scientific theory of inheritance, for although we know much about how DNA is inherited, there is no general theory by which we can tell what structures, functions and behavior are being inherited.
2) He would not be able from the DNA to predict what the course of development from fertilized egg to adult will be. Therefore, there is no testable scientific theory for embryonic development.

c. At the molecular level, there is no testable or tested general scientific theory of speciation. But if there were, it would simply be an addition to the creation model.

d. It is evident, then, that there is no scientific theory of evolution change, no testable theory of the origin of new structures, of new kinds of organisms.

5. What evolutionary scientists do have is a faith or hope that sometime in the future they will be able to construct a scientific theory of inheritance, embryonic development, speciation, and macro-evolution. But such a faith or hope is not science. It serves many as a source of motivation for theorizing and research.

6. Christians who believe in creation also have a motivation for theorizing and research. As an example, Louis Pasteur was a Christian who believed in creation, and this belief was a motivation for some of his most famous experiments. These experiments on spontaneous generation were the basis for the Law of Biogenesis, the law that all life comes from previously existing life. Many other famous founders of modern science believed in creation.

Why is it, then, that Christians are not allowed to function in accord with their faith as students, teachers, scientists and scholars, on an equal basis of opportunity with believers in evolution?