IS THERE A GOD? there must be! If you ask, Why? I would say because Creation shows purpose.— Do I mean design?— Not exactly. Design and purpose are no doubt the same thing in some connections; but I use purpose in a sense different from the meaning usually attached to “design” in arguments about God. I mean a purpose invested in Creation itself. When men say Creation shows design, they mean that it is so wisely made that it must have had a Maker: that as the hand is so exactly adapted for prehension, it must have had an Adapter: that as the eye is so exquisitely contrived for sight, it must have had a Contriver. Creation shows a purpose that it should be carried on, the capacity for reproduction attaching to every plant and animal under the sun. Evolutionist contend that the various existing forms of life have been evolved and shaped through what might be called the stress of necessity blindly acting upon them through circumstances; thus, the birds are supposed to have gradually got their wings through wanting to fly, the fishes their fins through wanting to swim; the men their legs and arms through wanting to walk and handle things, and so on. Exercise is supposed to have developed them more and more through long ages.
Creation Vs Evolution
One of the most remarkable examples of engineering complexity is flight. The mechanisms behind flight are so intricate, that the serious study of flight in the natural world leads many to conclude that this is entirely consistent with intelligent design, in spite of years spent in designing and testing, aircraft remain less versatile than the common house sparrow! Is it really a matter of science, then, to assume that natural 'machines' are not designed? Surely it is not scientific reasoning per se that causes some scientists to deny the Creative hand behind such masterpieces of aeronautical engineering in the natural world. Rather, it is due to minds being so gripped by the atheistic, humanistic assumptions to begin with, which forces them to reject a Divine hand behind such aerobatic skill and beauty as we see in the skies each day. It is the religious assumption of materialism (viz. that there is only material in the world we see around us), which is the unproven bedrock of evolution theory.
The shifting sands of the theory of Evolution, its inability to explain the mystery of life, and the absence of grounds for the faith of evolutionists have been clearly demonstrated in a series of articles in the "Observer" coloured supplements for February 1970. One article entitled "The evolution of evolution” outlined the changes, which had had to be made to Darwin's theory as the result of increased knowledge, and indicated that these changes were themselves in the process of change.
THE REASON Hoyle used the term “psychological is the self-conditioning of evolutionists not to accept that life could have been created.” These people have determined the rejection of God’s existence as their main target. For this reason alone, they go on defending unreasonable scenarios, which they also acknowledge to be impossible.
The theory of evolution faces no greater crisis than on the point of explaining the emergence of life. The reason is that organic molecules are so complex that their origin cannot possibly be explained as being coincidental and it is manifestly impossible for an organic cell to have been formed by chance. Evolutionists confronted the question of the origin of life in the second quarter of the 20th century. One of the leading authorities on the theory of molecular evolution, the Russian evolutionist Alexander I. Oparin, said this in his book The Origin of Life, which was published in 1936: “Unfortunately, the origin of the cell remains a question, which is actually the darkest point of the complete evolution theory.”