Assumption-Based Rejection of Design
In a recent New Scientist article titled “Evolution: A Guide for the Not-Yet Perplexed,” Michael Le Page expressed great confidence in The General Theory of Evolution, even going so far as to declare, “Evolution is as firmly established a scientific fact as the roundness of the Earth” (2008, 198:25). Le Page then proceeded to suggest various reasons why evolutionists reject Intelligent Design. After alleging the Earth is 4.5 billion years old (see DeYoung, 2005 and Thompson, 2001 for refutations of this idea), Le Page wrote:
Suppose for a moment that life was designed rather than having evolved. In that case organisms that appear similar might have very different internal workings, just as an LCD screen has a quite different mechanism to a plasma screen. The explosion of genomic research, however, has revealed that all living creatures work in essentially the same way: they store and translate information using the same genetic code, with only a few minor variations in the most primitive organisms (p. 26, emp. added).
Le Page continued: “[I]f organisms had been designed for particular roles, they might be unable to adapt to changing conditions. Instead, countless experiments…show that organisms of all kinds evolve when their environment is altered, provided the changes are not too abrupt” (p. 26, emp. added).
Notice Le Page’s reasons for rejecting Intelligent Design: (1) if life was designed, “organisms…might have very different internal workings,” and (2) designed organisms “might be unable to adapt” to changing environments (p. 26, emp. added). As should be obvious to anyone reading this recent issue of New Scientist, Le Page’s arguments are pure speculation. Neither the similarities in the genetic make-up of living organisms nor the ability of living things to adapt to their environments are reasons to reject design and accept evolution.
Creationists have long recognized similarities among animals and humans. In fact, such similarities (even on a cellular level) should be expected among creatures that drink the same water, eat the same food, breathe the same air, live on the same terrain, etc. But, similarities are just that—similarities. Evolutionists interpret these similarities to mean we all share common ancestors, but they cannot prove it. Likewise, the ability of animals to adapt to their surroundings could just as easily be explained as the product of an omniscient Designer programming life long ago with the ability to adapt to its environment.
New Scientist’s assumption-based rejection of design is completely unsubstantiated. Neither homology nor organisms’ adaptation abilities are proof of The General Theory of Evolution.
DeYoung, Don (2005), Thousands…Not Billions (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).
Le Page, Michael (2008), “Evolution: A Guide for the Not-Yet Perplexed,” New Scientist, 198:24-33, April 19.
Thompson, Bert (2001), “The Young Earth,” [On-line], URL: https://apologeticspress.org/articles/1991.
REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.