Is evolution really proven by science? Take a look inside the cell and see for yourself.

One of my favorite books of all time is: Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Michael J. Behe:

Darwin's Black Box

The “Black Box’ is the cell. This book describes the inner workings of the cell. The cell is compared to a major city, with food delivery and trash pickup services.

Another one of my favorite books of all time is The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God by Lee Strobel

The Case for a Creator: by Lee Strobel

(More of my favorite books are here)

Lee Strobel was an atheist journalist. His wife became a Christian and it blew his mind. Afterwards, he went all over the USA and interviewed scientists about why they believed in God.

After interviewing many people who gave scientific evidence for their faith, he became convinced that God exists.

Michael Behe is one of the scientists that Lee Strobel interviewed. The Case for a Creator follows Strobel’s journey as the evidence stacks up against evolution and convinces him that God exists.

The video below has some of the information that convinced Lee Strobel that life required a creator, and thus there is a God.

As you will see in the video, there is an amazing piece of machinery called the bacterial flagellum in some cells.

When Michael Behe, biochemist, Lehigh University first saw the bacterial flagellum, he said “this is an outboard motor”:

 

As Behe says in the video:

Darwinism was a lot more plausible when we were thinking of globs of protoplasm than it is when we are thinking of molecular machines.

Bacteria is said, by mainstream science, to be among the first life-forms to evolve. Bacteria is called “simple life”. Is it really simple? Watch the video and see for yourself.

Another concept Behe talks about in his book and in this video is what he calls “Irreducible Complexity”.

Irreducible Complexity is where all of the parts have to be together in the beginning for anything to work. His famous example is a mousetrap. He talks about this concept in the video.

Charles Darwin said: in chapter six of Origin of Species:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Is evolution really a fact? Watch this video. You may be surprised.

X

Share with Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, StumbleUpon, etc

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under Reasons Why I Believe in God

One response to “Is evolution really proven by science? Take a look inside the cell and see for yourself.

  1. Bill

    Do you agree with Behe when he says;
    “When two lineages share what appears to be an arbitrary genetic accident, the case for common descent becomes compelling, just as the case for plagiarism becomes overpowering when one writer makes the same unusual misspellings of another, within a copy of the same words. That sort of evidence is seen in the genomes of chimps and chimpanzees. For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. As a result, neither humans nor chimps can make their own vitamin C. If an ancestor of the two species originally sustained the mutation and then passed it to both descendant species, that would neatly explain the situation.

    More compelling evidence for the shared ancestry of humans and other primates comes from their hemoglobin—not just their working hemoglobin, but a broken hemoglobin gene, too. …. In the region between the two gamma genes and a gene that works after birth, human DNA contains a broken gene (called a “psedugoene”) that closely resembles a working gene for a beta chain, but has features in its sequence that preclude it from coding successfully for a protein.

    Chimp DNA has a very similar pseudogene at the same position. The beginning of the human pseudogene has two particular changes in two nucleotides that seem to deactivate the gene. The chimp pseudogene has the exact same changes. A bit further down in the human pseudogene is a deletion mutation, where one particular letter is missing. For technical reasons, the deletion irrevocably messes up the gene’s coding. The very same letter is missing in the chimp gene. Toward the end of the human pseduogene another letter is missing. The chimp pseudogene is missing it, too.

    The same mistakes in the same gene in the same positions of both human and chimp DNA. If a common ancestor first sustained the mutational mistakes and subsequently gave rise to those two modern species, that would very readily account for why both species have them now. It’s hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans.

    That strong evidence from the pseudogene points well beyond the ancestry of humans. Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.”

    ?

    Ken Miller refutes the “irreducible complexity” of mousetraps

    http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

    http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s