All of reality looks purposefully designed/created
This is the strongest evidence for creationism/Intelligent design and the greatest threat to the theory of evolution and it's literally everywhere; it is the logical observation that pretty much everything in the universe is very complex and almost perfectly orderly in structure and looks created/designed on purpose for a purpose. For this logical and scientific observation alone, it can be strongly concluded that the universe was created by (a) powerful intelligent being(s)
Like a human made design such as a watch or even T.V. or even a computer/robot logically would not be concluded to have formed randomly by evolution over billions of years from those raw materials but instead carefully designed and built by (an) intelligent creator(s) (in this case; [a] human being[s]) so it’s naturally logical to conclude that the complex well-built/tuned designs in nature did not just evolve over billions of years from those raw materials/energies (and especially those raw materials/energies didn’t just come from nothing/ a tiny singularity) but were instead carefully designed and built by a(n) intelligent creator(s) (in this case [a] higher power(s) or more commonly known to humans as (a) God[s]).
This observation is commonly called the ‘argument by design’ or ‘teleological argument’ [1] (though many modern scientists see this as an argument against the long-held view of the theory of evolution, it’s really just a logical observation of reality: a scientific observation[s]).
However, something else should also he considered: while many might not deny that reality does look designed in many ways, some also might say that reality only just looks designed but isn't really: it just was formed by natural random processes that only seem to appear designed; can this idea possibly be true? Does reality only happen to look designed?
So, from the article above we can conclude: No, reality just doesn't look designed: really almost had to be designed because it pretty much impossible for reality to have formed the way it is now by naturally random chances.
Universal proof the Big bang/something similar did happen (but most likely not naturally/randomly)
While scientific laws and even some observations mostly disprove the majority of what the theory of Evolution states, there is Proof for one theory common in the modern overall theory of Evolution: that is the ultimate origin theory of the big bang:
Scientific observation’s/laws/theorems give proof that the Big Bang (or something like a big bang): thus, a beginning of the universe, did happen:
The General Theory of Relativity
A theory founded by Einstein’s equation stating how gravity affects space time and vice versa. This theory’s states, according to the calculations of the equation, that the universe in the past all came to a single point in space called a singularity[2].
Steven Hawking’s Singularity theorems
Theorems developed by Rodger Penrose and Steven Hawking confirming the theory of general relativity that singularities containing/warping space-time can and do happen. These theorems confirm that the universe began in a singularity[3].
The Doppler effect/Hubble’s law
Edwin Hubble observed many galaxies and what light they emitted he observed a majority of Galaxies were emitting a red light (or shift) and the most distant galaxies were very red; this meant that, according to the laws of physics, the majority of galaxies were moving away from earth/each other and the father galaxies were moving even faster away from Earth/each other; Thus, the universe seemed to be expanding. By logic, if the universe is expanding then going back in time the universe would get more and more condensed/closer together until all matter and energy met back at a single point/common origin (commonly called ‘the singularity’ or even ' the Photon Baryon soup/cosmic soup')[4].
Cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB)
Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman hypothesized If the big bang did happen there would be leftover radiation left over from the explosion all over the universe (that by now, over 13 billion years later, would be nothing more than weak electromagnetic microwaves).
And this was later found to be true: Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson of Bell Telephone Laboratories in Holmdel New Jersey accidentally founded this leftover radiation in the universe, proving this hypothesized radiation was real. Later the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite was launched into space to record the CMB better and recorded a visible ‘picture’ of the radiation strongly proving a big bang (or something like a big band/the Photon Baryon soup/cosmic soup) happened to begin the universe.[5]
however, this final observation from the findings of COBE is proof that this big bang had finely tuned ripples strongly suggesting intelligent intervention/power in controlling this big bang/cosmic soup:
The finely tuned ripples in the CMB
The COBE satellite also found that the CMB had:
“Very precise finely tuned ripples, the ripples show that the explosion and expansion of the universe was precisely tweaked to cause just enough matter to congregate to allow galaxy formation but not enough to cause the universe to collapse in on itself.”[6]
This almost certainly requires high intelligence and intense power to cause a very precisely controlled explosion to form the universe as it is. Something that seems very unlikely from a randomly naturally caused explosion, based on all ones known on Earth (and even in space). (once again going back to the fine-tuning 'problem' in reality looking designed)
Amino acids can form in water naturally with the right environment and chemicals
Amino acids, that are the core building blocks of proteins that make up many parts of the cell, were proven, in an experiment, to be able to form naturally. However, they can only form under very specific conditions and chemicals: in this experiment only a mixture of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor with a low oxygen environment and energy added produced amino acids suitable for building cellular machines and organelles. This proves that chemical evolution can happen under certain specific natural conditions, and these natural conditions imitated in this experiment seem to really mirror the very early conditions when earth was formed: so the experiment very likely happened in early Earth [7].
The existence and process of making pure Enantiomers/chiral molecules
Something very significant by its very existence are pure enantiomers found everywhere in life on Earth: in all organic life on Earth
Enantiomers are specific types of molecules that each atom’s bonded angle perfectly mirrors one another: on the atomic scale of physical reality these molecules look like a pair of perfectly matching shapes that can be put together like two pairs of hands or socks and be perfectly matched compared to being mirror images of each other.
Even more interesting, these Enantiomer pairs always form together in nature (if one forms the other one does as well) a mixture of these Enantiomer in a 50-50 mixture is called a Racemic.
However, what is strange about Enantiomers is even though they always form in a pair from raw materials, yet in living organisms (plants and animals/humans), only one Enantiomer from a pair (called a pure Enantiomer) is usually found:
“… living organisms usually produce only one enantiomer of a pair.…Indeed, we deal with optically active substances(that is pure Enantiomers) to an extent that we may not realize. We eat optically active bread and optically active meat, live in houses, wear clothes, and read books made of optically active cellulose. The proteins that make up our muscles and other tissues, the glycogen in our liver and in our blood, the enzymes and hormones that enable us to grow, and that regulate our bodily processes — all these are optically active(pure Enantiomers).[8A]"
However, this should be impossible (especially if life evolved naturally as evolution states) since Enantiomers always form in pairs and not only that, once the pairs/a racemic solution forms, it's pretty much impossible naturally to separate a single type of enantiomer from its opposite pair:
“...most physical properties of enantiomers has one consequence of great practical significance. They cannot be separated by ordinary methods:… because [they are soo]… identical …[8B]”
If it's pretty much impossible naturally then how did all these pure enantiomers molecules emerge in living cells?
Most Chemist who studied this have no idea:
“...As to the origin of the optically active enzymes(pure enantiomers) , we can only speculate.[8A]”
There are only two ways known to separate a racemic solution:
Either another already pure enantiomer has to be used to separate the mixture (which is itself produced from other already separately existing pure enantiomers) or a human (or any very intelligent being) must intentionally separate the mixture using very unnatural but specific methods.
This is very significant, because if we think about this logically, if enantiomer naturally form in pairs together and nothing naturally can separate them, then there should not be single pure enantiomers found in nature. but this is exact opposite that is found; as stated before, single pure enantiomer are everywhere in living plants and animals controlling cellular and bodily functions!
This would be impossible if living beings on Earth evolved with natural forces (as evolution states): the only other logical explanation known is an intelligent being (or beings) had to have deliberately separate this racemic into single pure enantiomer; this almost certainly had to be the case because even today the only known way racemic solutions can be separated is by very specific intervention by very intelligent humans who know what they're doing!
Not only is all this surprising, but the extent pure enantiomer have to form and be found for living cells to function is beyond all odds as well:
one of the most important pure enantiomers in the living cell is literally the backbone of D.N.A.: The Nucleotide Enantiomers all are the right-handed version pure enantiomers of Nucleotide; their mirror form is responsible for iconic helix shape of D.N.A. and responsible for locking the sugar bases in place to form a working code for the cell. For D.N.A. to even work (even less even be formed in the first place) all these billions and billions of Nucleotide molecules that form D.N.A. would have to come into existence all at the same time, and especially not one of the left-handed mirror pair Nucleotide molecules could be used. If only one happened to be formed and be used in D.N.A. the perfect helix structure of D.N.A. would be ruined and render the D.N.A. code useless; as Dr Charles McCombs (a top organic chemists) says:
“As nucleotide molecules come together to form the structure of DNA, they develop a twist that forms the double helix structure of DNA. DNA develops a twist in the chain because each component contains chirality or handedness. It is this handedness that gives DNA the spiral shaped helical structure. If one molecule in the DNA structure had the wrong chirality, DNA would not exist in the double helix form, and DNA would not function properly. The entire replication process would be derailed like a train on bad railroad tracks. In order for DNA...to work, billions of molecules within our body would have to be generated with the "R" configuration all at the same time, without error.[9]"
But yet, if not one right-handed Nucleotide molecule could not naturally be formed without the left-handed Nucleotide molecule, then how did these billions if not trillions (if not much more) of right-handed Nucleotide molecules get separated from their mirror image versions and then be exclusively allowed to form the backbone helix structure of D.N.A. with not even one left-handed Nucleotide molecule involved? Naturally (as the theory of evolution states happened to form D.N.A.) through scientific observation this is pretty much impossible with any natural forces in existence: the only way known that these right-handed Nucleotide molecules could have originally been separated from their naturally forming racemic solution and segregated to allow to form the backbone of D.N.A. is if some very intelligent being(s) did it [9].
If all this remains true (without finding any natural way in the future) then this is very strong proof for the theory of intelligent design and a great blow of the theory of evolution concerning development of life on Earth [9].
The Geological record/fossil record
The Geological record are the rock layers found under the surface of the Earth and what’s in them that give strong hints/descriptions of the history of Earth: especially the fossils found in them (fossils were once living physical beings in the past that died/were buried and their body/bones were petrified in the rock and eventually over many many year later buried in a complete rock layer completely preserved as more rock layers buries over the fossil [10]) these fossils are very important in the geological record because they tell about life on Earth in the past and even what happened in the past on Earth, these fossils even have revealed species that are (or seem to be) extinct now but existed in Earth in the past.
As time goes by, older thing from the past do seem to get buried in rock/underwater (especially if they are not destroyed or kept safe somewhere/maintained) this can be seen in modern archaeological excavations where 1,000+ year old cities/objects are now usually buried under the Earth (if not underwater) but tell important information on what happened in the past in that area [11]. So, it makes sense that rock layers do collect evidence of life, events, and conditions of Earth in the very distant past; so, if all this is true (and it seems to be) what story do the rocks seem to be telling?
The fossil record shows some species have not evolved at all
While some fossils found are long ago extinct species that no longer seem to be living on Earth, other fossils found are of species that are still living. The most interesting thing about these fossils is they can be compared to their still living counterparts: when compared to their still living counterparts they often look exactly the same as their fossilized versions: therefore their seems to be no evolution whatsoever that took place in these species from their earliest found fossils (keep in mind some fossils are considered as old as 100’s of million’s of years old!) to their living descendants. These species still living today are rightfully called ‘living fossils’: because they look exactly like they walked out of the ancient fossil record [12] So according to these fossils', evolution did not take place whatsoever on these species! But for the theory of evolution this brings up a serious question:
If evolution is as universal and prevalent as the theory states (that is, every living thing is affected to some extent especially over millions of years) then why do some of these living fossils seem to have no change whatsoever keeping in mind some even being over 100,000,000’s of years old: more than enough time for some serious evolutionary changes to take place! The fact there are species that look exactly the same as they did a very long time ago should bring serious question to the theory of evolution.
(To be continued)
So, considering the former test and all these observations what is the final conclusion to which theory is correct?
Sources:
[1]
[A]
(inactive) Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Argument from design". Encyclopedia Britannica, 16 Jun. 2017,
Website:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/argument-from-design.
[B]
Merriam-Webster “argument from design”
Website:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/argument%20from%20design
[C]
Wikipedia “Teleological argument”
Website:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument
[2]
Space.com "What is the theory of general relativity?" By Scott Dutfield, Nola Taylor Tillman, Meghan Bartels on May 14, 2023
Website:
https://www.space.com/17661-theory-general-relativity.html
[3]
www.nuclear-power.com “Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems” by author
Website:
https://www.nuclear-power.com/penrose-hawking-singularity-theorems/
[4]
Chapter 26:”Exploring the Universe” Lesson 5: “The Expanding universe” pg 852-853 Prentice Hall “Physical Science: Concepts in action” by Michael Wysession,David Frank,and Sophia Yancopoulos; Pearson Education Inc. 2009 Edition Upper Saddle River New Jersey.
[5]
[A]
+plus Maths “The cosmic soup” by Marianne Freiberger on 27 March, 2018 from The University of Cambridge
Website:
https://plus.maths.org/content/cmb-oracle
[B]
Brittanica "cosmic microwave background" by Frank H.Shu on Dec 22, 2023
Website:
https://www.britannica.com/science/cosmic-microwave-background
[6]
Youtube.com "God Exists - Scientific Proof - Part 1 of 3" by Gevte on Apr 20, 2011
Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v90KVFIIOTA
(Quote is through 12:52-13:22 of the video)
[7]
Britannica “Miller-Urey experiment” by Karin Akre and John P. Rafferty on Jun 30 2023
Website:
https://www.britannica.com/science/Miller-Urey-experiment
[8]
“Organic Chemistry” by Robert Thornton Morrison and Robert Neilson Boyd by Prentice hall India On 2002 from Internet archives
[Quote A]
Pg 236 Chapter 7 ‘STEREOCHEMISTRY II’
Website:
https://archive.org/details/MorrisonBoydOrganicChemistry/page/n263/mode/2up
[Quote B]
Pg 128 Chapter 14 'STEREOCHEMISTRY I. STEREOISOMERS'
Website:
https://archive.org/details/MorrisonBoydOrganicChemistry/page/n155/mode/2up
[9]
"If it is impossible for one nucleotide to be formed with chirality, how much less likely would it be for billions of nucleotides to come together exactly at the same time, and all of them be formed with the same chirality? If evolution cannot provide a mechanism that forms one product with chirality, how can it explain the formation of two products of opposite chirality?
Chirality is not just a major problem for evolution; it is a dilemma. According to evolution, natural processes must explain everything over long periods of time. However, the process that forms chirality cannot be explained by natural science in any amount of time."
IRC (institute for creation research) “Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem with Chirality” by BY CHARLES MCCOMBS, PH.D. SATURDAY, Acts & Facts. 33 (5) on MAY 01, 2004
Website:
https://www.icr.org/article/evolution-hopes-you-dont-know-chemistry-problem-wi/
[10]
Britannica, "fossil" by The Editors of Encyclopaedia. on 11 Mar. 2024
Website:
https://www.britannica.com/science/fossil
[11]
Wikipedia "Archaeological excavation"
Website:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeological_excavation
[12]
Merriam-Webster “Living fossil”
Website:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/living%20fossil
examples of living fossils:
[1]
Horseshoe crabs
Horseshoe crabs are said to be 300-million years old (way before big dinosaurs formed but also all insects and even flowering plants!) yet they are not only still alive today but they remained exactly the same from 300 million years earlier.
[A]
(picture taken from an aquarium exhibit the author once visited, telling about the horseshoe crab)
“The horseshoe crab has survived virtually unchanged for over 300 million years.”
[2]
Lungfish
Lungfish are said to be 400 million years old and were thought to be once the missing transitional link between sea animals and all land animals yet not only do they still live but are also pretty much the same as they were 400 million years ago!
[A]
“Lungfish…[have existed]…almost 400 million years…and have changed very little.”
AZ Animals “Discover the Rare Fish That Can Breathe Air, Allowing It to “Walk” on Land” by Sharon Parry on 9/2/2023
(inactive) Website: