Read Creation Facts of Life for Free Online Page B

compared with those of evolution.
    In that light, I'd like to call your attention to a fascinating and revolutionary book,
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,
by a prominent molecular biologist, Dr. Michael Denton. 16 In a television program we did together, and in our extensive personal conversations, Dr. Denton describes himself as a child of the secular age who desires naturalistic explanations when he can find them. When it comes to the origin of life, Dr. Denton explains with authority and stark clarity that evolutionists are nowhere near a
naturalistic
explanation at present. After comparing the genetic programs in living things to a library of a thousand volumes encoding a billion bits of information and all the mathematically intricate algorithms for coordinating them, Dr. Denton refers to the chemical evolution scenario as "simply an affront to reason," i.e., an insult to the intelligence! (p. 351).
    He openly and frankly states that the thesis of his book is "anti-evolutionary" (p. 353), but it seems to me that he is cautiously taking a step even further. The first chapter of his book is titled "Genesis Rejected," and he would react very strongly against being called a creationist, but in his honest analysis of the creation-evolution controversy through history, Dr. Denton freely admits that many of the scientific views of the early creationists have been vindicated by modern discoveries in science.
    Take William Paley's classic argument that design in living things implies a Designer just as clearly as design in a watch implies a watchmaker. In
The Blind Watchmaker,
17 discussed later, Richard Dawkins argues — incorrectly — that Paley was wrong. Denton states, "Paley was not only
right
in asserting an analogy between life and a machine, but also
remarkably prophetic
in guessing that the technological ingenuity realized in living systems is vastly in excess of anything yet accomplished by man" (emphasis added). Then Denton goes on to summarize his thinking on life's origin (p. 341) as follows:
    The almost irresistible force of the analogy has completely undermined the complacent assumption, prevalent in biological circles over most of the past century, that the design hypothesis can be excluded on the grounds that the notion is fundamentally a metaphysical
a priori
concept and therefore scientifically unsound.
On the contrary, the inference to design is a purely
a posteriori
induction based on a ruthlessly consistent application of the logic of analogy.
The conclusion may have religious implications, but
it does not depend on religious presuppositions
(emphasis added).
    Now that's quite an admission! Even though he would deny any leaning toward a Christian concept of creation, this leading molecular biologist sees quite plainly that a scientific concept of creation can be constructed, just as I've said, using the ordinary tools of science, logic, and observation. In fact, Denton intimates that creation scientists have shown more respect than evolutionists for empirical evidence and a "ruthlessly consistent" application of logic!
    It's also true, as Denton concludes, that creation may have religious implications, but so does evolution, and that should not prevent our evaluating their scientific merits on the basis of logic and observation alone.
    In a short but thought-provoking article, British physicist H.S. Lipson 18 reached the same conclusion. First he expressed his interest in life's origin, then his feeling — quite apart from any preference for creation — that, "In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it."
    After wondering how well evolution has stood up to scientific testing, Lipson continues: "To my mind, the theory [evolution] does not stand up at all." Then he comes to the heart of the issue: "If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and