Intelligent Design, The Science of it All

A Question an Atheist can not Answer

I do a lot of research on evolution, Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism and creationism.  I have several spreadsheets where I list various qualities of each with X-marks.  You have seen them, where they list the pluses and minuses of different mobile carriers.  In my research, I have come up with a question that I have not been able to answer. Therefore, I sent emails to both secular and Biblical scientists.


These are the individuals I have contacted (while two of them have died they have publicists and foundations that promote their beliefs.)

Carl Wieland : Wieland is a medical doctor who graduated from Adelaide University in South Australia. Wieland has said that during his time at university he was an atheist. In 1976 Wieland formed the Creation Science Association (CSA

Jonathan Sarfati:  He has a PhD in chemistry.  He is the author of many articles and books about creation science


Michael Behe:  is an American biochemist, author, and intelligent design (ID) advocate

William Dembski:  an American mathematician, philosopher and theologian. A proponent of intelligent design (ID), specifically the concept of specified complexity.


Denis Lamoureux  holds a professorial chair of science and religion at St. Joseph’s College at the University of Alberta. He has doctoral degrees in dentistry, theology, and biology.  He calls himself an evolutionary creationist


Richard Dawkins: An English  ethologist, evolutionary biologist, and writer.  Dawkins is a noted atheist, and is well known for his criticism of creationism and intelligent design.

Niles Eldredge:  proposed punctuated equilibria in 1972. Punctuated equilibrium is a refinement to evolutionary theory. It describes patterns of descent taking place in “fits and starts” separated by long periods of stability.

Stephen Jay Gould:  an American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science. I contacted his publisher: W. W. Norton

Jerry A. Coyne:  an American professor of biology.  A prolific scientist and author, he has published dozens of papers elucidating the theory of evolution.

Ernst Mayr: was one of the 20th century’s leading evolutionary biologists. He was also a renowned taxonomist, tropical explorer, ornithologist, philosopher of biology, and historian of science.  I contacted his publicist at Harvard University Press.

Lawrence Krauss:  an American theoretical physicist and cosmologist.  Krauss describes himself as an antitheist and takes part in public debates on religion.

It has taken me a little over three months to get answers back from all the individuals listed.  I was not sure if I should announce the following, but I have decided to because I believe it indicates something about the individuals – you can figure it out.  Wieland, Sarfati, Behe and Dembski  all answered within two weeks time and provided links to articles that would assist me, if they did not have a specific discussion in their books about my question.  If they did, they pointed out the chapter to look within for the answers.

Lamoureux  responded in a fashion typical of his writings.  It made no sense.  He is struggling to make evolution fit within Biblical concepts, and he is one confused man.

Dawkins, Gould, Krauss, Mayr, Coyne and Eldredge took almost two months to respond and to a person (or their representative) all said that I could find my answer in their books.  I replied that I had read their books and had not come across the answer as of yet.   I asked if they could point out which book and approximately where I might find the answer I was seeking.  They all, except for one, responded with just read their books.  The other one sent me an Amazon card for $5 to buy one of his books.

What is the question that has stumped atheists and to some extent creationists and Intelligent designers?    It goes like this:

Given the concept of evolutionary theory or Neo-Darwinism that all life was created from non-living particles and chemicals in something akin to the “primordial soup”, where along the evolutionary mutation pattern did a multi-cellular organism, diverge from the process of mutating or morphing into an animal and became a plant?  Did some of the amoebas that were aiming to be atheists suddenly decide that there was an ecological niche to become plankton and then end up being a poplar tree?

Well, I’m still waiting for the atheists to respond.  I have no problem with the answers from the ID folks or the creationists.  All things were created by God during the first six days, and it was good.

Intelligent Design, The Science of it All

Index to Young Earth Age Articles

This has been a tough article to write for several reasons: 1) I have made a final decision on the concept of the age of the earth and it creates several problems for me [ a) It places me firmly as a believer in the inerrancy of the Bible and opens me up to ridicule from many individuals, whom I might add have not done as much research as I have on the subject matter and b) It puts me at odds with many of the Intelligent Design researchers because I will insist that the ultimate designer is God]; 2) The subject matter is highly technical and required a great deal of research in many discipline fields. Presenting it in manner that can be read and understand by the average reader, and also providing the technical information for those who want to question my assertions was a challenge. I have tried to summarize the information in the main article and provided further information in the form of EndNotes or as a link to another article with more detailed information for those who want to explore that subject in greater detail and want to challenge my statements I present the facts from both sides.

I do apologize that the blog I am using does not allow for bookmarks so that when you leave one article and then click the link to return you will end up at the same place you left. In most instances just use your Back Button and your browser should return you approximately back to where you left off.

The case for intelligent design, like other scientific theories, is based upon empirical evidence, not religious dogma and design theorists have developed specific empirical arguments to support their theory. Critics may disagree with the conclusions of these arguments, but they cannot reasonably deny that they are based upon commonly accepted observations of the natural world.

I believe I can advance the theory of a Young Earth Age by comparing the explanatory power of YAE (Young Earth Age) against that of several other theories of MYA (Million Years Age). That the theory of YAE can explain the origin of the earth better than its materialistic competitors shows that it has passed an important scientific test. The theory of YAE, like the other historical scientific theories it competes against, is tested against our knowledge of the evidence in need of explanation and our knowledge of the cause-and-effect structure of the world. Considerations of causal adequacy provide an experience-based criterion by which to test— accept, reject, or prefer— competing historical scientific theories. When such theories cite causes that are known to produce the effect in question, they meet the test of causal adequacy; when they fail to cite such causes, they fail to meet this test.

That is the criterion used for the articles that follow the below structure (Note at this time this is a work in progress due to the complexities of the subject matter on both the secular and the Biblical side. Additional articles are being worked on and will be added. When the research is complete) :

Rationale for a Young Age Earth (YAE) ( )

Young Age Earth (

This article had several previously written and published articles:


( )

( )

Earth’s Magnetic Field ( )

Cause of the Earth’s Magnetic Field (

Dr John Baumgardner ( )

Geological Features of Other Planets