C.S. Lewis, British writer and lay-theologian, 1898-1963
‍
“Reality, in fact, is usually something you could not have guessed. That is one of the reasons I believe Christianity. It is a religion you could not have guessed. If it offered us just the kind of universe we had always expected, I should feel we were making it up. But, in fact, it is not the sort of thing anyone would have made up. It has just that queer twist about it that real things have.”

— C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (1952), The C.S. Lewis Signature Classics, HarperOne, 2017 p43

‍

Allan Sandage, American astronomer, 1926-2010
‍
“The world is too complicated in all its parts and interconnections to be due to chance alone. I am convinced that the existence of life with all its order in each of its organisms is simply too well put together. Each part of a living thing depends on all its other parts to function. How does each part know? How is each part specified at conception? The more one learns of biochemistry the more unbelievable it becomes unless there is some type of organizing principle–an architect for believers, a mystery to be solved by science (even as to why) sometime in the indefinite future for materialist reductionalists.”

— Allan Sandage, “A Scientist Reflects on Religious Belief,” Truth: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Christian Thought, vol. 1, 1985 (Quoted on p229-230 of Lee Strobel’s A Case for a Creator)

Stephen C. Meyer, PhD, American philosopher, 1958-
‍
“Then there’s the evidence for design in molecular machines that defy explanation by Darwinian natural selection. These integrative, complex systems in biological organisms–which microbiologists Michael Behe calls ‘irreducibly complex’–include signal transduction circuits, sophisticated motors, and all kinds of biological circuitry.

“You see, these biological machines need all of their various parts in order to function. But how could you ever build such a system by a Darwinian process of natural selection acting on random variations? Natural selection only preserves things that perform a function–in other words, which help the organism survive to the next generation. That’s survival of the fittest.

“The problem with irreducibly complex systems is that they perform no function until all the parts are present and working together in close coordination with one another. So natural selection cannot help you build such systems; it can only preserve them once they’ve been built. And it’s virtually impossible for evolution to take such a huge leap by mere chance to create the whole system at once.

“Of course, this forces the question: how did the biochemical machine arise? Behe says maybe these biological systems look designed because they really were designed. After all, whenever we see irreducibly complex systems and we know how they arose, invariably a designer was the cause.”

— Stephen C. Meyer, PhD (quoted by Lee Strobel), A Case for a Creator, Zondervan, 2004 p83

Michael J. Behe, PhD, American biochemist, 1952-
‍
“Now we’ve probed to the bottom of life, so to speak–we’re at the level of molecules–and there’s complexity all the way down. We’ve learned the cell is horrendously complicated, and that it’s actually run by micromachines of the right shape, the right strength, and the right interactions. The existence of these machines challenges a test that Darwin himself provided...

“You see, a system or device is irreducibly complex if it has a number of different components that all work together to accomplish the task of the system, and if you were to remove one of the components, the system would no longer function. An irreducibly complex system is highly unlikely to be built piece-by-piece through Darwinian processes, because the system has to be fully present in order for it to function. The illustration I like to use is a mousetrap

“First, there’s a flat wooden platform to which the other parts are attached. Second, there’s a metal hammer, which does the job of crushing the mouse. Third, there’s a spring with extended ends to press against the platform and the hammer when the trap is charged. Fourth, there’s a catch that releases when a mouse applies a slight bit of pressure. And, fifth, there’s a metal bar that connects to the catch and holds the hammer back when the trap is charged.

“Now, if you take away any of these parts–the spring of the holding bar or whatever–then it’s not like the mousetrap becomes half as efficient as it used to be or it only catches half as many mice. Instead, it doesn’t catch any mice. It’s broken. It doesn’t work at all...

“An intelligent agent [matches all the parts properly] for a mousetrap. But in the cell, who tells the parts where they should go? Who staples them together? Nobody–they have to do it on their own. You have to have the information resident in the system to tell the components to get together in the right orientation, otherwise it’s useless.

“So the mousetrap does a good job of illustrating how irreducibly complex biological systems defy a Darwinian explanation. Evolution can't produce an irreducibly complex biological machine suddenly, all at once, because it’s much too complicated. The odds against that would be prohibitive. And you can’t produce it directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor system would be missing a part and consequently couldn’t function. There would be no reason for it to exist. And natural selection chooses systems that are already working...

“You can’t absolutely rule out all theoretical possibilities of a gradual, circuitous route. But the more complex the interacting system, the far less likely an indirect route can account for it. And as we discover more and more of these irreducibly complex biological systems, we can be more and more confident that we’ve met Darwin’s criterion of failure...

“In other words, if you just had the components themselves without the ability to bring the other pieces into position, you’d be far from having a functioning mousetrap. Nobody ever addresses this problem in the evolutionary literature. If you do any calculations about how likely this could occur by itself, you find it’s very improbable. Even with small machines, you wouldn’t expect them to self-assemble during the entire lifetime of the earth. That’s a severe problem that evolutionists don’t like to address.”

— Michael J. Behe, PhD (quoted by Lee Strobel), A Case for a Creator, Zondervan, 2004 p208-213
‍

“Cilia are whip like hairs on the surface of cells. If the cell is stationary, the cilia move fluid across the cell’s surface...

“But my point is that these three parts [within the cilia]–the rods, linkers, and motors–are necessary to covert a sliding motion into a bending motion so the cilium can move. If it weren’t for the linkers, everything would fall apart when the sliding motion began. If it weren’t for the motor protein, it wouldn't move at all. If it weren’t for the rods, there would be nothing to move. So like the mousetrap, the cilium is irreducibly complex.

“[Darwinism can’t account for that.] You only get the motion of the cilium when you’ve got everything together. None of the individual parts can do the trick by themselves. You need them all in place. For evolution to account for that, you would have to imagine how this could develop gradually–but nobody has been able to do that.”

— Michael J. Behe, PhD (quoted by Lee Strobel), A Case for a Creator, Zondervan, 2004 p213-214
‍

“Right now, there’s only one principle that we know can come up with complex interactive systems, and that’s intelligence. Natural selection has been proposed, but there’s little or no evidence backing that claim. Some people had high hopes for self-organizational properties or complexity theory, but there’s no evidence that these can explain something as complicated as the cell. The only force known to be able to make irreducibly complex machines is intelligent design.

“So scientists are in the curious position of ignoring something they know to be capable of explaining what they see in biology, in favor of phantom or totally unproven explanations. Why ignore intelligent design when it’s a good match to the data? Yes, we have to keep an open mind in science, but we shouldn't be ignoring the most obvious explanation for all the evidence we have today.”

— Michael J. Behe, PhD (quoted by Lee Strobel), A Case for a Creator, Zondervan, 2004 p226

Stephen C. Meyer, PhD, American philosopher, 1958-
‍
“You have between twenty and thirty-five completely novel body plans that come online in the Cambrian. You have a huge jump in complexity, it's sudden, and you have no transitional intermediates.

“But this is also affirmative evidence for design, because in our experience information invariably is the result of conscious activity. Here weave the geologically sudden infusion of a massive amount of new biological information needed to create these body plans, far beyond what any Darwinian mechanism can produce. Darwinism simply can’t account for it; design is a better explanation.

“Think about how suddenly these new body plans emerged. As on paleontologist said, ‘What I want to know from my biology friends is just how fast does this evolution have to happen before they stop calling it evolution? 'Darwin said nature takes no sudden leaps. Yet here’s a huge leap–which is what intelligent agents cause. Consequently, the Cambrian explosion provides not just a negative case against Darwinian evolution, but also a compelling positive argument for design.”

— Stephen C. Meyer, PhD (quoted by Lee Strobel), A Case for a Creator, Zondervan,2004 p84
‍

“The fossils of the Cambrian explosion absolutely cannot be explained by Darwinian theory or even by the concept called ‘punctuated equilibrium, 'which was specifically formulated in an effort to look at the issue from the perspective of biological information, the best explanation is that an intelligence was responsible for this otherwise inexplicable phenomenon...

“So when you encounter the Cambrian Explosion, with its huge and sudden appearance of radically new body plans, you realize you need lots of new biological information. Some of it would be encoded for in DNA–although how that occurs is still and insurmountable problem for Darwinism. But on top of that, where does the new information come from that’s not attributable to DNA? How does the hierarchical arrangement of cells, tissues, organs, and body plans develop? Darwinists don’t have an answer. It’s not even on their radar...

“The Cambrian explosion represents an incredible quantum leap in biological complexity. Before then, life on Earth was pretty simple–one-celled bacteria, blue-green algae, and later some sponges and primitive worms or mollusks. Then without any ancestors in the fossil record, we have a stunning variety of complex creatures appear in the blink of an eye, geologically speaking

“All of this totally contradicts Darwinism, which predicted the slow, gradual development in the organisms over time. Darwin admitted the Cambrian explosion was ‘inexplicable’ and ‘a valid argument’ against his theory. He insisted ‘natura non facit saltum–nature takes no leaps.’ He thought he would be vindicated, however, as more fossils were discovered, but the picture has only gotten worse.

“The big issue is where did the information come from to build all these new proteins, cells, and body plans? For instance, Cambrian animals would have needed complex proteins, such as lysyl oxidase. In animals, today, lysyl oxidase molecules require four hundred amino acids. Where did the genetic information come from to build those complicated molecules? This would require highly complex, specified genetic information of the sort that neither random chance, nor natural selection, nor self-organization can produce.

“[An unexplained environmental phenomenon causing a spate of mutations] doesn’t solve the problem. First, even assuming a generous mutation rate, the Cambrian explosion was far too short to have allowed for the kind of large-scale changes that the fossils reflect.

“Second, only mutations in the earliest development of organisms have a realistic chance of producing large-scale macroevolutionary change. And scientists have found that mutations at this stage typically have disastrous effects. The embryo usually dies or is crippled.”

— Stephen C. Meyer, PhD (quoted by Lee Strobel), A Case for a Creator, Zondervan, 2004 p252-254

Jonathan Wells, PhD, American theologian, 1942-
‍
Strobel: “You’re saying that the tree of life illustrates Darwin's ideas but that his theory is not supported by the physical evidence scientists have found in fossils?

”Wells: “That’s right. In fact, Darwin knew the fossil record failed to support his tree. He acknowledged that major groups of animals–he calls them divisions, now they’re called phyla–appear suddenly in the fossil record. That’s not what his theory predicts.

“His theory predicts a long history of gradual divergence from a common ancestor, with the differences slowly becoming bigger and bigger until you get the major differences we have now. The fossil evidence, even in his day, showed the opposite: the rapid appearance of phylum-level differences in what’s called the ‘Cambrian explosion.’

“Darwin believed that future fossil discoveries would vindicate his theory–but that hasn’t happened. Actually, fossil discoveries over the last hundred and fifty years have turned his tree upside down by showing the Cambrian explosion was even more abrupt and extensive than scientists once thought.

‘Then at the beginning of the Cambrian–boom!–all of a sudden, we see representatives of the arthropods, modern representatives of which are insects, crabs, and the like; Echinoderms, which include modern starfish and sea urchins; chordates, which include modern vertebrates; and so forth. Mammals came later, but the chordates–the major group to which they belong–were right there at the beginning of the Cambrian.

“This is absolutely contrary to Darwin’s Tree of Life. These animals, which are so fundamentally different in their body plans, appear fully developed, all of a sudden, in what paleontologists have called the single most spectacular phenomenon of the fossil record.”

— JonathanWells, PhD (quoted by Lee Strobel), A Case for a Creator, Zondervan, 2004 p45-46

Henry M. Morris, American engineer & Christian apologist, 1918-2006
‍
“If the evolution mode were really an effective framework for predicting scientific data, it should certainly predict the basic principles by which nature functions. If it is really true that random matter has evolved, through successive stages, into elements, stars, chemical polymers, living cells, worms, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, mammals and, finally, man, then there must obviously be some powerful and pervasive principle which impels systems toward higher and higher levels of complexity. This is surely the most fundamental and important prediction of the evolution model – namely, a basic law of increasing organization, which introduces new systems into nature and which develops existing systems into higher systems. To give it an identifying name, let us call it the Principle of Naturalistic Innovation and Integration. It seems clear there must really be some such principle operating in nature if the evolution model of origins and development is valid.
‍
“If an evolutionist had no prior knowledge of nature’s laws, and had only his evolution model to go by, he would surely have to predict this kind of fundamental principle operating in nature, and would expect to find it experimentally operating when he proceeded to make actual measurements of specific processes. No one would ever, on the basis of evolutionary assumptions, predict any such laws as the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.
‍
“The creation model, on the other hand, explicitly predicts the Two Laws...

“The Second Law of Thermodynamics is particularly important in this discussion, since it states that there exists a universal principle of change in nature which is downhill, not uphill, as evolution requires...”
‍
— Henry M. Morris, Scientific Creationism, Creation-Life Publishers, 1981 p37-38

‍
“It seems obvious that the Second Law of Thermodynamics constitutes a serious problem to the evolution model. Creationists are puzzled as the why evolutionists give so little attention to this problem. Most books promoting evolution never mention it at all, and many competent evolutionary scientists have been inclined to dismiss it as of no importance to the problem...”
‍
— Henry M. Morris, Scientific Creationism, Creation-Life Publishers, 1981 p40

‍
“Now the question again is, not whether there is enough energy reaching the earth from the sun to support evolution, but rather how this energy is converted into evolution? The evolutionary process, if it exists, is by far the greatest growth process of all. If a directing code and specific conversion mechanism are essential for all lesser growth processes, then surely an infinitely more complex code and more specific energy converter are required for the evolutionary process.
‍
“But what are they? The answer is that no such code and mechanism have ever been identified. Where in all the universe does one find a plan which sets forth how to organize random particles into particular people? And where does one see a marvelous motor which converts the continual flow of solar radiant energy bathing the earth into the work of building chemical elements into replicating cellular systems, or of organizing populations of worms into populations of men, over vast spans of geologic time?
‍
“The mechanisms of mutation and natural selection are, to put it kindly, inadequate for such a gigantic task. Mutation is not a code, but a random phenomenon. Neither can it assimilate energy into a more highly organized form of the structure if affects. Natural selection is not a code which directs the production of anything new; it serves merely as a screen which sieves out unfit variants and defective mutants. It certainly is not an energy conversion device.
‍
“Thus neither mutation nor natural selection is either a directing program or an energy converter. If neither is either, they can’t both be both! And evolution must have both to produce growth!
“Until evolutions can not only speculate, but demonstrate, that there does exist in nature some vast program to direct the growth toward higher complexity of the marvelous organic space-time unity known as the terrestrial biosphere (not to mention that of the cosmos), as well as some remarkable global power converter to energize the growth through converted solar energy, the whole evolutionary idea is negated by the Second Law.”
‍
— Henry M. Morris, Scientific Creationism, Creation-Life Publishers, 1981 p44-45

Jonathan Wells, PhD, American theologian, 1942-
‍
“...But here’s the process: you can’t get molecular evidence from the fossils themselves; all of it comes from living organisms. You take a molecule that's basic to life–say, ribosomal RNA–and you examine it in a starfish, and then you study its equivalent in a snail, a worm, and a frog. You’re looking for similarities. If you compare this one molecule across different categories of animal body plans and find similarities, and if you make the assumption that they came from a common ancestor, then you can construct a theoretical evolutionary tree.

“But there are too many problems with this. If you compare this molecular tree with a tree based on anatomy, you get a different tree. You can examine another molecule and come up with another tree altogether. In fact, if you give one molecule to two different laboratories, you can get two different trees. There’s no consistency, including with the dating. It’s all over the board. Based on all this, I think it’s reasonable for me, as a scientist, to say that maybe we should question our assumption that this common ancestor exists.

“Of course, descent from a common ancestor is true at some levels. Nobody denies that. For example, we can trace generations of fruit flies to a common ancestor. Within a single species, common ancestry has been observed directly. And it’s possible that all the cats–tigers, lions, and soon–descended from a common ancestor. While that’s not a fact, it might be a reasonable inference based on interbreeding.

“So as we go up these different levels in the taxonomic hierarchy–species, genus, family, order, class–common ancestry is certainly true at the species level, but is it true at higher levels? It becomes an increasingly uncertain inference the higher we go in the taxonomic hierarchy. When you get to the level of phyla, the major animal groups, it’s a very, very shaky hypothesis. In fact, I would say it’s disconfirmed. The evidence just doesn’t support it.”

— Jonathan Wells, PhD (quoted by Lee Strobel), A Case for a Creator, Zondervan,2004 p48-49
‍

“Yes, but the explanation can go either way: design or descent with modification. How do we determine which is true? Listen–similarity alone doesn't tell us. Look at Berra’s Blunder.

“Philip Johnson coined that term based on a book that was written by a biologist named Tim Berra in 1990. Berra compared the fossil record to a series of automobile models, saying that if you compare a 1953 and 1954 Corvette side by side, and then a 1954 and 1955 Corvette and so on, then it becomes obvious that there has been descent with modification. He said this is what paleontologists do with fossiles, and the evidence is so solid and comprehensive that it cannot be denied by reasonable people.

“Far from demonstrating his point, the illustration shows that a designer could have been involved. These successive models of the Corvette are based on plans drawn up by engineers, so there’s intelligence at work to guide and implement the process. If you wanted to demonstrate that the similar features resulted from a Darwinian process, you would have to show that once you somehow got an automobile, the natural forces of rust, wind, water, and gravity would turn one model into its successor.

“The point I want to make is this: quite unintentionally, Berra had illustrated the fact that merely having a succession of similar forms does not provide its own explanation. A mechanism is needed. With the Corvette, that mechanism is human manufacturing...

“Frankly, it remains a mystery. If you read the literature on homology, the experts know it’s a mystery. They may not give up Darwinism, but they know they haven’t solved the problem. To me, if you haven’t solved the problem of a mechanism, then you haven’t distinguished between common descent and common design. It could be either one. The evidence isn’t pointing one way or the other.

“I think students deserve to know that scientists haven’t resolved this problem. Instead, some textbooks simply define homology as similarity due to common ancestry. So the theory becomes true by definition. What the textbook is saying is that similarity due to common ancestry is due to common ancestry. And that’s circular reasoning.”

— Jonathan Wells, PhD(quoted by Lee Strobel), A Case for a Creator, Zondervan, 2004 p55-57

Jonathan Wells, PhD, American theologian, 1942-
‍
“I believe science is pointing strongly toward design. To me, as a scientist, the development of an embryo cries out, ‘Design!’ The Cambrian explosion–the sudden appearance of complex life, with no evidence of ancestors–is more consistent with design than evolution. Homology, in my opinion, is more compatible with design. The origin of life certainly cries out for a designer. None of these things make as much sense from a Darwinian perspective as they do from a design perspective.”

— Jonathan Wells, PhD (quoted by Lee Strobel), A Case for a Creator, Zondervan, 2004 p70 


“Instead, Darwinists assume the story of human life is an evolutionary one, and then they plug the fossils into a preexisting narrative where they seem to fit. The narrative can take several forms depending on one’s biases. As one anthropologist said, the process is ‘both political and subjective’ to the point where he suggested that ‘paleoanthropology has the form but not the substance of a science.’

“In fact, a paleoanthropologist named Misia Landau wrote a book in which she talked about the similarities between the story of human evolution and old-fashioned folk tales. She concluded that many classic texts in the field were ‘determined as much by traditional narrative frameworks as by material evidence’ and that these themes ‘far exceed what can be inferred from the study of fossils alone.’”

— Jonathan Wells, PhD(quoted by Lee Strobel), A Case for a Creator, Zondervan, 2004 p67

Francis S. Collins, MD, PhD, American physician-geneticist, NIH Director, 1950-
‍
“There are many subtle variants of theistic evolution, but a typical version rests upon the following premises:

“1. The universe came into being out of nothingness, approximately 14 billion years ago.

“2. Despite massive improbabilities, the properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life.

“3. While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, once life arose, the process of evolution and natural selection permitted the development of biological diversity and complexity over very loneroids of time.

“4. Once evolution got under way, no special supernatural intervention was required.

“5. Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes.

“6. But humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the Moral Law and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures throughout history.”

― Francis S. Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Free Press, New York, 2006  
‍

“In that context, I find theistic evolution, or Bio Logos, to be by far the most scientifically consistent and spiritually satisfying of the alternatives. This position will not go out of style or be disproven by future scientific discoveries. It is intellectually rigorous, it provides answers to many otherwise puzzling questions, and it allows science and faith to fortify each other like two unshakable pillars, holding up a building called truth.”

― Francis S. Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Free Press, New York, 2006

‍

Paul Davies, PhD, English physicist & professor, 1946-
‍
“Process thought was introduced into theology by the mathematician and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead, who was co-author with Bertrand Russell of the seminal work Principia Mathematica. Whitehead proposed that physical reality is a network linking what he termed ‘actual occasions,’ these being more than mere events, for they are invested with a freedom and an internal experience that are lacking in the mechanistic view of the world. Central to Whitehead’s philosophy is that God is responsible for ordering the world, not through direct action, but by providing the various potentialities which the physical universe is then free to actualize. In this way, God does not compromise the essential openness and indeterminism of the universe, but is nevertheless in a position to encourage a trend toward good. Traces of this subtle and indirect influence may be discerned in the progressive nature of biological evolution, for example, and the tendency for the universe to self-organize into a richer variety of ever more complex forms. Whitehead thus replaces the monarchical image of God as omnipotent creator and ruler to that of a participator in the creative process. He is no longer self-sufficient and unchanging, but influences, and is influenced by, the unfolding reality of the physical universe. On the other hand, God is not thereby completely embedded in the stream of time. His basic character and purposes remain unchanging and eternal. In this way, timelessness and temporality are folded into a single entity.”
‍
— Paul Davies, The Mind of God, Touchstone, 1992 p183


“...The development of new forms and systems is subject to general principles of organization that guide and encourage, rather than compel, matter and energy to develop along certain predetermined pathways of evolution. In The Cosmic Blueprint I used the word ‘predestination’ to refer to these general tendencies, to distinguish it from ‘determinism’ (which is the sense in which Aquinas uses the term). For those, such as process theologians, who choose to see God’s guiding hand rather than genuine spontaneity in the way the universe develops creatively, then stochasticity can be regarded as an efficient device through which divine intentions can be carried out. And there is no need for such a God to interfere directly with the course of evolution by ‘loading the dice,’ a suggestion I mentioned in passing in chapter 5. Guidance can be through the (timeless) laws of organization and information flow.”
‍
— Paul Davies, The Mind of God, Touchstone, 1992 p192