Page 255 - The Errors the American National Academy of Sciences

Creation is a Scientific Fact

a dialysis machine cannot be the work of chance—that such a ma-
chine is designed, produced, assembled, and used by doctors, engi-
neers, and technicians—can also understand that the kidneys—which
were used as the model for the dialysis machine, but which are much
more efficient and adaptable than it is, and which have a far greater
capacity than the machine despite their much smaller size—cannot be

the work of chance, either. A mind which knows that thousands of in-
telligent, educated, experienced, and talented engineers, technicians,
programmers, and designers joined forces to produce a computer can
also see that the human brain—with a complexity and abilities thou-
sands of times greater than a computer's—could not be the work of
chance, either.

Those who are blind to these evident truths have slavishly de-
voted themselves to materialism and Darwinism, as if to a pagan reli-
gion. In order not to lose their materialist worldviews, evolutionists
reject out of hand the ideas of all those who seek to offer a non-mater-
ial explanation of the world, life, and the laws of nature, without even
listening to what they have to say. It is clear that the NAS authors and
other evolutionists who criticize the truth of creation have never
thought about creation or examined their own claims. Their only aim

is to hold onto their ideology, which the words they speak and write
out of their anxiety to do so make abundantly clear.
Returning to the above example, we can draw an analogy to il-
lustrate the peculiar position in which evolutionists finds themselves.
As you may recall, we earlier described how if you believed you were
the first human being to set foot on a deserted island, you would nat-

urally understand that other people had been there before you as
soon as you came across an automobile. But what if you were a per-
son who was extraordinarily and doggedly convinced that he was in-
deed the first person on that island? In that case, you would have to
account for the presence of the car, although none of the explanations

253