MOMENTUM

We recently came across this unretouched photo of an unusual cow and wanted to bring it to your attention … as well as a question for any evolutionists who might be reading this. (Okay, so we’re joking about it being unretouched!)

Our question for evolutionists is this: Wouldn’t you agree that this cow was designed by an artist with Photoshop? If so, why won’t you agree that the actual cow - which is so much more complex than its coloring - was designed as well?

To be consistent as an evolutionist, you have to agree that this photo might indeed show an actual cow that has not been retouched by a designer. But you won’t do that, will you? There’s just something about a picture like this that screams PHOTOSHOP!

So yes, you’ll agree that the pattern of the cow’s spots was designed, but you won’t agree that the cow itself was designed. Why not? Because you are committed to your faith built on the premise that there is no Designer. And that leaves you with only one conclusion: that the complexities we see all around us are nothing more than the result of natural processes.

And that’s why Darwinists have a cow whenever they hear a creationist say that things that appear to be designed actually ARE designed. Here at Creation Moments, we’ll continue to assert that Design requires a Designer. And that’s why we believe that the arrangement of the cow’s spots as well as the cow itself were designed!

Those are our thoughts. What are yours?

“Darwin simply didn’t have access to the information we have,” explains William Parker, Ph.D., assistant professor of surgical sciences at Duke University Medical Center and the senior author of a new study on the appendix. “If Darwin had been aware of the species that have an appendix attached to a large cecum, and if he had known about the widespread nature of the appendix, he probably would not have thought of the appendix as a vestige of evolution.”

A few days ago the evolutionary website ScienceDaily ran a story titled “Evolution of the Human Appendix: A Biological ‘Remnant’ No More.” According to the article, “Duke scientists and collaborators from the University of Arizona and Arizona State University conclude that Charles Darwin was wrong: The appendix is a whole lot more than an evolutionary remnant. Not only does it appear in nature much more frequently than previously acknowledged, but it has been around much longer than anyone had suspected.”

Parker added, “Maybe it’s time to correct the textbooks. Many biology texts today still refer to the appendix as a ‘vestigial organ.’”

Maybe, Dr. Parker? Maybe? We know how difficult it must be to finally come around to what creationists have been saying all along, but why should there be even the slightest hesitation about correcting a known mistake in biology textbooks? (more…)

In “How Deceptive Can an Orchid Be?” - an op-ed piece posted today at the ABC News website - Lee Dye reported that scientists have found an orchid on the Chinese island of Hainan that’s even trickier than most orchids in deceiving pollinators.

Unlike many other orchids, the Dendrobium sinense doesn’t produce an aroma that will attract bees. That’s because this white orchid depends on hornets rather than bees for pollination.

“The orchid releases a chemical that produces an aroma that is identical to the smell made by bees that are under attack,” writes Dye. “The hornet normally captures bees to feed to its larvae, so when it smells the alarm pheromone it figures bees are inside the orchid, and they are in distress and thus would be easy victims. So the hornet plunges into the orchid like a cruise missile. But there are no bees there. Only pollen, which clings to the body of the hornet. The hornet moves on, getting nothing for its efforts, and it spreads the pollen to other orchids in the Bawangling National Nature Reserve in Hainan.”

So why do we say that the orchid deceived the scientists studying it? The article begins with this sentence: “Charles Darwin would have loved it.” To the writer of the piece - as well as the evolutionary scientists studying it - the orchid gives clear evidence of natural selection. They seem to have overlooked another and more plausible explanation - that an Intelligent Designer created the orchid this way. Why more plausible? Because the orchid would have died out long before it developed its unique ability to mimic the scent of bees in distress.