October 30th, 2006 - The controversial division between the concepts of creation verses Darwin's theory of evolution began the moment that Mr. Darwin penned his Theory. This concept which includes the process of natural selection is considered by most of the scientific community to be the most eloquent description ever devised for the Natural World. While even most Christians have trouble denying Darwin's basic ideas we must also recognize that there are serious short comings in his theory. Simple thought experiments can show us how Darwin's version of evolution fails to tread water against the rising tide of "Intelligent Design." This can be best illustrated with an argument that I've put together called "The Case of the Half Winged Toad." More accurately I should say that this is the case of the lack of a half winged toad. You see evolutionists will tell you that all life on earth was spawned from a soup of proteins that coagulated into single celled organisms. These organisms gradually evolved through a complex system of cosmic ray bombardment and environmental effect. In short description gamma burst in deep space hurl cosmic gamma rays towards the earth, when these rays pass through a living creature; they occasionally collide with its DNA strands. This collision surgically breaks the strand at one point possibly leaving the DNA short a piece of protein which allows for a stray protein to take it's place. This mutated cell then replicates as all other cells do and passes on the mutation to future generations. While most of these mutations are bad and usually lead to things like cancer, some are good and lead to useful things like wings. Of course any biologist will tell you that any such positive mutation would also have to make it through the "survival of the fittest" gauntlet. This means that any mutation that might hinder a creatures ability to procure food, reproduce or defend it's self from enemies would be lost to future generations of the species because the animals carrying the mutation would simply not survive. What both Darwin and modern biologists fail to explain by this theory is how in the world a radical mutation such as a pair of wings would ever survive as a mutation on an animal until such time as the wings would finally become useful. Imagine my Half-Winged Toad for a moment hopping around playfully in the muck with a pair of growths on it's back. While these growths certainly look kind of like wings and might even already have feathers or a webbing of skin, at this point in the evolution of this particular animal they are simply peaces of meat and bone that the toad must carry around with him. Imagine how difficult it must be for this toad to not only negotiate in a prehistoric world but to also procure the extra sustenance required to sustain it's now worthless appendages. It becomes plainly obvious that under the survival of the fittest clause this hapless toad is far from the fittest and would certainly fall prey to the easy to catch meal clause of the carnivorous wild. Of course any biologist reading this will simply respond by saying that this is why we today don't have any flying toads around. Of course we don't, but we do have skies full of all sorts of flying creatures, each of whom must have overcome at some point in its evolutionary history the trial of caring around a set of "half-wings." This is of course unless we accept the idea of rapid or instant evolution. Of course this would require that a single or small group of animals receive the exact cosmic mutations necessary for arms to become wings in less than a few generations. Now this also requires that we throw the environment adaptation handbook out the window. Imagine that tomorrow you had a child born with a full set of eloquent wings. How would this miraculous child ever learn how to fly? For birds it is an instinctive survival process passed down from generation to generation. This child however is the first of it's kind and would have none of the complex internal mechanisms necessary to perform everything necessary to maintain flight. The last puzzle in the case of the Half-Winged Toad has to do with the lack of evidence. Why is it that there have been no fossilized creature found that bear just the beginnings of wings. Sure there are plenty of creatures that have wings that simply lost the use of them, but where are the animals either in history or at present that have yet to gain the use of their new appendages? Now for those die hard creationists that think that I am somehow dismissing evolution all together, think again. It would be ridiculous for anyone to attempt to argue that the theory of evolution is completely bogus. Any plain look at the natural world shows that a form of evolution can be seen in all living things. Furthermore, species adaptation is not just regular but extremely common. Even humans show massive threads of adaptation as is evident by the rainbow of races that populate the earth. Now I know some religious groups will argue that the existence of say the earth's Negro population is a result of a curse being placed by God on the decedents of Cain following the murder of his brother Able. This is a famous myth. The dark skin is most certainly an adaptation "designed" to

Half-Winged Toad in Flight

protect the individual from the harsh effects of the sun in his or her native land. This is a survival adaptation and is something that follows a clear and logical path in all living creatures. The question is what causes these adaptations to occur. Is it purely random as many evolutionary puritans would say? Or is there a basic design or set of rules that governs how and why certain adaptations occur? I would argue that it is the latter. This brings up the question of whom or what defines these rules. It is hard to look at the processes of natural selection in isolation apart from the rest of the know universe. Scientists that study the higher concepts of Chaos theory, String theory, Quantum mechanics and most recently "M" theory will all tell you that nothing is truly random. If given a massive database of variables, preferably infinite, along with a set of clear cut laws or rules, scientists tell us that any condition or event can be predicted. Furthermore, all of existence is merely an eloquent dance of cosmic collisions and reactions. The more we know about the rules that govern such events, the more we understand the universe that cradles our existence. Now most people that seek to discredit the concept of a higher being causing the creation of the universe will grab hold of these governing laws of nature and hold them up as proof that there is a logical, scientific basis for everything and all things paranormal can be explained eventually. In their minds this disproves the existence of God and science quickly becomes their religion. Why do I call it a religion? Because all religions have one thing in common, they all need to ultimately take belief on faith. Now I know many within the scientific community will say that if you can scientifically prove something then no faith is required. Not true. When I speak of faith in science I am talking about the need to simply accept the very laws and rules that hold the universe together as being created by the very type of random events that appear in the very universe which they govern. In short, what or who made the laws of physics, from what source do these laws derive the power or ability to do what they do and what keeps them from failing. What overall guiding light brought not only the matter, anti-matter and cosmic conditions into existence but also what defined the rules that would act as lords over this universe? So we need to ask ourselves a very difficult question. Did the universe somehow create itself by cosmic coincidence or was it guided along a predetermined path? If we accept the idea that mere random events brought the governing laws of the universe into existence then we must also accept that those laws are not stagnant and are also constantly evolving. Is it possible that suddenly mass will invert the way that space and time are distorted and gravity will reverse while evolution flows backward in time? Does the speed of light fluctuate randomly to accommodate opposing physical and quantum forces? I very much doubt it. So this brings us back to evolution. We can tell that life in all of its forms is dictated by set of rules that we are yet to truly understand. For example most all living creatures can be divided into equal halves, a product of cellular division and binary math. Finally take note of one inescapable detail when looking at the broad evolution of life on this planet. If evolution truly functions as scientists believe, why do we seem to be at the tail end of the evolutionary cycle? The earth should be populated with evolutionary paths that are merely 1 million years old along side the much more developed 6 million year old lines. I'll keep my eye out for the half-winged toad. If anyone sees one, please let me know. Until then I will continue to believe that life on this planet along with the bonds that hold the entire universe together are built by design by you guessed it, a power that I call God.

Richard Okelberry, Managing Editor