Photo source here

Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” This is the premise and foundation of a creationist. Creationists are people who believe that God is the Creator and He is the originator and beginning of life in the Universe.

When I became a believer, I believed God as Creator to be true. To an extent. My Catholic education taught me that God created the Universe but it took Him more than six days to do it. Only recently, I discovered that this was called the Gap Theory or the Theory of Gradualism.

But to my simple mind, it does not make sense. How can evolution be a part of a creative process when both theories terribly oppose each other? How was it possible that men and their ideas think that six days was more than sun up and sun down?

How is possible that the human race came from nothing? Just a chance. Evolution lead me to believe that there was no purpose of human existence but to evolve into something else.

If I look around, I see a complex infinite design that is detailed and even more complex the closer inspection I get. There is order in everything.

Take for example a simple garden seed. The seed goes through different stages before it produces a flower or a fruit, right? It does not magically become edible overnight.

Another example is the way the sun rises and sets. Only twice in the history of mankind did it stop or move back a few hours. No amount of human effort can stop the sun from carrying it out its purpose for the day. Design is infinitely detailed!

Irreducible complexity debunks gradualism. Micheal Behe, author of Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference has this to say about irreducible complexity:

What does the existence of irreducibly complex systems mean, and how does their existence impact neo-Darwinian theory?:

“In The Origin of Species Darwin stated:
‘If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.’

A system which meets Darwin’s criterion is one which exhibits irreducible complexity. By irreducible complexity I mean a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.”

Now that we have a clear definition, let’s look at a simple example to further our case:

The bacterial flagellum is an example of what Michael Behe describes as an irreducibly complex system. In his book, Darwin’s Black Box, he explains that such irreducibly complex systems could not have arisen by a gradual step-by-step Darwinian process.

Some bacteria boast a marvelous swimming device, the flagellum, which has no counterpart in more complex cells. In 1973 it was discovered that some bacteria swim by rotating their flagella. So the bacterial flagellum acts as a rotary propellor — in contrast to the cilium, which acts more like an oar.

The structure of a flagellum is quite different from that of a cilium. The flagellum is a long, hairlike filament embedded in the cell membrane. The external filament consists of a single type of protein, called “flagellin.” The flagellin filament is the paddle surface that contacts the the liquid during swimming. At the end of the flagellin filament near the surface of the cell, there is a bulge in the thickness of the flagellum. It is here that the filament attaches to the rotor drive. The attachment material is comprised of something called “hook protein.” The filament of a bacterial flagellum, unlike a cilium, contains no motor protein; if it is broken off, the filament just floats stiffly in the water. Therefore the motor that rotates the filament-propellor must be located somewhere else. Experiments have demonstrated that it is located at the base of the flagellum, where electron microscopy shows several ring structures occur. The rotary nature of the flagellum has clear, unavoidable consequences … (pp. 70-72)

In conclusion to his case of irreducible complexity, he writes:

In summary, as biochemists have begun to examine apparently simple structures like cilia and flagella, they have discovered staggering complexity, with dozens or even hundreds of precisely tailored parts. It is very likely that many of the parts we have not considered here are required for any cilium to function in a cell. As the number of equired parts increases, the difficulty of gradually putting the system together skyrockets, and the likelihood of indirect scenarios plummets. Darwin looks more and more forlorn. New research on the roles of the auxiliary proteins cannot simplify the irreducibly complex syetem The intransigence of the problem cannot be alleviated; it will only get worse. Darwinian theory has given no explanation for the cilium or flagellum. The overwhelming complexity of the swimming systems push us to think it may never give an explanation. (p. 73)

Source here

I need not use a microscope and study different bacteria and minute creatures to see the complexity of the design and the creation. The mere chance of reproduction and the cycle of life leads me to believe that a Designer’s Hand purposely creates. If He has a purpose in mind, my life here on earth must be for some use and purpose too.

I didn’t just gradually appear and eventually disappear on earth.

Have you found your purpose?