Scientific Evidence for Creation with Frank Sherwin

Creation Fellowship Announcement and Ministry Updates

That was my disclaimer, Terry. Excellent. Here we go. Good evening, and thank you for joining us. Creation Fellowship in Santee, and now online, has been meeting for 10 years, eight years in person, and presently online for two years.

We are a group of people who come together to learn more about the six-day creation account that happened some 6 ,000 years ago. You can find Creation Fellowship Santee as a public page and a private group on Facebook.

You can watch past presentations on our video platforms at YouTube, Rumble, and BitChute by searching Creation Fellowship Santee or just CFS 2020. We often just say CFS. BitChute is the Believer's Best video platform we encourage using BitChute.

YouTube has now censored two videos and gave me a warning on one. When you do find us, please subscribe and like our videos. If you have questions or would like to get on our emailing list, please send us an email at creationfellowshipsantee at gmail .com.

I don't spam. I send out one email a week letting you know who's speaking, and sometimes I'll send out two if there's some really good information. We're doing a new thing this year. We're partnering with Throughout All Ages Ministry, which is a memory of Joe Gaona, who recently passed away.

And his wife, Stacey, is now the CEO. Go ahead, and Diane, let's go and tell us about Throughout All Ages.

OK.

Throughout All Ages Ministries incorporated 1530 Apologetics goes into the public high schools to build up the students' character, to intellectually think about their worldview, and weigh it with truth.

So for more information, you can go to throughoutallages .com. You can follow Stacey Gaona on Facebook, and that's spelled S-T-A-C-E-Y G-A-O-N-A. And you can go to Christ Girl on YouTube to follow her story.

Frank Sherwin’s Background and Work at ICR

All right. Thank you so much, Diane. And now we're going to turn it over to Frank. I'm sorry, Frank. I think everybody knows you. I don't have your bio in front of me. So if you could go ahead and tell us a little bit about yourself, and then begin your talk.

OK, well, thank you very much. I appreciate it. My name is Frank Sherwin, just like the faint. I'm born and raised in Chicago, and then got my schooling done in Colorado, both as an undergraduate, and then after getting my degree in biology and spending five years on the city fire department in North Colorado, I went back to school, got my master's degree in invertebrate zoology, with an emphasis in parasitology.

And from there, I went to Pensacola and spent nine years teaching at Pensacola Christian College. That's where 75 of my children were born, is Pensacola. Then at the end of the ninth year, we moved from Pensacola to right there in San Diego.

And I began working in 1996 with the Institute for Creation Research. At that time, when I was in San Diego, ICR paid for a number of classes that I took at UCSD and SDSU, such as two semesters of molecular pharmacology, advanced vertebrate immunology, just a host of classes that helped me to fine tune my work and research in zoology, specifically.

But the big deal of being in San Diego was I got to run the San Diego Rock and Roll Marathon. And I actually finished. And I never stopped. And I wasn't last. So that's my claim to fame for San Diego.

Romans 1 and the Case for Scientific Evidence

Thank you, Terry. So I think what we'll do now is look at scientific evidence for creation. Now, the average speaking speed is about 190 words per minute. I clip right along at 350 with gusts up to 400.

And as the infamous King Henry VIII of England told his six wives, I won't keep you long. So we'll look at this scientific evidence for creation. The critics of creation often say that there's no evidence for creation.

Creation is either something you believe in or don't believe in. However, the Apostle Paul in the first chapter of the Book of Romans told us very clearly that God's creation is not only seen, but then Paul added an extra word.

He said that God's creation is clearly seen, Romans chapter 1 and verse 20. And so we're going to take a look at that. I'm going to give you kind of an extended introduction to the scientific evidence for creation, make sure that we're reading on the same page, and then we'll jump right into it.

So let's see. It's not going forward.

Oh, maybe. Oh, right. Yeah, good.

Declining Church Attendance and the Loss of a Biblical Worldview

So when we look at America's membership in houses of worship, it continues to decline last year, dropping below 50 for the first time in Gallup's 80-year trend. Two years ago, 47 of Americans said they belonged to a church, synagogue, or mosque.

That's down from 50 in 2018 and 70 in 1999. So things are going downhill in a hurry when it comes to houses of worship and even pastors who believe the entire Bible from Genesis to the maps. And by the way, that's a requirement for working at ICR.

We have to believe that God's word is true from the very first verse. And indeed, we do. 72 of Americans polled way, way back in March of the year 2022 said that they don't attend religious services.

So statistically, if you go to places like Walmart or somewhere else, three out of every four people that you see don't go to any kind of religious worship services, for example. I like this quote. It's very sobering.

But this individual did his research search in 2016. And he talked about why Americans' nuns, if you've heard of that before, the nuns left religion behind. This includes many respondents who mentioned science as the reason they don't believe in religious teaching.

When they were pressed for specifics as to why they left Christianity because of science, here are the two most common statements they made as to the reason why. The first statement was, learning about evolution when I went away to college.

And then the second one is doubly tragic because they said there's a lack of any sort of scientific or specific evidence of a creator. This might take you back to Romans 1, verse 20, where Paul makes it very clear that God's creation is clearly seen.

Well, I like this. This was said way back in the year 2022. And this individual said, why does earth support life while Venus and Mars, and for all we know, any other planet in the universe do not? Then he said this very revealing statement.

It's one of the most fundamental questions in all of science. Why are we here? Why are we here? Well, if you are a Christian, then you know very well why we're here. But these are the same, this is the same question that has been asked through the centuries.

Why am I here? Why are we here? And we understand that the word of God, the Bible has a very clear answer to that. Well, it gets into, for example, the evolution of life. It certainly is not clearly seen.

This is one of my favorite quotes. I have no idea who said it, but it works for me. And here's what they said. The evolution of life is a faith that unknown chemicals came together in an unknown way, at an unknown place, at an unknown time, using an unknown process to produce life.

And this is why evolution is taught as a fact in American taxpayer paid public schools, because everything about, for example, the evolution of life is unknown. And so, as we say in Texas, I'm against teaching the next generation coming through the schools that they came from the fish.

I think instead they should be taught some really good science and leave the religion in the philosophy department. Well, evolution certainly is religion, as this quote you can see from just last year.

It was by a researcher by the name of Musser. And Musser had 13 other evolutionists writing this article in Science Magazine, volume 374. And you can see what they said. Sponges represent our distant animal relatives.

I cannot tell you how ridiculous that statement is. It's not logical. It's certainly not scientific. And tragically, it is strictly anti-biblical. But this is what they're saying, that this sponge is your distant evolutionary relative.

Now, as a invertebrate zoologist, I like studying sponges like this, and you can just see the incurrent and the excurrent canals that kind of takes on the shape of a face. So this is not Photoshop or anything else.

It's just how it looks. However, it should remind you of something. And so, but again, when the evolutionists are worried that creationists might get in there in the science classroom and teach religion, it's okay.

Religion is already there. Whenever they say really irresponsible statements like sponges represent our distant animal relatives, there's absolutely no scientific validation for that at all. Well, I love this quote, and I decided to add it very quickly.

And this is a quote by an individual who's now dead, but I certainly agree with what he said. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.

I don't know about you, but I am in 100 agreement with this individual. I truly believe that a fair result can only be obtained by still fully stating and balancing the facts, et cetera. Well, the question is, who said this statement?

Who said this that so clearly shows that both sides should be balanced and weighed? I think the answer might surprise you. It's none other than Charles Darwin. That's right. Charles Darwin said that. When I was living in San Diego, I was sent to go to a very small cramped studio in downtown San Diego.

I had literally seconds to spare. I got to that studio, sat down, the individual was behind the camera, the light went on, and I was talking to Lou Dobbs on CNN Live. And this is back in the late 90s.

And I found that I was debating an evolutionist, a very unpleasant individual. And so I kicked off my side of the story by using this quote. And I think it's very, very apropos. So millions of people on the Lou Dobbs Live were able to see this quote attributed to Charles Darwin.

So I really emphasize that a lot. This is especially true when it comes to American taxpayer paid public schools. I think since our tax dollars are being used to teach the next generation, the student should hear both sides of the story.

Now, what I'm not saying is they should hear about biblical creation. I'm not saying that. But I am saying very clearly that the students should hear the problems with evolution. That's not teaching creation.

So when a teacher says you came from a fish, the teacher, it would be important that the students understand that there's real scientific problems with saying that people came from fish, let alone any other creature.

And again, without being redundant, this is our tax dollars at work. So we must build our worldview on the Bible. Now I'm talking as Christians and I'm not talking about public schools. We as Christians, we who name the name of Christ should build our worldview on the Bible.

And certainly Genesis is the true origins account. Some people think Genesis is just a story, but I hasten to add that all 50 chapters are written in the historical narrative Hebrew. In other words, that includes the first critical 11 chapters of this book of beginnings, the book of Genesis.

And so we believe the Bible at ICR to be true from the very first verse. We believe that the Bible and science, by that I mean empirical science, go together just like butter and bread. Science and the Bible are inextricably linked, absolutely inseparable, just like politics and corruption.

And so we believe that the Bible is certainly true and that it mirrors what science and scientific investigation and research, and that there's no problem between the two. First Peter 3 .15 is something that my wife and I taught our four children as they were growing up, both in Pensacola and then later in San Diego, that sanctify the Lord God in your hearts and be ready always to give an answer.

That is the word apologia and apologetic to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and with fear. Such a critically important verse in this sin sick society of which we now live, we should be able to stand up, be bold in our faith, be bold in the Lord, draw upon him and say that, yeah, yeah, we have been created in God's image, Genesis chapter two.

In other words, we should be able to know why we believe what we believe. Do you believe in creation? Wonderful, that's commendable. Now, why do you believe in creation as opposed to the strange theory that says we came from invertebrates like sponges millions of years ago?

We also agree at ICR, the empty tomb. What's so unique about Christianity? Well, there's a number of things, obviously. The first and foremost is the very first verse of the Bible. It begins like no other religious writing in the world.

When you talk to a cosmologist, she or he will tell you we live in a universe, and it doesn't matter how secular the cosmologist is, they would certainly say that we live in universe composed of time and space and matter.

Maybe you've heard it said a time-space-matter universe. Now, why is that significant? Well, because in the beginning, that's time. God created the heavens, that's space, and the earth, matter. So in the very first verse of the first book of the book of books, we find God who has always existed speaking into existence, we call that an ex nihilo creation, the time-space-matter universe.

And by the way, we live in a universe, not a multiverse. What does the prefix uni mean? That's right, one. So it's time, space, and matter, three in a universe, one. Three in one, I think that's kind of interesting.

And so we also teach, of course, that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life, and that no one comes to the Father except through Jesus Christ. And what else makes Christianity unique besides how the Bible begins?

Well, it's the empty tomb. We worship the God who is there that is victorious over the grave. Jesus Christ rose physically, and I emphasize the word physically, from the dead, showing once and for all that he is God in the flesh.

Sometimes philosophers wring their hands and say, we could never know what God's like. I disagree. If you study the life of Jesus Christ, you will know exactly what God is like because he's God in the flesh.

Defining Science as Observation, Testing, and Truth

So what is science? I think that we should emphasize this as creation scientists. We shouldn't be afraid of science by any means. We understand that science is a way of thinking God's thoughts after him.

And science is a systematic study, a phenomena, based on experimental investigation. Again, we have no problem with that, with ICR. We understand that empirical science is that which we can observe, test, and repeat.

Indeed, at least 70 of empirical science is observation, looking at a phenomena and taking notes. We certainly have no problem with that at ICR. Empirical science is observation, testing, repeating, and falsifiable as well.

And so I always emphasize the definition of science because the critics of creation sometimes say that we never define what science is. So there you go. I like this quote from a former atheist. He's not an atheist anymore because he died a couple of years ago, but his name was Linus Pauling.

He did a lot of research in vitamin C, and he said, science is the search for truth. I agree with that. I really agree with that. Science is a search of truth, the effort to understand the world. Here in the 21st century, we find a lot of secular individuals who are engaged in the field of science who feel that science is subjective, science is relative.

Hey man, what's true for you may not be true for me. And some are even more cynical and say the truth doesn't even exist, which I just, I'm flabbergast because why would that individual be in the field of science if she or he doesn't believe that the truth exists since science is a search for truth?

And so conversely, I find as a creation scientist, as an invertebrate zoologist, it is eminently satisfying to think God's thoughts after him, to do research, to do investigation, knowing that Jesus is the way and the, that's right, the truth and the life, and that the Lord Jesus Christ is the truth.

And so to do research and investigation, we are thinking God's thoughts after him. As a matter of fact, let me emphasize that doing scientific research from a creation science perspective is a form of worship.

It's a form of worship. And so we enjoy that very much at ICR. So with that in mind, empirical science, let's look at this quote by Paul Sutter, no friend of the creationist by any stretch of the imagination.

And he said this amazing statement, quote, at 13 .8 billion years ago, our entire observable universe was the size of a peach and had the temperature of over a trillion degrees. And is this empirical science?

Can we observe, test and repeat what happened 13 .8 billion years ago?

I think not.

And so this is nothing more than a statement, a hypothesis. And if pushed, I would simply ask the question, Dr. Sutter, how do you know that? How do you know that it wasn't 13 .6 billion years ago or 14 billion years ago?

And how do you know it was the size of a peach and that kind of temperature if it happened so, so long ago? In other words, that was a one-time event that occurred in the unobserved past. Let me repeat that.

That was a one-time event that occurred in the unobserved past. Now the atheist will turn that around and say, well, what about Genesis chapter one? That was a one-time event that occurred in the unobserved past.

I certainly agree with that. So do both of these statements take faith? Yes, they do. But there is one big difference. And that is ours is a more reasonable faith. The biblical position is more reasonable faith.

Why is that? Because the atheist says in the beginning, nothing. The atheist has to begin with absolutely nothing and then start from there. We begin with God who has always existed. Now that may not sound very scientific, but to say in the beginning, nothing, and we've got everything from nothing, how scientific is that?

Can we put on a white lab coat, go into a laboratory, 21st century laboratory, and show how something can come from absolutely nothing? Obviously we can't do that. So although it is true, both positions require faith, we have to understand that ours is a more reasonable faith.

And the evolutionist has to have their faith ultimately in nothing. Well, let's look at our created cosmos and understand that there's only three options for the origin of this universe. Number one is it always existed.

Now there's a big thermodynamic problem with that. If it always existed, it already would have burned up in what we call a heat death. And so that doesn't work. Door number two, it suddenly appeared from nothing.

And door number three, it was created supernaturally. Now the evolutionists are caught on the horns of the dilemma. They certainly understand that it couldn't have always existed and they aren't about to become a creationist or something like that and say it was created supernaturally.

So the only option they have is door number two. It suddenly appeared from, and this is what I talked about just a minute or two ago, from nothing. And I wanna share with you a quote by the wonder kid of the expanding universe.

His name is Alan Guth out of MIT. And Alan Guth said this in mid 1980s. He might've well have said it this morning. But he said, it has been tempting to go one step further and speculate, there's a good scientific word, speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing.

So there you have it from Alan Guth, who's no creationist, but he's forced to say everything came from nothing. That takes a lot more faith than I have. I put my faith in the one who was there when? In the beginning, in the beginning.

Logic, Observation, and the Design of Earth and the Moon

So God has given us tools for inquiry, hasn't he? First of all, he's given us that three pound brain that's currently holding your ears apart. That three pound brain has the most sophisticated accumulation of matter in the known universe.

Our three pound brain, the most sophisticated accumulation of matter in the known universe. We will never, ever, ever understand the brain. It is too complex. It's too sophisticated. They're always finding out more and more about the brain, even the neurons, the nerve cells that make up the brain with its thousands of sodium potassium pumps that are pumping sodium potassium out in a two to three ratio.

It's really an amazing, amazing accumulation of matter. So God has given us logic, logic in this three pound brain, but he has also given, as you see in the picture there, observation. So using logic and observation, those are the tools of inquiry that God has blessed us with, that God has given us.

And I would dare to say that sometime today, you have used both logic and observation a bunch of times. And these are the tools that God has given us. Well, I like how earth is designed. We all do as Christians.

We acknowledge the creator who designed the earth. And evolutionists like to say, we inhabit no unique place in the universe. And I have several quotes of leading evolutionists who say that, and you can see the hope that they have.

I hope, I hope, I hope we inhabit no unique place in the universe, because if we did, that would imply some kind of supernatural placement, and they certainly don't want that. But decades ago, this book, it's a dated book, but it still has great quotes.

It will never really go out of date. It's called Rare Earth, and it's by two atheists. These two individuals, Ward and Brownlee, had no theological ax to grind, but they showed in this book, this significant book, why complex life is uncommon in the universe.

Again, evolutionists, atheists want to say that, oh, life is just brimming over all over the universe. Well, we certainly have not seen that yet. And I would predict we'll never see organic life, sophisticated organic life anywhere else in the universe.

It's just not there. So these two secular authors beg to differ with what atheists say in the above quote there about no unique place in the universe. Earth is very special according to this well-researched book and here's some examples.

I didn't know this until a couple of years ago, but Earth has just the right rotation. Not too fast, not too slow. As Goldilocks says, it's just right. And this is another Goldilocks problem for astrobiologists to consider.

Not only do you have to have a planet that's not too close to a star, but not too far away, but it's got to be in the proper orbit. It's got to be rotating at the right speed. It's got to have something like the moon that is also orbiting the planet just as the moon and planet is what we call a binary is orbiting the star.

And for in our case with the Earth, we orbit the star called the sun every 365 days. But while that's happening, our moon is also orbiting the Earth, giving us a very, very important physical parameters.

So here we have the habitable zone. Planet size, as you see here with the Earth is just right, it's in the green zone, not too hot and not too cold. But what about our moon? Our moon as it turns out is just the right size, just the right distance, just the right rotational velocity, just the right density.

There is everything about the moon that has to be not just right, but exactly right. And that's what we find. Two atheists wrote a book about the moon quoting all these parameters I just listed for you.

And once again, these two different atheists had no theological extra guide, but they are giving you all sorts of statistics about how unique the moon is. Finally, when it came to giving a title for this book, they had to be intellectually honest.

They had to be intellectually honest and simply say in the title of the book, who built the moon? Do you remember I said in Romans chapter one, how the apostle Paul said that God's creation is not only seen, but it's clearly seen?

This is a perfect example. This book by two atheists who by the way, denigrate Christians and creationists in this book. They wanna make sure that nobody thinks they're Christians. But Paul says God's creation is clearly seen and it's clearly seen when two atheists give the title to the book, who built the moon?

They could have said what? But they said, no, the moon is simply too specific. There's so many parameters about the moon that are so spot on, somebody had to have built it. Ergo Romans 1 .20. It's unusual size and especially it's earth-like chemical composition have always been a mystery that this individual said very recently.

It's unusual size, earth-like chemical composition, everything is just exactly right. And by the way, the origin of the moon remains enigmatic. That was said here in the 21st century, the puzzling origin of the moon.

And by the way, they have been finding insects on the moon. A lot of people don't know they found the insects.

On the moon.

Scientists are calling them lunatics. Thank you, thank you. And so again, we look at the cover of this book, the title, and we can clearly see how Yes.

Was that really a joke. Or do they find insects?

That was a joke, lunatics.

Okay, I will not put that in the question. Then, thank you.

Okay.

Okay, so anyway, no life without the moon. Life on earth would not be possible without the moon. It keeps our planet's axis of rotation stable, which controls seasons and regulates our climate. Now, this is said in the secular evolutionary publication, PhysOrg.

It's online, it is no connection to any church or religious group. And they said this just two short years ago. You need the moon to have life on earth. And so life simply wouldn't be possible without the moon.

And the moon just happens to be absolutely specific. And it even helps to maintain the orbital velocity and how the earth is at a certain tilt and all that has to do with the moon. Well, let's take a giant step away from that and look at biology, the biological sciences and understand that there is horizontal variation.

For example, in people, we see horizontal variation. That's not evolution. That is simply a variation that we see within the created kind, people created in Genesis chapter two. And so we have no problem with that.

So we see horizontal variation in people and in plants. For example, roses. There are approximately 13 ,000 identifiable varieties that is cultivated hybrids of roses throughout the world. And please note, they're all 100 roses.

So the roses are not becoming any other kind of plant. God has built into the roses a lot of genetic variability. But again, it's always a rose. And so we would call that horizontal variation just like the horizontal variation we see in people.

So people and plants, we see it all the time. We see this observable kind of minor change. And that's all we see. We don't see, for example, macro evolution. Now at this point, evolutionists will say, wait a minute, what about this?

And now this is not a Photoshop. This is an actual picture. The mom is seen over there on the left-hand side and Junior is seen in the center of the picture. Look at the socks that Junior is wearing, okay?

And you can tell that mom is a zebra and the dad is not there, but the dad is a mule. And so we find that this creature is what they call a zonkey. It's half donkey and half a zebra. So they call it a zonkey, not a mule.

And so this is a zonkey. Is this an example of evolution? And the answer is no. This is an example of minor variation within the horse kind, minor variation within the horse kind. And I've been with ICR for decades.

Never once have I heard evolutionists bring this up as an example of evolution. They know what creationists know, and that is, this is just a variation of the horse kind. So horizontal variation in animals.

Well, what about this? This is a liger crossed between a tiger and a lion. And this is a half a ton kitty. I believe they're both dead now, but they were very, very big, about a half ton, 1 ,000 pounds.

And again, they were a variation of the cat kind between the lion and the tiger. And so even evolutionists admit, no, this is not real evolution. This is just a variation of the cat kind. So again, this is horizontal variation in animals.

So we can say this evening that there's horizontal variation, absolutely, in people, plants, and animals, but there's no vertical evolution. And that's what the debate is. The debate today in the 21st century is, did we come from the fish?

Is this evolutionary progression from bacteria, the quote-unquote simple forms of life, to people and dinosaurs and everything else? Is that a fact? And of course it is not a fact. It's not observable, testable, repeatable science.

What we do see is the horizontal variation. You get all sorts of varieties going on. So we find created after their time. Some of my favorite animals are the puppy dogs. When we were living in California, we had a canardly dog.

You canardly tell what kind of dog it was. That was a joke. And so when we look at the varieties of dogs, we see the big dogs, the small dogs. You can see, for example, those huge Mexican chihuahuas, those little bitty Great Danes, and everything in between, even horribly mutated dogs like poodles.

So whether they're cold dogs or hot dogs, we find that dogs have always been what? That's right. Dogs have always been dogs. And so there's all sorts of varieties of dogs that we can investigate and research and look into, but they're always dogs.

How about this?

What kind of dog is this? Well, this is a Labrador Retriever. This is the most popular dog in Canada, the United States, England, Wales, Scotland, all these countries. This is the most popular dog, the Labrador Retriever.

How many different kinds do we have? Well, we have the Golden Lab, we have the Black Lab, and what's the last one? That's right, we have the Chocolate Lab. And so labs have always been labs. We find varieties of labs, but always labs.

So right here in the great state of Texas, we have some neighbors that live nearby. And although we have the Gold Lab, Black Lab, and the Chocolate Lab, we're pretty sure they have a Meth Lab. Thank you.

Dogs, Domestic Variety, and the Limits of Evolution

Okay, good, the Meth Lab. And so, but thank you, Terri. So here's the question of the evening. Where did domestic dogs come from? That's the question. Where did domestic dogs come from? Well, obviously you would think that that's a no-brainer, but evolutionists do not know where the domestic dogs came from.

And I emphasize that. As a matter of fact, Michael Benton, he's an English atheist, a vertebrate paleontologist. I have read his book cover to cover several times on vertebrate paleontology. And he said, in regard to dogs, he said the history of today's dogs is still contentious.

He said that in 2015, but leave that as it may, in 2022, just two short years ago, Science Daily, which is no friend of the creationists, but where the dog comes from and how old various groups of dogs are is still a bit of a mystery.

They still don't know. Now, just as a thing that I want to emphasize here this evening very quickly, and that is the evolutionists believe we came from a sponge. And you saw at least 15 evolutionists in that quote from Science Magazine that said, yes, yes, a sponge is our evolutionary ancestor.

Now they're willing to say that, but they don't know where dogs came from. And we have all these dogs that we can study over and over again. So although they believe we came from a sponge, they have a terrible time trying to define and describe where dogs came from.

That just doesn't add up. So here's the question in my presentation. Is it really possible to talk honestly and fairly about scientific evidence for creation? Well, I believe it is because the Apostle Paul said in Romans 1 .20 that God's creation is not only seen, but it's clearly seen.

And so the answer is clearly yes. And so just in the remaining minutes we have here this evening, let's look at my field, which is biology. And I like what the psalmist said in Psalm 111. The works of the Lord are great, sought out of all them that have pleasure therein.

And we're gonna see some of the works of the Lord. Certainly design means a designer, creation means a creator. And things looks like they were architecturally made. There must be an architect, exactly.

The Bacterial Flagellum as Evidence of Design

So this is the, I guess you would call this the poster child of the creation science movement. And that is the flagellum, the rotary flagellum. Do you see those whip-like appendages there, those threads?

Well, what we wanna do looking at this bacterial cell, the famous E. coli, of which there are dozens and dozens of sub varieties of E. coli. This is not the E. coli you find in your large intestine. The E. coli in our large intestine only makes up about 1 of our biome.

But some of the free living E. coli on the environment have these flagella that helps it to move around. And the flagella actually twist. They twist very, very rapidly. What scientists have done is to look how the flagella goes into the cell wall of the bacterium.

And by the way, this picture is an electron micrograph. They actually had to magnify a single E. coli bacterium hundreds and hundreds of times, if not thousands of times to blow up and see what this E. coli bacteria looks like.

And as we look at these whip-like projections, we're gonna look and see how it actually fits into, just take a look at any one of them there, and see how it fits into the side of the bacterial cell. So let's do that now.

Let's blow up just one little section there, how the flagellum goes in the side and see what it looks like. And here it is. Do you see that grainy white and black picture there on the right-hand side of the screen?

That's an electron micrograph of the flagellum. The reason why it's grainy and kind of unclear is because it had to be magnified almost 1 million times. So obviously you don't get the degree of detail that you would like.

And so what the illustrators have done is you can see on the left-hand side of the screen, a very clear and sharp image. That's because it's an artist's rendition. And I would say it's 99 correct. I have no problem with that.