Part Five:  Honey Bee Communication and Navigation 

Honey bees are arguably the most fascinating social insect on earth; in particular, because of their navigational skills and the astonishing way they communicate with other bees in their colonies. As most people know, honey bees collect pollen and nectar as food for the colony, and in the process pollinate flowering plants and manufacture honey. In pursuing these activities, however, honey bees reveal an incredible ability to navigate and communicate with each other—traits with no evolutionary pathway through the random processes of natural selection.

Wendy Billock, who holds a Ph.D. in biology, writes about the honey bee’s amazing eyesight and communication skills in a fascinating book edited by Josh Shoemaker & Gary Braness titled, God & the World of Insects:

Bees possess color vision, ultraviolet vision, polarized-light sensitivity, the ability to  compensate for the sun’s movements across the sky, an internal sense of time, a dance-language system of communication, a keen sense of smell, distance estimation skills, muscle memory, and a magnetic compass.” (112)

 After a food source is located, foraging honey bees must communicate its location to other members of the colony. Billock continues:

Foraging bees that have returned to the hive have an extraordinary way to communicate the location of a food source to other colony members. . . . The bee waggle dance is a sequence of actions performed by a bee surrounded by other colony members. Through motions and vibrations, it accurately communicates both the direction and distance for others to fly to find the foraging site. (115)

This communication technique is so sophisticated that another researcher “has noted that in terms of information capacity, the symbolic language of bees is ‘second only to human language.’” (115)

Can natural selection, operating through random processes and chance, account for the origin of honey bee’s multiple, interrelated biological functions necessary for bees to discover food sources and then communicate their locations to other members in their colonies?  Not likely, since neither the bee’s complex eyes nor its navigational skills would have any function unless each succeeding evolutionary step developed simultaneously and worked mutually together until the fully developed bee is operational.

The only feasible origin for the honey bee’s sophisticated eyesight and ability to communicate the location of food sources to other members in the colony is an intelligent, creative Designer—the God revealed in both Scripture and the Book of Nature. ©

 Part Four:  Bird Lungs

Along with bird feathers, one of the most unique features—if not the most unique—in all the animal kingdom with no evolutionary pathway is the bird lung. It cannot be explained or accounted for through the random processes of natural selection. Unlike mammals and reptiles, birds possess a one-of-a-kind continuous flow-through lung system. Molecular biologist and medical doctor, Michael Denton, describes this remarkable organ in detail:

       In all other vertebrates the air is drawn into the lungs through a system of branching tubes which finally terminate in tiny air sacs, or alveoli, so that during respiration the air is moved in and out through the same passage. In the case of birds, however, the major bronchi break down into tiny tubes which permeate the lung tissue. These so-called parabronchi eventually join up together again, forming a true circulatory system so that air flows in one direction through the lungs. . . . No lung in any other vertebrate species is known which in any way approaches the avian system. Moreover, it is identical in all essential details in birds as diverse as humming birds [sic], ostriches and hawks.

Just how such an utterly different respiratory system could have evolved gradually from the standard vertebrate design is fantastically difficult to envisage. . . . Just as the feather cannot function as an organ of flight until the hooks and barbules are coadapted to fit together perfectly [another feature with no evolutionary pathway], so the avian lung cannot function as an organ of respiration until the parabronchi system which permeates it and the air sac system which guarantees the parabronchi their air supply are both highly developed and able to function together in a perfectly integrated manner.

In addition to the feather and the avian lung there are many other unique features in the biology of the birds, in the design of the heart and cardiovascular system, in the gastrointestinal system and in the possession of a variety of other relatively minor adaptions . . . which similarly defy plausible explanation in gradualistic terms. Altogether it adds up to an enormous conceptual difficulty in envisaging how a reptile could have been gradually converted into a bird. (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 210-213)

There is no adequate explanation for the incredible bird lung, feather, and other avian organs, all unparalleled in the animal kingdom, other than purposefully designed and created by God. ©

Part Three:  Metamorphosis

 The theory that natural selection creates tiny, random improvements in function at every stage of an organism’s development, culminating in an entirely different kind of organism, has never been proven in a laboratory or observed in nature. The reason, we saw in the introductory blog in this series, is because natural selection itself has no power to create new structures from scratch; it only acts on existing designs already built into a system. If a structure has no function, it will have no survival value, and natural selection cannot begin to operate.

One of the most compelling and convincing examples of this is the unique biological phenomenon of metamorphosis, which is the change in form and structure from one stage to the next during the life cycle of amphibians and insects.

The question evolutionary models need to explain is how metamorphosis developed step-by-step purely by accident and through random natural processes? Take the butterfly for example. A few days after eggs are laid, tiny caterpillars (the larval stage) emerge and gorge on plant material for ten or twelve days. When the larvae are fully grown, they enter the pupa stage. During this part of their lifecycle, the larvae surround themselves with a hard outer covering called a chrysalis, from which the adult butterfly will eventually emerge.

This is amazing enough, but the details of what goes on internally are mind-boggling. During the pupa stage, a seemingly miraculous physical transformation takes place within the chrysalis. All the organ systems of the larvae dissolve into a “veritable soup of fragmented cells and tissues” that later assemble into an entirely different type of organism. “In other words,” writes molecular biologist and medical doctor Michael Denton (a non-Christian) “one type of fully functioning organism is broken down into what amounts to a nutrient broth from which an utterly different type of organism emerges.” (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis 147, 220)

Only purpose and design at the hands of a creating God can explain how the jelly-like material within the chrysalis emerges as a beautiful, free-flying butterfly. ©

Note: I didn’t have a picture of the bombardier beetle, but I think the desert spider beetle is much more interesting looking!

 Part Two:   Bombardier Beetle

 One of the most common examples of an animal with features Darwinism (macroevolution) can’t explain—and one many readers may be familiar with—is the bombardier beetle.

 What’s unique about this fascinating insect is its ingenious chemical-defense system. The bombardier beetle can literally shoot a blast of noxious gases at the boiling point of water (212 ⁰F) into a predator’s face. This is a risky business for the beetle, and it raises the question, how is it possible that such a deadly weapon could evolve without killing the insect in the process? As biochemist Michael Behe observed, “The slightest alteration in the chemical balance would result immediately in a race of exploded beetles” (Darwin’s Black Box, 33). The most plausible answer is it didn’t evolve—it was created.

 The bombardier’s “cannons” are a classic example of irreducible complexity. The various apparatus involved in its chemical defense are products of a large number of highly complex, interactive parts. No single piece of equipment would have survival value independent of the other parts, nor would any single part (or the organ as a whole) have any function until it is fully developed and operative. Biologist Dr. Gary Parker describes the components of the bombardier’s cannons:

Successful firing of the bombardier beetle’s cannons requires two chemicals (hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone), two enzymes and enzyme blockers, pressure tanks, and a whole series of nerve and muscle attachments for aim and control. Try to imagine all those parts accumulating by time, chance, and natural selection?  (Gary E. Parker, What is Creation Science? 52)

There is no natural explanation, no evolutionary pathway, for how the bombardier beetle’s complex biochemical processes evolved step-by-step. The best explanation is that it was designed and created by God.

Next Week:  Metamorphosis 

Part One: Introduction to Series and Why Natural Selection Can’t Create New Life Forms

 When it comes to the existence of life on Earth, its amazing complexity and fascinating diversity, there are only two possibilities: naturalistic evolution (Darwinism) or divine Creation (God). If one is false, by default the other is correct. There are no other options. There is more than enough compelling scientific evidence for the latter paradigm—divine creation. (I present this evidence in my revised and expanded edition of Defending Your Faith.)

 In this new series of blogs, titled “Creatures and Features that Evolution Can’t Explain,” I’m going to focus on seldom-used evidence for divine creation. Rather than point out scientific evidence, I will give examples in the animal and plant world of creation speaking for itself. In other words, there are countless animals and plants that could not exist unless designed and created by God.

Evolution can provide no demonstrable pathway for any of them to have developed through random natural processes. In particular, through natural selection, as commonly understood. Although hundreds of examples can be given, I will focus on ten or eleven that demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt only a transcendent, all-knowing, all-powerful God could create life on Earth.

Natural Selection Doesn’t Create New Life

Before sharing my first example next week, it’s important to understand why natural selection is unable to account for the emergence of new life forms from ancestral life form, such as fish evolving into reptiles or reptiles evolving into mammals through multiple thousands of transitional steps (macroevolution).

In an evolutionary scenario, each stage of an organism’s development must have function or it will have no survival value and therefore fail to develop any further. The key here is function, as Christian scholar and fellow at the Discovery institute’s Center for Science and culture,  Nancy Pearcey, explains in her book Total Truth:

Natural selection is said to work on tiny, random improvements in function—which means it does not kick in until there is at least some function to select from. But irreducible complex systems don’t have any function until a minimum number of parts are in place—which means those parts themselves cannot be products of natural selection. We’re talking about a minimum number of interacting pieces that must be present before natural selection even begins to operate. (186)

Professor Dr. Stephen Meyer explained it similarly in an interview with Lee Strobel in his book, The Case for a Creator:

Natural selection only preserves things that perform a function—in other words, which help the organism survive to the next generation….The problem with irreducibly complex systems is that they perform no function until all the parts are present and working together in close coordination with one another. So natural selection cannot help you build such systems. (79)

Keep this in mind as you read my new series of blogs. All the “creatures and features” I describe could not have developed through natural selection as Darwinism requires. They exist because God designed and created them. ©

Next week will begin examples of creatures and features that could exist only because God created them.

There is something in human nature that causes people to love to hear true-life stories. Hence, the popularity of reality television shows, celebrity magazines, and exposes. Every Christian has a “story” to tell about how they came to faith in Jesus Christ and subsequently how it changed their lives.

Personal testimonies make the objective truths of our faith subjectively real. Sharing how Jesus healed our emotional wounds, delivered us from bondage to addictions, healed our marriages, brought us closer to our children, restored family relationships, improved our standing among coworkers, delivered us from pornography and other sexual sins—all such personal encounters with the living Christ demonstrate the reality of Christianity and its power in all areas of our lives.

Something similar can be said about fiction stories, in particular novels. During recent years, numerous Christian authors have begun to write novels that are subtle in their presentation of the Christian worldview. Many of these novelists, such as Ted Dekker, Randy Singer, Craig Parshall, and Robert Whitlow, are every bit as skillful as popular secular authors in creating exciting, suspenseful plots built around interesting, real-life characters (but without the language and sex that pervades secular novels). Most secular bookstores carry a selection of popular Christian novels.

Unfortunately, it’s almost impossible to get non-Christians to read Christian books, especially those that openly promote Christian values and beliefs. But they don’t necessarily need to.

Christian apologist, the late Gretchen Passantino, wrote an essay, on “Discovering God through Stories,” which was published in Answers in Action. I was given permission to quote it in one of my books, and it’s worth requoting here:

Some of the most profound personal and spiritual insights I’ve ever experienced have grabbed me from the pages of a story. In exquisite story telling I see the creational image of God reflected in authors who created worlds of ideas never pondered before. As a spiritual novice and moral ingénue I encountered and came to understand faithfulness, integrity, courage, humility, and self-discipline through good characters; and betrayal, deceit, cowardice, pride, and self-indulgence through evil ones. I can’t count how often God has sneaked up on me in a powerful story, and taught me lessons I wouldn’t have willingly learned had he been so obvious as to challenge my stubbornness directly through a Bible study. My actual conversion to Christ came through a fairly ordinary encounter with the straightforward gospel, but the Holy Spirit softened me beforehand through literature, and nurtured me long after through the same manner.

I’ve used outstanding stories to share some of my most important beliefs with non-Christians who would never listen to overt preaching of the gospel, but who can be enticed by a good story into thinking for the first time about life after death, justice, morality, and redemption. Mainstream, popular contemporary fiction—if it’s good—is a valuable tool of pre-evangelism, seed planting, “soft” apologetics.

If your non-Christian friends or relatives won’t read Christian authors, encourage them to read quality fiction novels you have read. Afterward, discuss the characters and plot, and you may find opportunities to share the Christian perspective.©

Next Week:  A new blog series begins.

In her book, Total Truth, Christian scholar Nancy Pearcey observed that “it is all but impossible for people to accept new ideas purely in the abstract, without seeing a concrete illustration of what they look like when lived out in practice.” Through lifestyle evangelism, we can provide concrete illustrations of Christianity “lived out in practice.”

Non-Christians drawn to Christianity by our love and lifestyles are going to be more willing to share their intellectual concerns with an open mind rather than with criticisms. For this reason, living out our faith with love and service is a powerful testimony to the truth of Christianity—and it can also provide apologetic opportunities.

Lifestyle evangelism is a natural outgrowth of the love God gives us and wants us to share with other people. Consequently, it has always been the Christian’s most successful evangelistic “tool.” How we live out our beliefs and faith before non-Christians demonstrates that Christianity is true at all levels. It gives meaning and purpose to our lives. It changes our behaviors and transforms our minds (Rom. 12:2). The sinful things we once loved to do we avoid doing because we want to no longer. We’re the same people outwardly, but we are different on the inside thanks to God’s redemptive work (2 Cor.5:17).

Christians are always on stage before Non-Christians, and they notice how we respond to life’s challenges and how we talk and behave. Our lifestyle can make a tremendous impact on them. If we demonstrate that we possess an inner strength and peace the world can’t offer, Christianity can become extremely appealing to many people who have never been responsive to direct witnessing or apologetics.

When we become involved in people’s lives; reach out to share in their suffering; come alongside them during times of tragedy to comfort and encourage; take time to listen to their worldviews and offer new directions of thoughts—simply do what Jesus instructs us to do—we create an environment that sets the Holy Spirit free to soften people’s hearts and open their minds to Christ.

The Apostle Peter wrote in 1 Peter 3:15, “Sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you.” Unfortunately, many apologists stop with this first part of the verse. But Peter added these crucial words, “yet with gentleness and reverence.” Paul agrees. He wrote in 2 Timothy 2:24-25, “The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all . . . with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition.” Gentleness, reverence, kindness—these are the lifestyle attributes of love that should always be expressed in our apologetics. ©

Next week we’ll look at two more ways we can employ lifestyle evangelism as an aid to getting a fair hearing for the Gospel.

 Rational arguments supported by objective evidence has been the backbone of Christian apologetics. This is because, historically, most people accepted the existence of absolute truth, the authority of logic, and the efficacy of human reasoning. This is no longer the case. Since the mid-twentieth century, increasing numbers of non-Christians rely on feelings rather than facts and careful reasoning and often reject the notion of absolute truth in most areas of knowledge.

As a result of this shift in how people think—especially in the area of ethics and religion—some Christian apologists have moved away from evidential apologetic tactics to employ a more subjective apologetic approach, one that appeals to feelings and emotions rather than intellectual.

There are times when a subjective apologetic approach is appropriate. In today’s increasingly post-Christian, postmodern world, rational arguments and objective evidence are not always convincing. People often want nothing to do with appeals to facts and tend to make life decisions based primarily on how they feel about something.

How do we convince these individuals that Christianity is true? We establish a point of contact that reveals Christian truth-claims subjectively; that is, we provide “evidence” that appeals to their feeling and what they can experience as a Christian. This can be successful because Christianity is not only a historical and fact-based religion; it is also subjectively true. In other words, Christianity “works.” It meets a person’s deepest emotional and spiritual needs.

Non-Christians do not always need factual evidence and rational arguments to be convinced God exists and Christianity is the one true religion. We can demonstrate this through how we live, what we say, and our interaction with them. For unbelievers who make life decisions based on feelings and experiences, this approach can be a compelling testimony to the life-changing power of our faith.

In the next two blog posts, we’ll examine how to be effective apologists with non-Christians who rely on feelings rather than facts and rational reasoning for making life decisions, particularly in religious choices. Rather than appealing to objective evidence, logic, and persuasive reasoning, I will focus on the emotional side of a person’s personality rather than their cognitive side. I will suggest three ways we can do this. ©

Next week we’ll look at the first of three examples of subjective apologetic techniques.

Part Five:  “The Clearest Demonstration That Moral Relativism Is a Bogus Ideology”

Regardless of how popular moral relativism has become in Western culture, no one lives it out consistently. It’s easy to endorse moral relativism in the ivory towers of academia or sitting around at a party where it’s safe and no one gets hurt—where advocates can discuss it without committing their lives to it. But bring this philosophy into the real world—where it affects people personally—and suddenly commitment to moral relativism evaporates. It’s easy to say:

• “A woman has a right to do what she wants with her own body.”
• “A homosexual lifestyle is just as legitimate as a heterosexual lifestyle. Why not marry someone of the same sex?”
• “Pornography is guaranteed by freedom of speech. It doesn’t hurt anyone.”
• “So what if people want to live together before they marry.”

If we apply the same relativistic principle behind these statements to other areas of life, relativism is suddenly unacceptable. It will not be tolerated. For example, virtually every civilized person condemns child abuse, rape, cannibalism, slavery, and human sacrifice in the name of moral or religious freedom. Yet if relativism is a valid philosophy of life, all such behaviors must be sanctioned.

To be internally consistent—a fundamental requirement for any worldview to be legitimate—there would be no laws to condemn these atrocities or any other sick and hideous forms of behavior. All deviant behaviors would be sanctioned in a truly relativistic society. If not, the disciples of moral relativism are hypocrites because they are unwilling to live consistently with their alleged beliefs.  An unlivable worldview is a false worldview.

To get around this dilemma, it’s argued that cultures establish ethics, not individuals. Each culture is free to nurture their own brands of ethics; thus, moral relativism still functions. People must obey the “laws of the land” as dictated by their respective cultures.

This evasion doesn’t change anything. For one thing, it contradicts relativism. When a culture sets standards that apply to everyone within its control, it is making laws. Laws reflect absolutism, not relativism. Moral relativism at a cultural level would mean murdering millions of Jews during World War II was ethical because Nazi Germany endorsed it. Likewise, terrorist attacks sponsored by radical Islam could not be condemned on religious grounds (religious pluralism).

The bottom line is, there are limits to human conduct that apply to everyone. People may talk the talk of moral relativism and religious pluralism, but in most other areas of life, live according to absolute standards. In the real world, no sane person or civilized culture will tolerate the ultimate consequences of moral relativism carried to its logical conclusion. There are laws civilized societies must impose and demand that all people obey. This is absolutism, not relativism!©

Next week we’ll explore whether or not apologetics focusing on feelings can be effective.

Part Four:  Religious Pluralism: Why Can’t All Religions Be True?  

 Although secular humanism is essentially atheistic, postmodernism as a worldview is not. Many postmodernists are open to religious beliefs and are spiritual seekers. Unfortunately, however, most gravitate to New Age ideologies rather than Christianity. New Age thinking is more in harmony with postmodern beliefs because it is open to subjective religious experiences and a variety of religious views. New Age spirituality fits nicely with Postmodernism.

Pluralism is the word used to describe the belief that reality consists of many instead of one. Religious pluralism, then, teaches that all religions provide independent paths to God and salvation—whatever they determine that to be. This can mean two things: All of the diverse, distinct religious beliefs are independently true and legitimate, or there is only one “Ultimate Reality” to which all world religions relate but in different ways. The Hindu god, Krishna, supposedly expressed one way to God, Islam another, Christianity another, and so on.

In popular parlance, religious pluralism expresses itself in remarks such as:

• “Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed—all are prophets of God.”
• “All religions are paths to the same mountaintop.”
• “All religions are true; they’re just different.”
• “Christianity may be all right for you, but I prefer Hinduism [or whatever].”

Clearly, religious pluralism is illogical. The major world religions have entirely different views of God, salvation, Jesus Christ, and most other cardinal doctrines. They may all be incorrect, but in reality, only one can be correct. To claim otherwise violates the law of non-contradiction. Christians and like-minded people who recognize and highlight the irrationality of such claims are categorized as bigoted and intolerant:

• “What gives you the right to claim that Christianity is the only true religion.”
• “You Christians are so intolerant; you think you have a monopoly on God.”

Religious pluralism is relativism played in the spiritual arena. In postmodern America, it has become fashionable to promote this view. It’s “politically correct” to accept all faiths as equally legitimate and to denounce religions—in particular, Christianity—that refuse to accept this pluralistic philosophy. Religious pluralism is a serious obstacle to Christianity. It not only removes the unique, saving work of Jesus Christ on the cross, but it opens the door to universalism—the fatal belief that everyone will eventually be saved.

The best response to Postmodernism is to demonstrate that only Christianity can justify its beliefs with historical and other objective evidence. No other religion can do this. They are based on feelings, personal opinions, felt needs, or the indefensible dogma of their religious leaders and followers. As the apostle Paul warned, “For the time will come when [unblievers] will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to the have their ears tickled they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires” (2 Tim. 4:3, NASB).  Bottom line, a person can sincerely believe in religious pluralism and be sincerely wrong. ©

Next week we’ll see why no one can live consistently with moral and religious relativism.