Looking at a vase of flowers, no one would suggest that the glass vase just made itself by natural processes. No one would think that a lightning strike on a pile of sand created the vase. No, the vase clearly shows that a skilled glassblower, using his intelligence, designed it. It would be perverse to think otherwise.1
However, we are repeatedly informed in school, at university and on nature documentaries, that the flowers in the vase did make themselves—over eons of time, by means of evolution, i.e., mutations plus natural selection. Natural processes created the flowers; no creative intelligence was needed to design the flowers, we are told.
Now the plants that grow flowers are incredibly complex—far more complex than any vase. The complexity of a plant cell far exceeds any machine mankind has ever made or is ever likely to make. The photosynthesis system alone is astoundingly complex and is still being discovered in its detail. Even the most talented chemists have yet to match the ingenious machinery in the humble plant.2
So how logical is it to believe that the vase must have been created but not the flowers? Actually, it is not that the flowers don’t reveal design, because if they could be explained like the vase as coming from a human creator, that would be acceptable. The problem is that they show too much design—design that has to come from a super-intelligent designer, that is, a supernatural Creator. And that is just not allowed.
This vase of flowers illustrates just how blinkered and illogical modern evolutionary thinking is.
Of course a machine could have made the vase, but an intelligent engineer had to design the machine; it did not make itself. Return to text.
Of course a machine could have made the vase, but an intelligent engineer had to design the machine; it did not make itself.
Graham P., New Zealand, 21 December 2010
Rebecca B., Australia, 24 December 2010
Thanks Don. Sometimes there is nothing that illustrates the point better than something so simple. Well said. God bless.
P. S., Nepal, 11 January 2011
Simple, crystal clear. Thanks so much.
Anneline B., South Africa, 11 January 2011
Point well made!
Luis N., Chile, 11 January 2011
God bless from Chile
Marie A., Canada, 12 January 2011
Thanks! We need easy-to-understand, clear explanations like this to carry with us as mini-tracts …. we can be ‘ready to give an answer’ to hopefully open people’s eyes. Bless you!
Wilfredo M., El Salvador, 12 January 2011
There are none more blind than the ones with the closed eyes. Blessed be the Lord for his wonderful creation.
Harvey R., New Zealand, 12 January 2011
This is an excellent illustration and an example of how futile our understanding us without the light of God in our lives.
Mary D., Canada, 12 January 2011
That is such a good illustration! First time creation has been explained so clear and logical.
Mathews K., United Arab Emirates, 12 January 2011
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works. Psalm 14:1
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Psalms 19:1
God so clothe the grass of the field, … O ye of LITTLE faith? Matthew 6:30
Tom F., United States, 12 January 2011
I believe fully that God created all things and that they did not happen by chance but by design and appreciate the motivation behind this article. However, the argument presented in the first half may not seem to address the evolutionist’s assertions because flowers reproduce and have a hypothesized mechanism for change (i.e. mutation and natural selection) while the vase does not. A convinced evolutionist would correctly see the argument presented as an over-simplification and for that reason it would appear to him to miss the mark.
In order to show that the flower was designed, we need to go back to the origin of the first cell (in the hypothesized naturalistic timeline) and point out that at that point, like the vase, there is no mutation and natural selection mechanism for the plant either. Also, it is important to make sure that the complexity of the single cell is understood. A single cell is more like a complete factory than a simple blob of jelly with some genetic material a bag around it. Most people oversimplify the single cell and are consequently prone to oversimplify the difficulty in creating this first cell in a naturalistic way.
The impossibility of mutation and natural selection creating the information content required to create a flower from a single cell, as the last half of the article points out, also is a very strong argument that points to a supernatural act of creation.
Ruth T., Canada, 12 January 2011
Crystal clear! So logical!
David B., Australia, 24 January 2011
I appreciate the argument that TomF put on behalf of convinced evolutionists. Civil and reasoned arguments are so refreshing after all the bluster and bellow I’ve heard before on this important issue.
Yet I contend that there is an answer to that argument too. Vases are either created individually or manufactured en mass. These processes are a pale effort by man to mimic the hugely complex process involved in the ‘manufacture’ of living cells, but similar principles apply. If an individual vase becomes flawed, it is rejected by its maker.
The mass produced vase relies on a template or mould and supportive processes to create them, which can be regarded as the ‘reproductive mechanism’. If anything happens to interrupt that process, there has to be an intervention by the ‘makers’ not by natural selection. The vases have no say in the matter.
Even beneficial ‘mutations’ in manufacturing (e.g. ripped jeans are still all the rage) require less ‘information’ or technology with constant intervention.
Not a perfect analogy, I know, but I still think Don’s made a good point. ... The debate goes on.
Jim F., United States, 25 January 2011
Years ago when I gave talks on creation/evolution, I showed artificial flowers and asked for someone to complete the sentence: If artificial flowers have been designed then ...