Kerby Anderson made this comment: “And we recognize that as we look at nature, that diversity, that design, that order just can’t come about by chance. We’ve never seen a tornado go through a junkyard and construct a 747 jet. We’ve never seen an explosion in a print factory producing Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary. The more order and complexity and design that we see in nature, the more it argues for a Designer that brought it into being.” Do you think his illustrations about the 747 jet and Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary are valid? Explain why or why not.

I do like his examples because it shows the absurdity of the claim that our being, our universe, our world came into existence out of chaos. Our world could not come about by an explosion that happened by chance.

I agree that a more simplistic example could have been used as anything and everything could not evolve into something it is not. I would rather see an example of nature creating something that it is not.

I don’t think so. I found those illustrations quite funny. I understand what he was trying to say, but I’m sure that are better illustrations that could have been used to make his point.

I think that Mr. Anderson proves his point in that things are not constructed or created by chance and for no purpose. And that things cannot evolve into something they are not.

I think the 747 jet and dictionary illustrations are valid in one way. I would maybe use different examples of things in nature that weren’t necessarily built with man’s intervention. To change his illustration, I would say we’ve never seen a hurricane go create a tree, or a snow storm produce a mountain.

While I do believe that these examples are valid I do not think that they help the argument of a creationist. The tone of the argument is so childish that it is easy to be offputting to a non-believer. I believe that there are many more scientific arguments that bear much more weight and a better tone than these two.