20140625-201007-72607669.jpg

What can you tell me from what you see in the image?

A birthday party is in the works?
There is a birthday cake, yet the setting is not a birthday party.

A female is celebrating a birthday on this day. The name is certainly female, and pink is a traditional color for females.

There are many persons who have eaten birthday cake. Perhaps Pauline has several friends?

What can be known from the cake alone?

The cake is chocolate with vanilla icing with pink decorative icing along with yellow and green for a flower.

The cake is partially consumed. It has had 8 servings taken, with one waiting. It has been cut in an orderly means along two edges.

There is a baker?

Wait a minute. Can you really infer the existence of a baker from an image of a cake. Is that reasonable? After all, it could be photoshopped.

Let’s say the image is accurate. No fake elements. Can we say a baker must exist based on the existence of the cake?

The cake is not extremely complicated, yet it requires some processes. We are familiar with those processes. Necessary ingredients must come together – flour, sugar, eggs, butter, cocoa, vanilla, etc. it must be mixed and baked. After the cake is baked, it must be cooled and then a layer of vanilla icing applied, followed by decorative icing.

Or should we argue for a chance causation? Perhaps we could argue for evolution – a cakeolution:

A storm blew through town and set off a tornado. The winds of the tornado tore through several homes tearing down walls. In particular, several kitchens were ripped up. The stores in those kitchens were tossed in the air at random as the high velocity winds ripped through. Dust and debris were flung about the town and outlying areas. Yet, somehow, flour from these kitchens were mixed together, at random, with sugar, eggs from another house, vanilla, chocolate, and cooked in an oven or in a fire caused by the storm, with the result of these random ingredients coming together into a delicious chocolate cake, with vanilla icing, and pink letters that say, Pauline — and a decoration of yellow roses with green leaves. All of this in the random event of a storm.

As I said, a cake is not a highly complex object. Yet, I doubt anyone would accept that explanation. Imagine ants gathering around the cake after the storm and a group of ants said, “The cake does not infer a baker! To say it does is to invoke religion. It is not scientific to believe in humans.”

Yet this is the very argument we hear from evolutionists against the argument for intelligent design. Living things are far more complicated than a cake, yet you would not accept a random cause for a cake’s existence. Why would you accept a random cause for cell life which is more complicated than the most sophisticated computer and which cannot function as a cell without all parts of the cell in place? How can someone say human DNA is caused by random events, involving failures by the billions, until finally something works for cell communication, and that over millions or billions of years with no designer, even though DNA’s have the same characteristics across animal life? Can greater complexity be better accepted under a random explanation than something as simple as a cake? Yet your mind tells you the winds of a storm could not explain the cake.

Advertisements