IS THERE ANY CREATOR?

DO you agree with the logic of this bible writer? Mankind has experienced some 2,000 years of scientific advancement since that verse was penned. Does anyone still think that the design evident in nature require belief in a Designer, a Creator, GOD.
You can let others tell you what you are allowed to think and believed. Or you may wish to investigate some of the evidence yourself and reach your own conclusion. As you read about recent discoveries, ask yourself, 'Is it logical to conclude that there is a Creator?'
In recent years scientist and engineers have, in a very literal way, allowed plants and animals to instructs them. They are studying and mimicking the design features of  various creatures. A field known as Bomimetics. In an effort to create new products and improve the perfomance of existing machines. As you consider the following example, ask yourself, 'who really deserves the credit for these designs?'
MIMICKING SEAUGULLS' WINGS
Of course, aircraft wings already mimic the shape of birds wings. However, engineers have recently taken this mimicry to new heights. "Research at the university of Florida." reports NEW SCIENTIST, "have built a prototype remot-controlled drone with a seagull's ability to hover, dive and climd rapidly."
Seagulls perform their remarkable aerobatic maneuvers by flexing their wings at the elbow and shoulders joints. Copying this flexible wing design, "the [60-centimeter] prototype drone uses a small motor to control a series of metal rods that move the wings," says the magzine. These cleverly engineered wings enable the small aircraft to hover and dive between tall buildings. The US Air Force is keen to develop such a highly maneuvrable craft for use in searching for chemical or biological weapons in big cities.
WHO DESERVE THE CREDIT
How did nature come up with all these brillant ideas? Many researchers would attribute the seemingly ingenious designs evident in nature to millions of years of evolutionary trial and error. Other researchers, though, arrive t a different conclusion. Microbiologisst Michael Behe wrote in the Thew York Times in 2005: "The strong appearance of design in nature allows disarmingly simple argument: if it looks, walks and quacks like a duck then,absent compelling evidence to the contrary, we have warrant to connclude it's a duck." His conclusion? " Design should not be overlooked simply because it's so obvious."
Surely, the engineer who designs a safer, more efficient aircraft wing would deserve to receive credit for the design. likewise, the inventor who devises a more versatile bandage-or a more comfortable clothing material or a more efficient efficient motor vehicle-deserves credit for his or her design. In fact a manufacturer who copies someone else's design but fails to acknowlegde or credit the designer may be viewed as criminal.

Does it seem logical to you, then, for highly trained researchers who crudely mimic systems nature to solve difficult engeneering problems to attibute the engeneering problems to attribute the genius of divising the original idea to unintelligent evolution? If the cop requires an intelligent designer, what about the original? Really, who deserves more credit, the master artist or the student who imitate his technique?
After reviewing evidence of design in nature, Paul the apostle writes " For [GOD's] invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship." -Romain 1:19,20

Joel Anani(http://africanpolitiques.blogspot.com)