The above steps are obviously flippant and unrealistic. We know that to assemble even something as everyday as a computer, requires a certain level of skill. An even greater level of skill and knowhow is required to create the circuit boards and the microchips that go onto the circuit boards.

As I look around my desk, as well as the computer, I see a telephone, a fan and a calculator. All these items had a designer and a builder. If I look out of the window, I can see houses and warehouses, cars and streetlights. All these, likewise must have had a designer and a builder.

Also from the window, I can see grass, shrubs and trees. If I were to go outside and study the ground closely, I would doubtless find a host of different insects, see birds flying past and perhaps dogs, cats, etc. Certainly I would see other human beings.

The ant is a marvel of miniaturisation. It has powerful sensors to search out food, a strong directional navigation system to both find the food and return to the nest again; a communication system to pass on information to others in the nest; the ability to work together with others, to take evasive action etc etc. How is all this functionality packed into such a small object? It is almost beyond our understanding and it is certainly beyond our ability to replicate that marvel of engineering.

The other aspect is that this ant is not just part of a nest but also part of a complex eco-system, including the food chain.

Bearing in mind the scientific principle of cause and effect, the questions we must now ask are:

• Did the design of the ant and the ecosystem it belongs to, happen by chance?
• Could such things be made without a Designer?
• Could such things be made without a Maker?

Darwin was not the first to put forward a theory of Evolution and he was not the last. (Thales of Miletus over 2500 years ago proposed that water developed into other elements and these elements developed into plants, then into simple animals and finally into more complex animals like man ). New theories and variations on existing theories seem to appear at regular intervals. Most of the theories incorporate "mutation" as being a reason for evolution. Whether by accident (i.e. radiation) or chance, fundamental changes occur, thus helping to turn one species gradually into another. This whole line of reasoning, however is based on one key point - that there is such a thing as beneficial mutations.Experiments such as bombarding fruit flies with radiation proved the opposite. Most flies died and the few that survived produced offspring that reverted to type after two or three generations.

I am not a scientist, and there are plenty of web pages examining in detail the scientific "evidence" for evolution (or lack of it). As a Bible believer, I am concerned with the following points:

• Evolution is taught in most schools as fact, yet it is "fact" that cannot be proven.
• To believe in Evolution is an act of faith in a "belief system" that contradicts the Bible account of Creation. It is not possible to believe both.
• Evolution does not allow for a Supreme Designer, even though the Universe from the macroscopic to the microscopic shows time after time the evidence of design.
• To believe in Evolution is to say that the Bible is a lie

We believe that like a computer, something as complex as the world, with its eco- system and diversity of plant and animal life must have had a Designer. Like the best designers, God built the world for a purpose, a purpose which will soon become evident to all of humanity.