Design of Faces

Glenn Morton (
Fri, 10 Apr 1998 07:14:43 -0500

At 09:46 PM 4/9/98 -0600, wrote:
>Juan D. Guzman wrote:
>> I find it very odd that, while it is so evident to these scientists that
>> the rock had a maker, they look at living things and basically attribute
>> all of living nature to chance.
>In a debate with an evolutionist, YEC Kent Hovind once asked the
>evolutionist if he believed that the faces carved on Mt. Rushmore could
>have been the result of chance erosion by wind and water over time. Of
>course the evolutionist said "No way!" Kent then asked, "Then how about
>the men that the carvings represent, can they be the result of chance
>and time?"

I am going to urge real caution about this argument because of some recent
events. What do you say about the "Face on Mars"? Remember the old, low
resolution of the face staring up from the martian surface? It can be seen at

Now a Yahoo search on "face on mars" yeilds a plethora of articles
discussing the obvious "design" of the face and its implications. All of
these articles are based upon the idea that the face is designed and anyone
can see it. All sorts of strange conclusions are drawn from this "fact" of
design. One erudite piece based upon the idea that the face couldn't happen
by chance is by Alan Alford and he argues that space travelors carved the
face on mars and then built our pyramids, drew the Nazca lines etc. His
paper can be found at

Another man has used the face (and its obvious design) to argue that after
God created Adam, some of his descendants left earth for the stars and the
face is the evidence for this contention. I think but am not sure that the
Tower of Babel is involved in the dispersal. His work can be found at

So, can design really be detected with such certainty, especially the design
of a face in a rock which Hovind contends can't happen by chance? Has anyone
done a calculation as to exactly how unlikely it is for a face to occur by
chance? I repeat, if design can be detected with such certainty, why then do
we now find that the face is not carved but apparently a chance alignment of
erosion and lighting? See the new high resolution picture at:

Let me explore this further. Is it possible that someone designed the
object to look random at one lighting angle and resolution but at another
lighting angle and resolution it appears to be a random arrangement of
objects. In other words, could the randomness be an evidence of the
superior design like those 3d pictures that appear random until you cross
your eyes just correctly?

What is the objective definition of design and how can it be applied to the
now-randomly made face on Mars?


Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man


Foundation, Fall and Flood