In my the first part of this series of articles about Intelligent Design I discussed one of the falsehoods that proponents of this ‘theory’ use to bolster their wacky ideas - namely, that evolution was invented by atheists. In this, the second article I’ll try and cover more of the subject as this issue is probably one of the most important topics that the world faces today.
I.D proponents quote the line that evolution is being increasing challenged within the scientific community, and that ID is gaining credibility and support. In fact, this is just not correct.
I.D websites often cite books that support their case that in most cases actually don’t while those that do are usually laughable tracts penned by obvious I.D proponents themselves. This website page has a list of the most commonly cited reference works in support of their case with detailed summaries of the books.
As they have a lack of real data to base their theory on, I.D proponents base their methods on attacking mainstream scientists for ‘believing in evolution’ or they imply scientific beliefs are no different from religious beliefs. To quote from the same website I mentioned above. Those who insist that scientists believe in evolution on faith–simply because Charles Darwin pronounced it so–may not realize that Darwin was not a revered scientific figure when he published “The Origin of Species;” quite to the contrary, he was an obscure naturalist whose rise to fame was based solely upon the power of his evolutionary model. Evolution was not uncritically accepted by the scientific community–it was the subject of heated debate for decades, until the weight of the evidence won over even its most vehement critics.
Another method used is to state that the scientific community are involved in some kind of cover up or conspiracy to ensure their theory isn’t discussed or accepted, but as has been said many times by scientists - ’show us your evidence’ - ‘produce something other than a continual barrage of disproofs of evolution’ - anything.
Finally, as Bill Boll says so eloquently on his site ‘one may simply wonder why, if creationists have so many valid arguments, is it necessary for them to lie at all?’
Indeed. Why?
Tags: creationism, evolution, faith, fundamentalism, intelligent design, religion, science
Loading ...
You and I are in the same boat. We live in the same incredible universe and as we marvel at our existence, we ponder the same questions. Where did this all come from? When did it all begin? This, to me, is the beginning of “good” science. Not just science, but GOOD science.
We begin with observation. We ask a question. We state our hypothesis. We make a prediction. We test that prediction and fine tune our ideas. This, correct me if I’m wrong, is know as the scientific method.
However, you and I, run into the same problem. We are younger… waaaaay younger than our universe and younger than the planet we live in. So, how, may I ask, can we perform step one of the scientific method? OBSERVATION. We cannot go back in time and observe the origins of the Universe. So what do we do?
Just as forensics experts comb though a murder scene, we must examine the EVIDENCE.
All you and I have, is the Evidence. Upon examination of this evidence, you conclude THERE IS NO GOD; ALL OF THE LIFE THAT SURROUNDS US CAME FROM NOTHING. i.e EVERYTHING CAME FROM NOTHING. (quite an impressive statement of faith if you ask me.)
And I conclude. EVERYTHING WAS CREATED. ALL THE INFORMATION (intelligent information such as DNA) IN THE WORLD AROUND US CAME FROM SOMEONE. LIFE PRODUCES LIFE. NON-LIFE CANNOT PRODUCE LIFE. Don’t believe me? Look up the story of Louis Pasteur’s sterilized flask. Or, read about Biogenesis.
So, we have two hypotheses here: LIFE COMES FROM LIFE. or LIFE COMES FROM NON-LIFE.
Which reasoning is more logical?
My point is, we have the exact same evidence. Let me leave you with a quote from Ravi Zacharias:
“A man rejects God neither because of intellectual demands nor because of the scarcity of evidence. A man rejects God because of a moral resitance that refuses to admit his need for God.”
And lastly a quote from Paul in the book of the Romans:
“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities- his eternal power and divine nature- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so men are without excuse.”
=) Let’s talk.
Creationists often quote the Law of Biogenesis postulated by Pasteur - but this is a misunderstanding of the law. The law states that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria cannot appear fully formed. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.
I believe that my conclusions are very valid - I believe it is entirely possible that life has arisen from complex molecules over an unimaginably long period of time.
Finally, quoting from an ancient text that has been translated and re-translated down through the ages doesn’t have any bearing on the debate. Unless you are one of those who start with a belief and ‘work backwards’ to find evidence to prove it. Good science starts with an observation and then tries to find a hypothesis to explain the observation.
Anyway, thanks for the comments and keep thinking about it!