As a Christian, I believe that the universe and its living creatures are the products of intelligent design. This belief is not merely derived from theology but is also supported by rational considerations. There is enormous intelligence embedded in the laws of nature. The greatest scientists over the past few centuries have worked to decode the intelligence mysteriously imprinted in the workings of nature. Scientific laws, as spelled out by Keppler, Newton, Einstein and others, reveal nature as exquisitely orderly. So who encoded this intelligence in nature?
Since the universe had a beginning, how did it get here? There is no natural explanation, since the universe includes all of nature. It is more than absurd to posit that the universe caused itself. The most reasonable explanation is that our rational universe is the product of some super-rational or omniscient intelligence. An intelligent designer is not the only explanation, but it certainly is the best explanation.
How the creator went about His business of making the universe and its life forms is another question, and this is a question for science to answer to the degree that it can be answered. Darwin's theory of evolution posits that chance, mutation and natural selection largely account for the transitions between one life form and another. Man, as an animal, is also the product of evolution, having descended from the same evolutionary "tree" that produced gorillas and chimpanzees.
Did God order things this way? Certainly if you read the Bible you would never predict Darwin's theory of evolution. But neither from the Scriptural accounts could one predict that the earth goes around the sun. The Bible is not and does not purport to be a science textbook. It takes no position, for example, on the heliocentric theory. Unfortunately, in past centuries, many Christians interpreted a few casual references to the sun "rising" to mean that the earth must be stationary and the sun must revolve around the earth. These interpretations were hasty, to say the least: the Bible is describing sunrise from a human or experiential perspective. Still, these narrow-minded Christians opposed Copernicus and Galileo until they were forced to admit that they were wrong. It wasn't the Bible that was mistaken; it was the foolish certainty of its interpreters that was exposed and discredited.
Today some Christians may be heading down the same path with their embrace of "intelligent design" or ID. This movement is based on the idea that Darwinian evolution is not only flawed but basically fraudulent. ID should not, however, be confused with bible-thumping six-day creationism. It does not regard the earth as 6,000 years old. Its leading advocates are legal scholar Phillip Johnson, biochemist Michael Behe, mathematician David Berlinski, and science journalist Jonathan Wells. Berlinski has a new book out The Devil's Advocate that makes the remarkable claim that "Darwin's theory of evolution has little to contribute to the content of the sciences." Ben Stein's movie "Expelled" provides horror stories to show that the case for ID as well as critiques of evolution from an ID perspective are routinely excluded or censored in the halls of academe.
ID advocates have sought to convince courts to require that their work be taught alongside Darwinian evolution, yet such efforts have been resoundingly defeated. Why has the ID legal strategy proven to be such a failure, even at the hands of conservative judges? Imagine that a group of advocates challenged Einstein's theories of general and special relativity. Let's say that this group, made up of a law professor, a couple of physicists, several journalists, as well as some divinity school graduates, flatly denies Einstein's proposition that e=mc2.
How would a judge, who is not a physicist, resolve the group's demand for inclusion in the physics classroom? He would summon a wide cross-section of leading physicists. They would inform him that despite unresolved debates about relativity--for example, its unexplained relationship to quantum theory--Einstein's theories are supported by a wide body of data. They enjoy near-unanimous support in the physics community worldwide. There is no alternative scientific theory that comes close to explaining the facts at hand. In such a situation any judge would promptly show the dissenters the door and deny their demand for equal time in the classroom. This is precisely the predicament of the ID movement.
The problem with evolution is not that it is unscientific but that it is routinely taught in textbooks and in the classroom in an atheist way. Textbooks frequently go beyond the scientific evidence to make metaphysical claims about how evolution renders the idea of a Creator superfluous. If I wanted to promote my book What's So Great About Christianity I'd direct you there to find examples. (But I don't, so I won't.)
Most Christians don't care whether the eye evolved by natural selection or whether Darwin's theories can account for macroevolution or only microevolution. What they care about is that evolution is being used to deny God as the creator. For those who are concerned about this atheism masquerading as science, there is a better way. Instead of trying to get unscientific ID theories included in the classroom, a better strategy would be to get the unscientific atheist propaganda out. In future blogs I'll show such a strategy can be successfully implemented.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 63)
1. http://evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
FORMER ATHEIST at 11:47AM on Mar 31st 2008
2. http://atheistsareimaginary.blogspot.com
AN ATHEIST NO MORE at 11:52AM on Mar 31st 2008
3. THE UGLY TRUTH ABOUT ISLAM AND THOSE WHO DEFEND IT.
The Movie:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-871902797772997781&q
Escape_Islam at 11:54AM on Mar 31st 2008
4. FORMER ATHEIST apparently didn't even read Dinesh's blog.
Dinesh; for once, I partially agree with you!!!
I would argue though that although evolution doesn't render the idea of god superflous, it does raise doubts about 1) the anthropomorphic biblical god and 2) that we were created in "his" image.
Ryan Anderson at 11:54AM on Mar 31st 2008
5. What most advocates of Intelligent Design fail to realize is that such a theory does not necessarily support a belief in Monotheism. Probably nothing used in the modern world is the product of a single creator, but rather builds upon hundreds or even thousands of other inventions , ideas or creations of a multitude of individuals. So Intelligent Design could logically lead one to the concept of the ancient Pantheon of many gods and goddesses, each with his or her own special skills and talents. Perhaps the believers of ID envision a race of millions of superintellects in the center of the universe continually creating everything around us ?
silverfox at 12:14PM on Mar 31st 2008
6. Actually I did read the blog. I respect and liked his comments. By discussing the most legitimate picture seen in light of the evidence taken from multiple branches of science, we can see the big picture of reality more accurately as from an intelligent and not random source. I find that the atheist has GREAT faith in the improbable odds rendering their own worldview into a superstition.
http://www.evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
FORMER ATHEIST at 12:21PM on Mar 31st 2008
7. Intelligent Design is an uncrazy idea proponed by crazy people who damage their credibility with weak abstracted definitions for order, chaos, and the premature conclusion that Creator -> Christian God.
Einstein supports the Spinozan god as it makes the perfect tautological epistemological spackel. It leaves the variables open to continue study in a scientific fashion.
P.S. "Stationary" means unmoving. "Stationery" means paper and office accessories.
Mokele-Mobembe at 12:23PM on Mar 31st 2008
8. Mr. D'Souza,
I fail to see how not knowing the origin of the universe leads to the assumption that goddidit. I don't know who made the bigmac I ate last night, but I don't think goddidit.
As for the bible, science does indeed prove it wrong( elementary science at that). I'll show you a couple of examples:
And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, . . . and the bat” -Leviticus 11:13-19.
“And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind”- Revelation 6:13.
--==--
I could find more examples( these are just the easy ones), but you get my point.
Inteligent Design? God designed us so well he had to kill all human life at one point?.. great job!
mac at 12:29PM on Mar 31st 2008
9. Dinesh,
I agree. Science should be unbiased. Students should be taught about the Theory of Evolution and nothing more. If they have questions on how it relates to their religion, they can go to a spiritual advisor - but the science classroom is no place for a discussion about religion.
THIS (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1038/1038_01.asp) has no place in our classrooms.
K at 12:43PM on Mar 31st 2008
10. If I wanted to plug my book, I would direct you to click the link below, which will take you to americasmostgangsta.com
But I don't, so I won't.
By the way, my book is an ultraviolent farce, like the bush administration.
America's Most Gangsta at 12:45PM on Mar 31st 2008
11. yes, atheism has an agenda and its to wipe out any idea that there is a god. and they are trying to use science to say something science never can.science can never state emperically that there is no god. this is what the atheist want. this is what they clamor for. and strangely this is why atheism is hollow and shrill and bankrupt
brian at 12:46PM on Mar 31st 2008
12. Evolution is either scientifically sound or it isn't, it's really the only criteria. Everything else is argumentative. Stick to the science, leave out the religion.
STaylor at 12:49PM on Mar 31st 2008
13. brian "yes, atheism has an agenda and its to wipe out any idea that there is a god. and they are trying to use science to say something science never can.science can never state emperically that there is no god. this is what the atheist want. this is what they clamor for. and strangely this is why atheism is hollow and shrill and bankrupt"
brian makes up stuff.
Ryan Anderson at 12:49PM on Mar 31st 2008
14. Actually, in many states and counties, teachers are perfectly within their rights to state that the theory of evolution does not preclude religious belief, including the existence of a god. What rational observers have repeatedly observed, however, is that (1) high school biology classrooms are not a place for religious debate, (2) the non-preclusion of a god is NOT evidence of a god's existence or specific aspect, and (3) many intelligent designers use their "science" as a wedge to insert Christian dogma into the science classroom. The whole aim of the movement is to insinuate the existence of a cosmic intelligence that cannot be proven except through supposition (or "faith," if you will). This is why the courts continue to reject it as "repackaged Creationism," and I would submit that such a logical leap does not require a battery of PhDs explaining science. It merely requires the good sense not to be hoodwinked by very talented dissemblers like Dinesh.
David at 12:51PM on Mar 31st 2008
15. brian, throwing a tantrum because Dinesh is distancing himself from your "shrill" creationism?
AndrewV at 12:52PM on Mar 31st 2008