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 2 of 63)
16. brian, throwing a tantrum because Dinesh is distancing himself from your "shrill" creationism?
AndrewV at 12:52PM on Mar 31st 2008
17. 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
--==--
Perhaps in a comedy club?
mac at 12:55PM on Mar 31st 2008
18. Irreducible Complexity is just one of many examples for how unrealistic and dishonest Darwinism really is. The same biochemical limitations in one organism may be advantageous within a genetically different organism that appears morphologically similar. These scientist uses this slight of hand technique to deceive a gullible self-absorbed public as they merely cherry pick those organisms that appear similar even through they have NO biochemical relationship with one another. Yet in the same instance scientists want us to believe that random mutations just following the SEX acts of organisms was the eventual result of every single life-form on this planet from common ancestors.
Ultimately when people get around the ambiguous language, double-thought and double-talk of Darwinists, we discover “science of the Gaps” at the end. They talk about how natural processes on this earth can explain the existence and development of all life without being able to fully demonstrate it within a laboratory. On the other hand, we can count millions and millions of examples every day for how everything that appears designed comes from a rational source - from the practical, biological, all the way to the molecular.
How does a designed universe and ecosystem mindlessly set the pre-programmed intricate first “highly improbable” or few “outrageously unrealistic” DNA and RNA molecules when even Miller Experiment and recent reducing atmosphere experiments invalidated such notions? But let’s not stop there. Within each cell there are quality control mechanisms that prevent mutations. We would have thought that mutations ought to be naturally uninhibited, but they are in fact restricted. Even the Nylon-eating Bacteria example used by Darwinists fundamentally supports intelligent design.
Natural selection does not produce new genes; it only selects from pre-existing ones. They claim that mutations from radiation not only contributed to the development of life (in all its harmony within the complexity) but when they say “natural selection” they expect the listener to believe that small variations are the missing links to future life forms with completely different structures. But if one asks for the evidence of mutational advance were by which one life form develops into a different structure from reproduction or mutations,
1. they many times want to change the subject;
2. they’ll just say that it is happening more often but they never show evidence for it;
3. they try to backup and try to disown irreducible complexity or say that natural selection has nothing to with the complexity of life, as a result they invalidate Darwinism themselves;
4. they submit an scientifically antiquated and outdated links from the talkorigins website about speciation that mostly deals with plants and three unrelated fruit fly examples that has absolutely NOTHING to do with Mutational ADVANCE.
5. Others just rehearse arrogantly how unreligious they are and commence firing “random” obscenities at all those who “dare defy the great prophet Charles Darwin," founder of the RELIGION of Darwinism, venerated by Atheists and the Secular Humanists around the world.
The point is that they themselves cannot demonstrate it.
http://evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
FORMER ATHEIST at 12:54PM on Mar 31st 2008
19. ryan,
what did i make up? is atheism not trying to use science to say what they want and use science to try and back up their claim of no god? of coarse it is. don't be so lame and stupid,you know the game. you know your just trying to catch those with no real convictions and lure them into your dungeon of thought. you at least should be honest and say what you really stand for. at least christians do and that is exactly why you and other atheist hate us so much. but why hate? why do you hate the thought of god so bad,what does no god allow you to do that you want to sear your concious? darwinism just fits with your world view of no god,anything goes. ryan, please get with someone who can help you,soon
brian at 1:00PM on Mar 31st 2008
20. Mac is right: Dinesh's logic is flawed once again. "the universe couldn't create itself, so the most logical solution is that some omnipotent being created everything". is that REALLY the most logical solution?? Whatever happened to Akom's Razor? the most logical answer CANNOT be "there must be some super-being undectable to everyone that made it all happen"... does that really sound intelligent to anyone?? it sounds like an answer from a 5th grader. Dinesh, are you smarter than a 5th grader??
jeff at 1:03PM on Mar 31st 2008
21. LOL, Andrew... as soon as I got about halfway through the article I was giggling about how brian would have a hissy fit. This is just the tip of the 'berg, though... I assume the next article will be more to his liking. I didn't like the foreshadowing I got from "... I'll show such a strategy can be successfully implemented."
Religion/atheism needs to stay out of the classroom, period. Children are learning and growing and experiencing things for themselves. They're your kids now, but soon they will be their own people, and they deserve to have the same advantages as everyone else. Even if you don't believe in evolution, you will get much farther through school (college) if you understand it. Two of my aunts are nurses and also Christians who believe everything in the bible is literal. They absolutely, 100% do not believe in evolution, but they had to understand it to get through their schooling in the medical field. I find it amazing that Christians get so scared about the thought of evolution being taught... is your religion so weak that a high school biology class will shake its foundations?? At the same time, I am sooo tired of hearing crap like "atheist agenda" linked to science. SCIENCE IS SCIENCE. It only becomes a religious issue when YOU MAKE IT ONE.
K at 1:02PM on Mar 31st 2008
22. "Former Atheist" and brian, why is it that you demand such rigorous evidence for evolution (which, by the way, you should demand) but Christianity gets a free pass? God isn't testable in a laboratory, and this bothers you not at all.
AndrewV at 1:05PM on Mar 31st 2008
23. "I fail to see how not knowing the origin of the universe leads to the assumption that goddidit."
if that was simply it you might have a point. But beyond simply, "we are here" is the fact that we are here in a an environment that allows us to be here. It is infinitely improbable that this could be. Slight differences in any number of factors and not only does the earth not support life but the universe would be unable to form planets or support life of any kind, or even expand.
"Well we are here so it must have just worked out" may be good enough for you but it wasn't good enough for Einstein and certainly isn't good enough for his modern counterparts. From Paul Davies to Michio Kaku, many modern scientist are concluding that it's either a designer or a multiverse that allows us to be here. Both require belief to accept.
Additional factors such as the need for an observer in order to determine the outcome of quantum events, also raise the question of "who was observing prior to us?"
god is the term we use for this designer or observer.
Whether this god is the Christian god isn’t really the question. As Botts likes to say, there is no Christian god, there is just God. Whether Christians have an accurate picture as to if and how God has interacted with us in recent (the last 10k years or so) I suppose is up for debate. As a Christian I find alot of truths in the Bible. But obviously as Dinesh points out, it isn’t a science text.
bigTuna at 1:08PM on Mar 31st 2008
24. For once, it appears that DD has stumbled upon
(?retreated to?) a reasonable position. The problem with creationism is not that some people choose to believe in an "intelligence" that may have created the universe, but that they feel constrained to get everyone else to agree with them. Even if we posit a "higher intelligence" that somehow set all of this in motion, life experience and history would suggest that we are like drop of sweat that fell off the creators nose, and that He/She has no further knowledge of or concern for His/Her creation. As long as our understanding of the true origin of the Universe/the true nature of our "creator" remains out of reach, creationism should be taught by its "faithful" in their places of worship and in their homes, but NOT in public schools.
Harvey at 2:16PM on Mar 31st 2008
25. 12. yes, atheism has an agenda
brian at 12:46PM on Mar 31st 2008
Atheism is a religion:
Evolution= god
Darwin = savior
Scientist= priests
Evolution is either good science or it isn't, textbooks should say that the scientific communities best guess at origin is this, but there are some issues that still have to be resolved and here are the issues----until they resolve them it's their best guess.
STaylor at 1:14PM on Mar 31st 2008
26. "...since the universe had a beginning..."
Say what? Who decided the particulars of the term "beginning"? What do you MEAN when you use that term?
(I demand a logical positivist!)
Oy vey, just more of DD's own peculiar brand of logic at work/play again.
Sorry, DD, not planning on reading any of your (ahem) books.
web jones at 1:11PM on Mar 31st 2008
27. (((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.))))
>>> Really Dinesh???
I went to class, I studied what I was taught, and I don't remember learning about atheism in earth science or biology.
There was an absence of a creator notion - I suppose because there was no PROOF that one existed. There is PROOF that an evolutionary process exists for this planet and that humans are learning through scientific hypothesis and research about this process.
Science isn't about proving that an intelligent creator snapped his fingers and viola' a magical land called earth appeared. Science is about finding the truth about how we came to be.
Why do we have to continue to fight with religion about the creation of the universe. According to the bible - Earth was the only universe that existed. Stupid huh? Now we know different and I think it is high time we stopped crawling because religion tells us that is the only way and start walking on the two legs we gave ourselves.
TJ at 1:13PM on Mar 31st 2008
28. "Slight differences in any number of factors and not only does the earth not support life but the universe would be unable to form planets or support life of any kind, or even expand."
You make it sound like God is a guy who tries out making universes with all different universal constants with a graphic equalizer and picking the one that doesn't collapse. I believe everything is connected, and that the constants don't balance merely by coincidence or by divine choice.
Mokele-Mobembe at 1:16PM on Mar 31st 2008
29. ((I didn't like the foreshadowing I got from "... I'll show such a strategy can be successfully implemented." ))
This sounds suspiciously like brain-washing - indoctrination.
You will be assimilated. We are the Borg...
TJ at 1:17PM on Mar 31st 2008
30. Andrew,
A major problem I have with ID is that all their evidence has been thoroughly debunked by REAL scientists. If they had actual evidence that a super-being may have had a hand in it all, then we can talk... here is an example: they say the Grand Canyon was cut by water flowing through it all at once (aka the Great Flood of Noah), but it is a fact that the Grand Canyon is made up of very hard rock and it is just not possible for a bunch of water all at once to produce the results we see today. They have no evidence for ID at all, except faith in an invisible being, and that has NEVER been science. You don't just have "faith" in science because science is self-correcting. It changes because the evidence changes. It always follows the evidence. ID is the opposite: it starts with an idea, and tries to mold the evidence around the idea. In fact, people trying to prove ID always use established science and try to pick it apart instead of producing new evidence for their cause. They try to destroy science from the inside out and THAT is evidence for an agenda.
K at 1:18PM on Mar 31st 2008