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 4 of 63)
46. MM: Gold is a poor conductor of electricity, and so would be useless in your test to measure spiritual damage. It is, however, a good measure of greed.
Therefore I must conclude, that the amount of spiritual damage inherent in the Vatican is much greater than anywhere else in the world.
AndrewV at 2:06PM on Mar 31st 2008
47. "Statistically speaking, the odds of the DNA sequences that create life randomly forming are astronomical to the point of being impossible. If random chance (evolution) didn't create these DNA sequences, what did?" - Steve
Um, Steve... people win the lotto all the time. People gamble and win jackpots all the time. The odds for that are pretty high too. Its not possible that maybe we just won the cosmic equivalent of the lotto? In reality the whole reason ANY living thing is here is because we have water, and the sun is a safe distance away. Once you take that into account, its really not too hard to see life forming on its own.
K at 2:07PM on Mar 31st 2008
48. AndrewV,
What are you talking about, gold is one of the BEST conductors.
Mokele-Mobembe at 2:09PM on Mar 31st 2008
49. GHB,
I'm not sure if you saw my last message about Religious Science/Science of the Mind, but it fits in almost exactly with what we were discussing the other day... basically that the universe is one big mind, and we are all part of it, and that this consciousness gets the impresses of our thoughts and acts upon them. It is very interesting. I have started really looking into it - it makes so much more sense to me.
K at 2:10PM on Mar 31st 2008
50. K: "Its not possible that maybe we just won the cosmic equivalent of the lotto?"
It doesn't even need to be so statistically improbable. The common argument of creationists is the old "tornado in a junkyard, whoosh, fully-functional 747".
Yes, that would be very unlikely. But its not like air-breathing mammals just "appeared" on earth one day. Life started as one-celled organisms. Very simple creatures that were little more than proteins. The complexity came through a long process.
AndrewV at 2:14PM on Mar 31st 2008
51. How about we deconvolve the Fourier series of the recorded electrical response to a Marilyn Manson song by the audio signal, and cross-compare it with the deconvolution of a Creed song. Actually, conducting this experiment is a lose-lose gambit.
Mokele-Mobembe at 2:15PM on Mar 31st 2008
52. It sounds nearly identical to my position. I wouldn't call the mind God, but since in my view there is no adequate name for it, I guess God is as good as anything. Except it's not an anthropomorphic God, it's a shared mind. Nothing at all like the christian idea of God. It nicely explains WHY they believe in their God, and also whatever signs and miracles they might experience due to it, but their God is just a thought, given form by so many people of like belief in an erroneous concept. I say erroneous because science is the superior paradigm. Science, with it's logical structure and the way that it builds on prior discoveries and shares data, is the more durable of the two. It defeats belief every time. That's why the religious instinctively fear and loathe it so.
Godless Heathen Brian at 2:16PM on Mar 31st 2008
53. Mokele: I have researched it, and though every source I could find says that gold is an efficient conductor of electricity, I know that this is a conspiracy designed to discredit my faith.
Or maybe I was just wrong.
AndrewV at 2:18PM on Mar 31st 2008
54. I did an independent study on evolution in college as an undergraduate. I love Science. If you want to know how great God is then study his creation. What many Christians object to is the exclusion of alternative creation accounts in school. When I attended grade school, we studied evolution in science and the creation accounts in humanities. I think this might help calm some of the objections to evolution. I don’t think there is a fundamental division between the beliefs. God is the designer and the use of evolution is one way of explaining creation.
janesophie1 at 2:21PM on Mar 31st 2008
55. "In short since most scientists agree with Darwinism and few believe in I.D. it is therefore I.D. is invalid."
-------------------------------------------
No, Steve, that is not the reason I.D. is discredited. It is not a matter of "belief"
It is a matter of science. Not the "science" of looking backwards (irreducible complexity); nor the "science" of putting "god" in the gaps that currently exist in evolutionary theory; nor the "science" of convoluted logic to make presumptions about how life came to be on this planet.
In short, I.D. simply does not measure up as a "scientific study".
Linda at 2:25PM on Mar 31st 2008
56. Gold is also the most malleable and sectile of all metals, as well as one of the most resistant to corrosion. The only acid that dissolves it is a mixture of hydrochloric and nitric known as "Aqua Regia" the "royal water." Interestingly enough however, gold dissolves slowly but nicely in a strong common chlorine bleach solution. So don't clean your rings with bleach, ladies...
Silver is the best conductor of heat of all the metals.
And diamond, in addition to being the hardest known substance, is the best conductor of heat known to man, as well as attaining an incredibly high degree of transparency. A cut, natural diamond was actually used as an instrument window in an Apollo spacecraft. Industrial diamond is used extensively in the electronics industry, as a heat sink. Diamond occurs in all colors, including black and milky white. Red diamond is the most costly of all gemstones, exceeding one million dollars a carat, or five million dollars a gram.
Ta Dah! And I'm done...
Godless Heathen Brian at 2:28PM on Mar 31st 2008
57. seems interesting you bozos know what happened millions of years ago but cannot form a consenus about what happened yeserday,last week last year or 20 years ago. but millions yes we are right there!!! truly remarkable. how did you apes know?
brian at 2:37PM on Mar 31st 2008
58. In short, I.D. simply does not measure up as a "scientific study".
Which is precisely why it should not be taught in publicly funded schools. It is a belief, not a science. The fact that we do not yet understand all the details of how life began here does not give license to insert a belief system into science class. Since it is "believers" who promulgate this "creation science" without any scientific evidence to support it, it should be taught, if at all, to those who choose to believe (or who are still seeking better "answers" than science can give them as yet) under private, voluntary circumstances.
Harvey at 2:48PM on Mar 31st 2008
59. In short, I.D. simply does not measure up as a "scientific study".
Linda at 2:25PM on Mar 31st 2008
----------------------------------
Exactly. Well put.
Something isn't science because somebody used a lot of scientific-sounding words when they described it.
Pure science proceeds from no ulterior motive. By this I mean that the scientist isn't trying to prove what they already think they know is true. He's trying to discover what is true, by observation and experimentation. I.D. is pure wishful thinking, expressed in scientific-sounding terms to fool the gullible. It's hogwash, dressed up in a suit.
Godless Heathen Brian at 2:38PM on Mar 31st 2008
60. Brian:
You do not seem to get the difference between a belief system (Creationism, Christianity, etc) and open minded inquiry into the universe. The fact that what we know about the history of the Earth, as incomplete as it may be, supports Darwinism, for example, in no way attacks your choice to believe in the Biblical account; it does, however, explain why any religion should be a matter of personal choice and not an excuse to denigrate those who do not accept it, let alone to insist on teaching it in publicly funded, sectarian arenas.
Harvey at 2:49PM on Mar 31st 2008