Monday, March 5, 2012

Is Intelligent Design Real Science?

PREACHER: Current advancements and discoveries in science suggest that the universe was after all created by an Intelligent Being.  There are competent scientists in almost every field that would agree that it takes more faith (a better word might be conjecture) to believe that there is no Creator God than to believe that there is.

SKEPTIC: When you say "discoveries in science," I assume you're talking about Intelligent Design. However, the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that Intelligent Design is not really science at all, but rather a pseudoscience that is nothing but an attempt to dress up traditional creationism in a "scientific" package. Its only proponents come out of the Discovery Institute, a right-wing conservative think tank. The whole idea came about after the Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that creationism couldn't be taught in public schools because it was intended to advance a particular religion and therefore violated the separation of church and state. No problem, thought creationists, we'll just repackage creationism as "science" and leave the religion part out of it, and then we'll be able to sneak it into America's classrooms. Unfortunately for them, the courts weren't quite as gullible as they had counted on, and they were shot down in Dover, Pennsylvania when they attempted to introduce ID into the Dover school system in 2005. The judge stated that ID was NOT science, and ruled that it was unconstitutional because it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." D'oh! It's back to the drawing board...

PREACHER: Pardon me, but I think you are a little out of date both from the science angle and the news angle. Furthermore, such good creationist groups as Answers in Genesis are not asking that Intelligent Design or creationism be taught in the public schools. An atheist science teacher would do a bad job of it, just as Christian science teachers probably do a bad job of teaching evolution. What they are asking is that students be allowed to use critical thinking in the science class, and be able to question the erroneous assumptions that are behind so-called molecule-to-man evolution, and competent biologists who are not religious would admit the problems (that which they just assume). 

SKEPTIC: You say that creationists aren't asking for ID to be taught in public schools, but that evolution should be questioned in the science classroom. So the next step isn't to introduce the idea of a Biblical creation? Is that what you mean? You're willing to just leave it at having teachers introduce the idea that evolution could be wrong, with no reference to creationism or the idea that God (or an "intelligent designer") created the world? Forgive me if I find that hard to swallow. You want to teach creationism? Teach it in a comparative religion class, not a science class. And by the way, if a Christian can't find a way to teach evolution in a science classroom, he has no business being a science teacher.

PREACHER: Christians are indeed teaching evolution in the science classroom, but many times they tell their students that they don't need to believe it. They say that because they are not convinced that evolution is a proven fact. Shouldn’t science be about the real world that we can observe and about facts that are indisputable, that can be verified? Don’t all views about origins including the theory of evolution (since it can’t be verified) fit better in a comparative religion class? Evolution would be in the category of naturalism. I believe, and you do too, that science is about what is verifiable. Since evolution isn't occurring before our eyes, it is not verifiable by science. Whether you believe that the world came about by natural processes or by the supernatural creative work of God doesn't make you a better or worse scientist for neither are verifiable by experimental science. However, observable science suggests to me that there has to be a Creator. Everything is designed too well to have come about by natural processes.

SKEPTIC: Firstly, you're right that "evolution isn't occurring before our eyes." But it has been observed and recorded over time, and has been verified to the satisfaction of pretty much the entire scientific community around the world. Secondly, having a fundamentalist Christian science teacher telling his students that they don't need to believe in evolution would be a bit like having a history teacher telling his students that the holocaust didn't really happen. Finally, when you talk about "everything being designed too well to have come about by natural processes," you are invoking the well-worn watchmaker argument. Of course, the biggest problem with that argument is the question of "if complex organisms require a designer, then who designed the designer?

PREACHER: An eternal designer doesn’t need to be designed, He always existed. What has been observed is the genetic change in certain organisms, particularly microorganisms that change rapidly. These changes have always been a process of the loss or reshuffling of genetic information, not the attainment of new genetic information, so they are not the kind of process that leads from the simple to the complex as in molecule-to-man evolution. The assumption that at particular times in history new genetic information developed in organisms that caused them to advance is based only on conjecture. There is no way to verify that it actually happened. Evolutionists extrapolate on so-called genetic changes and figure that with a lot of time all species could have developed from the simplest kind of life form. Such an extrapolation is based on an unverifiable assumption that those genetic changes would actually produce more advanced kinds of organisms. History records for us that the opinions of much of the scientific community around the world have been wrong many times before. Add to that that many in the scientific community are professing atheists, it is not surprising that their worldview makes them jump to absurd conclusions.

SKEPTIC: Right, because if a scientist is an atheist, he naturally will jump to absurd conclusions. That's pretty insulting. The fact is that science has always represented man's best effort at finding the truth in a logical and methodical manner. When evidence is presented that science may have gotten something wrong, it is able to make a course correction - something which is virtually impossible to do when it comes to matters of faith, which rely heavily on rigid dogma.

PREACHER: You might be surprised to discover that it is the Bible that reveals a God who gave the universe order so we can understand it. It is because of the world view that is presented in the Bible that science works. It seems clear to me that neither science nor reason are aligned with atheism. How can atheists in sincerity claim that what they believe is at all scientific or reasonable? How do you know that atheism isn’t just an absolute lie?

SKEPTIC: Why do I believe in atheism? It's not a question of believing in atheism - it's a question of what makes more sense when it comes to the question of evolution versus creationism - that we have arrived at where we are today through a series of infinitesimal changes over billions of years, or that some sort of magical, supernatural being just one day a few thousand years ago commanded that everything appear and "voila" - humans, animals and all living things just suddenly appeared on the earth? Natural vs. supernatural, reality vs. myth, science vs. religion...

PREACHER: It looks to me like you don’t understand the difference between science and history.  Scientific method only deals with the present, what you can actually measure and observe now. History tells of the past through written documents, and cannot be verified by the scientific method. We must trust those documents based on the character of those who wrote them. So called, supernatural events in the past are attested by written documents. Using the scientific method to verify those events is about as absurd as using bathroom scales to measure the distance between Okinawa and Okayama. So, why did you decide to be an atheist?

SKEPTIC:You know, I remember when I was ten I asked my Sunday School teacher, "If there are all those other people in other countries who believe in a different religion, how do we know that ours is the true religion? Her answer was, "we just have to have faith!" It was a less than satisfying answer. Even as a dumb ten-year-old kid, I was smart enough to know that those people who belonged to other religions probably also claimed to have an equal amount of faith. So it became clear to me that not all religions could be true, but that all religions could certainly be, and probably were, false.

PREACHER: Your Sunday school teacher gave you a correct answer in as much as faith pleases God. And of course that faith has to be towards the right Object of worship. Faith in a lie doesn’t please God. But, I can see that her answer wasn’t sufficient for your inquisitive (not dumb) mind. I can see that even at the age of 10 you had some unverified assumptions about reality. Your statement: “I was smart enough to know that those people who belonged to other religions probably also claimed to have an equal amount of faith” is very telling! Even at that early age it sounds like you placed more credibility in the opinions of men than in the revealed Word of God. I asked the same kind of questions to my Sunday school teacher when I was that age. He gave my mind a lot more information to chew on than your teacher did. And did that make a difference!


  1. Dearest Preacher. Two Points. First, you are engaging in a logical fallacy when you say that is it because of the Bible that science works. Proving the existence of God by using the Bible (allegedly written by God) is a circular argument. Second, there is no faith or religion of "atheism." I know it's difficult for you to understand, but the word "atheist" means WITHOUT God, not faith in some "non-God." There is no first church of atheism, there is no atheist catechism. No atheist sacraments. Atheists simply believe the world can be explained equally well without an invisible divine being.

    1. plawler, there doesn't need to be a physical church or sacraments to be a religion. An atheist believes there is no God, a religious belief.

      You interject your religious belief into science (which ID does not do) with your last sentence. Nothing about matter-only beliefs hold any hope of explaining anything biological, except perhaps death. First life, evolution, and all of life's purposeful activities, formations and thoughts are not the least bit explained by materialists. You cling to the ever-dwindling hope that some day it may be, but it is just a baseless faith.

      ID does not posit divinity nor a singular entity. The intelligence may likely be organism based and an organism is not invisible, though their intelligence is. The fact that immaterial intelligence exists is scientifically certain. And contrary to Skeptic's odd claim, we don't need to know "who" the intelligence is. Do the police rule out murder if they have a bullet-riddled corpse but no supect?

      I'm not an atheist, but I do agree with you that quotes from the Bible are a weak argument to use to convert those who don't believe the Bible, just as I see why skeptic was not satisfied with his Sunday School teacher's answer. Science proves clearly that life is intelligently created and that time and space suddenly appeared at once with all matter and energy. Beyond that I just follow my heart. Believe as you wish.

      Just don't believe that your religion constitutes science or is even remotely supported by science.

  2. I see two problems with atheism: One, atheists usually use evolution as a mechanism to explain origins, yet evolution fails to be a mechanism that is able produce matter, life, or the development thereof. Two, atheism offers no moral authority and gives no value to objective value to life, particularly human life as in what we call "basic human rights". These two problems lead me to believe that atheism is an absurd lie. I would like to hear someone address these issues in defense of atheism.

  3. Both sides just insulted each other's religious beliefs, rather than discuss much about the subject matter.

    The poorly-mamed "skeptic" claimed that ID isn't science because only onr group espouses it (the Disco Inst) but that is obviously not correct since ID pre-dates the DI. I advocate intelligent evolution (ID) and have no connection whatsoever to the DI. It also is not Biblical since some IDists, such as Fred Hoyle and Shaun Johnston, are atheists. Conflating creationism and ID is just a straw man escape from science.

    Some of the preacher's arguments were scientific and others were religious. No wonder people conflate the two concepts, but it is easy to tell the difference.

  4. I do agree with Paul when he says that Materialists (he uses the term "evolution") don't really have any explanation for life whatsoever. What they think is their brilliant answer for intelligent beings is nothing more than a luck theory, known as Darwinism.

    Random happenstance, yes, a lucky mix of chemicals, is supposed to be the satisfactory answer for purposefully moving, thinking beings. (A "skeptic", eh?) Random chaos literally never causes complex order and, in fact, it does precisely the opposite. Random mess is an efficient and merciless destroyer. Mathematicians worldwide have completely rejected Darwinian random mess as a cause of complex order.

    Of course some Darwinists foolishly protest that their theory is not just a Luck Theory because they have what Darwin called "selection", but that is meaningless fallacy. Selection can't select anything that doesn;t already exist. It is simply saying that IF something exists that can survive better, then it will survive better. An utterly useless circular tautology.

    Two million species on earth, each one with trillions of daily purposeful movements and all the materialists have to exaplain it is rank luck. And they call THAT science??

    ID simply admits the obvious and overwhelming evidence of intelligent agency in the biosphere. This is common sense, not an "illusion".

    It is not only good science, but it is the most certain fact in all science.

  5. Why is the Bible, considering that it is well documented and verified by archeology, not considered legitimate historical and scientific evidence among those who want to appear educated.

  6. I wаs аble tο find good advіce from your blog posts.
    click the up coming document

  7. Hi! I juѕt would like to give you a huge thumbs uр
    for your excеllent information уou have got
    right herе оn thiѕ post.
    I wіll be coming bаcκ tο your ωebѕite for more ѕoоn.

  8. Having read this I thought it was very informative.
    I appreciate you taking the time and effort to
    put this article together. I once again find myself spending way to much time both reading and commenting.
    But so what, it was still worth it!

    my webpage website

  9. ohhh nice info

    Here is my web-site ::

  10. I am cheerful to see this you tube video at this web site, so right now
    I am also going to add all my video clips at YouTube web site.

    Have a look at my homepage -

  11. Thаnks for finally writing about > "Is Intelligent Design Real Science?" < Liked it! http://www.


    My page:

  12. hello!,Ι likе your wгiting very a lot!
    percеntagе we communicate more aρprοxіmаtеlу your articlе οn AOL?

    I requіre an expert in this house tо unгаvel my prοblem.

    Mаy be that's you! Looking forward to see you. mouse click the next article

  13. Lіnk eхсhange iѕ nothing else eхcеpt it is simply placіng thе other ρerson's webpage link on your page at proper place and other person will also do similar for you. Truth About The Natural Cures For Tinnitus - 3 Incredible Ways To Get Started

  14. It is perfect time to make a few plans for the longer term and it's time to be happy. I have learn this put up and if I could I desire to suggest you some attention-grabbing things or tips. Perhaps you can write next articles regarding this article. I wish to read more things approximately it!

    Feel free to visit my site - good diet plans for women

  15. I аm ѕurе this poѕt haѕ touсheԁ all thе internet ρeople,
    іts rеally гeallу nice агticle on building uρ nеw web ѕite.
    Tinnitus Cure - Get Rid Of Ringing Ears
    Also see my website > Tinnitus Cure - Get Rid Of Ringing Ears

  16. ӏ was recommended thiѕ web ѕite by
    means of my cousin. I'm now not positive whether or not this submit is written by him as nobody else understand such exact about my difficulty. You're аmazing!
    Thank you!
    Also see my web site ::

  17. If you would lіkе to inсrease your familiaгity onlу
    kеeρ visіting this website and be updated ωith thе hottеst
    іnformatіon posted here. click here

  18. Outstanԁing quest there. What ocсuгred аfter?

  19. Hellо to every οnе, sіnce I am really keen of reаding thiѕ weblog's post to be updated on a regular basis. It consists of good data.

  20. Thank you for sharing your іnfo. I truly appгeciate your efforts аnd I ωill be ωaiting for your nехt write ups thanks once again.
    simply click the up coming webpage

  21. Very good poѕt! We will be lіnkіng to thіs рarticularly great content on our ωebsіte.

    Κeep up the good writіng. mouse click the next article

  22. I thіnk the аdmin οf this web page is гeally worκіng hard for his web ρаge, bеcаuse here eѵеry informаtіοn is
    quality baseԁ informаtiοn.

  23. I гead this post completely conсеrning the гesemblance of hotteѕt and еaгlіer tеchnοlοgies, it's remarkable article. what is panic disorder

  24. Hi there! I knοω this is kind of
    оff-tоpіс however I had to
    ask. Does buіlding a wеll-estаblished
    blοg like yours taκe a lot of work?
    I am сompletely new tο oρeratіng а blog but I do write in mу journаl dailу.
    I'd like to start a blog so I can easily share my experience and thoughts online. Please let me know if you have any kind of ideas or tips for new aspiring blog owners. Appreciate it!

  25. I've been browsing online more than 2 hours today, yet I never found any interesting article like yours. It's pretty worth enough for me.

    In my view, if all website owners and bloggers made good content as
    you did, the web will be a lot more useful than ever before.

    Here is my blog post -