Intelligent Design

Posted: August 21st, 2005 | Author: stauffer | Filed under: Articles

Scientists are getting increasingly nervous over the developing view among many of their colleagues that nature may have originated by intelligent design. They are fighting hard that no such “faith” be allowed in the classrooms where science is taught.

Science they argue means “to know” and is based on hypotheses, experiments, and demonstrable proofs. Only when these experiments and proofs can be replicated by other scientists can we accept them as fact. And, supposedly, only “facts” are worthy to be taught in classrooms.

We teach that the earth rotates on its axis every 24 hours, that it revolves around the sun every 365 days, and that gravity draws objects toward the center of the earth. All of this can be clearly established by a number of experiments. Even Christians are at peace with atheistic science teachers on these and many other matters of science.

But how did all this come to be? What is the origin of the sun, the earth, and the relationship of these entities to one another? Even the scientists don’t know, yet they want to teach some variation of the “Big Bang” theory to describe the origin of the solar system and their pet theory of “natural selection” to explain the rise of man from matter and simple forms of life. What experiment can we perform in a lab to prove either of these and many other so-called “scientific facts”?

The truth is that scientists walk by “faith” also. They simply “believe” this is what happened. Evolution through natural selection is nothing more than a working hypothesis. They cannot demonstrate the origin of matter, the transformation of matter into life, and the evolution of primitive forms of life into complex animals or man.

Anthony Flew, the world renown English philosopher and atheists, now in his 80s, finally admitted that the intricacies and complexities of DNA can only be explained by intelligent design. Michael Denton [Evolution: A Theory in Crisis] and Michael Behe [Darwin's Black Box], two prominent microbiologists, came to the same conclusion. Even Charles Darwin, in his Origin of the Species, where he taught evolution through natural selection, admits that his theory offers no adequate explanation of the origin and intricate workings of the eyeball.*

Lest scientists have a nervous breakdown, be it known that none of these men believe the Genesis account of creation; nor are any of them interested in teaching the Bible in biology or physics classes. But they do admit that life cannot be fully explained by “scientific proofs.” And some scientists are simply arguing that it is only fair that children in the classroom be exposed to the theory of “intelligent design” along with the theory of “evolution by natural selection.” Neither can be proved; both are matters of faith. Why not teach both and leave the children to examine the facts and decide for themselves.

* Darwin Wrote: “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection [evolution], seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree” (Origin of the Species, A Mentor Book, 168)