Understanding Intelligent Design
by: Dr. Tony Beam
This weekend I discovered a huge nest of wasps who had decided they really liked my front porch. Since the danger that many stinging insects posed was a real danger I decided they had to go. I poured half a glass of gasoline, stood a safe distance away and threw the gas at the nest. My plan would have been huge success if I had actually hit the nest but all I managed to do was anger and stir up the wasps. They flew off in all directions looking someone, anyone to sting. I barely escaped only to return later after they had settled down and this time I successfully sent them packing.
The moral of the story is if you want to stir up a wasp nest just throw gas in their general direction without hitting them. If you want to stir up a nest of liberal scientists who believe Darwinism is more of a religion than a reliable theory just suggest that the universe might have come into being some other way.
When President Bush suggested Intelligent Design be taught in the public school system along side Darwinism, the liberals went off in every direction looking for someone to sting. Paul Krugman of the New York Times flew immediately in the direction of the nearest "creationist" accusing them of pretending to be engaged in science. He warns that the "political muscle of the religious right, may be enough to start a process that ends with banishing Darwin from the classroom."
It might be a good idea for Paul Krugman and other liberal pundits to do their homework before they consider any questioning of Darwin to be nothing more than right wing religious posturing. Recently in Greenville South Carolina a group of well-respected scientists came together for a forum titled, "Uncommon Dissent: Scientists Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing." These scientists had at least three characteristics in common. First, many of them were world renowned in their field of expertise. Second, they all agreed that Darwinism for purely scientific reasons is not a plausible theory, and finally not one of them claimed to be an evangelical Christian.
Biochemist Dr. Michael Behe author of the book, "Darwin's Black Box" made a compelling case for intelligent design by using Darwin's own words against him. Darwin once concluded "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." What Darwin was saying was that if there existed an organism which was "irreducibly complex" (that is to say it could not function without all of its parts working together) his theory would be disproved.
Since 100 years ago Darwin had no way to see inside a living cell he thought that cells were extremely simple...nothing more than a blob of protoplasm. Today we know that each living cell is an irreducibly complex molecular machine that simply could not have evolved piece by piece. Even when you consider the flagellum, which is attached to some bacteria like a tail, you have to marvel at the complexity of its design. The flagellum operates much like a tiny propeller requiring dozens of precisely tailored, intricately interacting parts which just could not have evolved in a piece by piece fashion.
When I speak about the Christian Worldview I often touch on the importance of realizing the majesty and complexity of the world we live in. I often use the illustration of a family traveling to South Dakota for a vacation where their children see Mt. Rushmore for the first time. They would probably excitedly ask something like "Mommy, Daddy, how did the faces of those presidents get up there on the mountain?" I think even our children would look at us incredulously if we answered them by saying, "Billions of years ago the forces of erosion started working on the face of Mt. Rushmore and after a million years of the water doing its work four president's faces popped out of the mountain." I always end by saying where there is evidence of design there must be a designer.
Dr. Norman Geisler sums up the intelligent design argument by asking, "If you walked in the kitchen and saw your name and address spelled out on the kitchen table would you think the cat knocked over the alphabet cereal box?" Random chance can account for simple changes in nature and may explain the development of simple organisms. But complexity cannot be a result of random chance and random chance is a linchpin in Darwinism.
Before Paul Krugman dismisses any dissention from Darwinism he might want to consider the persecution faced by radical scientists like Copernicus who dared to challenge the popular theory that the world was the center of the universe. That same persecution today is reserved for those who would dare question Darwin's conclusions. Maybe, just maybe someday the courageous scientists of today who would question the doctrine of Darwin will be respected as those who led us out of intellectual darkness. Regardless of who wins the current debate between evolution and intelligent design God will have the final word and His word is "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
23 comments:
Amen.
You forgot to sign in Dona! :)
Having recently been one of those scientists eager to defend evolution, I think the following verses are really important to remember when discussing evolution and creationism:
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1 Corinthians 2:12-14
It's not possible to convince a scientist that there is a creator when they actively deny even the possibility of anything supernatural. Evolution is the best means of explaining life when one looks at the world from a materialistic/naturalistic viewpoint, and because of that you will never convince a scientist that life was created when they 'know' there is not a creator. God and the spirit must come first then belief in creation second, in my opinion. In a way, it is sort of like the law of works vs the law of faith (Romans 3:27-31). Faith is first, works come of faith.
Thanks Dan!
That's a great point. When one refuses to acknowledge even the possiblity of a God then no amount of "reasoning" will convince them, because there is no way the evidence points to something that "doesn't exist". Thanks for your insite. I appreciate the comment.
Luke said: When one refuses to acknowledge even the possiblity of a God then no amount of "reasoning" will convince them, because there is no way the evidence points to something that "doesn't exist".
Um, so does that mean I need to achnowledge even the chance that we owe existence to a tutu-wearing hippo? Not in the slightest....
Amanda: Thanks for your comment!
:) Of course what I said doesn't mean that you need to acknowledge the chance that we owe our existence to a hippo.
However, if I came to you with an abundance of information that pointed to that, and you knew millions of people who believed that, don't you think it would be prudent to examine the possibility? If nothing else, wouldn't you wonder what convinced all those others to think that way? Or would you just stand up, ignore whatever evidence they brought to you, and declare all those who believed that idiots?
Your reply can be broken into two parts. I'll deal with the second oen first though because it's the easiest to refute.
2) Peer pressure: The fact that a lot of people believe in something does not, in any way, increase the liklihood of that thing being true. The world isn't flat but a whole bunch of people thought it was at one point.
1) Abundance of 'evidence.' I don't see an abundance of evidence that points to the Christian God. I see a strong case for intelligent design- maybe- but nothing remotely close to the description offered by your (lengthy) series of books.
As such, the possibility is, like you stated, prudently examined. But that's it. There are no facts that prove God's existence and there are no facts that prove God's inexistence. That's why religion is framed in terms like "faith" and "belief."
And when it really comes down to it, if the potential for intelligent design is there, what more evidence do I have (beyond mass opinion) that it's not a tutu-wearing hippo?
Either way I won't be attending its church.
Amanda:
"1) Abundance of 'evidence.' I don't see an abundance of evidence that points to the Christian God."
Have you searched?
2)I never said that a lot of people believing in something implies that it's true. I simply said that should be enough to make you want to examine their viewpoint very seriously.
Actually Luke, I've done a lot of searching. A lot of researching, a lot of thinking, and a lot of trying to understand. I'm a grad student in philosophy extremely interested in the religious inclination. I just don't buy it.
I examined the Christian viewpoint and found a lot of empty promises and unclaimed insurance policies. Despite the good you'll say it's achieved, your religion has done a great deal of harm to this world. It's time we changed that.
I appreciate your prayer though.
Amanda: I'm glad to hear you've searched/are searching.
My religion has done no harm to this world. Misguided men have used Christianity to further "un-Christian" motives, but true Christianity has done no harm. Just like many good things in this world, when taken out of context and misunderstood, they can be used for harm.
However, I don't believe in Christ because of the all the good things Christianity has done. I believe in Christ because he preached truth. I believe the Bible because it's been inerrant for thousands of years. I believe in the changing power of the Spirit because I've been changed by it. I've seen others changed by it.
In Love.
Here's the thing Luke: we can sit here with hindsight on our side and say, "wow, those people burning witches during the Spanish Inquisition sure were misguided." But during that time, in the name of "your" religion, they thought they were right.
They never once thought they were "un-Christian" and instead believed themselves to be the true walkers of Christianity. Just as you do now. Their past arrogance, your present faith.
So when you base your current actions around the teachings you say have been “inerrant for thousands of years”- on the things you confidently say are "true"- how can you be so sure you're avoiding the path of the Spaniards? (Especially since you’re following the *same* book….)
And that, Luke, is my problem with religion.
NB: The entire last paragraph I ignored because it's simply religious babble. I've seen others changed by the healing power of Tony Robbins, that doesn't mean I'm about to pray to him.
True Christianity isn't about a "religion". My Christianity isn't about my "religion". It's about me and my God. It's about me serving my God with a lifestyle of worship 24/7. True Christianity is a lifestyle not a religion.
When I say the bible is inerrant I'm refering to the prophesies that have been correct. Never has the Bible been wrong. How do you explain that?
On what do you base your epistemology? Where do you get your knowledge from? How do you know if it's reliable? When are you justified in saying you know something?
Man this is good stuff! I've been interested in apologetics for a long time. Luke, I wrote a song about my stepfather years ago, have never sung it for anybody just for myself and the lyrics go something like this... I know a man with so many degrees, and books on his shelf. But it appears he's forgotten how to think for himself. Trained to study and analyze, somehow he's belived all the lies. We always seem to disagree....IF he only knew Jesus. He's been to church a couple of times, but the Gospel couldn't get through his sleepy eyes. Is he hard of hearing or hard of heart? Maybe I havent done part.. If he could only see Jesus through me...could only see Jesus through me. But the Earth is just an accident, and his life is just a vent. To grow old die and disappear, and it'll be like he was never her. Unless he sees Jesus in me...He's got to see Jesus in me....... He says the earth is just an accident and his life is just an event, to grow old die and disappear and it is like he was never ever here....unless he sees Jesus in me..I've got to show him Jesus in me......ken
You know, it's funny. I've had a similar conversation with a few people and always do they avoid answering my question about the Inquisition. I'll state it again and then answer yours.
*The Spaniards thought they were correct and devout followers of your God. They persecuted, tortured, and killed countless thousands of people in His name. Years later, with hindsight, we can see they were in error. ERROR. How can you be so sure you're avoiding the same path? They followed the 'inerrant' teachings of the Bible, just as you do.*
Sure. Religion, lifestyle, whatever you want to call it. It's how you live your life.
The Bible hasn't been wrong? Where is the evidence that it's been right?? It preaches a morality degrading to women, homosexuals, and a host of other groups (like the witches I mentioned earlier...). And last time I checked, resurrection ain't happened since it was reported- a la alien abduction stories- a very long time ago. I but equal faith in both.
I base my epistemology on a variety of things. Common sense, empirical evidence, feeling, and faith. Just not faith in your or any god. It's too simplistic, too easy a back-door to take. It allows justification for a variety of practices that cause more social ills than they it prevents.
I know it's reliable when I test it- when I practice it and see the consequences of my actions. If my framework fits the situation, if it seems not to cause harm to those around me, then I act on it again. The cycle continues until it causes harm to another, at which time it becomes necessary to evaluate the original practice.
And I find it incredibly humourous that a person who bases what they 'know' as 'reliable' finds it through the words of another, supposedly accurate source. I see no evidence of what's preached by the Bible, just like I see no evidence in Superman comic books that people can fly.
Christianity contains within itself a set of moral codes. Those codes are based on some rather unlikely notions (resurrection, for example). Judged simply on the morality it presents, it's not very beneficial to society. Judged according to its foundation- where it gets that code- and it's little more than a fairy tale. Since the morality hinders more than it advances, it must be corrected.
Canada's passing of law allowing the marriage of non-heterosexual couples is but one example. But I suppose they're just crossing their fingers, hoping that the impending apocolypse will pass them by....
Amanda: Man is fallen. Everyone of us has been affected by the original sin. We are flesh and blood and have a propensity to be decieved by satan. The Bible clearly teaches love, respect, kindness, etc... toward all men. When people do things in the name of Christ that go against the principles in the Bible and they think they are doing right, they are decieved.
Deception comes from not obeying the Word of God. (Ja. 1:22)
Deception comes from being unregenerate. (1 Cor. 2:14)
Deception comes from rejection of the Truth. (2Thess.2:10-11)
Deception comes naturally for sinful men. (Jer.17:9)
So, if I'm obeying the entire word of God, if I'm a regenerated man, and I embrace the truth, I will not be decieved by satans lies. Or at the very least I'll will greatly greatly reduce my propensity for deception.
You make a good point with my reference to my experience. I felt it was important though, that I let you know that I have felt His power. I realize that it's not a solid reason for you to change your viewpoint though.
You never answered how you explain the truth in the prophesies in the Bible. Prophecy isn't the only reason the Bible is innerrant. It
is an integrated message-system, written by a single author
over 1,500+ years (using the pens and personalities of 39+-
writers), the content of which demonstrates a knowledge
that superscedes time, space.
I'm going to do some more research and get back to you on some more specific examples. I just wanted to respond to some of your comments so you know I'm still interested in your thoughts, and that I'm still around.
Luke, I don't buy the doctrine of original sin. First and foremost. Second, there's no need to quote scripture. Your words are fine and the quotes prove nothing but that they come from someone else. And, to top it all off, they're questionably self-fulfilling.
And you never really answered my question. I appreciate your connection with the topic and your tolerance for my questions but it'd be nice also if you made reference to them. I'll state it again, using your language.
"So, if I'm obeying the entire word of God, if I'm a regenerated man, and I embrace the truth, I will not be decieved by satans lies." Great. Fantastic. The Spaniards during the Inquisition believed the very same thing. They tortured and killed thousands of people because they thought they were obeying the 'entire' word of God. Just like you do now.
You can sit here today and say, "well obviously they were deceived by Satan's lies" but the point was as lost on them then as it is on you now; their faith obscured the fact that they were... *wrong*.
This is my issue with religion Luke.
Oh, and please name me some of these 'truths' your book contains that aren't tautological, self-fulfilling, or unprovable....
Amanda, you wrote ealier "I know it's reliable when I test it- when I practice it and see the consequences of my actions. If my framework fits the situation, if it seems not to cause harm to those around me, then I act on it again."
From what do you draw on to know that causing harm to those around you is a "bad thing"? What about those who aren't around you? Is it still a bad thing to cause harm to them? If there is no absolute how can you start with an absolute to state your claim?
Amanda:
A friend of mine wrote this to me in response to our dialogue here.
I hope y'all don't mind my 'butting in', but I had a thought I wanted to share...
You say that the people involved in the inquisition thought they were obeying the Word of God with what they were doing. And you wonder how we know we aren't as 'in error' as what we say they were. My response to that is kind'a tough. I can't judge those people, I can't say that they were not Christians. I can say their actions were not Christian. How can I say that? Because what they did was in direct disobedience to the Word of God. Those people killed people, which is direct disobedience to the 10 commandments. There are arguments, I'm aware, that in the Old Testament the Israelites killed people in obedience to God's specific ordering, which confuses that argument a little. But there's also the fact that in the New Testament Jesus said the greatest of all commandments is to love the Lord God with all our heart, soul, strength, and mind, and the second is to love our neighbor (being anyone on this earth with us) as ourself. Killing multitudes like that is hardly loving, is it?
You talked about the way we (Christians) treat homeosexuals and others who's practices don't agree with our beliefs. Here's my response: hate the sin, love the sinner. I have friends who's life-styles are in direct opposition to my beliefs. I don't shun, mistreat, etc the people I know who are homosexual, for example. I treat them the way I treat any other person who's not a Christian. I strive to be a loving example to them...I strive to show them the truth by the way I live my life...I do not encourage their actions, but by no means do I intend to degrade the person. I'm not perfect, however, and I'm sure I sometimes do behave in manners that are less-than-Christlike. But Christ did not shun the sinners--they're the people he ate with, travelled with, listened to, etc. That's why I can say that anyone who shuns (or kills, etc) those people who do things that are against the Word of God, are not being Christ-like.
Having said that, however, there is an extent to which we must, as a Christian, limit our time with some such people. The people we spend time with influence us, and we must be careful to protect ourselves from letting their behaviors rub off on us too much.
Anyhow, I'm sorry I got a little wordy here...and probably left you thinking "what the heck is this girl trying to say, anyhow?" :) I really appreciate that you are sincerely asking questions & wanting responses to them -- it helps me to really think about my beliefs. I hope and pray it benefits you as well. :)
I like to explain intelligent design like this:
Do you know how the Declaration of Independence was written? It seems that Thomas Jefferson's youngest son spilled a box of letter blocks out onto the floor and there it was -- perfectly spelled and punctuated, without a single block out of alignment.
Of course, rational people would never believe that story. But those same rational people DO believe something as infinitely complex as the universe could randomly come together after a Big Bang, perfect down to the tiniest subatomic particle, without any intelligent involvement. If we are going to discuss theories that make sense, it seems to me that intelligent design takes far less faith than what's already out there.
Lone Ranger, your description depicts a scenario far too simplistic for either side of the debate. Your version of intelligent no more points to a God than it does to gods or a phenomenon like "life" itself.
Luke, your friend definitely isn't 'butting in.' This dialogue concerns her as much as it does you or I and her addition is certainly deserving of a response.
The judgement that their actions were un-Christian is still a line of argument similar to "hindsight is 20/20." What matters is not how we interpret their actions now but how they did back then. And they never would have even entertained the idea that they were being un-Christian. In fact, such statements would have had your friend burned at the stake as a heretic. They'd be wrong, sure, but the lived consequences of their "un-Christian" actions would have taken a real toll on her life. And they would have done it all in the name of the Christian God.
I agree, killing is hardly loving but the fact remains that the interpretation of the Bible by the Spaniards led them to believe otherwise. They took the *same* text and believed it said one thing. Centuries later, you take the text, condemn their actions, and believe it says another. All in the name of the 'inerrant truth' of God. It's the same.
But there's something different at the end of your friend's entry, something that sheds a new light on our topic. Aside from the limiting of time spent with non-believers, an acceptance of the person despite their beliefs- shunning the sin and not the sinner- is the tie that binds us together as both a community and society.
Quite obviously I do not believe in the fundamental premise of religion. But that removes neither your ability to do so nor our ability to engage in meaningful, non-aggressive dialogue about the subject. We may both engage in efforts at showing the other side the "truth" of our beliefs but ultimately they remain just that: beliefs.
And in the end, I believe we both should have the right to exercise a morality that refrains from harming the lives of others. From religion I gain the teachings of morality and choose to live my life according to a great many tenets that could be called Christian; I just choose not to believe their origins come from a source other than humanity.
I totally agree with loving the sinner and hating the sin. That's a fundamental precept of Christianity.
But still, without an absolute right and wrong in life, who gets to decide what "harm" is. And when do you decide that your actions are "harming" another, or they're harming you? When I speak my beliefs that homosexuality is wrong, am I harming them? What about when the public schools want to teach my kids evolution, which I don't believe in. Are they harming me? Without something on which to base a moral code...all you're left with is a bunch of questions.
On the issue of the Inquisition: You said a few posts back "I know it's reliable when I test it- when I practice it and see the consequences of my actions. If my framework fits the situation, if it seems not to cause harm to those around me, then I act on it again. The cycle continues until it causes harm to another, at which time it becomes necessary to evaluate the original practice."
There are similarities in that to how I live my life as a Christian. Only I start with the Bible as I know it and as I've been taught. As a new Christian I hardly understood a fraction of true Christianity. As I grow in my walk with Christ, and as I learn more about what the Bible says, my ideas and actions change to accomodate them. I started with the foundational truths of the Word and built upon them. If I find something in the Bible that is contrary to my past actions I stop re-evaluate and change. I don't know how the Spaniards interpreted the word to justify what they did, but I know it was wrong, and I will not make that mistake. I am not perfect, but I am being sanctified. "Heb 10:10
By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."
Yargh. Luke, I thought you were there but you missed it. We have reached an impasse and it's been my experience that people of your inclination choose to walk more with shepherds than rational thought.
Your absolute right and wrong have been sold to you like insurance policies, lottery tickets, and swamp land in Florida; you've been had, the sad remnants of a cruel practical joke.
You follow in the footsteps of another, mortal man and have swallowed all the so-called truths he sold you. Moreover, you choose to remain blind. There is not a single iota of difference between Christians and Scientologists; and neither still between priests and auditors.
So hold your head up high, walk proud, and watch on the sidelines while people like me make it their lives to undo all that has been done by organized religion.
But I promise I won't burn you at the stake.
Thanks for the discussion,
A.W.
Interesting. I didn't think we'd reached an impasse at all. I find it peculiar that you know my "inclination" after a half dozen posts.
What I know is not a sad remnant at all. The sad part is that you choose to remain deaf to the Word. It saddens me to know that you feel it necessary to look down on me (at least it sounds like it) because you think differently than I. There is a way that seemeth right to man, but the end there of is death. There will come a time when self will fail. May God soften your heart. I appreciate your intellect. May you use it with discernment and wisdom.
Post a Comment