As a member of a society, do you make it a point to know what is going around you? Whether we care or not about the political agenda, gay rights, or scientific discovery, it would behoove us to keep one ear to the door. Jim Elliot once said, "Wherever you are, be all there. Live to the hilt every situation you believe to be the will of God." Without question, we have been called to be a light on a hill and not just a spectator watching from the sideline.
One of the most talked about subjects in society today is Intelligent Design (ID). Throughout the country on practically any given day one can open his/her local newspaper and read about the controversy between ID and Darwinism being taught in the Public School System. The center of this controversy resides in Dover, Pennsylvania. The public school board in Dover voted previously to allow ID to be taught alongside Darwinism as another option to explain creation. Currently, those board members have been removed and replaced. The school district is moving towards disallowing ID to be taught alongside Darwinism, thus wiping out a plausible explanation in favor of an Intelligent Designer.
Many antagonists of ID purport that ID is a smokescreen for Creationism although the two are not equal. ID does not make reference of a Christian God or any god at all; however Creationism does reference a Creator while contending that He is the God of the Bible. There are proponents of ID that are Atheists, Deists, and Theists. All believe that the existence of man and the universe hinges on Irreducible Complexity that leads one to conclude that a Creator exists and is the cause of our existence.
I've heard various opinions surrounding this controversial topic like ID is "bad science" or ID proposes a "junk faith" or it's a "smokescreen" for Creationism. Whatever happened to searching for the truth and relying upon evidence? Well, the problem with ID in the eyes of many Darwinists is it's unreliability or validity in providing Naturalistic answers through the scientific method. There are many well educated and highly respected scholars around the world who have studied ID with a critical eye and tested it by the scientific method of discovery. So what's the problem? Their conclusions did not provide naturalistic, but metaphysical answers. Not being able to provide an answer is not the problem, but the kind of answer that is being provided.
The minds of Copernicus, Galileo and as of late, Antony Flew all came to the realization that the complexity of the universe and human life ultimately returns to a creator. Darwin’s evidence from the Galapagos Islands was gathered over a meager 25 days. The Fossil record supports the explosion of life during the Cambrian Period and afterwards, but not before. The fact that our Universe itself is expanding is a testimony that creation has a beginning. Many will continue to disregard ID as a plausible answer to creation and continue to follow a theory on the basis that religion can not provide scientific answers. I agree. This is not Religion vs. Science, but Science vs. Science. Refusing to accept ID is not science, but ignorance.
Make it a point to know what’s happening around you. Take time and pick up the paper or another respected and dependable news source. Write a letter to a newspaper editor defending your beliefs. As a citizen of this country, you have that privilege today; however, silence today is the springboard for a new law tomorrow. You all have a voice, use it for the Glory of the Lord.
Bird Flight Automaton
1 year ago
2 comments:
The distinction between ID and creationism is a bit more blurred than you make it out. ID is really a category of possible explanations, Christian creationism being one of them.
Intelligent Design is not "bad science" it is not science. Scientific theories give testable predictions. The only 'prediction' that ID makes is that some things are irreducibly complex.
The argument of irreducible complexity is falling fast. ID supports offer up something that they believe can't be explained by evolution, and then the scientists show that it can be. The old famous example was the eye, then the bacteria flagellum motor, and many others in between and after.
I do believe in evolution as a scientist. But it is not a dogma. Scientific theories only need to be disproved by a single fact, and so far ID has not provided that fact.
So unless ID comes up with something that is truly irreducibly complex then evolution is the only theory that fits the evidence.
My Blog: In Defence of Reason
First of all, I would like to say that I like the "silence today is the springboard for a new law tomorrow" philosophy. Too many people do nothing and then complain about the situation. Admittedly, sometimes I am one of them. Well, I do nothing, but I don't usually complain. I'm hoping to rectify that (the do nothing portion, not the complaining portion) by getting more involved in the global community through blogging.
Before I read this entry, I actually did wonder why creationism is now being called intelligent design. Thanks to Edward Baker for educating me a little on that one. While I can't resolve the debate completely (and it is not my intention to do so), I think both individuals, B. Paul and Edward Baker (and anyone else who wants to gain a greater perspective about this issue) would find it worthwhile to read an article written by Michael Mamas on the subject.
I won't post the article here as I believe that is considered rude in blogging etiquette. Suffice it to say that the article provides a plausible integration of Darwinism with creationism (and/or ID) and vice versa. It is not one or the other it is both. Check it out, if only to further educate yourself on the possibilities.
Article: http://www.michaelmamas.com/article_darwinism_intelligent_design_resolution.html
Website: www.michaelmamas.com
Post a Comment