Intelligent Design: Religion or Science?
Viewpoints I posted in the SeattlePI January 9-12th, 2008 in the Soundoff: Evolution: There’s No Conflict
This evolution vs “intelligent design” debate is a bit humorous.
Those in the “evolution is fact” camp argue that this isn’t theory at all, but documented & proven factual science. But then when pressed, and asked to explain this position in less scientific terms and perhaps more historical or philosophical, then a defensive position seems to take priority.
According to evolutionists, human life is nothing but a cosmic freak accident of nature that has managed to overcome fantastic mathematical odds tp survive the Big Bang (similar to the odds of a stick of dynamite in a garbage dump forming a working computer, just to put those math odds in perspective)
Furthermore, nobody seems to know where all the water on earth came from. Yes I know this seems a bit silly, but the fact is scientists are no closer to explaining the origins of the Earth’s oceans today than they were decades ago. There are theories of frozen astroids colliding with Earth, and other theories, but that main concept that evolution is dependent on, is an unknown in the scientific community.
Nevertheless, lets assume all you in the “evolution-is-fact” camp are right, while anyone who disagrees with you are ignorant.
Since you are nothing more than a freak accident of nature, that would mean that rubbing you out in the great tradition of famous atheists like Stalin and Lenin, would have no real meaning. Because after all, freak accidents have no kind of morality of right or wrong.
There is no right or wrong if Darwin was right. All there is are freak accidents, billions of them, wandering a planet that was also a freak accident.
So why care about anything then? Why care about babies? Or about cars with environmentally sensitive fuels? Or anything else?
Since all you are is an accident, and all anyone else is are accidents, why would killing on of those freaks be wrong?
Why is torture wrong? Why NOT kill?
You’re only messing with freaks of nature with no real purpose for being here, no souls, no nothing.
Survival of the fittest, right?
Most of you in the pure evolution camp consider yourselves smarter than the religious. More rational. And yet the viewpoint seems anything but rational when put in direct terms.
Evolution & Darwinism are dependent on random acts of nature, including the origin of man. According to the theory there is no greater purpose for the origin of man because it is but a mere accident of nature.
You can’t really argue that a God ordered random acts because if he did, the acts wouldn’t be random. They would be something in the order of intelligent design, which this mob rejects.
The only alternative is a pointless, wandering evolution of species with no purpose or meaning, thus all these guarded tenants (ie: morality etc) are nothing more than human-created theories that have little meaning.
That IS the theory of pure evolution.
So my point is that if you are going to argue the science is sound, you must also accept the philosophy that the science brings with it. Because there is no alternative. It’s either random or it is not.
It’s actually why I admire Michael Behe’s work, and especially his courage to present the first (of what will likely become many) biochemical arguments against the theory of evolution.
Behe, if you read his book, was taught that evolution is absolute fact like most scientists are taught, in an educational system hostile to any other opinion. And yet as he studied and probed and discovered, he began to question that assumption.
He quietly noted that the evidence he was seeing wasn’t supporting “THE theory.” He saw no evidence, for example, of DNA evolving like what was being claimed by paleontologists. In fact he argues in his book, that the evolution of DNA is not only problematic, but improbable, and he doubts it happened or could happen. And explains why he feels that way, in scientific terms that guys like me have a hard time following.
He penned this argument in a book published in 1999, called Darwin’s Black Box, and was immediately chastised and ridiculed by academics. People who claimed they were interested in diverse ideas and challenge of thought were unwilling to debate this subject.
Much like a modern day Martin Luther, risking his career to voice concerns about a theory that was being claimed. And we’ve seen the comments in newspapers across the land. People, most who are not scientists, mocking Behe, albeit without a credible argument as to why Behe is wrong.
Point being that the reason many folks are willing to listen to the ID argument, is specifically due to the mocking and ridicule. Today’s academia seems to have an agenda, contrary to how it was designed. It is supposed to be a place where differing ideas are enthusiastically welcomed, yet today we see the opposite.
For pure ideologists, that fact alone should encourage the debate of opposing viewpoints. Yet when it comes to evolution, opposing viewpoints is what the establishment seeks to avoid. Which is not what our Universities are intended to do, and thus they become a hindrance to truth and learning, rather than a beacon!