Intelligent Design
By Jd Black
Intelligent Science? 1998—The world’s leading evolutionist and atheist, the articulate, outspoken, charming and utterly compelling Stephen J. Gould announced, “No intelligent person can any longer doubt the FACT (emphasis his) of Evolution. (capital his)” During the next two years, three separate international courts over-ruled him. Okay, a trivia question from the deep past: What was the most popular bumper sticker in 1973?
a) Some people act as if stupidity were a virtue.
b) Those of you who think you know it all are of endless irritation to those of us who do.
c) Don’t confuse me with the facts; my mind is made up.
d) Demagoguery is the use of high-calibre language to disseminate brainless drivel. Answer. I can’t recall. It appears that all four of them were written with a particular newspaper editorial in mind. It seems that every time there is a slow day in the newsroom, some cub reporter decides to display his ignorance before the masses. Recently it was (no—I’d best not name him) in my hometown. He chose what he thought was a safe topic. Unfortunately, he had no background in it, and what emerged could most kindly be called embarrassing. But, if he can err, so might some readers. So let us examine a few hard facts, instead of foolishness, loftily presented. Science is the study of the earth’s materials, processes, laws. It is an examination of how things really work. Religion is supposed to be a compendium of God’s will and work, a simple statement of how things really work. In other words, there is never a conflict between real science and true religion. All conflicts necessarily arise when someone posits an idea (in either realm) that is false. Theory, any theory, is the result of laborious study. It is “how things appear at this point in time.” Newton observed that everything in this world deteriorates with time, and he posited the theory of entropy: all matter degrades, all energy degrades, everything wears out. Darwin observed some extreme examples of speciation (variations within a genus, sometimes called micro-evolution) and wondered in print (Origin of Species, 1850) whether such divergence might extend above genus, whether all animals might have a common ancestor. It is, of course, proper for a scientist to wonder. Wonder prompts research. Hard evidence should compel acceptance. This was not the case with Darwin, however, for one very significant reason. Whether in art, music or technology, creation means bringing forth new things. It brings order from chaos, and is the exact opposite of entropy. Anything left alone to the forces of nature is subject to the laws of entropy. Intelligence can, to some extent, reverse this, and bring higher order to material. We call this invention, or creation. Darwin wondered whether the creation of earths and lives might be possible through natural or random processes. Many others of his era desperately hoped so, as it was clear they existed, and they earnestly hoped they would not have to account to a God for their lives. What should be immediately clear to everyone, is, first, that evolution is a creative process. The argument is not between evolution and creation. It is between mindless creation and directed creation. Whether spontaneous or directed, we stand in awe of the immense, complex realities about us. Secondly, it should be immediately clear to everyone, that entropy and evolution are opposite concepts. Natural law and natural forces cannot both decompose and compose. Order and chaos are opposite. Newton and Darwin stand poles apart. The theory of evolution has been examined in hundreds of ways. Darwin himself gave the evidences (and the gaps) that would destroy his theory. In the years since, of the five kinds of “evolution,” only one—speciation, has ever been observed occurring. This aspect, “micro-evolution” is thoroughly proven. The rest of the theory, to once again quote the inimitable Stephen J. Gould, possibly the most ardent evolutionary proponent in history, is “holes strung together with holes.” He added that, “No one believes in Evolution because it is proven, but because the alternative is unthinkable.” These are the simple facts that spawned the raging controversy in the school districts of America. While the liberal press attempts to paint the controversy as a conservative Christian issue, it is not. The theory of evolution has yet to ever be substantiated. Francis Crick (of DNA fame) and Gould proposed two huge band-aids to the crumbling theory of Darwinian Evolution: Punctuated Equilibrium, and Panspermia, which, boiled down, mean that “evolution” occurred in discrete, drastic and sudden creative steps, and that it was initiated by visiting intelligences from elsewhere in the universe. This from the world’s most vociferous atheists. When you get right down to brass tacks, Evolution 2009 A.D. looks an awful lot like Creation 4004 B.C. John MacKay, the Australian geologist and researcher who, with his four Ph.D.’s, has debated the creation/evolution topic with more people in more places than anyone on earth, once focused the question. Science, he noted, should concern itself with interpreting the facts as they lie, not seeking for evidence to support a pre-conceived notion. He asks two powerful questions: 1) What does the existing evidence, in and of itself, suggest? And 2) If the world’s existing folklore, and historical records—including the Biblical record—are true, or even contain truth, what evidence would it necessarily produce, and does such evidence exist? He likes to search, to see whether it exists. This is proper science. And that is why William Dembski, an evolutionist with impeccable credentials, multiple degrees and publications, examined the evidence and asked, “What does the actual evidence suggest?” The scientific method demands that we base our theory on the actual evidence. It is Dembski who gave the world Intelligent Design. No wonder so many school boards have insisted on its addition to the curriculum. Our cub reporter posed a spurious, even silly, question, which I shall paraphrase as a medical question: “Shall we teach Hippocrates’ theory that the heart overheats the blood, or the Roman notion that blood sloshes freely through the body?” How about neither. Shall schools present Biblical creation as popularized by Kent Hovind versus Evolution as popularized by Bertrand Russell? How about neither. Intelligent Design as explained by Dembski, and many others, acknowledges such issues as irreducible complexity, and further confirms what Copernicus, Newton, Einstein and so many others, including Darwin himself in his early years, noted, that only intelligence can bring order to chaos. Intelligent Design leaves open all questions of person (or force), method, time scale and intermediate stages. This is appropriate science, since, after all, we weren’t there to observe them, and open questions can fuel both faith and scientific inquiry. Examining the actual evidence without preconceived ideas yields some fascinating results: 1) The spectacular geological formations which draw tourists and become national parks, are flood erosion—on a huge scale. 2) All fossils are found in flood debris. 3) Petrifaction can take place in as little as three years, under commonly found, but specific conditions. 4) The “geologic column” as described in textbooks, cannot be found any place on earth—indeed, there are only six places where even 40% of it can be found, and independent dating of the layers in these six locations has dated each layer of strata at the same age. 5) Certain dating methods are circular. (Date the tools/bones by the soil/strata. Date the soil by the tools.) While there is nothing wrong with circular logic—indeed, the entirety of mathematics is built upon the tautology, and it is math that allows us to test scientific theories in the first place—there is simply no “proof” either. 6) All disconformities, without exception, have more than one possible explanation. In other words, different processes, requiring different time periods, can produce identical effects. 7) No experiment ever conducted by anyone anywhere ever produced greater order than was inherent in the beginning materials themselves, unless the experimenter added such order to the mix himself. (Clearly proof of Newton’s theory of Entropy.) In short—the evidence of the earth itself is that it was created (or evolved—same idea, different causes, different pronunciations), and has been degrading ever since. And no one has yet found any evidence of mindless or random creation—only directed creation. Our cub reporter might have gotten away free had he stopped with his ignorance of the theory of Intelligent Design, since so few really know it, and the theory is so new. But he didn’t. Having taken a long rope, he proceeded to hang himself, and in so doing, made a brilliant appeal to the discerning reader in favor of obtaining a broad education. He proceeded to wax ludicrous on the topic of “vestigial” organs. Any student in genetics 101 can tell you that the basic mammalian body blueprint is female, and that the “Y” chromosome adds such characteristics to the base as will allow for the propagation of the species. Thus nipples are hardly vestigial—they are vital, and the genetic processes perpetuating them are parsimonious (the sine qua non of any scientific theory.) Additionally, anyone who has studied even a modicum of immunology is aware of the huge benefit conferred by an appendix on someone who has suffered heavy-metal or radiation poisoning, or who has been exposed to carcinogens. An organ which adds ten years of life to those lucky enough to keep it is hardly vestigial. Clearly, as one gains a broader and broader education, in all areas, including science and religion, one sees more clearly the connections, the reasons. This is the outstanding lesson embodied in that editorial. There is no conclusion to these observations, only an appeal to continuous searching. (More by Dr. Black can be found at http://www.educationleadershipdynamics.com)
JDBlack, aka Mr. Education, tour guide, outdoorsman, educator, grandpa, gardener, and bookworm.
|
