|
Nature Never Stops Talking
Aug. 7, 2005
Intelligent Design vs Intelligent Design vs Intelligent Design
Of
course, with a relatively new buzz phrase such as "Intelligent Design"
both allies and enemies of the concept are stepping forward and telling
the public different things. Naturally the enemies of ID are saying it
is a "Christian conservative attempt to force religion into public
schools". This way they put all kinds of negative vibes out there as
though it is underhanded, politically motivated by one party, and
religious "fanatics" unrelenting in forcing their beliefs on others. As
I said before, this is to keep the media away from reporting on the
scientific merit ID has over evolution.
I
have read other accounts from evolutionists and creationists that ID is
not scientific. Boom - just plain not scientific and nothing in ID can
be proven (which by the way is ridiculous).
If
this isn't confusing enough, friends and allies are defending ID in
contradictory ways. Some say it is a group who believes ... (fill in
details from the age of the earth to religious persuasions). Others say
it is people who do not believe in the Genesis account (creationism)
but that some other form of intelligence influenced the organization of
our earth and universe. But probably, the most common statement is that
ID is a theory that believes in evolution but that it was guided by
intelligence.
No matter which one is out there, others are disagreeing.
Unfortunately,
I guess as the author of "Nature Never Stops Talking - the wonderful
ingenuity of nature" I don't quite fit into any of those categories
even though I certainly believe where there is great engineering there
is great intelligence - hands down. Rather than using ID to reach a
conclusion, I am going the other way. I am looking at the tangible
evidence, pointing it out to readers and allowing readers to agree with
the evidence. Isn't that what good science is all about?
Look
at nature. It's there. Look at how well it works. It really works. What
have we observed here? Do we have any assumptions that conflict with
the evidence?
I
have a reason for writing the column [for 10 years now] the way I write
it. Because there is tangible proof of a creator. I am trying to focus
on the proof, not my personal beliefs, not my interpretation of the
Bible. I am very open about both of these discussions but that is
simply not my focus in the book or in my column. I do this very
consciously and for good cause.
If
I told you that you were going to make an important business deal today
because I read it in your astrology chart why should you believe me? I
certainly wouldn't believe it. Different religions have different
"bibles". If someone told you to believe something about the moon
because of what their "bible" said, would you believe it?
Quoting
scripture or making statements based on our faith, no matter how valid,
is not communicating in a way many listeners consider rational. And I
have no problem with that. Likewise, don't quote Darwin or some
scientist or any expert. I want evidence, not opinions or "expert"
opinions. Scientists are supposed to be after facts.
However,
I do have a problem when I am making a purely scientific statement and
someone says no one should believe me because I have some agenda. First
of all, to accuse my motives is NOT scientific. Secondly, if I present
valid evidence, my motives have no bearing on the reality of the
evidence. Lastly, why would anyone want to distract from the evidence
anyway? It makes their motive suspicious, but I can never state as a
fact, anyone's motive.
We
don't need to join some camp. We need to pursue the truth. No matter
what self-made definitions come up for ID, the fact that intelligent
engineering reveals intelligence is a truth. There is no evidence to
the contrary - only theories. The evidence contradicts such theories.
Nature
is therapeutic for a reason. It is incredible achievement with order
and beauty and to not enjoy it seems to be nearly sinful. Of course,
I'm not crazy about mosquitoes.
|
| • Post A Comment! • Send to a Friend!
|
Comments
|
|
|
|
Aug. 10, 2005 - thank you for taking the time to blog