Natural selection vs. intelligent design
Framing the debate: Natural selection vs. intelligent design
Jan. 18, 2005
By Richard S. Brown
From all their shrill cries, Darwinians can’t seem to be able to handle the challenge to their version of science, which, when unmasked, is essentially “goo to you via the zoo.”
Darwinian evolution — sometimes called naturalism– and scientific creationism are irreconcilable worldviews and their basic tenets require acceptance of unproved assumptions about the origin of the universe.
Both origin theories, instead of just naturalism, should be presented in high-school science. Biblical Genesis or other creationist religions need not be studied in this setting in order to present concepts of and evidence for special (supernatural) creation.
The growing problem for evolutionists is that interest and attention for creation is rising rapidly among people with inquiring minds. Stirring this interest is a newfound wealth of broadcast, Internet and published information made understandable to lay people. Just as the jaded public is abandoning network news for other sources, evolutionists in mainstream academia are losing their stranglehold on matters of metaphysics.
Among creationists, are many credentialed, practicing scientists who buck the prevailing worldview of our origins. Many of these scientists are Christians or practice some other faith. Others are agnostic, but all are not buying what Darwinian dogma is selling.
This group of critics asks embarrassing questions, such as: How is it possible to jump-start replicating life out of non-life chemicals? Why isn’t the fossil record replete with specimens of macro-evolution such as the supposed transition from invertebrate to vertebrate life forms?
Creationists conclude, partly from deduction, that an omniscient entity using supernatural means must have created the universe in a one-time series of acts and was the early source of energy and design information required for the existence and functioning of the entire cosmos. Nothing is going to develop complexity from a primitive origin without intelligent input as well as energy. In short, nothing could work until every complex system is up and running in symbiotic relationships.
Creationists are often falsely accused of not acknowledging obvious biological micro-evolutionary change. We observe that plants and animals are restricted to the wide-ranging variables found in the DNA code that was endowed to the original kinds. Nowhere do scientists document an upward or increase in DNA language in reproduction. Only a level or downward (loss or misprint) transfer of genetic information can be inherited by offspring. Thus, creationists predict and observe ongoing speciation as well as extinctions for those species unable to adapt to the rigors of natural selection.
Scientists who are philosophical creationists work in various fields together with their Darwinian counterparts. Since most scientific research is empirical (documentation of observable, testable, repeatable subjects), it is rare for either group to question the validity of professionally performed work. Only when interpretations and extrapolations beyond all proof are presented do the various advocacy factions lock horns.
I have also observed over the years that it is the evolutionists who obfuscate the ever-changing details of their theory and continue to use vituperation and ad hominem attacks on those who question their claims.
None of the creationist organizations that I monitor have called for the banning of the teaching of Darwinian evolution theory in the public schools. None want biblical Genesis instruction by public-school teachers. What they want is the unfettered liberty to present creation theory just the same as the Darwinians present their theory.
It’s a free country. Evolutionists can choose not to acknowledge the possibility of a spiritual realm or supernatural dimension to our existence. But does truth and reality depend on the politically correct consensus found among establishment intelligentsia?
Centre Daily Times | 01/18/2005 | Framing the debate: Natural selection vs. intelligent design