Darwinian Faith vs. Intelligent Faith
April 06, 2005
Monte Kuligowski
The debate over the theory of Darwinian evolution vs. the revived theory of intelligent design is predictably causing an emotional big bang in scientific and academic circles. Darwinism begins with the premise that God doesn’t exist or the idea of an intelligent Creator isn’t compatible with scientific inquiry (Never mind some of history’s greatest scientists believed in God). The Darwinist begins with the assumption that God had nothing to do with the creation of the worlds and of life itself. Everything must be explained by natural process because the supernatural doesn’t exist. Darwinism rests upon faith in a blind chance phenomenon which is capable of producing and sustaining life. Proponents of the theory of intelligent design point to observable laws, like entropy, and to the complexities of life and conclude that creation and life were designed by a higher power.
The AP recently quoted Barbara Forest, a university philosophy professor and leading critic of intelligent design, as saying, “It is at its bottom a Christian religious movement.” Every Christian, of course, believes, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Gen. 1: 1). So does every religious Jew. And countless citizens who are neither Christians nor Jews also believe that God is the author of life. Intelligent design is more than a Christian religious movement; it is at the very constitution of what makes us a nation. If it’s a movement, it’s certainly not a new one.
Consider the words of our Declaration of Independence. The parchment might be old and frail, but it still contains the bedrock faith of our great nation. When breaking away from Great Britain, the old guys in knickers and wigs understood that the laws of nature were given by “Nature’s God.” They felt justified in declaring independence because they based their quest upon something objective and superseding, not upon an impersonal cold, material world. Nature wasn’t their God; rather, nature was subject to God. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . . .” The framers of our country pledged their lives “with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence . . . .” The creators of our country relied on the Creator of the universe.
Our founders certainly didn’t rely on the theory of Darwinian evolution for their protection (even though evolutionary theory had been around since ancient Greek philosophy and Darwin’s grandfather also promoted the theory). The theory can protect no one.
The only “natural laws” enacted in its congress of chaos are laws of a purposeless universe and life. Its maxim, “survival of the fittest,” has lead to unmitigated cruelty by calloused individuals believing they will escape judgment. The unborn, the weak, the infirm and the elderly are vulnerable impediments in the hands of those who have run to the theory’s natural consequence: the subjective value of human life.
The theory of evolution has wreaked more havoc upon Western civilization than any other dogma of man. It replaced moral absolutes with moral relativism; purpose with emptiness; accountability with a false freedom; self control with self seeking; hope with despair; true freedom with an oligarchy; spiritualism with materialism; biblical authority with human authority (humanism); and the dignity of men with the abasement of animals. That such a contrary theory has come to reign as king in the academic world should cause us to pause; because the ramifications are far-reaching – and disastrous.
Many years ago, Abraham Lincoln aptly noted that the philosophy in the schoolhouse in one generation will become the philosophy of the culture in the next. The engine of our society was never meant to run on an empty philosophy disguised as science. John Adams said that, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Darwinism attempts to tear down religion and to the degree that it has, it has torn down the pillars of our culture.
No matter how you slice it, theories of origin require faith, not scientific proof. No one was there to see non-life evolve into life by a blind material process or to see God create the worlds and all living things by the power of his word. And insufficient evidence exists to produce an objective finding through the scientific method. The problem for Darwinism is that the limited observable evidence (and common sense) doesn’t lead people to the scientific conclusion that Darwinian evolution is true. For many scientists, the evidence tends to show that the theory is false. That’s why some have abandoned the corroding shipwreck of Darwinian “science,” realizing that much more faith is required for this theory than for the theory of intelligent design.
So long as theories over the important question of origin require faith, scientists would do well to accept and promote a theory that is actually compatible and able to support our free society by providing hope, purpose and accountability for the citizenry (including the school children who are forced to learn it).
Darwinism excludes the supernatural realm and then looks to unintelligible, lifeless matter for understanding. Intelligent design acknowledges the handiwork of an intelligent Creator. If the Creator is able to create and sustain all things, it stands to reason that he is able to protect and bless our land. What also follows is the fact which makes Darwinists cringe: men are accountable to God.
OpinionEditorials.com Darwinian Faith vs. Intelligent Faith – Kuligowski
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
“The Darwinist begins with the assumption that God had nothing to do with the creation”
Darwin himself was deeply religious and even studied for the ministry. Only observation of the natural world brought him into conflict with a literal reading of Genesis. He proposed a theory that meshed well with his observations and has done so for hundreds of thousands if not millions of research scientists since then. There’s nothing anti-Christian about the origin of Darwin’s insight.
Murky, believe it or not I agree with part of your statement.
I don’t believe that God is afraid of evolution, and Christians shouldn’t be either.
Nothing about evolution invalidates the Bible, nor does it mean that “God is dead”.
Truly unbiased and objective science is a good thing. The eventual answer to science’s questions and observable fact based reasoning will ultimately point to the laws that govern the universe.
We are supposed to seek, and keep on seeking for truth with the hope that eventually we will indeed find it.
The problem comes when we “shop” for the truth that best fits our own designs. When we believe what we want to believe, and ignore anything and everything that doesn’t fit into our neat little model of how we want the universe to function.
Evolution is a kind of “flat earth” theory phase. It seems reasonable to cursory observation, however when taken in the whole body of evidence (geology, physics, mathematics) it just doesn’t add up right. Eventually, as we learn more about our universe, we will grow out of this phase.
John, you’ve been misinformed about how much observation supports common descent. Creationism is a political movement that doesn’t mind spreading disinfo about science to support it’s of goal of saving souls by teaching a literal reading of Genesis during biology class and devalueing the hard science that conflicts with it. Here’s a nicely succinct and accessible presentation of the state of evidence and acceptance of evolution from Richard Dawkins:
“It’s often said that because evolution happened in the past, and we didn’t see it happen, there is no direct evidence for it. That, of course, is nonsense. It’s rather like a detective coming on the scene of a crime, obviously after the crime has been committed, and working out what must have happened by looking at the clues that remain. In the story of evolution, the clues are a billionfold.
There are clues from the distribution of DNA codes throughout the animal and plant kingdoms, of protein sequences, of morphological characters that have been analyzed in great detail. Everything fits with the idea that we have here a simple branching tree. The distribution of species on islands and continents throughout the world is exactly what you’d expect if evolution was a fact. The distribution of fossils in space and in time are exactly what you would expect if evolution were a fact. There are millions of facts all pointing in the same direction and no facts pointing in the wrong direction.
British scientist J.B.S. Haldane, when asked what would constitute evidence against evolution, famously said, “Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian.” They’ve never been found. Nothing like that has ever been found. Evolution could be disproved by such facts. But all the fossils that have been found are in the right place. Of course there are plenty of gaps in the fossil record. There’s nothing wrong with that. Why shouldn’t there be? We’re lucky to have fossils at all. But no fossils have been found in the wrong place, such as to disprove the fact of evolution. Evolution is a fact.”
From Salon
I don’t mean to be inflammatory by quoting Dawkins, who I realize is outspoken against religion and hated by some religious people, but I stumbled on this piece of text by accident and was very impressed by his sense of the big picture and his accessible way of putting things. I don’t like how harsh and unsympathetic Dawkins gets at times towards religion, but I think he’s a very smart, straight-shooter otherwise.