Evolution versus Intelligent design versus Creation...*sigh*
Alright, so there's a whole lot on this "intelligent design equals creationism" debate going on, and on top of that there seems to be this lingering notion in the minds of some people that evolution at some point has actually been a real science.
First of all, intelligent design (ID) is not the same as creationism. However, the natural conclusion (at least from a Christian perspective) of ID is that God created the world (and everything else for that matter). As a matter of fact, many of the proponents of ID are not even confessing Christians; they are simply people who are fed up with the lack of evidence to evolution and the way that it is taught as though it were a fact based science.
Secondly, evolution is continually being touted as a real science, or at least a branch of one, when in fact it is little more than one theory based on another theory based on another theory. The little bit of science that has actually crept into evolution has more or less been theorized into it in order to add credibility to an otherwise unsupported context.
When the first fossils were found in the 19th century, it was seen by evolutionists as supporting of their theories; speculation and testing led to the theory that fossilization took place over millions of years. Yet not scientists have discovered that under the proper circumstances, fossilization can occur over a period of less than 50 years.
Likewise, the most brilliant minds in the world come to conclusions that debunk evolution using both mathematics and (currently accepted) scientific theory and yet it is disregarded. Even Albert Einstein said that he considered his statement concerning the universe having no end to have been one of the bigest mistakes of his life. Something he regretted for the rest of his life.
Now Stephen Hawking, the farthest thing from a God fearing man last I heard (which doesn't mean I'm done praying for him yet!), acknowledges that the earth and in fact the entire universe could not have come about as the result of a random chain of events, causing him to put forth an idea of ID.
Quite notably of course, is Michael Behe; author of "Darwin's Black Box", in which he refutes Darwinism from a biochemical perspective. His two strong points are irreducible complexity and thermodynamics. In irreducible complexty he uses the analogy of a mousetrap and how it cannot be broken down into a simpler yet slightly less efficient mousetrap, but requires all of its parts to work as one in order to function. I read a refutation (attempted?) of this argument the other night, and it was quite possibly the weakest argument I have ever heard, but at present I will not get into it here.
His second point is based on the 2nd law of thermodynamics, AKA the law of entropy, which states that all things over time become less complex, and eventually break down. Essentially, everything dies eventually, even systems and galaxies. This strongly contrasts the Darwinian view of simple systems becoming complex.
In case anyone cares about my view on things (not likely, I know); I hold to a very old and yet unrefuted (at least practically) view that is nonetheless considered extremely radical in this day and age. I maintain that God created the universe in 6 (six, not a typo) days, and that He rested on the 7th. Of course this view is not for everyone, as it tends to remove ones ability to devalue human life and hold a rather callous worldview. For so long as I believe that God created the universe, I also believe that He created mankind; and me personally as well, not to mention you and everyone else. As a result, I cannot help but look on people as God's creation; things to be cherished and valued as He values them and cherishes them. But this is a whole 'nother posting...
First of all, intelligent design (ID) is not the same as creationism. However, the natural conclusion (at least from a Christian perspective) of ID is that God created the world (and everything else for that matter). As a matter of fact, many of the proponents of ID are not even confessing Christians; they are simply people who are fed up with the lack of evidence to evolution and the way that it is taught as though it were a fact based science.
Secondly, evolution is continually being touted as a real science, or at least a branch of one, when in fact it is little more than one theory based on another theory based on another theory. The little bit of science that has actually crept into evolution has more or less been theorized into it in order to add credibility to an otherwise unsupported context.
When the first fossils were found in the 19th century, it was seen by evolutionists as supporting of their theories; speculation and testing led to the theory that fossilization took place over millions of years. Yet not scientists have discovered that under the proper circumstances, fossilization can occur over a period of less than 50 years.
Likewise, the most brilliant minds in the world come to conclusions that debunk evolution using both mathematics and (currently accepted) scientific theory and yet it is disregarded. Even Albert Einstein said that he considered his statement concerning the universe having no end to have been one of the bigest mistakes of his life. Something he regretted for the rest of his life.
Now Stephen Hawking, the farthest thing from a God fearing man last I heard (which doesn't mean I'm done praying for him yet!), acknowledges that the earth and in fact the entire universe could not have come about as the result of a random chain of events, causing him to put forth an idea of ID.
Quite notably of course, is Michael Behe; author of "Darwin's Black Box", in which he refutes Darwinism from a biochemical perspective. His two strong points are irreducible complexity and thermodynamics. In irreducible complexty he uses the analogy of a mousetrap and how it cannot be broken down into a simpler yet slightly less efficient mousetrap, but requires all of its parts to work as one in order to function. I read a refutation (attempted?) of this argument the other night, and it was quite possibly the weakest argument I have ever heard, but at present I will not get into it here.
His second point is based on the 2nd law of thermodynamics, AKA the law of entropy, which states that all things over time become less complex, and eventually break down. Essentially, everything dies eventually, even systems and galaxies. This strongly contrasts the Darwinian view of simple systems becoming complex.
In case anyone cares about my view on things (not likely, I know); I hold to a very old and yet unrefuted (at least practically) view that is nonetheless considered extremely radical in this day and age. I maintain that God created the universe in 6 (six, not a typo) days, and that He rested on the 7th. Of course this view is not for everyone, as it tends to remove ones ability to devalue human life and hold a rather callous worldview. For so long as I believe that God created the universe, I also believe that He created mankind; and me personally as well, not to mention you and everyone else. As a result, I cannot help but look on people as God's creation; things to be cherished and valued as He values them and cherishes them. But this is a whole 'nother posting...
posted by dohmnal at 3:49 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home