Intelligent Design, Equal Time
I just got a call from the FCC indicating that my blog is showing a pervasive bias against Intelligent Design, and so in deference to the "equal time" rule, I must write a post in favor of Intelligent Design.
Here it is:
According to evolutionists, plants, animals, and humans are well-adapted to their environments and ecological niches by the process of slight mutations over time which favor certain individuals and thus increase their odds of producing offspring who also possess the favorable mutation.
However, there is a fundamental flaw in this theory, which is that all living creatures have full and functional organs. If change comes gradually, we would expect to see Nowhere in nature do you find an creature with a partial heart or half an eye. SUch a structure would be a hindrance to the animal, not an aid, and so certainly wouldn't lead to that individual having more children, as evolutionists predict.
So, where do these organs come from, if not gradual change? Perhaps sudden change? But this seems highly unlikely. The odds that evolution could produce by change a fully developed and functional organ is infinitesimal. We need only look at nature to see this. In thousands of years of human history, there is no record of, say, a dog being born able to walk upright, or a horse born able to grow antlers.
Since evolution cannot explain these changes as either sudden or gradual, we must return to our original assumption, that animals are particularly well-suited to their environments. Sharks have perfect gills and fins. Cheetahs have legs suited to incredible speed. Humans have highly sophisticated brains capable of thought and speech. Since these organs did not arise by chance, they must have arisen by design. Each species was granted by the designer with attributes suiting its environment.
Who, then, is this designer? Given the immense complexities of life, which even humans, the smartest moral creatures on our planet, cannot understand, this designer must be God, the only omnipotent and omniscient being known to exist. The fact that evolutionists deny this conclusion is a testament only to the blind spots that are inherent in secular science.
4 comments:
This is a little off topic, but not very:
One (of many) reasons that I think religion is really silly is this - Ok, so God created everything, right? So where did God come from? You can't just say "God's always been there" or "God just happened" or whatever, because your entire premise is that things aren't just there, they don't just happen, God makes them happen. When I see any sort of attempt to explain this, it'll be my first.
And, no, I don't know what happened before the big bang or whatever. Thing is, I don't claim to, and I don't base my entire life off of some book and some silly stories.
Adam is right. In Greek mythology and other polytheistic beliefs (isn't it interesting that we call a polytheistic religion mythology and monotheistic religions, religions?) had an idea of nothingness, followed by chaos, then gods, their offspring and eventually the clay formed people we are today. As silly as this premise is, it makes more sense than Judeo-Christian ideas of God and nothing sitting around creating something.
I've recently come to believe that poltheistic religions make slightly more sense than monotheistic religions because there is no all poerful being that does everything. And, sometimes these religions are a lot more ready to admit that they don't know all the answers.
By the way, Jon Carroll wrote in his column today about Intelligent Design. Very good article. Check it out.
Good one Jake, except the flaw in that is supposing that evolution theory (and therefore, evolution supporters) denies the existence of God when it makes no statement affirming or denying an almighty being, or even how life began. So you'll have to find arguments from the other side that don't retort to "you damned non-god-fearing scientists!" (And do I hate hate hate the term "god-fearing" as a compliment for a religious person.)
Anyways, what are the options? Believe in The Book and that God created the world in it's perfect state? Believe that all this is random and our free will means nothing in the end? Believe in free will but that it can be used towards a future and greater good with or without God? Believe that God created the world and allowed for free will for some purpose? There are a number of choices to me.
Or whatever. Just because evolution theory contradicts The Book doesn't mean it contradicts the existence of God -- it merely contradicts (flawed) humans' understandings of God.
Is it facts change (the evidence for, say, evolution) and yet the truth (evolution itself) always stays the same? Or is it, the truth (the interpretation of evidence towards creationism or evolution) always changes but facts (the evidence) always stay the same?
Whatever. It's fairly moot to me. I allow for the existence of God but, I also allow for the non-existence of God. When evidence emerges, then I'll make up my mind. In the meantime, it's fun to think about but pointless and not really pragmatic to get wanky over.
Besides... Here's a tidbit from Joseph Campbell: If you could prove the existence of God, then what's the point of faith?
What, did the FCC shut you down? You haven't even deleted the above comment spam! Get with it, man!
Post a Comment