Intelligent Design
Over the past few weeks, the state courts in this great nation of ours have handed down some rulings against the teaching of Intelligent Design in our public school systems. What is this world coming to? I guess I am not surprised, it was never taught when I was in school. I suppose I am amazed that people are so scared to believe that something supernatural could have created this earth, instead of a bunch of basic molecules colliding and forming intelligent life form. I mean, how dumb can you be to believe in evolution? These are the same people that spend millions of dollars going to the movies to watch Harry Potter defeat a monster (careful- I'm not downing HP) or a dooms-day movie about aliens coming to take over the earth. They will allow a story such as that to enter their imagination, but the thought that Earth was created by God, is unfathomable to them. Go figure!!! I supposed, that one of these days, when every knee will bow and every tongue confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord, they will realize the error.
posted by Betsy @ 7:46 AM
5 Comments:
If you look around at the complexities of the universe the details of atoms and molecules, the vast interactions of the planets and stars it is difficult to conceive of all this happening by chance. Many people attribute these complexities to the hand of God. Many systems set into motion with a design that will sustain them for eons, that allow for the creation and destruction of stars and planets in a carefully planned out cycle.
Chemical reactions can and do occur daily in predictable ways many of which have been observed and studied for centuries. Are all these creations of God? All of the physical universe proceeds along the path that was set for it eons ago. Slowly building and destroying systems, slowly changing from one thing to another - all using the same matter and energy over and over again. Even the chemicals that make up a Man are subject to the same laws (Gods laws?). The food that we eat becomes the substance of our bodies and, in some cases the substance of the bodies of our children.
All this happens according to a plan. Why is it that with all the elegant systems that God has created for sustaining and changing his universe the fundamentalist christians have to reduce the creation of man to a parlor trick? Why do they belittle God's powers by making the creation of man a presto there you are?
Evolution is one of the most elegant most wonderful of God's creations. Imagine designing a chemical system that will allow all the "building blocks of life" to form. Imagine placing the spark of life in the mud from which all life arose then allowing the chemical reactions to create the different beings. Imagine being able to set up everything to follow a path that would result in Man.
I am sorry, but I have little patience with those who try to fit God into a few simple sentences written to help those more ignorant than us to appreciate the power and glory of God. No person will ever be able to understand all of God and his works. However, to try to fit God into a creation of man and then to condemn those who feel that God is bigger than the box you put him in is not true faith. It is rather an ego trip.
The mass of one uranium-238 atom is approximately 0.398 zeptograms (I say approximately because I did not account for binding energy or the other numerous energy-mass balances); the second phase of glycolysis yields 2 NADH and 4 ATP; blah blah blah. This type of information is what I classify as science—the first physical science and the second biological. I see neither Intelligent Design nor Evolution as major science topics. They might be mentioned in passing as examples of modern theories. But sadly, for me, it is not done this way. Evolution theory usually gets at least one chapter, if not more. And the chapter is usually filled with debunked items (Peppered moths, Miler-Urey experiment, or Haekel embryos). And where is the Intelligent Design theory—no where! Why is this? I could give a guess, but that is not what I wish to address.
Well, how would I do it? I am glad you asked. I would remove the in depth discussions of Intelligent Design and Evolution from the science class. We just have to admit there are some things that science may never answer, for example, what happens after a person dies, why is it that my brother-in-law likes The Great Gatsby, or where did the first matter come from that started all this mess. Should we remove all discussions of these topics? No! Should we remove Evolution and Intelligent Design from high school or college curriculums? No! We move them to philosophy. This topic would be a great topic for students to learn/discuss logic, evidence, etc.
ASIDE: In the above, I have assumed we are referring to public schools. I have a different model for private schools.
Being a scientist (degree in nuclear engineering, currently working on my masters), I personally believe most of the evolution theory has no scientific foundation. That is for another day! Betsy, thanks for allowing me to share my thoughts.
Great discussion. I agree with Wesley that both ID and evolution should be moved to the philosophy side of the discussion and away from the science side. While many opponents of ID will argue that they would like "freedom of religion" they often forget that evolution in itself is a religion. Why do I say this? One word, FAITH. At the very heart of evolution is the question, where did everything come from? Supporters of E will argue that the Big Bang theory is what really set the universe in motion, this random act that set off a chain of chemicals, proteins, etc. that over billions and billions of years morphed into life forms that then chemically changed into other creatures. Now today we do have evidence in what I would call Micro Evolution, that is where you can see amall minute changes in a species in regards to color, shape, hieght, weight, etc. However, there has never been any proof either in nature, the fossil record, whatever, of a jump from one species turning into another. This dilema and the question of where did all the matter come from in the first place creates a terrible burden on the proponent of E. At some point the "theory" breaks down and there must be a leap of faith to believe that it actually occured as it cannot be replicated using scientific method. When you take God out of the equation something will always take it's place period. Many scientist are discovering that even the most basic cells are far more complex than orginally determined. More scientist, who are not Christians, are stepping forward and saying, "hey, Darwin's theory simply cannot explain this!" See Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box. Darwin himself stated, "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science." "When we descend to details we can prove that no one species has changed (i.e., we cannot prove that a single species has changed): nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not. The latter case seems to me hardly more difficult to understand precisely and in detail than the former case of supposed change" - Darwin, 1863.
In terms of ID I would prefer that the school systems stay away from this as well and focus on the three R's.
Betsy, I too want to thank you for allowing me to comment.
It sounds as though everyone that is commenting is familiar with the Bible. The argument between Creation and Evolution, I believe, starts with everyone's view of God's Word. Test His Word and you will find it infallible. Theories, however, are fallible. That's why evolutionist are always revising their theories. Even Creationists have to revise their theories after new data overturns previously held theories.
If God's Word (the Bible) is fallible, then what do we do with Jesus? What about sin atonement? And what about absolutes like "righteousness" and "holiness"? But, I digress.
I would expand the thought further by saying that Evolution is not even a theory. Science uses "theory" to describe a well-substantiated explanation of data. Do you see anyone openly arguing Einstein's Theory of Relativity or Newton's Theory of Gravity? No, because they are proven or confirmed to the best of our understanding. Evolution is not well-substantiated and, therefore, is only a hypothesis or a conjecture. And since it is not fact -- or even a "good" theory, it should not be promoted dogmatically.
Thanks Joe for reminding me of the Scientific Method. A good place to learn more is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
One key aspect for a hypothesis is that it must be falsifiable. The way Darwin wrote his hypothesis in his book established how his hypothesis could be proven to be false (see BJ not BK's post). I wonder if today the 'theory' of evolution is falsifiable? I would guess not! And if I am right, then the 'hypothesis' of evolution is not even a hypothesis but an opinion.
Post a Comment
<< Home