Thursday, November 6, 2008

Intelligent Design

Having just had Election Day, many people wonder if their vote matters. Consider this; judicial activism has given the Intelligent Design movement a really tough row to hoe.

Richard Dawkins, professor of public understanding of science at Oxford and arguably the best known Darwinist on the planet, says those who do not believe in evolution or philosophical naturalism are “ignorant or stupid” or he’s gone as far as to say they are “insane.”

But in place of that kind of rhetoric, those emotional stereotypes, Intelligent Design proponents actually propose reason and empirical science. We recently had Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez on talking about the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, and if you watch that movie the one thing you see over and over again is that those who hold to Intelligent design are in fact very thoughtful and reasonable. The philosophical naturalists like Richard Dawkins look like their rabid.

Intelligent Design proponents are simply willing to follow scientific evidence wherever the evidence may lead. They neither presuppose nor preclude supernatural explanations for the phenomenon that they encounter in an information rich universe. As such, the Intelligent Design community rightly, in my view, practices open minded science.

They begin with the common scientific principle that Intelligent Design is detectable wherever there is specified, organized complexity. In other words, wherever there is information. When this is applied to information rich DNA or irreducible complex biochemical systems or that the earth is perfectly situated in the Milky Way galaxy for both life and scientific discovery, the existence of an Intelligent Designer is the most plausible explanation.

Although its conclusions are not worldview neutral, the Intelligent Design proponents lend no more support to Christian theism than Darwinian evolution lends to atheism. So the appropriateness of Intelligent Design for public education ought to be judged on the basis of the theories explanatory power not on its metaphysical implications.

1 comment:

Tami Rutledge said...

To be honest your words are a little above my understanding. But you said that people might wonder if their vote counts. Mine did! My primary goal in voting was to please the Lord. My vote counted! He decides who wins! But He gives me the opportunity to please Him by voting for the man who most closely holds to His standards. What an honor and a priviledge! Obama it turns out is God's man for the job. I didn't vote for him but God chose him to be the one to fulfill the purpose He has in store. I on the other hand must continue my oursuit of pleasing God... this means I get to rejoice and give thanks as I keep my mind steadfast on truth!
So while the resy of our article is above my understandiing I wanted to share that!

Isaiah 48 : 17 This is what the LORD says— your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: "I am the LORD your God, who teaches you what is best for you, who directs you in the way you should go.

18 If only you had paid attention to my commands,your peace would have been like a river, your righteousness like the waves of the sea.


trust and obey! there is no other way to be happy in Jesus!

Tami