Intelligent Design, Part 2

Yesterday I responded to a question from the Christian Views Symposium regarding intelligent design and schools. In the comments to that post, and on his own blog, Pixy Misa said:

ID simply isn't a theory in scientific terms. Evolution is. We can perform experiments in evolution, but in the main it is observational, like astronomy. It's still science

Well, that's not entirely correct. If evolution is observational, why can't intelligent design be observed? After all, evolution CANNOT be observed happening today, only "evidence" of it can be observed. If that's the case, evidence for intelligent design can be just as easily observed. Many scientists have tried to create and observe evolution today. None have succeeded. That's right, none. There are absolutely zero experiments that have been completed that show any evidence of evolution, and it's not due to lack of trying.

Scientists have tried to force evolution in fruit flies because of their extremely short life cycle (40-50 days). Despite numerous attempts, there was no evidence of any evolution -- they continue to reproduce and only produced more fruit flies.

Pixy continued:

And an absolutely vast amount of evidence supporting Evolution.

No. No there isn't. There is only theory. There is zero concrete evidence of any kind. Modern-day DNA shows that the differences between the chimpanzee and the human are incredibly vast. They may be closer than a human and a fish, but the difference is still immense.

Where did the theory of evolution come from? First, Darwin decided "Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws."* So the idea that there could be any sort of intelligent design was rejected without ever being considered. Darwin categorically rejected any sort of intelligent design and THEN set out to find a theory, and THEN tried to find evidence to support it. Evolution and the state-sponsored naturalistic religion is based on an a priori decision.

All scientists that support naturalism and evolution have already rejected the intelligent design theory without any evidence. They have decided it cannot be without examining the theory at all, simply because it does not fit their own religion that declared that natural law MUST explain everything. What if not everything CAN be explained by natural law?

Two of the biggest proponents of evolution, and two people who were very instrumental in getting the naturalistic religion accepted were Herbert Spencer (the first person to extend evolution in other disciplines) and Thomas Huxley (self-anointed as "Darwin's Bulldog"). Both of these men had rejected any possible idea of creationism or intelligent design years before Darwin's theory appeared -- they were looking for something, anything, to believe in other than creation -- even if there were little or no evidence for it.

In 1997, Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin said,

In the struggle between science and the supernatural, we take the side of science. Because we have a prior commitment to materialism.

Even today's scientists admit that they are not interested in any evidence for intelligent design, simply because they WANT to believe in naturalism -- no matter what actual scientific evidence might show. The authority of science and scientists today rest only on their public image -- not actual science nor scientific evidence.

Pixy also says:

ID doesn't predict anything. Evolution does. Evolution makes quite concrete predictions about how species will respond to selection; about the genetic relationships of species with certain evolutionary relationships; and many other things. These predictions have been borne out time and time again by hard evidence.

This statement only makes things worse for evolution. Sure, evolution makes predictions -- however, there is actually zero evidence for evolution. There is absolute nothing that can be proven to have evolved at all. The observations made by Darwin and the beaks on birds are refute evolution -- instead of changing to change, these adaptations actually showed that the species adapted to stay the same.

No matter how much mutation is observed, the basic DNA of a creature absolutely stays the same. Decades ago, much less was known about biological science. Now, when mutations and adaptations are observed with today's science, it is shown that there is no evolution away from a species. A horse can only reproduce another horse. A horse cannot and never will give birth to a dog.

Pixy finishes with:

But every time it's [ID] presented as science, every scientist in the world will oppose it. Not because it's wrong - we can never know whether it's wrong. Not because it's useless - though it certainly is. But because it's not science. Metaphysical naturalism is the underpinning of all of science. If it's false, all of science is false. It's not a question of refusing to accept evidence; it's a question of there not being any.

Again, scientists do not oppose ID because there's no evidence. Scientists that oppose intelligent design -- and that's NOT all scientists, they're a growing movement that is starting to reject naturalism -- oppose it because they automatically reject the evidence without ever examining it.

These scientists completely rely upon everything having a natural cause. They insist that everything does, and they will reject any suggestion that anything can be supernatural because that would violate their deeply held religious beliefs. Evolution is only supported by radical, strongly-held religious beliefs. Intelligent design has religious beliefs and scientific evidence to support it.

* Nora Barlow, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, 1958.

Posted by: Ogre at 08:01 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 906 words, total size 6 kb.