EVOLUTION
vs. DESIGN
By
ANDY DIESTELKAMP
The
current public debate over the legitimacy of various theories
on the origin of life and whether or not they should be
taught as science is healthy. At least in debate there is
the opportunity for ideas to be considered and compared;
which is something that most atheists, agnostics, and even
some religionists are apparently not willing to tolerate
in the context of a science classroom. Why?
The
National Academy of Sciences explains its view in the conclusion
of its 1999 publication, Science and Creationism: "The
claim that equity demands balanced treatment of evolutionary
theory and special creation in science classrooms reflects
a misunderstanding of what science is and how it is conducted.
Scientific investigators seek to understand natural phenomena
by observation and experimentation. Scientific interpretations
of facts and the explanations that account for them therefore
must be testable by observation and experimentation."
The
Academy further clarified: "Creationism, intelligent
design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in
the origin of life or of species are not science because
they are not testable by the methods of science. This contrasts
with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains
subject to the possibility of rejection or modification
in the light of new knowledge."
That
last quote seems so objective and open minded. Yet, those
who contend that the spontaneous generation of life from
nothing is good science are quite intolerant to suggestions
that we are here by design. They claim that their intolerance
is because designer theories are not science which can be
observed and tested. Yet, the Academy also wrote: "Science
is not the only way of acquiring knowledge about ourselves
and the world around us. Humans gain understanding in many
other ways, such as through literature, the arts, philosophical
reflection and religious experience." Is it possible
that there are things outside of their narrow definition
of science that might actually be helpful to science?
There
are essentially only two possibilities for the origin of
life: accident or design. The spontaneous generation of
something from nothing has never been observed, and repeated
testing does not support it, inferring that spontaneous
generation is not good science. Yet, that leaves only the
alternative of a creative act of a designer. Atheistic scientists,
however, presume there is no designer and are, therefore,
forced to the unscientific and untenable conclusion that
life spontaneously arose and evolved by accident. Therefore,
by their own narrow definition of science, atheistic scientists
should logically conclude that any discussion of origins
and/or the historical mechanism used to bring about life
are beyond science.
Nevertheless,
many insist that efforts to explain origins without design
are scientific but that attempts to explain origins as the
result of design are unscientific. The Academy tells us:
"Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation
we have for the enormous range of observations about the
living world." Yet, no biological species has ever
been observed to evolve into another species. This fact
does not keep evolutionists from making huge presumptive
leaps in their own faith.
Observe
how a hypothesis evolves into a fact according to the Academy:
"Scientists most often use the word 'fact' to describe
an observation. But scientists also use fact to mean something
that has been tested or observed so many times that there
is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking
for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense
is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent
with modification occurred because the evidence supporting
the idea is so strong." Atheists have observed evolution
within a species so often that they confidently declare
evolution from one species to another a scientific "fact"
without any observation or testing. This, we are told, is
sound science. Yet, to observe the design of the human body
from the blueprint of its DNA and suggest that it had a
designer is somehow unscientific.
"Every
house is built by someone, but He who built all things is
God" (Heb. 3:4). That is a factual observation, with
a plausible deduction violating no science. It is no wonder
that the purveyors of the doctrine of evolution do not want
design taught in a science classroom as a possible cause.
For they would then have to explain why believing something
came from nothing is a more "scientific" and sensible
inference than acknowledging that design demands a designer.
Those
who believe in God should have no difficulty believing that
with Him all things are possible (Matt. 19:26). This faith
frustrates the atheist who thinks that such a view quenches
zeal for scientific inquiry (and sometimes it has). However,
the atheist believes that with time all things are possible.
Time is the god of atheists. Observe what Nobel prize winner,
George Wald wrote: "Time is in fact the hero of the
plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order
of 2 billion years. What we regard as impossible on the
basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so
much time, the 'impossible' becomes possible, the possible
probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only
to wait; time itself performs the miracles" ("The
Origin of Life," Scientific American, August, 1954).
If Wald could theorize events of history happening which
are "impossible on the basis of human experience"
and call it science, then it would seem that one could also
theorize a designer and call it science.
It
is only the atheist who needs vast amounts of time to explain
how something came from nothing and eventually evolved into
intelligent life. By the way, Wald's 2 billion years has
since been increased to 5 billion years. Why not? Do I hear
10 billion? Will anyone give me 10?
My
concern is not with scientists who actually employ the scientific
method in their research. It is with those who make inferences
about the past using data gathered from the present while
insisting that an atheistic interpretation is the only thing
that can be called science. If God is not allowed to be
a viable option, and unlimited time has unlimited potential,
then of course the data must be interpreted to allow enough
time for the otherwise impossible to happen. No wonder atheistic
scientists glibly postulate millions and billions of years.
To them time is as unlimited and flexible as it needs to
be to allow for their impossible theories.
Brethren,
I become concerned when, in an attempt to be scientifically
open minded, we follow in the paths of atheistic pied pipers
and accept their historical inferences and timetables that
are clearly based on the need to uphold theories which demand
an unimaginable amount of time to accomplish the impossible.
Dr.
Patterson, the Senior Principal Scientific Officer of Paleontology
at the British Museum of Natural History, gave the keynote
address to the American Museum of Natural History in New
York City on November 5, 1981. In that speech he repeated
a question that he had recently asked his peers in science:
"Can you tell me anything you know about evolution,
any one thing that is true?" He went on to say, "I
tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum
of Natural History, and the only answer I got was silence.
I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology
Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious
body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for
a long time, and eventually one person said, 'I do know
one thing. It [evolution] ought not be taught in high school.'"
If
design should not be taught in public school science classes
because it does not qualify as science, then neither should
the general theory of evolution be taught because it does
not qualify as science either. We're on solid ground, brethren.
Stand there! - - - - - - -
323
E. Indiana Ave., Pontiac, Illinois 61764 e-mail: adiestel@bwsys.net
TOP ARTICLES
PG. 2 ANNOUNCEMENTS