Creation: Question Evolution Campaign — 6 of 15
- Posted by - Gregg
- On -
A Sunday guest post by my brilliant husband, Gregg.
Every Sunday, my clever husband offers me a “day of rest” by taking over the homemaker duties here. His primary topic, the Biblical Truth of Creation vs. Darwinism, is a subject that has broad reaching scientific, social, and metaphysical implications and is gaining more and more attention in our modern culture. For believers and non-believers alike, the primary purpose is to present scientific, historical, logical, and/or sociological data in an empirical and defensible fashion, as much as possible written in layman’s terms, and in a format suitable for supplementing any homeschool curriculum whether you choose to believe the Biblical account — or secular guesses — about the origins of human life on earth.
If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck…
This question, logically, should not even have to be asked if all scientific observation enjoyed a level playing field. The reason it needs to be asked is because there is very obviously an a prioiri commitment to reject design among the Darwinist faithful.
Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.” (Dawkins, R., The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, p. 1, 1986.) After this famous quotation on page 1, he then spends more than 300 pages explaining why one shouldn’t make a design inference. To quote his late countryman, “Methinks he doth protest too much.”
Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” (Crick, F., What mad pursuit: a Personal View of Scientific Discovery, Sloan Foundation Science, London, 1988, p. 138.) Constantly? Really? They must constantly remind themselves not to draw a design inference when observing very obviously designed living things.
It’s almost funny that every Darwinist must reasonably admit that living things “look” designed. They, grudgingly in most cases, must concede that living things somehow “appear” as if they were designed by a designer. Nevertheless, they cannot make the philosophical leap to admit that living things bear the tool marks of design, or (perish the thought!) that design always implies a designer.
See, the problem for the proponents of the Darwinian model of evolution is that living things demonstrate far too many signs of design.
Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? When archaeologists stumble upon a lost city, they don’t think it just evolved over time by accident via purely random chance processes. They immediately and correctly draw a design inference. Yet whenever someone attributes the very clear signs of design in living organisms to a designer, that is somehow just not acceptable.
Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than entirely logical causes?
In fact, Crick later became a proponent of intelligent design after a fashion. He now things that all living things on earth were designed and planted here by little green men. Because, you know, the alternative is that we were created by God, just like He said in the holy scriptures.
The truth is that a human being bears more specified complexity of dense information and design than any man made thing ever will. Nothing that ever happened or currently happens by chance ever does. Design always implies a designer and information always implies an intelligence.
I commit to you that I will publish every single comment that meets this blog’s commenting criteria. You may want to review that criteria before adding your opinion here.
God Bless you and yours.