I recently attended a conference on Intelligent Design in CastleRock Colorado with presenters like Stephen Myer, Michael Behe, and David Berlinski.

Dr. Myer was outstanding and presented a high-level summary of his new book “Signature in the Cell”. The textbook-sized volume presents a comprehensive argument that the information in the DNA of the cell could not have arisen through the mechanisms of Darwinism; Darwinism cannot function without the “program code” expressed in the DNA. So far, I have ready through the first 200 pages of this book. After I have completed the next 300+ pages, I will try to post a comprehensive review. So far, it is a deep but compelling read.
more »»

The physical universe has not always existed; it had a definite beginning.

Observations from the Hubble Space Telescope, the COBE satellite, and other sources all provide strong evidence that the physical universe is expanding from an initial beginning; a creation event - the so-called Big-Bang.

Scientists also embrace Einstein’s theory of relativity which states that time is only defined within the physical universe of matter and energy. Time does not exist without the physical universe; time also had its beginning at the Big Bang.

The Bible clearly declares God as the Creator of the universe. And in the 4th century, sixteen hundred years before Einstein, Augustine suggested that God, as the Creator, must also be outside of time and space. This is echoed in the Bible (see 2 Peter 3:8b).

Now, since around Darwin’s time, a basic axiom of modern science has been that science explains natural phenomena using only natural laws; i.e. without evoking the supernatural. But the natural laws did not exist before the beginning; they came into being at the “Big Bang” in an extra (i.e. super) natural way.

Scientists examine the present state of the universe and mentally run time in reverse to visualize the state of the universe close to the creation event. But science can only present evidence showing that the universe had a beginning; it cannot identify the method of birthing. Without physical laws or accessibility, explaining the “first cause” or “prime-mover” of the origin requires entering a domain inexplicable by modern science.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1 (NIV)

For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. Colossians 1:16-17 (NIV)

Want to understand what the debate is all about?

Some outstanding Intelligent Design Videos are now available for FREE online viewing. Titles include: “The Privileged Planet“, “Unlocking the Mystery of Life” and others. These are outstanding resources and NOT to be missed!

Simply click here to see what is available!

Recently, the NY Times pointed out an article in the official Vatican newspaper that agrees with the Dover PA court decision on Intelligent Design; making the case that science and faith should remain separate. This author agrees with this position on faith!

But faith is behind more endeavors than the mainstream press cares to admit.

Which of the following belief systems is the more reasonable faith?

1. The one that believes that everything we see around us is the property of pure chance?

• The life-enabling properties of water which make it unlike any other substance in the universe? Modify its chemical or thermal properties to make it more like other matter, and no life is here to witness it.
• What about the properties of light and the electromagnetic spectrum that is output by our sun? Change this in even a small way and we are no longer here to witness it.
• The properties of much other matter are also demonstrably required for life: Carbon, Iron, Oxygen, Nitrogen, and others. Again, change these and no known complex life can exist.
• To all of the above necessary preconditions of life, add the amazing information-bearing rules of life that are embodied in DNA. Darwinism cannot begin to explain this as evolution cannot operate without it. But how did DNA come to exist in the first place?

2. What about the belief that we were designed and created for a purpose?

• If myriads of the properties of our universe are modified in any way, then we are no longer here to witness it. Physical evidences embodied by an incredibly fine-tuned universe should at least allow for the possibility of a designer.
• A designer apparently much like one that has been self-revealed through an ancient record…
• A reliable written record that has a mountain of evidence to support it.
• That clearly describes its author as the designer and creator of both the universe and the life within it.
• That predicted all of the most notable parts of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ — all hundreds of years before he was even born:

more »»

On December 20th, the Middle District Court of Pennsylvania, in a very detailed opinion, ruled against introducing Intelligent Design in public education on the grounds that, in the court’s opinion, it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

The PA district court then went on to attack Intelligent Design (ID) in a very detailed way but essentially because it calls for a designer that, since “It” will be outside of the design, must have many attributes of a supernatural Creator. Primarily on this basis, the court concluded that ID must be religion and not science.

Modern science uses a process known as methodological naturalism which attempts to explain the universe only through forces that can be seen in action today. The court ignores the fact that science can only use the current to demonstrably look backwards so far.

For example, the Darwinian process of survival of the fittest cannot operate before the existence of the rules of life – DNA, because without genetics no mechanism exists with which to pass on inherited traits to offspring. How did the complex rules of life, DNA, come into existence in the first place? By definition, without a mechanism for passing on a life-form’s characteristics, the formation of the rules of life couldn’t have been through Darwinism.

The major complaint that many have with evolution isn’t with the special (micro evolutionary) theory dealing with the survival of the best adapted species, but with the more speculative general (macro evolutionary) theory; a metaphysical theory which has the far more ambitious goal of explaining the origins of all life from non-life. From available evidences, the validity of the “general” theory can only be established by Darwinists through blind faith!

Also very importantly, Darwinism can have no explanation for the existence of the natural laws of the universe which must have already been present for pre-life. One must account for the incredible fine-tuning for life of these starting conditions! Given that science has provided strong evidence for a beginning to the universe, the natural laws themselves also had to have a beginning.
more »»

At the risk of being redundant, I thought I’d reflect on the imbalanced reporting of the Intelligent Design (ID) versus Evolution debate. One case in point is an article in the Dec 2, 2005 issue of “THE WEEK” (p 20).

Basically, the article entitled “Intelligent design: Should God be insulted?”, GROSSLY MISCHARACTERIZES Intelligent Design by quoting a laughable description by Charles Krauthammer from “The Washington Post”. Mr Krauthammer says (about ID):

It’s based on the premise that evolution chugs along for eons, creating change within species – but “every once in a while, God steps into this world of constant and accumulating change and says ‘I think I’ll make me a lemur today.’”

Where did this nonsense come from? Were this what ID proposed, then perhaps God should be insulted! Certainly, I would not be counted among its defenders! However, this is FAR FROM AN ACCURATE DESCRIPTION of Intelligent Design.

In fact, this description bears almost no resemblance to what Intelligent Design theorists propose. And allowing this sort of gross caricature does nothing to enhance the credibility of the Darwinian naturalists — nor of “THE WEEK”. (We won’t mention the “Washington Post”).

To set the record straight, a number of facts must be understood about Intelligent Design theory:

1. Nowhere as evidence for Intelligent Design is the Bible or God ever used. And there is certainly nothing said about a “God of the gaps” that Mr. Krauthammer attributes to ID’ers.
2. Not all advocates for Intelligent Design are Christians nor for that matter even believers in God (although I personally find this interesting).
3. In many cases, Intelligent Design examines elements of the universe that, by definition, could not be subject to Darwinian evolution. Examples include, among many other things, the origin of: the natural laws, the information and rules of genetics, and irreducibly complex biological structures.

more »»

In Dover PA there has been a furious battle over simply mentioning Intelligent Design as an alternative theory to Darwinian Evolution. Why such an uproar?

In the federal education act (“No Child Left Behind”) it is stated: “where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of views that exist [and] why such topics may generate controversy.”

What was the Dover school board proposing other than “teaching the controversy”? Certainly, they were not teaching creationism. And yet, after coming under national scrutiny for proposing the mere mention of the existence of the theory of Intelligent Design, all eight Dover PA school board members who were up for re-election came under furious opposition and were defeated.

Given that science is supposed to be a quest for the truth, the great lengths that proponents of Darwinian naturalism will go to silence skeptics is very instructive. It shows that evolution is more a faith-based belief than true science.

Intelligent Design theory makes no attempt to identify the designer but, unlike Darwinian naturalism, it at least allows the possibility that a designer exists. Why such closed minds and combativeness in academia about the topic of origins? Because of the naturalistic preconceptions of Darwinism.

Why are all non-evolutionary theories portrayed as “creationism” while naturalistic Darwinism is seen as science? Because modern “science” has become intertwined with naturalism — a philosophy that has as its central tenet a presumption that there is nothing beyond “nature” and that the universe exists only as the result of blind chance.

But by so restricing the definition of what can be considered, science is made blind to anything but unplanned randomness; because any theory that suggests otherwise is artificially disqualified — no matter how strong the evidence! Is this really a search for truth?
more »»