As it happens, however, I’m one of those six-day, young-earth creationists. (Surprise!) Which should tell you that (a) I’m not unaccustomed to looking foolish and (b) the previous post is a case of “it takes one to know not-one.” As such, then, I do start with the text. My training is in the text. Also, like the average evangelical creationist, I do have the ulterior motive of wanting to see as many people become disciples of Jesus Christ as possible.

Does this cast doubt on my qualifications to discuss the issue? I don’t think so. Indeed, I try to approach my own field — theology, once known as “the queen of the sciences” — with the rigor and logic of a laboratory scientist. And honesty requires that both I and the lab scientists know the difference between data we do have and data we don’t, and clearly identify both sets. As for the quality of discussion … well, that’s what this comment section is for. Science involves — nay, requires — feedback.

What you’re saying about ID, however, is more properly directed toward biblical creationism. The point that I’ve tried to make in the article — and that is being missed by all who attack Intelligent Design as “creationism in a lab coat” — is that ID isn’t about theology, it’s about data and their interpretation, the meat of contemporary science. Theology would tell you who the Designer was; ID doesn’t. All ID says on the matter is that what we see around us is the product of Mind rather than chance. Period. Whose mind, now, that’s another question entirely. For all ID can tell you, it could be the evangelical or the Jewish God, the Mormon God, the Muslim Allah, the Gnostic Demiurge, or the Lords of Kobol. ID will not teach the Torah, the Five Pillars of Islam, or the Christian gospel. They simply are not part of its procedures nor of its outcomes. And thus ID fits well with your desire to leave the definition to the individual.

Biblical creationism, on the other hand, is all about theology. The three organizations you’ve cited don’t focus on ID; if they make use of it, they do so as a means of advancing their principal purpose, the spreading of Christianity. They’re not opposed to the ID movement (indeed, at the conference I attended, Duane Gish of ICR stood up to cheer on the ID researchers), but their final focus is on the Christian scriptures and the biblical creation story. I don’t know whether Reasons to Believe considers itself a “creationist” group, since it disagrees markedly with AIG and ICR on the age of the earth, the age of the universe, and the duration of their origins. Nonetheless, like the other two groups and unlike ID, it focuses on faith — faith in the biblical text.

And that’s how you can tell the two movements apart: ID begins with the data; creationism begins with the text.

If the data support the text, then so much the better, which is why these organizations use them and refer to ID. But for creationists, talking about Intelligent Design is only the means to an end, not the end itself. Their Designer has a name. The Designer(s) of the ID movement doesn’t.

Well, so far the data haven’t suggested it yet.

The question then becomes: to what extent has either evolution or ID been proved by experimental data? And here I yield to the lab people.

I find it interesting that the Laws of Nature, Universe, and theory of relativity make it more difficult for science to prove a “pure Darwinian Evolution.” What has been observed in “testing,” “hypothesising,” “proven” is not “order out of chaos” that evolution teaches. The “evidence” suggests, on levels of DNA, genetics, and cosmology, that DNA, genetics, molecules, etc., are built on information, which is built on information, which is built on information, and so forth. Meaning that information comes from information. DNA and genetic studies have shown evidence that they are results of information, and not information being the result of DNA/genetics as evolution suggests.

What is even more “eye-opening” to me, is the classification evolution brings to humans. Darwin’s theory suggests a “Human Superior Order” based on skin color (Aborigines being the lowest, most monkey-like; Negroids, Mongoloids, and Caucasian being the highest form). Skin color, and differences in eye-shape, ear-shapes, etc., count only as 0.012% difference. In fact, we all have the same skin color, it’s called melanin. We just have different shades of melanin; which suggests that no “race” is more superior than the other; and that we are all “human beings.” Evolution has been a popular theory in Science, but the more you dig to prove it, the more the theory is questioned because of the evidence found.

With that said, I’m not keen to the idea of Intelligent Design. As a Christian, I do not hold to the theology that God is a concept; and I strongly feel that God should not be taught as a concept (you know, the whole idea of trying to serve man and God at the same time). The one thing that is highly overlooked, even by posts here, is that there are Christian organizations that explain evidences of “science” in regards to the Bible and scripture. Reasons to Believe founder Hugh Ross is one (http://www.reasonstobelieve.org); Answers in Genesis founder Ken Ham is another (http://www.answersingenesis.org); and the Institute for Creation Research, founder unknown to me (http://www.icr.org), are organizations founded and run by credible scientists in their fields, and challenge the theories of evolution. Where all these organizations are challenged by the science community, politics, etc., is they also teach theology according to what they believe (Jesus Christ is the Son of God, man has sinned against God, Jesus died for our sins to restore mankind’s relationship with God, and rose from the dead three days later to give mankind eternal life). This is the main reason why evolution theories are not challenged on a more level basis: the theology taught by these organizations in hand with science. Personally, I think it’s a shame that (as been suggested already) the science community is becoming more “closed minded,” because they A) do not want to believe in “God” or a concept of a “God;” and/or B) they do not want to “define” who “God” is, or define who the concept of “God” can be. I think they don’t have to. I think that is where science can leave that definition to the individual, and what they believe, as well as the theologians.

Thanks for letting me rant………

Nate

it can easily be shown that things do not and have not happened universally in a uniform and consistent fashion

Hmm. Interesting thought. What are you using as proofs?

I have done some teaching on the area of Creation vs. evolution as a pastor and one of the things that I have not seen anyone address in the replies is the fallacy of uniformitarianism which is one of the hinge pins of evolution. If people are looking for evidence, that seems to me to be a good place to start to see just how much of evolution is theory. Since it can easily be shown that things do not and have not happened universally in a uniform and consistent fashion (which is necessary for both the time and development of evolution) why not begin there for the evidence?

Good collection of quotes from, dare I say, rabid opponents of ID.

Michael… keep it up… great stuff!

One test of whether or not something can be called “science,” it seems to me, is whether it lends itself to the “scientific method” (oh, dear, there’s that Star Trek quote running through my head again) — gather experimental data, formulate hypothesis, test hypothesis with further experimental data, change hypothesis as necessary, and so forth. Now, I’ll be the first to tell you I’m not up on the research currently used to prove naturalistic evolution (and thus take it out of the realm of contemporary philosophy), but what I’ve seen of the ID methodology fits right in: here’s the Darwinian proposal; here’s the evidence against it, requiring an alternate hypothesis. In such light, it seems strange — apart from the matter of definition discussed in the article above — that so many people shout, “Bad science!”

Evolution is currently the only theory that needs protection by law to prevent open debate in an academic environment. All other theories are required to stand on their own merit. If a theory can not be challenged it can not be considered scientific but must be considered a religion based on beliefs and faith. Evolution is a religion.