And Now For Something Completely Different

I usually don’t comment on things like this, but I thought I would shake it up a bit.  I found an article by a reverend that talks about intelligent design.  The gist is that he sees the cleverness of nature that far outstrips what humans are capable of and makes the normal conclusion that random processes did not make this occur, but some intelligent designer (which he identifies as God) did.

To me, it’s amazing that other people can see the same thing and shut their eyes and ears and cry, “No, it’s all random and you can’t convince me otherwise.”  These people don’t even hold open the possibility that a designer could be involved.  Yet, what we see is strikingly what we should see if a designer is involved – like Behe’s quip that if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it might just be a duck.  Why do people ignore and reject that which is apparent and quite possibly true – that a designer could be involved in the formation of life on this planet?  This is just the religion of Darwinism writ large, that not only does Darwinism explain all, but it supplants any type of god as a new catch-all explanation for the world.  Darwinists attack ID proponents as if we are saying, “God did it,” yet their favored explanation is “Darwin did it.”  And yet, due to their religious convictions, they never see the irony of their accusations.


3 responses to “And Now For Something Completely Different

  1. Their attitude is indeed surpassing strange. It prompted me to create the following post:

  2. If the possibility of God intervening in the processes that we do not (yet) understand should be taken into account by science, then why shouldn’t God also be implicated in the processes that we do understand? For example, maybe it’s not gravity that makes the earth circle around the sun. It could be it, but it could also be the hand of God. Why rely on physics in one case, and on supernatural forces in another? Just because something seems implausible does not mean it is not possible. Science is a disciplined approach to the study of the universe, which assumes that the universe is intelligible. It’s not so much an article of faith as a necessary requirement so that a coherent body of knowledge can be derived from it. In no way should it invalidate our faith in a Creator. If God does indeed intervene in complex processes such as the emergence and evolution of life, then that is unfortunately outside of the reach of science. The hand of God would break the chain of causes and effects, making it impossible to trace it. In my opinion, though I do believe in God, I do not think that is the way it works. God unleashed the universe some 15 billions years ago, and with it the capacity for life to emerge, via random processes guided by physical laws. Any design would have happened at that level, with a specific purpose. Thinking this way suggests in fact a more powerful God than one who is continuously “tweaking” his creation to make it do what he intends.

  3. chmd,
    I don’t think you understand the argument. It’s not that god is holding people down instead of gravity, it’s that materialists exclude the possibility of god a priori and then shape their worldview around it, which in turn shapes their science. Certain things become impossible and out of bounds for science, and unfairly so. They are imposing their religious convictions on science.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s