Logical Defense of Intelligent Design--jk

Home | Pope's position on GAYS, and Celebacy | Pope's Magisterium on Evolution | Logical Defense of Intelligent Design--jk | MARTIN LUTHER ON THE JEWS | New Pope says Satan is unleashing "evil energy" | Capitalism and Christianity--jk | Catholic Business Blessing, "the more you give, the more you receive" | Creationism, humorous essay about | Puritan Angry God & Evils Sermon--Jonathan Edwards | Founded NOT as a Christian Nation | WHY CHRISTIANITY SUCCEEDED--JK | Seventh Day Advantist Believe in Young Earth | When God Passes Laws | Burial box of James, Brother of Jesus | Jesus Burial Box Hoax | CHRISTIAN WEBSITES

In Defense of Intelligent Design—jk


A sympathetic analysis followed by a solution to the issue of ID being taught in schools


Creationism has a logic to it that is compelling.   As a philosopher and on who can see both sides of an issue, I am pausing here to present the other side—presenting the other side because there is something missing in the debate, the first premise.  The creationist begins with baggage:  1). There is a god named Yahweh.  2). Yahweh is the creator of the universe.  3). Knowledge concerning Yahweh is obtained through study of the Bible.  4).  Experience of the divine presence is obtained through an inner feeling in the heart, and an assortment of signs including answered prayers, miraculous events, and the testimony of fellow Christians.  This is the baggage that the Creationist brings to the table.  The agnostic lacks this baggage. 


There are many signs that the Bible was inspired by Yahweh, such as Bible prophecies, record of miracles, and the wisdom found in the work.  Moreover, their god is not a deceiver; ergo, their Bible, when study with the guidance of the inner light, reveals many marvelous things including that Yahweh* created the universe and all the life therein.  However, for the sake of answering the agnostic scientists they will put aside the bible evidence and argue the issue of creation.  The creationist does not expect to win over the agnostic, but rather to show to his fellow Christians that the Bible was correct when it stated that Yahweh created the universe. 

The arguments, consisting of various examples of problems with evolution are more like propaganda to strengthen the beliefs of Christians than to be arguments in the arena of science.  One series of arguments are philosophical by raising questions of falsifiability, fulfilling the meaning of theory, observability, and like. A second line distorts the nature and amount of disagreement among biologist over evolution.  Then the third raise such questions as:

1) If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

2) Evolution doesn’t explain how life first appeared on earth

3) Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.

4) The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that systems must become more disordered over time.  Living cells therefore could not evolve (without divine intervention).

5) Mutations, an essential part of the theory, only eliminate traits.  They cannot produce new features.

6) Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher orders of life.

7) There are no transitional fossils—such as half bird and half reptile.

8) There are complex systems—such as the eye—which do not function in a less complex transitional form. 

9) The molecular basis of life is too complex to have evolved.  

These arguments are, patently bad, are not designed to convince agnostic biologists that evolution is false, but rather to give an air of respectability to their belief in Yahweh the creator.  Their demands to have evolution eliminated from text books and to teach creationism are self-serving promotion of their cause and a desire for their children to get a Christian education—as well as all other children. 

Considering their set of beliefs, minus the creation story of their Bible:  that they see god’s workings in life; it fits in with their belief structure—just as the lack of such workings fits in with the Agnostic’s belief structure.  On top of this they believe that Yahweh through the Bible admits that He has created the world and all the life thereon.  But for the sake or argument, they are presenting the biological evidence that the existence of life on earth must not have happened by chance. 

The most important of their arguments centers on the complexity of life.  This could, they argue no more happen that the parts of a Boeing 747 self-assembling into a 747.  This is a variation of the watch argument.  If one found a watch on the beach, given its complexity and usefulness, one would assume that there was a watchmaker.   

The second argument is from beauty.  The balance of Yahweh’s creations into such a functional whole is proof that there was an Artist.  There are the edible plants and animals, the rain, the fertile soil, and the very beauty of nature:  all this stands as a grand monument of the Creator. 

Given the set of beliefs of the Christian, these two arguments naturally follow—a watchmaker and an artist.  Is there not a god named Yahweh, whom today’s Christians believe Him to be omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly beneficent.  Is not life miraculous and beautify?  End of argument. 

Creationism is just a portion of the belief structure of the Christians.  Should it be taught in schools?  Yes, but without the bad arguments:  Their criticisms of biological science all fail.  A couple of paragraphs would suffice.  Simply state that a majority of Americans believe there is a universal god named Yahweh who created life. 

To present more of creationism has two problems, one that the bad examples (1-9 above) would have to be refuted for to teach also evolution.  To let these examples stand without rebuttal would entail that the subsequent instruction (or prior lessons) were of an absurd theory, such as of the elements are sun-center universe.  The second problem with teaching creationism is of content.  There is significant disagreement among them as to when and how much.  A significant percentage of Christians believe that Yahweh the creator started life and then permitted it to evolve.  Some, however, believe that he made all the forms of life.  Some even believe that Yahweh is in some mysterious way involved in the creation of all living things.  There are positions between these extremes.  The official position of the Catholic Church is to accept both evolution and divine involvement.  To teach about Yahweh’s involvement in creation would be muddled if all these position and variations are included.  Thus, as I have proposed, special creation ought only to have a passing mention.

Creationism is a religious one, and Biology is a science.  The best evidence supports evolution; that is why it is taught in public schools.  Even if Yahweh created all forms of life, the very relationship of these forms as to competition for survival and reproduction supports the theory of evolution.  Moreover, the fossil record and the relatedness of the molecules of life further support the theory of evolution.  A conclusion consistent with these three types of evidence is for those Christians to assume that Yahweh created all things in a way that supports the theory of evolution.  Thus public school biology books ought to mention the possibility of Yahweh the creator and briefly mention how this can be consistent with the theory of evolution.



* I use Yahweh to name the god.  Their Bible states that there are other gods and spirit beings, including the gods of the Egyptians, Leviathans, etc.  It simply states that the God of the Jews is more powerful then them, and that he will make the Jews the greatest nation of all.  The New Testament never denied that there were other gods.  The message was one of salvation through the worship of Yahweh and that Yahweh would before the last of the apostles died destroy life on the world, again.  Early Christians didn’t deny the gods of the Romans and Greeks; they called them demons.  Given this insult to the state gods, what is surprising is not that the Roman’s executed a few of them, but rather that they didn’t wipe them out—like the Christians did to various heresies.   

Enter supporting content here