LiveScience "Examines" Intelligent Design - Part 3 of 4

LiveScience "Examines" Intelligent Design - Part 3 of 4
Written by: Jonathan Sampson

"Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text."

John G. West

Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren't the Same

What is a theory? Does Intelligent Design (ID) qualify? Should evolution be included? This is the nature of today’s "examination" of ID. Ker Than strides into day three of the critical look at what critics call, "Creationism’s latest guise." In the previous two articles, "LiveScience 'examines' Intelligent Design," and "LiveScience 'examines' Intelligent Design Part II," we discussed what Creation really means, according to the definition given by another LiveScience writer, and what ID really means. It was established that these are two very different worldviews.

Today’s focus will be set on asking the question, "What is a theory?" Ker begins today’s installment (Intelligent Design: Belief Posing as Theory) by dealing with a common misconception in science and in the public mind. "Evolutionary Theory" doesn’t refer to some whim-idea. "Theory", in science, is almost as good as "fact." For example, we have other theories such as the theory of gravity, and germ theory. But should evolution be labeled a scientific-theory? Does it merit such a title? We’ll interview that idea.

Ker believes that "evolution is a theory supported by science from such disparate fields as paleontology, geology, genetics, and astronomy." I’m interested in hearing what this evidence is - honestly. Paleontology has revealed upsetting findings all throughout history, only to force evolution to mold and shift to meet the data. As Walter ReMine once put it, in his popular book "The Biotic Message" - Evolution is a fog that fits a landscape. Geology has also upset the idea of millions of years of slow accumulation and deposition. Genetics are no friend to evolution either, demonstrating evidence against the idea of slow, successive accumulation of beneficial - information increasing - mutations. And let’s not get started on Astronomy - we wouldn’t finish.

In defining what requirements are needed to be met before a "hunch" can be considered a "Theory," Than tells us "Its claims must be testable and it must propose experiments that can be replicated by other scientists." Does evolution qualify? Suppose I said this, "A dinosaur group evolved into a bird group."How would you test that? DNA comparison will not tell you one evolved into the other, and you certainly can’t go back to see it happen over millions of years. Suppose I claim lightning struck a pool of chemicals and created life. How would you test that? So far, all experiments trying to replicate such an event have failed, yet they feel it’s a pseudo-fact, or "theory". Practically all of the origins-related claims of evolution are not testable, and not repeatable.

"Evolution is a speculation about the unobservable and unrepeatable past. Thus it comes under origins science." Dr. Jonathan Sarfati

Who's really pushing 'Bad-Science'?

Richard Dawkins, the prominent Oxford biologist, stated "Evolution is a fact in the same sense that it’s a fact the Earth is round and not flat, [that] the Earth goes round the Sun." But this is a clear example of what evolutionists instinctively do when confronted. They begin churning their ideas up in a vat of science. This may be a good time to discuss "Operational Science" (ie. Figuring the shape of the earth), and "Origins Science" (ie. Explaining the creation of life). Operational Science is responsible for putting men on the moon, building computers, and curing diseases. And as for Origins Science, Dr. Jonathan Sarfati put it this way, "Evolution is a speculation about the unobservable and unrepeatable past. Thus it comes under origins science." Evolutionists often blend the two in attempts to make their ideas seem justified.

Ker moves on to state "all living organisms share a common ancestry. This is a fact, supported not only by visible similarities in body structures among organisms, but more powerfully, by evidence from genetics" What should we do with the creatures that don’t conform to the commonality of body structures? Where do creatures such as the platypus fit in, which seemingly must have borrowed traits from a wide range of creatures today? What do we do with whale phalanges, which range from 2-6 while humans only have 2-3? There are innumerable questions that have yet to be answered, and stacks of evidence against the worldview of evolution.

Following, we see Ker claim that science would again be dead if ID were a prominent perspective. Although I am not in complete agreement with the ID movement, I am in complete disagreement with Ker on this allegation. As was covered in previous installments, the vast majority of scientists down through the ages believed in the Creator, the Designer. It is because of the work they have done that science has flourished today.

Philip S. Skell, who did research on antibiotics during WW2, has this to say

"I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss."

Why do we invoke Darwin?

This is from an Evolutionist who feels "Darwin's theory of evolution offers a sweeping explanation of the history of life."

Evolution helps nothing, but allegedly explains everything.
Related Articles:

1. LiveScience "Examines" Intelligent Design - Part I
2. LiveScience "Examines" Intelligent Design - Part II
3. LiveScience "Examines" Intelligent Design - Part III
4. LiveScience "Examines" Intelligent Design - Part IV