Evidence of Design Attests to the Existence of a Designer

Intelligent Design January 24, 2008

Social Science and Intelligent Design

For far too long, a war has waged with outdated ideas. The conflict between Darwinists, those who support evolution as the source of our existence and those who propose a faith based, creationist genesis have played the game on different fields. It’s as if the creationists have been using checkers while Darwinists use chess pieces. The icons rest on the same game board, but the rules differ for each player.

Time has come to wage this debate with a common set of tools. Since the dawn of the modern age, the method based on measurable, repeatable, verifiable experimentation has held the dominant position in this arena of ideas. The scientific method – when the populace can touch, taste and hold a concept, universal acceptance is much simpler to attain.

Unfortunately, creationists have had limited, and I would venture, outdated tools in their arsenal. Creationism has been promoted via thick and somewhat obtuse philosophical arguments. I am not suggesting these arguments are invalid. However, when a person must possess a degree in philosophy and understand awkward Latin text in order to form an opinion, then those who support this point of view are at a significant disadvantage.

Other proponents fall back to “Well, you just have to believe . . .” or “Because my biblical text says that this it the way it happened” In today’s world, this latter approach will engender support as well as Bill Clinton could be the poster boy for abstinence. Faith based arguments won’t generate widespread public support in our postmodern world.

I distill this conflict into three problematic categories:

For the Creationist:

• Faith and Science have been playing with different tools
• Faith-based intelligent designers or creationists are afraid to stand up for the logical conclusion of their argument, that an intelligent God and our relationship to Him are the issue.
• Having been soundly beaten in the past, creationists have avoided waging the war on scientific grounds.

For the Evolutionist:

• They have the advantage of the scientific method
• They have used measurable, quantifiable, repeatable facts to support their position.
• They have an unspoken agenda to discredit and degrade faith, and those who hold faith as a central element to life.

For Society as a Whole:

• Those who want to hold faith as an important tenant of their lives have been talked out of, or belittled to the point of timidity because faith based intelligent designers have not given them understandable, hard scientific evidence to support their position.
• Evolution degrades the source and value of my life. I am no longer an intelligent purposeful creation of a Loving Creator God. I am the random consequence of chemical and biological processes. My life is unimportant, less valuable, and of little more consequence than the rest of the animal kingdom.
• When I believe my life is cosmically inconsequential, and social order is based on random constructs of those having power, those wanting power, and those who are trying to explain the unexplainable aspects of the larger natural order, my society and culture will follow into a spiral of self centered, narcissistic behaviors. In the end, this offers me no hope, nor reason to live above self, or seek a higher level of human attainment.

In other words, if my life is not anchored to a Divine influence, it is of no more value than the slime pool out of which my ancestors allegedly crawled. The hole in my soul which relentlessly pursues a purposeful existence is shackled to empty forgeries which neither give meaning nor purpose. Without a Creator, life has no eternal meaning because there exists no Eternal.

From my frame of reference, this is an unacceptable conclusion.  When Columbus observed the world, the way ships appeared on the horizon led him to believe that the world was not flat, but round.  His belief led to investigation, discovery, exploration, and eventually proof that the accepted theory of his age was wrong.  What I observe in this world contradicts a theory which casts the existance of God aside. This blog will be a place to investigate, engage, explore and demonstrate that the ‘leap of faith’ (as some call it,) that accepts an omnipotent, creative God as the source of the cosmos (which I call it a conclusion) is much smaller than the leap of faith required to accept Darwin’s evolutionary explanation of the cosmos.