Limits of the Intelligent Design Movement
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen
It seems that the the simplest approach to intelligent design is to say that a painting had a painter, a building had a builder, and so on. Moving from there, we can show the specified complexities of various living things as well as the in the cosmos, the amazing design of the DNA molecule, irreducible complexity, and more.
The Intelligent Design movement is not something that has membership and issue identification cards. There are individual organizations like the Discovery Center that are specifically designed to refute various forms unguided evolution, as well as individuals who also promote ID. Darwin's dishonest gadflies, in their febrile efforts to reject God, say that the ID Movement is creation science in disguise. That is clearly false, as any schoolchild who can read their material might tell you. They have theistic evolutionists, old-earth creationists, some young-earth creationists, Mohammedans, agnostics, and others involved.
Don't be getting me wrong. Biblical creationists use intelligent design arguments frequently, but we do not divorce them from creation. When the two are properly married up, they address not only the intellect, but the spiritual aspect — which materialists deny and ID proponents mostly ignore. They do a fine job in refuting evolution, but that is incomplete.
In "Unsafe to Question Evolution?", I linked to material on how people in academic and secular science occupations who dare to question evolution risk their careers and reputations. A few who have tenure or status can do so a little bit, but most have to remain undercover. That post focused on Yale professor Dr. David Gelernter's "coming out" because he saw that the evidence did not support Darwinism. He is not too enthused with Intelligent Design because it does not go far enough. He realizes that neither evolution nor ID address the deeper issues of life. We can hope and pray that he will learn that biblical creation science can guide him in the right direction. For a short article on this subject, see "Yale University Prof: Darwin Was Wrong".
In a related article, there may be some agreement in the ID community about how they do not address important issues. Questions are raised that need answers, and there seem to be stirrings where some members (I use "members" loosely) are wanting more. An article on African chicklets — I mean, cichlids — which are popular among tropical fish enthusiasts devastates the idea that cichlid variation supports evolution. That is false, as regular readers have seen here many times. Some of the material on the cichlids could have been written by creationists. To read this article, click on "I.D. Catching up with Creation".
While presenting evidence supporting recent special creation and refuting evolution, we cannot essentially leave people hanging. Some folks seem to have the same foolish idea that I had: essentially, if we provide evidence for design, people will renounce evolution and fall on their knees asking Jesus Christ to be Lord of the lives. Such a view is contrary to Scripture, as I discussed in "Evidential or Presuppositional Apologetics?" Antony Flew renounced atheism because of the evidence, but apparently he was a Deist at best, and as lost as any other person who is unredeemed. We know where the answers can be found, and should not be ashamed of presenting the truth.
It seems that the the simplest approach to intelligent design is to say that a painting had a painter, a building had a builder, and so on. Moving from there, we can show the specified complexities of various living things as well as the in the cosmos, the amazing design of the DNA molecule, irreducible complexity, and more.
 |
| An ornithopter design by Leonardo da Vinci, ca. 1489 |
Don't be getting me wrong. Biblical creationists use intelligent design arguments frequently, but we do not divorce them from creation. When the two are properly married up, they address not only the intellect, but the spiritual aspect — which materialists deny and ID proponents mostly ignore. They do a fine job in refuting evolution, but that is incomplete.
In "Unsafe to Question Evolution?", I linked to material on how people in academic and secular science occupations who dare to question evolution risk their careers and reputations. A few who have tenure or status can do so a little bit, but most have to remain undercover. That post focused on Yale professor Dr. David Gelernter's "coming out" because he saw that the evidence did not support Darwinism. He is not too enthused with Intelligent Design because it does not go far enough. He realizes that neither evolution nor ID address the deeper issues of life. We can hope and pray that he will learn that biblical creation science can guide him in the right direction. For a short article on this subject, see "Yale University Prof: Darwin Was Wrong".
In a related article, there may be some agreement in the ID community about how they do not address important issues. Questions are raised that need answers, and there seem to be stirrings where some members (I use "members" loosely) are wanting more. An article on African chicklets — I mean, cichlids — which are popular among tropical fish enthusiasts devastates the idea that cichlid variation supports evolution. That is false, as regular readers have seen here many times. Some of the material on the cichlids could have been written by creationists. To read this article, click on "I.D. Catching up with Creation".
While presenting evidence supporting recent special creation and refuting evolution, we cannot essentially leave people hanging. Some folks seem to have the same foolish idea that I had: essentially, if we provide evidence for design, people will renounce evolution and fall on their knees asking Jesus Christ to be Lord of the lives. Such a view is contrary to Scripture, as I discussed in "Evidential or Presuppositional Apologetics?" Antony Flew renounced atheism because of the evidence, but apparently he was a Deist at best, and as lost as any other person who is unredeemed. We know where the answers can be found, and should not be ashamed of presenting the truth.