GUEST VIEWPOINT: INTELLIGENT DESIGN VS. EVOLUTION by Wes Boyd
by Special to DallasBlog.com
Wed, Dec 14, 2005, 08:07 PM
Over the past several months, I have read numerous editorials opining over the "intelligent design" vs. evolution theory school curriculum debate. All of the editorials I have read have one thing in common: they all assume evolution theory is an airtight, objectively scientific explanation of the origin of man. None of the editorials acknowledge the significant inconsistencies, gaps and even scandals (by supposed "scientists" with an atheistic/naturalistic philosophical worldview and agenda) found in the development and continuing teaching of evolution theory to students. For example, the following case studies are widely used in schools (and have even been cited in recent news stories/articles) to support the robustness of evolution theory, all of them with significant flaws:
"Darwin's Beaks" -- Beak sizes of finches on the Galapagos Islands vary according to habitats in which they live, BUT the change in beak sizes were nothing more than a cyclical fluctuation allowing the birds to survive in different conditions allowing the finches to remain finches...the finches did not evolve into another species as evolution theory would suggest.
"Dysfunctional Fruit Flies" -- After years and years of scientists such as Richard Goldschmidt creating mutations in fruit flies through radiation and other means (creating multiple wings for example), the fruit fly never evolved into another species or even a more advanced fruit fly....scientists only created odd, inferior designed fruit flies.
"Doctored Moths" -- The peppered moths of England example, which I remember from my school textbooks, has turned out to be a staged scandal in which "scientists" glued dead moths onto tree trunks that were artificially discolored to supposedly show how moths evolved to darker colors to match trees polluted by factories - a dishonest, agenda driven stunt to further perpetrate natural selection.
"Haeckel's Famous Fake" -- Even Darwin was fooled by Ernst Haeckel who was overly eager to "confirm" evolutionary theory. Haeckel fudged sketches of embryos to show that embryos of a fish, tortoise, chick, hog, calf, rabbit and human are all similar in their conception, while in truth the embryos are significantly different in shape and design. Even worse, scientists in Haeckel's day knew he faked the sketches, but continued using it as evidence to support their naturalistic worldview agenda.
The fundamental problem of Darwin's evolution theory is that small adaptations within a particular species are extrapolated over vast periods of time in the past to explain major differences among species we know of today. It is a "leap of faith" if there ever was one. Nancy Pearcy, author of Total Truth, correctly points out that Darwin's theory may explain "the survival of the fittest, but it fails to explain the arrival of the fittest." Most evolutionists are so persuaded by philosophical naturalism (their "religion"), their presupposed atheistic worldview actually prevents them from being intellectually honest and objective scientists in their practice and conclusions regarding the question of the origin of man.
So, given numerous factual shortcomings with commonly used support for evolution theory as an explanation for the origin of man, why not ALSO teach intelligent design alongside as a potentially viable theory? There is much objective scientific evidence, given today's advanced scientific technology, which could objectively be presented to support "intelligent design," for example:
* Irreducible Complexity of the Molecular Cell -- Through the use of the electron microscope, scientists today can see that the nucleus of the human cell contains an irreducibly complex structure of "machinery" that resembles manufactured gadgets accomplishing a designed purpose. Darwin, of course, did not have the benefit of today's technology, which caused him and his contemporaries to refer to the "black box" of the mystery of how the microbiological world is structured to work in reality. Darwin even said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down (On the Origin of Species). I submit it takes more blind faith to hold to the idea that the irreducible complexity of microbiology developed randomly by nature than an Intelligent Creator who purposefully designed cells to function independently and interdependently within living beings.
* A Balanced Cosmos -- Cosmologists today acknowledge there is a delicate equilibrium that keeps the Universe held together preventing chaos and destruction. For example, if the force of gravity were minutely stronger or weaker, all stars would be either too cold to support life or they would be burning too brightly for life to occur. In fact, the margin of error for equilibrium in the universe's expansion rate is 1in 10 raised to the power of 60! Heinz Oberhummer, an astronomer, honestly admits "I am not a religious person, but I could say this universe is designed very well for the existence of life...the basic forces in the universe are tailor-made for the production of carbon-based life." Again I submit that it takes greater blind faith to believe the universe is randomly held together by natural forces than a "Grand Designer" who planned it out in the first place and sovereignly keeps it together in an orderly manner, avoiding chaos.
* The Genetic Code -- Perhaps the greatest evidence for "intelligent design" is what scientists know today regarding DNA molecules, a digital-like code (much like computer programming code) that defines the differences of all living beings. When Egyptian hieroglyphics were discovered, no one knew how to decipher them until 1799 with the discovery of the Rosetta Stone, and yet everyone knew without any doubt that hieroglyphics were made by an intellectual agent. They were not patterns that were randomly etched on rock walls by natural forces. So too does DNA code "scream" of a Designer establishing complex information code to differentiate between living entities in the world. Natural causes can not produce decipherable messages or information, unless one believes a spilled bowl of alphabet soup could randomly fall on the floor and communicate a complete sentence of instruction on how to clean it up! Once more, I submit it takes significantly more bind faith to maintain that DNA code is the product of random nature in and of itself vs. the language of an "Intelligent Designer."
Therefore, why not teach "intelligent design" alongside "evolution theory" as two competing, yet imperfectly scientific explanations of the origin of man, each requiring a degree of faith, and then let students come to their own conclusions? Wouldn't this truly be a liberal (in the original good sense of the word) education!