| The Way Missye Sees It |
| Darwin vs. Intelligent Design |
| by Missye K. Clarke |
| Darwin vs. Intelligent Design: It’s a Whizzing Contest —But Where In The Whiz Did It Come From? |
A Pennsylvania school is teaching Intelligent Design alongside Darwin’s Evolution Theory. Darwin’s Theory espouses that, from the simple single cell to the immensely complicated organism, natural selection brought about everything in the animal and plant kingdoms. Creationists believe that God created everything and the complicated way mankind and the planet evolved was through His intervention.
Dr. Antony Flew set the scientific community on its ear having irked the scientific and philosophical atheists in his circles earlier this year for stating such conclusions and (gasp!) becoming a deist--accepting there’s a God--in the process. Impressed by recent scientific developments that suggest the universe is the product of Intelligent Design, Flew explains, “It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.” While the religious among the populace are pouting over Flew’s take on morality and his absolute refusal to see the Bible, Koran or Torah as one’s playbook for life, the Darwinists aren’t too thrilled that one of their own gave the Creationists an edge for a long overdue debate that may finally be served justice ... and one that will show both sides have an agenda.
So why can’t Intelligent Design be taught side by side with Darwin’s Theory? Let’s try to take a complex topic and break it down:
Darwin’s Theory, though still being proved, can be disproved, it’s argued. After all, it’s still a theory, open to challenge. One such challenge comes in Lee Strobel’s book The Case for a Creator, available at [LINK] amazon, where he builds his case that scientific evidence points toward Intelligent Design. In another instance, Dr. Stephen Meyer argues that in certain places Darwin skipped around to show pictures of embryos from different species, giving it the look that we all could claim single cell ancestry from a mere once celled organism.
Though Intelligent Design proponents argue that God created Man, they have no proof to show this - because there’s no suitable “proof” that the scientific community will accept. This is where the “get a job, get experience, but get experience to get a job” quandary that holds the Intelligent Design belief hostage: the scientific community and Darwinists won’t allow Intelligent Design to be studied because it comes from the Intelligent Design school of thought, but then want to say Intelligent Design didn’t create Darwinism because it wasn’t proven to show this to be the case, in any case. The scientific community cannot have it both ways, but they try.
Then there’s the matter of Dr. Frances Crick, who, with Dr. James Watson, discovered the genetic strands of DNA in 1962 and won the Nobel Prize for this discovery and breakthrough in 1964. Though Crick has said that biological evolution does and can occur naturally though the natural process, he has noted the DNA strand not “of being of this realm. … its complexities still to be discovered.”
Further, consider this: Darwinists believe in natural order and survival of the fittest. Isn’t it remotely possible that whatever process put the orangutans, baboons, and man here, there was a Designer behind it all? Who are the Darwinists and the Intelligent Design proponents to declare all or nothing on this topic? If the Intelligent Design crowd are adamant in beating back Darwinist, they'd better get set to do studies of their own and bypass the scientific community altogether--and quit yelling "Look, Ma, God did it!" whenever asked what abut monkeys and why they sling poo.
And, why can’t the scientific community allow a decent study on Intelligent Design be drafted and completed? If Darwin’s theory of evolution is all as they believe it to be, it would stand to reason that his theory could be thrown against Intelligent Design. After all, someone put Charles Darwin here and in no way do I hold to the fact that a simple single cell can divide and keep dividing to grow to know to become a functioning ear cell from a bone cell to a feather cell.
Perhaps it’s in order to do as Dr. Antony Flew has done and merely allow yourself to go where the evidence leads. |
|
