The ID Report

Archeologist with simple piece of pottery: Look what I discovered; I wonder who created it.
Scientist: Wow! What a cool pot; who do you think made it?

Biologist with complex piece of DNA code: Look what I discovered; I wonder who created it.
Scientist: Wow! What a crackpot; why does he think someone made it?

It's a good thing the Bible doesn't say God made clay pots. If it did, design-minded archeologists would be out of a job. With little to say about each new find that cannot be turned into a "religious" question, design-inferring archeologists would be relegated to the fate of their like-minded brethren in biology--the realm of "science cannot infer design because design might mean God and science and religion cannot mix." Archeologists be glad; you get to freely infer intelligent design for objects of obvious design but unknown origin without facing the "might mean God" barrier to truth-seeking. In other words, you get to be scientists and logically infer intelligent design--a luxury not to be taken for granted.

Actually, archeologists are not the exception; they are the rule. Scientists of many stripes infer design to explain phenomena of unknown (and unknowable) origin all the time. Forensic scientists, faced with a dead body and no witnesses look for evidence to piece together a historical narrative to explain a past event: was the death accidental (unintelligent causes) or murder (intelligent causation)? Simple. And what about the good folks over at SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence)? Their name says it all. Although embarrassed at being rightly compared to their like-minded biologist counterparts, these scientists regularly collect evidence in the form of radio signals to determine if the signals are the result of background radiation in space (unintelligent causes), or extraterrestrial intelligence (intelligent causes). Easy. A child can do it.

And biologists? Well, there's the exception to one rule and the imposition of another. Biologists must suppress entertaining any lingering thoughts spurred by logical inferences of design because such thoughts automatically and necessarily lead to "religion" and, unless it's a God-denying religion, that's a bad thing. After all, a respectable scientist having "religious" thoughts hasn't happened since the days of Newton, Boyle, Kepler, Bacon, Pascal, Herschel, Faraday, Joule and, well, you get the idea. It's been a long time since the natural wonder of the beauty of intelligent design in nature could be scientifically expressed without professional and personal recriminations.

The savvy Darwinist will quickly jump in here with a smug smile and reply that the analogy to archeology does not hold. It happens, he says with the certainty of one-sided thinking, that in our human experience we know that humans can, and have, made pottery for generations. And because we can explain the kind of potter with some certainty, archeology never approaches the "might mean God" line. Living systems, on the other hand, are not known to be made by human intelligence, so we have no basis to infer human design, and any suitable intelligence must mean God, and science and religion cannot mix. You see? The inherent "who" problem in origins science is not to be found in archeology, so there is no inconsistency in letting archeology be respectable science and letting intelligent design be respectable religion (if there is such a thing).

But this response misses the point. This response jumps the inquiry directly to the "who" question, bypassing the "what" question without a thought. Yet in archeology, as in all disciplines, the "what" of design alone can be an end in itself, informing a fruitful line of scientific inquiry that otherwise would be missed were the fact of design not granted or the identity of the designer demanded. Even if the potter remains forever unknown, the fact of design-discovery alone gives the archeologist the subject matter of her science. How else is an archeologist to know if she has found a piece of clay or a pot? Without design detection alone (i.e., absent design-er detection) having scientific value, the field of archeology would be dead.

But more importantly, the "because we know there's a human potter" response powerfully confirms exactly the intelligent design theorist's point: design can be recognized because in our human experience we can recognize things for which we know only intelligent agency can accomplish. Our experience of the world shows that what we recognize as design invariably reflects the prior activity of conscious and intelligent persons who may now be hopelessly unknowable. In the case of a clay pot, yes, it was most certainly made by a kind of potter we are familiar with: men or women, who may forever remain unknown. But why must we all pretend ignorance when we consider clay people? Does not the fact of design carry great value independently of knowledge of the designer?

Clay people, like clay pots, carry the unmistakable hallmarks of intelligent design. Conflating the "what" of design with the "who" in biological systems is the illogical and scientifically inconsistent tactic of those philosophically opposed to a divine creative intelligence, i.e., Darwinians who fear a "divine foot in the door" of science. But denying a pot for fear of a potter is not science, and is ultimately no more effective than denying a symptom for fear of a disease. Truth is not changed by the evidence-denying belief in a lie.

Presumably, our Darwinian tutors must think, were it not for "religion" no one would think to infer design in biology. And solely because of a supposed "mighty mean God" mainstream science desperately demands that a biologist must obey a rule that prohibits design detection, while his archeologist colleague freely infers intelligent design. The disparate rules of desperate scientists create an illogical two-tiered system where a biologist is required to attempt a rigorous proof of design, while an archeologist is merely required to say, "Hey, look what I found!" Why is this?

No, really. Why?

Roddy Bullock, a skeptic of Darwinism, is a freelance writer, engineer, lawyer, the Executive Director of the Intelligent Design Network of Ohio and is the author of The Cave Painting: A Parable of Science, published by and available from Access Research Network.

Send comments to: roddybullock@idnetohio.com.

If you like this essay, go here for many more.

Copyright (c) 2009 Roddy M. Bullock, all rights reserved. Quotes and links permitted with attribution.

References:

Information on God-believing scientists: http://creationsafaris.com/wgcs.htm

The sentence that starts: "Our experience of the world shows that what we recognize as design invariably reflects the prior activity of conscious and intelligent persons . . ." was adapted from Stephen C. Meyer's new book, Signature in the Cell, DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, (Harper Collins, 2009), p. 16. In Meyer's sentence, the term "information" is used instead of "design".

The basic theory of evolution has been confirmed so completely that most modern biologists consider evolution simply a fact. -- Ernst Mayr

"This changes everything." Those words summed up the sentiment when, hardly able to contain their ecstasy, scientists this month unveiled what could very likely be their single most important find ever: a virtually complete fossil of a 47 million-year old lemur nicknamed Ida. The panting media hype surrounding Ida's introduction to the world was justified, if for no other reason because Ida was found "on the ground." Deemed "the eighth wonder of the world" by one enraptured scientist, Ida should silence once and for all those who doubt the fact of gravity. "This fossil rewrites our understanding of gravity," gushed one glassy-eyed paleontologist who described how Ida is thought to have "fallen" into the water of a volcanic pit. The "falling" aspect of Ida's instantly legendary saga was reinforced by another scientist who, with raised hands compared Ida's impact on gravitational science to "an asteroid hitting the earth." Still another, seen with head bowed reverently, compared Ida to the Mona Lisa, noting both have existed undisturbed for years under the influence of gravity. Wait, maybe it was Ida's impact on evolution that inspired such breathless declarations; statements on these two settled facts of science are easy to confuse.

For those mercifully spared from the recent carpet bombing of media-driven science propaganda, Ida, officially named Darwinius masillae, is merely the latest in the protracted drip of "now (and-this-time-we-really-mean-it!) we have a missing link" fossil finds. Ida is different because, unlike Tiktaalik, the last celebrity fossil thought to finally put to rest all doubts about evolution, Ida is being reported as THE missing link. Yes, Ida is reported to hold the key to indisputably proving human evolution. Reported, of course, is an understatement, as the news about Ida was blared, trumpeted, and generally shouted from media rooftops in what appeared to be one of modern secularism's rare hallelujah moments. Holy Grail. Rosetta Stone. Scientists tried, but no superlative seemed adequate to the task. Even Google, the only thing starting with G-o that most people consult daily, succumbed with the ultimate tribute by yielding its iconic logo to the image of Ida.

But before science pronounces us all made in the image of Ida, consider two questions. First, why does Ida change anything? We the less presumptuous of the world have been berated for years by overbearing and generally arrogant Darwinists for not accepting that Darwinism is an unassailable fact. Darwinism stands, they shout, so well confirmed by evidence that it is a fact on par with other facts, such as gravity. Yes, we have been abused for years with the ignorant spoutings of belittling know-it-alls that anyone who questions Darwinism may as well be questioning the fact of gravity. And to prove the point, we are lectured like children on how "scientists" use words like "theory" and "fact". The National Academy of Sciences (NAS), for example, assures us that when speaking of evolution scientists use the word "fact" to mean "something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples." Oh really? And evolution is a fact? Why, then, the continued mad frenzy to look for transitional fossils, and the public ejaculations of joy when a so-called missing link like Ida is found? Are any NAS scientists still looking for examples of gravity? Why not?

Secondly, and more importantly, isn't the hyperventilating media reporting the trumpery of smugly irreverent scientists evidence of a disturbing intellectual undercurrent? Is there not in every glowingly smirky sound bite a tincture of "Ha! This will shut up the stupid creationists!" Why the unfettered joy at reporting what is surely destined to become simply another ordinary fossil? It's as if a humanistic (read "God-free") Paradise of Science is being held back from the masses, groaning under the oppressive weight of pesky "intelligent design creationists" and their simple-minded, unsophisticated reliance on plain evidence of design. And many in the media, convinced that the sooner the Enlightened Kingdom of Humanistic Science comes the better, stand ready to rush any news of scientists finally finding the smoking gun evidence to silence the Christians once and for all.

Here's the obvious truth that the Darwinian junta and their media mouthpieces don't get: if Darwinism is truly a fact, all of nature, fossils and all, should be nothing but evolutionary smoking guns. To paraphrase Darwin himself, "we should be up to our ears in transitional fossils." There should be innumerable quantities of indisputable transitional fossils, so that finding one should be as newsworthy as finding that another dropped ball went down instead of up. But rather than being engulfed in a world of smoking guns, we are subjected to a whirl of smoke and mirrors, and told we are fools for suspecting we are being made fools. Is this really science? How long are the real fools to be suffered?

If Ida "changes everything", then clearly evolution was not the settled fact we were previously led to believe. Knowing that evolution is not what Darwinists demand we must unquestioningly accept should be freeing to the free thinkers of the world. Just what does Ida mean in the big picture of things? For one, Ida appears to have more perfectly an attribute that all fossils exhibit: design. Is it intelligent design? Can we know? Are we allowed to even make the hypothesis?

Ironically, therefore, saying Ida is scientific evidence supporting the inference of intelligent design cannot be disputed, but saying Darwinius masillae is clear evidence to prove Darwinian adesign goes too far.

Ida. She simply goes one letter too far.

Roddy Bullock, a skeptic of Darwinism, is a freelance writer, engineer, lawyer, the Executive Director of the Intelligent Design Network of Ohio and is the author of The Cave Painting: A Parable of Science, published by and available from Access Research Network.

Send comments to: roddybullock@idnetohio.com.

If you like this essay, go here for many more.

Copyright (c) 2009 Roddy M. Bullock, all rights reserved. Quotes and links permitted with attribution.

References:

Mayr quote: Mayr, Ernst, Toward a New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist (1988, Cambridge: Harvard University Press).

NAS quote: Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition (1999), National Academy of Sciences (NAS), National Academy Press, Washington DC, 2006.

Evolution/Gravity fact-equal exposition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#cite_note-Mayr-6

For more on the concept of "adesign" go here: http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2009/02/28/darwinists_on_design_jumping_to_confusio

For a compilation of Ida's media hyperbole, see Ida: The Holy Grail of Missing Links?

"At the heart of the origin-of-life problem lies a fundamental question: What is it that we are trying to explain the origin of?"
-- Harmke Kamminga

What's the difference between a live cat and a dead cat? This is not a joke, with an answer like "a slightly better world." Seriously, and more specifically, think carefully about what, exactly, differs between a healthy, live cat, and a recently deceased cat, say a young, healthy cat just moments after being deprived of oxygen. Each possesses exactly the same material composition with all the right parts in all the right places. But even though both have exactly the same incredibly complex "stuff" connected up and ready to go, and although each may be separated in their respective states by mere milliseconds, one has something the other has irretrievably, permanently lost. What is it?

"It", of course, is "life", that elusively certain quality that divides all of nature into haves and have-nots, with the distinction being somewhat artificial to scientific materialists--after all, the haves are just a temporary anomaly in the otherwise have-not universe. One recent Science Daily article, for example, touts a "constructal law" that applies evolution "across the board" to explain the living and the non-living alike. That's why materialist scientists find "it" just another conundrum for science to solve by figuring out all the right physical connections among all the right physical molecules, like building the ultimate science project. Believing "life" is simply a big, three-dimensional jigsaw puzzle of physics and chemistry keeps small bands of modern alchemists toiling tirelessly in near obscurity as they seek to transmutate the dead into the living.

Someone should tell them about cats. Because rather than do things the easy way, like merely getting "it" back into an otherwise complete, perfectly suited material housing such as our unfortunate cat, these industrious folks always want to work from "scratch". And to read the headlines that regularly appear one would be convinced that life can be manufactured from scratch, like a perfect pound cake, if one just gets the right ingredients in just so. Can they really do it?

Don't hold your breath. Consider one recent headline touting man-made life, this one boldly claiming in tall black all-caps: LIFE FROM SCRATCH. One would think it's a done deal--life from scratch! Really? Wow! It seems such groundbreaking news would be somewhere other than page 27 of the 31-page January, 2008 edition of Science News, but wow anyhow! Think about it: life from scratch hidden on the last pages of a thin little science rag. Strange, isn't it? The first publication to make such a claim proclaimed it proudly in the beginning. How odd that "The Weekly Newsmagazine of Science" would put this special revelation last. Must be some shaky news. Or shaky science. Or both.

Of course anyone bothering to read beyond the headline hyperbole of this cover-story article (as well as all the puffery in the constant stream of its genre) will quickly discover that scientists are no closer to "creating" life than they are to creating a square circle (and no more likely to realize its impossibility). By the end of the third paragraph, after stating that "scientists are on the verge of creating living cells by piecing together small molecules that are themselves not alive," the Science News article must admit: "The result would be the world's first human-made life forms, synthetic cells made more or less from scratch."

More or less? The "more or less" of this "life creation" is explained: "Some scientists, including [a named scientist] hope to make such a minimal cell by whittling down the genome of an existing bacterium to its barest elements, and then synthesizing that minimal genome." Oh really? So what scientists are on "the verge of" (if anything), is synthesizing the physical molecular structure of a minimal genome. But until scientists can take a dead bacterium with its complete, complex genome, and get life back into it, on what basis are we to believe a manmade "minimal genome" can be made alive? Magic?

When it comes to creating "life" in any form, the hopeful reports keep coming, tickling the ears with the sizzle, but never showing the steak. Just last month, The Boston Globe ran the headline "Harvard Fuels Quest to Create Life From Scratch" describing the latest research of Harvard's Origins of Life Initiative. And again, if one reads beyond the attention-grabbing headline, one learns that what has actually been created is a machine that can manufacture proteins. This is, of course, quite a feat of intelligent design, but to say, as the article quotes, that "it's a step toward artificial life" because the machine can mimic a ribosome, which is the "key component of all living systems", goes too far. Hey, our dead cat is full of ribosomes. There's no need to design a machine to make proteins, and no reason to believe that if you make them you are any closer to creating real life, much less "artificial life".

Here's a prediction for all those who think intelligent design theorists make no predictions: Scientists will never create life from scratch, unless one or both of "life" or "scratch" is redefined to a meaningless ambiguity. Because the truth of the matter, necessarily denied by materialist scientists, is that the design of life is the design of something more than matter. Life, whatever it is, is not merely a product of material ingredients to be concocted from a little of this, that, and the other. Life, as is plain to all but those who choose willing blindness, is something more than a recipe or a formulation of matter. Life is something that invisibly animates matter right up until the moment it departs, leaving the exact same material composition in a condition commonly referred to as death.

Death. The absence of life. And once life departs the physical body only a miracle can reverse the transition even in the most ideal of conditions. What greater miracle must it take to create life "from scratch"? It's strange, then, that the very people who deny miracles are the same people who believe they nevertheless can create life from scratch.

Time will tell if mere mortals can create life from scratch, but one fact is scientifically certain: life was created from scratch the first time. The only reasonable question that science compels but cannot answer is who did the creating? Because one thing scientists are making clear beyond doubt is that successful genesis of life requires an intelligent designer.

Roddy Bullock, a skeptic of Darwinism, is a freelance writer, engineer, lawyer, the Executive Director of the Intelligent Design Network of Ohio (www.idnetohio.com) and is the author of The Cave Painting: A Parable of Science, published by and available from Access Research Network.

Send comments to: roddybullock@idnetohio.com.

If you like this essay, go here for many more.

Copyright (c) 2009 Roddy M. Bullock, all rights reserved. Quotes and links permitted with attribution.

Thanks go to Denyse O'Leary as the first one to ask the opening question of this essay. Author of several books, Denyse writes at the Post-Darwinist blog, among other places.

Publisher and agent inquiries welcome.

References:

Kamminga quote: Kamminga, Harmke. Protoplasm and the Gene. In A.G. Cairns-Smith and H. Hartman, eds., Clay Minerals and the Origin of Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-10.

Science News article: http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20080112/bob9.asp

On "constructal laws", see Science Daily, "Can Living and Non-living Follow Same Rules? Unifying the Animate and Inanimate Designs of Nature" (April 30, 2009): http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090428103104.htm (note this article is full of design terminology.)

More tantalizing headlines of "life from scratch":

"Researchers creating life from scratch" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9005023/

"Building Synthetic Genomes: Life from Scratch?" http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18417061

"Life from scratch?" http://www.astrobio.net/news/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=319&theme=Printer

"Americans Ignorant of Plans to Create Artificial Life" http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,431401,00.html stating: "the exciting field of synthetic biology" and "the field's controversial promise to create life from scratch."

"One who claims to be a skeptic of one set of beliefs is actually a true believer in another set of beliefs." - Phillip E. Johnson

Virgin birth. Abiogenesis. Resurrection from the dead. Random mutations producing the raw material for new organs. Intelligent creation ex nihilo. Eternal matter. Eternal mind. Heaven. Multiverses. Speciation by unguided, natural selection. Hell. Natural DNA information generation. Adam. Panspermia. Angels. No immaterial soul. Miracles. Space aliens. God. No God.

What do every one of the above have in common? Each is a closely held belief of zealous defenders of some theory of origins or another. And for each belief there are counter-zealots who can discern not one whit of convincing evidence. Take abiogenesis, for example. There is no evidence--just a lot of "must-have-happened-because-we're-here" certainty among the atheistic faithful in need of such belief; and believe they do. Ironically, the atheistic faithful like to think they are free of faith and suppose others to be, well, full of it. But in fact faith abounds on all sides with only two things certain: everybody believes something unbelievable and only certain unbelievable beliefs can actually be true. In fact, certain unbelievable beliefs must be true, and others must be false. But how can we know?

Darwinists often belittle the arguments of anti-evolutionists as "arguments from incredulity" as if there is something fundamentally flawed with such a position (even while they make the same arguments against intelligent design!). While the charge is almost always leveled in error (very few of the anti-evolutionary arguments are based on bare disbelief), there is some basis to draw exactly this charge: the evidence at hand makes naturalistic evolution truly unbelievable to the reasonable person. Consider: Materialists (which is what all atheists and most Darwinists are) must believe in abiogenesis, the faith belief that life arose accidentally from non-living matter. In spite of a total lack of evidentiary basis they are stuck with no choice, they must necessarily believe that a past chance agglomeration of all the right stuff, like cosmic Tinker Toys without a Tinkerer, was scattered, pressed, heated, cooled or otherwise accidentally treated just so, to make life appear out of nowhere. Excuse those of us not so thought-limited, but without any evidence to give a reason to believe or even a reason to suspend disbelief, abiogenesis is simply unbelievable.

Less well understood for all the bluffing that goes largely unchecked is the fact that Darwinists have absolutely no evidence to prove the crown jewel of Darwinism, that undirected physics and chemistry alone (so-called Natural Selection) can "select" from random mutational errors to produce a single new species. Darwin himself offered only an imaginary example of natural selection, an admitted indulgence on his part. But modern Darwinists continue the imaginations without the admission. Look it up--there is no evidence that natural selection has produced (or can produce) one new species. In fact, the evidence compels the opposite conclusion--even with extensive un-natural selection (i.e., breeding), no new species are possible. Are we really to believe on the word of men alone that purposeless, unguided chemistry and physics magically drove the origin of every species? Unbelievable.

Because most people don't have the faith of Darwinists, the evidence-induced unbelief among approximately 90% of the population drives evolutionists and other theophobic no-godders crazy. Referring to Darwinism, Richard Dawkins, president of The Darwin Loving God Haters Club (known to one another as "skeptics"), wonders how "such a powerful idea [can] go still largely unabsorbed into popular consciousness." And to show how powerfully a false idea can take even smart people captive, Dawkins fails to comprehend the irony of his own words when he blindly blathers, "it is almost as if the human brain were specifically designed to misunderstand Darwinism, and to find it hard to believe." Designed? (Heh, heh), yes. Misunderstood? No. Hard to believe? Only to the reasonable mind.

What about the legions of other skeptics and self-styled free thinkers? Aren't they free of all belief in the unbelievable? They would like to think so. But consider "free thinkers", as they call themselves. As captives to a deception, none of them are permitted to think freely about God's existence; atheism is the required belief imposed on free thinkers, and they hold slavishly to its dictates. They are free thinkers like a prisoner is a free walker; they are free to think all they want within the bounds of their little cages. And very few, if any, mind-slaves to atheism have ever thought freely about the logically necessary conditions for their atheistic materialism. Free thinking atheists must believe one of two things: either matter, i.e., the cosmic Tinker Toys, has existed eternally, or matter spontaneously appeared out of nothing. Both of these are, frankly, unbelievable. No great thinker in all of history has thought seriously on this topic and found either of these two starting places to be possible, much less believable. Why should we?

And those claiming the mantle of "skeptic"? This group is sadly comical in their smug naivety. When it comes to the biggest questions of all, they are the least skeptical of all. A recent sampling of some of the skeptic faithful showed a pathetically belligerent insistence on proudly proclaiming that they know, they know, that they personally are not intelligently designed. Aside from the predictable show of shallow ignorance in the self-defeating intensity of their admission (why would an accidental, purposeless thing, like a bump on a log, care?), where is the skepticism? As anyone who has crossed paths with so-called skeptics knows, this group is made up of nothing more than un-skeptical, run-of-the-mill, dogmatic atheists and materialist dullards. They are skeptical only of God and the supernatural. But otherwise they are true blue believing mind-slaves to the atheistic party line, including the above-mentioned logical absurdities, e.g., that matter magically appeared out of nothing. One moment there was nothing, and then "poof" everything. The sad thing is that most skeptics, because they are not true thinkers but mental bond servants along with the free thinkers, do not even know their skepticism demands such absurdity.

Every serious thinker contemplating the implications of eternity past has wrestled with the fact that, as unbelievable as it might seem, because something is, something must always have been. And that something must be either material or immaterial. Necessarily, either matter somehow created mind, or mind somehow created matter. There is no other option. And know this: whether one believes the one or the other dictates every other otherwise unbelievable thing he or she believes. It's that simple.

And it is the simplicity of a necessary faith that makes everyone both believer and skeptic. God-believers rightly demand evidence for theories of matter-only self-organization of complex information, and until then will remain skeptical of materialistic Darwinism. Atheist skeptics are not merely skeptical; they are firm believers in a thought system that requires staunch unbelief regardless the lack of supporting evidence; and they cannot even see the abundance of contrary evidence. In the end, what one finds is that skepticism lies more in the who than with the what, because, as thinker Leo Rosten so ably observed, "We see things as we are, not as they are." How true.

Atheists and theists will always see reality differently, not because of what is, but because of who they are. And this explains why each will always believe things deemed unbelievable by the other. So the question of origins for a person not already committed to atheism and all its necessary supporting theories amounts to this: on balance, whose belief in the unbelievable is the more reasonable in light of the evidence made plain to all?

And beyond being simply reasonable, is there a way you can know which unbelievable beliefs are true? Yes, but the key to understanding lies not in the facts (after all, we all have the same facts), but in you and what you permit yourself to see. Think freely about it, and don't be bullied by truth suppressing atheists. Because allowing yourself to see things freely as they are will result in a freeing change of who you are.

And then you will know.

Roddy Bullock, a skeptic of Darwinism, is a freelance writer, engineer, lawyer, the Executive Director of the Intelligent Design Network of Ohio and is the author of The Cave Painting: A Parable of Science, published by and available from Access Research Network.

Send comments to: roddybullock@idnetohio.com.

If you like this essay, go here for many more.

Copyright (c) 2009 Roddy M. Bullock, all rights reserved. Quotes and links permitted with attribution.

Publisher and agent inquiries welcome.

References:

Phillip Johnson quote from the audiotape "Exposing Naturalistic Presuppositions of Evolution," at Southern Evangelical Seminary's 1998 Apologetics Conference. Tape AC9814. Posted online at http://www.impactapologetics.com/product.asp?P_ID=205&strPageHistory=search&strKeywords=johnson&numPageStartPosition=1&strSearchCriteria=any&PT_ID=all

Richard Dawkins quotes, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1996), pp. 39, xv.

Skeptics adamantly admitting that they are not intelligently designed, LINK HERE, and scroll down to March 05, 2009 blog entry and comments.

Leo Rosten quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Rosten

I am conscious that I am in an utterly hopeless muddle. I cannot think that the world, as we see it, is the result of chance; and yet I cannot look at each separate thing as the result of Design.

-- Charles Darwin, in an 1860 letter to his friend Asa Gray, a designist

What if you were lied to all your life that a square was a circle? Oh yes, you were told, it's natural to have contrary thoughts, but you must not be deceived by appearances; those things that look like squares are not. They are merely apparent squares. And in reality, you are politely informed, they not only are circles, they must be, because an all encompassing Theory of Circumfusion requires them to be, and you must believe the Theory of Circumfusion. And what if you did? Despite all that was in you; despite what you instinctively and empirically knew, what if you believed? What if?

Imagine that you really bought the lie. You began to see reality not as circles and squares, but as circles and the illusion of squares. And suppose over time you trained yourself, through constant reminder that what you see as squares are not squares, but circles; you actually saw only circles. Now where others see circles and squares you see only circles and imperfect circles. In fact, you find you are somewhat proud of the fact that you seem to be one of the very few people that can understand the Theory of Circumfusion to the extent that you see reality so wonderfully enveloped with circles. You teach with grand authority that your discipline is that of the study of circles that give the appearance of being squares. In fact, your reality becomes so self-evidently true you almost forget that others still see squares.

But you can't forget. Picture your constant chagrin, if not downright irritation, at the constant use among lay people and uninformed (redneck, you say) scientists of the language of squareness. To make matters worse, squareness is always insisted on by the "straight" and "square" crowd, those who speak in vexatious pleonasms such as reference to "straight-edged squares" (as if there are any other kind). They are not squares! you want to shout, they are circles that only have the appearance of squareness! You try your best to be nice, but you find yourself blogging about imbeciles and the mentally ill who adamantly refuse to believe the scientific Theory of Circumfusion and persist in the delusion of the existence of true squareness.

Finally, you hit upon the perfect answer. A brilliant solution! The answer, so stunningly elegant a resolution that you are surprised it has not already been tried: simply remove the term "square" and the concept of squareness from the vocabulary! Simply deem the concept of squareness "inappropriate" and require that no one ever again use the term "square" when speaking, writing, or, you hope, even thinking about reality. Certainly then, you hope, all reality would be seen properly as circles, and the Theory of Circumfusion would finally be free of all the endless parade of pesky detractors.

Sound absurd? It is absurd. But absurdity is the natural destination of wrong ideas pressed against an unyielding reality. And such absurdity represents the pinnacle of thinking darkened by Darwinism, where a reality plain to all stands starkly against an insistent muddle all too plain. The problem for Darwinists lies with the term "design". The term best describes everything we see in nature, but, insist Darwinists, it simply cannot be; The Theory will not allow it. Never mind what your eyes see, never mind what your hands touch, never mind what your ears hear, you must, as atheist co-discoverer of DNA Francis Crick insists biologist do, constantly remind yourself that what you see was not designed but evolved.

On the question of design, Darwinists from Darwin to Dawkins struggle with language developed for reality as we see it, to communicate reality as they wish us to see it. For years, in addition to preaching the gospel of "apparent" design, Richard Dawkins tried a muddled attempt at coining the term designoids to describe the Darwinian requirement of non-designed design. His concept of designoids, like most of his truth claims, not only reeks of tautological nonsense (designoids are things that look designed, and things that look designed are designoids), it sounds dorky. By his definition he is a designoid. So be it, the rest of us will pass on such rubbish demanded by science beholden to an imagined reality. And "apparent" design? Dawkins seems too slight a thinker to realize that deeming design "apparent" is not only linguistically problematic, it is a scientifically useless contradiction in terms. Something is either designed or it is not. And like knowing someone is "apparently pregnant", knowing something is "apparently designed" imparts no useful knowledge.

The latest gift of Darwinian absurdity came in the pages of the gloriously serious-sounding Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research where Columbia University's W.J. Bock surrendered to an Orwellian coward's solution: simply eliminate the troublesome "D" word altogether. Rather than have biologists distracted repeating the mantra, "it is not designed, it is not designed, it is not designed," Bock's solution is to remove even the "concept of design" from all "biological explanations". Design is "inappropriate" in biology, according to Bock, and "should not be used in evolutionary theory." Bock's necessary retreat to absurdity is doubly ineffective, as it does not solve his problem. Because, as he recognized indirectly by admitting that "substitute terms are awkward and not really informative", if you remove the concept of design from biology, there is nothing informative left! All is awkwardness because biology is design. As atheist Richard Dawkins admits, "biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."

Biological things look designed! Remove design and there's nothing left to look at in biology. But importantly (and correctly), according to Bock and others, keep design and there's nothing to talk about in evolutionary theory. This dilemma is exactly what muddled Darwin himself: keep the theory in spite of the empirical evidence, or yield to the evidence and ditch the theory. Unwilling to forsake their chosen theory, and unable to marshal language appropriate to Darwinian surreality, Darwinists have decided to change what they can in vain hopes of altering what they can't. Like little gods attempting to remake nature into their own image, Darwinists believe that by banning the term "design" from explanations in biology, design itself will not need explaining.

Good luck. But here's a workable compromise: drop the term "design" in evolutionary theory where it makes no sense and keep it in biology where it makes perfect sense. The two really have little need for each other. Biology can continue to operate (as it does, truth be told) in terms of design, and because there is no English word for "apparently-designed-yet-actually-unintelligently-caused" with respect to observed objects, evolutionary theory can adopt a more proper substitute term: adesign. Adesign is quite simply the absence of design. Adesign leads to adesignism, which, like its linguistic counterparts atheism and agnosticism, is a belief system defined by what it denies. By creating a clear contrast between design and adesign, the new terminology precisely captures the heart of the origins inquiry: nature exhibits either some design which is true design requiring intelligence, or all adesign which is simply an occurrence requiring no intelligence. There is no other logical choice.

Darwinists will resist the term adesign, because ironically it is too perfect of a description, and will drive the kind of clarity they resist to continue hiding behind an obfuscation of pseudo-science and religious motivation. Bock himself, for example, laments about design that, "the term carries with it too many undesirable connotations, such as the existence of a creator, and should not be used in evolutionary theory." Undesirable connotations? Perhaps, just as to one who believed a lie that he could fly might find gravity burdened with too many undesirable connotations. But with the new terms of debate, science controls: a designist is one who believes the design evident in nature is exactly that--true design. An adesignist is one who holds that what others see as design in nature is not design of any kind; it is simply an unlikely occurrence of unintelligent natural processes. Game on! Let the science begin.

And for those like Bock who apparently have religious motivations for their views, the new terminology of adesign has the added benefit of ferreting out the hidden religious component of the debate, and forcing clarity at a scientific level. A designist need not be a theist, but he or she may be a theist without inconsistency. Likewise, an adesignist is not required to be an atheist, but he or she may be an atheist without inconsistency. Further, the new terminology will drive logical precision directly at the point of greatest confusion, the supposed conflict between religion and science. A religious designist who claims to be a scientific adesignist (e.g., a theistic evolutionist) would seem to be taking a contradictory position, and should be required to explain. Likewise, a scientific adesignist who claims to be a religious designist (e.g., a Darwinist claiming to believe in a creative God) must explain this position clearly, because such a position is contradictory on its face.

Bock concludes his paper by saying: "Actually the living world as we see it is the result of chance because all of the attributes of these organisms evolved and the process of evolution is stochastic. To paraphrase a well-known statement by Einstein, God apparently does play with dice." Aside from the blatantly sophomoric tautology posing as a scientific explanation here ("the living world is the result of chance because all the attributes evolved by chance"), one must wonder--why do Darwinists care about God, much less his dice?

Adesignists, including Darwinists who believe in God and theistic evolutionists (there is no practical difference) risk embarrassing themselves talking about God for one reason: to keep the confusion alive regarding the Darwin-busting fact of design in nature. Confusion is the ally of a wrong worldview, and those who deny design in biology, particularly for fear of the "connotations" of a designer, must rely on silly thoughts about God and dice as they spin their worldview in a whirlwind of illogic and ever-growing deception.

Tell me, Darwinist: Are you intelligently designed?

Roddy Bullock is a freelance writer and the Executive Director of the Intelligent Design Network of Ohio and is the author of The Cave Painting: A Parable of Science, published by and available from Access Research Network.

Send comments to: roddybullock@idnetohio.com.

If you like this essay, go here for many more.

Copyright (c) 2009 Roddy M. Bullock, all rights reserved. Quotes and links permitted with attribution.

Publisher and agent inquiries welcome.

References:

Darwin quote: http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-2998.html

W.J. Bock, Department of Biological Sciences, Columbia University, Design-an inappropriate concept in evolutionary theory,
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121639230/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Relevant quote: "The concept of design is inappropriate in biology and should be eliminated from all biological explanations."

Richard Dawkins quote about appearance of design: Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1996), p. 1.

Richard Dawkins quote about redneck creationism: Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1996), p. 251.

Richard Dawkins' concept of designoids: Richard Dawkins, Climbing Mount Improbable, (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1996). For a full critique, see The Cave Painting, A Parable of Science, End Note 10.

For more on the term "adesign" see: Roddy M. Bullock, Proposing a New Lexicon for Understanding in the Evolution/Intelligent Design Debate, at http://www.ohiointelligentdesign.com/lexicon.html

NOTE: In honor of Darwin's 200th birthday, this is a special repeat performance of my February, 2008 essay. Enjoy, a fresh new essay is on the way! -- RMB

The problem is not, as is sometimes popularly held, that religion opposes science. The problem is that religion has joined science. -- Cornelius G. Hunter, Science's Blind Spot, the Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism

Sunday, February 12, 1809 witnessed the birth of two babies destined to change the world. One lived a life so momentous he is remembered today with his iconic bearded visage engraved on paper money and a special day set aside in February to honor his birthday. The other is U.S. President Abraham Lincoln. Charles Darwin, looking quite bum on the backside of Her Majesty's ten-pound note, is the one set to give the global community its first unholy holy-day. Move over Lincoln, make room for the "emancipator of the mind" as this February we all celebrate Darwin Day with the most anti-religious religion on earth: Humanism.

Touted as "an international recognition of science and humanity," this year's Darwin Day Celebration is a sponsored program of those whose "program" also includes a theology of active God-denial--The Institute for Humanist Studies. Humanists are those thought-suppressing free thinkers bound up in the faith of naturalism who prattle about preaching a Godless hope for the future (their Godless hope for the past speaking for itself). Believing themselves free, contemporary Humanists are simply the latest group happily enslaved to atheism. And while Darwin is certainly responsible for gifting Humanists with intellectual fulfillment, "celebrating" may be the wrong response for all who recall last century's frequent outbursts of "science and humanity".

Complementing Darwin Day by complimenting Darwin's Way are a host of Humanists and their Darwinist allies pushing this year's Evolution Weekend. Coming to a church-like facility near you, Evolution Weekend represents the religious outreach arm of Darwinism. Realizing God-thoughts come in many varieties, Evolution Weekend replaces past year's overly exclusive Evolution Sunday as one religious group's "attempt to be more welcoming to members of all religions." Like a gift horse of the Trojan style religious Humanists are rolling (with open mouth but no one looking) into traditional religious orders everywhere offering "sermons" and "meaningful conversations" to show that "religion and science are not adversaries."

Holy Cow(ards)! Darwinists succumb to theophobic spasms every time someone whispers "intelligent design" within a mile of a public school, and yet they wish to breeze into traditional churches to have "meaningful conversations"? Cowards all! Such Darwinists are adversarial poltroons who forbid meaningful conversation in the school building but nevertheless wish to freely trumpet their trumpery in the church building. And, sadly, it's working. No longer required to don ill-fitting sheep skins, wolves in wolf clothing now mingle freely among the sheepish they find conveniently unattended by anyone versed in twaddle detection. Religion and science not adversaries? It depends on which religion and what science. But be warned, wolves and sheep are not adversaries either, for long.

History shows that transparent duplicity thrives among ideologues high on certainty and low on tolerance. Certainty, like safety, is better in numbers, and Darwinists know they have the upper cultural hand in a world steeped in the faith of naturalism--the philosophical idea that all nature can be explained as the sole result of unguided physical processes. Regardless of the actual truth of the matter, with Origin of Species in one hand and a sword in the other, Darwin's miscreant recreants believe might makes truth-be-damned right. As a result the world is faced with a growing number of distorted-truth brokers in a new breed of merciless humans: religious Darwinists. Whether Holy, Wholly, or Holey, Darwin may not be Lord or God, but he is almighty.

Holy Darwinists find Darwinism not merely a scientific theory but the necessary creation story for a Godless faith they call atheism. Ironically, being strong in Darwin and the power of his might doesn't stop Holy Darwinists from spending more time talking about God than do most Christians, Jews or Muslims. Seemingly obsessed with God-thoughts, Holy Darwinists write books about Him, make speeches about him, engage in debates about Him, and generally prove his existence by displaying their utter hatred for Him. Being coarse and generally uncultured in speech and action, Holy Darwinists are nevertheless the vanguard of the breed. Like an embarrassing zealot of any faith, the faithful are loath to intervene in their blasphemous mission to roll over any opposition; after all, they consider, Holy Rollers may be an embarrassment, but they are our embarrassment.

Wholly Darwinists are those for whom Darwinism is simply a convenient creation story said to unify all of biology, a narrative uncritically accepted with little or no thought. Likely the largest of the Darwinian tribes, these Cultural Darwinists fail to understand why anyone really cares about the "origins debate" in the first place. Convinced there is no controversy, and wishing to avoid argument on a subject for which disagreement is merely another academic distraction and unproductive exercise, Wholly Darwinists abide by the maxim: "Darwin said it, I believe it, that settles it." However, like a pew-warming Methodist confronted by a Bible-bashing atheist, Wholly Darwinists can get downright feisty when confronted with faith-challenging facts. With nowhere to go but a faith in another's faith, Wholly Darwinists are prone to vocally hold to the dogmatic line they were told is true. Believing that all scientific challengers to naturalistic Darwinism are automatically religiously motivated, Wholly Darwinists would rather fight than switch. And for a group that denies having a god in this fight, Wholly Darwinists can be a scrappy little bunch.

On the positive side, small but growing numbers steadily discover the Darwinian Underground, virtual catacombs filled with those conflicted souls who understand Darwinism fully. Because Darwinism wholly understood is Darwinism understood as holey, Holey Darwinists live like doubters in a monastery, convinced of a new truth but vested in the old. With every passing day bringing a flood of indoctrination-defying evidence, Holey Darwinists live lives of exceptionally quiet desperation. Like modern Galileo's convinced of data over dogma, Holey Darwinists are understandably hesitant to challenge religious authorities Galileo-style. Watching their openly doubting brothers get flattened by the Holy Rollers causes Holey Darwinists to carry on cautiously, devotedly partaking in public services while feeling forsaken in private devotions.

While Holey Darwinists blog under assumed names and Wholly Darwinists enjoy a state of bliss, Holy Darwinists reign over a merciless hierarchy of ecclesiastical thugs. Ready to crush dissent at the first whiff of non-Darwinian incense, Holy Darwinists are hell-bent on ending careers, ruining reputations, and disrupting the personal lives of every person who seeks in any way to seriously propose material, observable evidence that threatens el-Darwin. Employing the ACLU, tenure boards, and foul-mouthed blogs of adult junior-highers, Holy Darwinists resemble the Papal Inquisition, sans integrity. After all, even 12th century heretic chasers never dreamed of infiltrating the Bons Hommes et Bonnes Femmes of the Cathars with "Catholic Weekend".

By singling out "evolution" as "science" in search of peace with religion, dogmatic Darwinists finally have solid evidence for something: the true nature of the question, "where do we come from?" With no thought of "Gravity Weekend" or "Photosynthesis Weekend", Evolution Weekend emissaries reveal the true ideological conflict not as "religion versus science" but as "science in the service of naturalism versus science in the service of truth". After all, if Evolution Weekend warriors were informed and honest (the probability of the combination being almost nil) they would admit that true religion and false science are indeed adversaries. But Darwinists believe neither exists except, perhaps, among redneck creationists, so who cares?

As with all duplicitous endeavors, there is tragic irony in Evolution Weekend. Like the self-righteous man on the gallows seeking last second support from above, today's Darwinist missionaries may find their desires fulfilled in unexpected ways. Ignoring St. Huxley's warning against science suicidally adopting a creed, Darwin's religious proselytizers mistake the gallows for a stage and misjudge the gathered crowd as entirely adoring. But as they grandstand atop the trap door of religious motivation wrapped in scientific piety, many there watch with mixed emotions, not only at the spectacle, but at the specter of creed-laden origins science falling to a sudden end.

Roddy Bullock is the Executive Director of the Intelligent Design Network of Ohio (www.idnetohio.com) and is the author of The Cave Painting: A Parable of Science, published by Access Research Network. Send comments to: roddybullock@idnetohio.com.

Copyright (c) 2008 Roddy M. Bullock, all rights reserved. Quotes and links permitted with attribution.

Publisher and agent inquiries welcome.

References:

Cornelius G. Hunter, Science's Blind Spot, the Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism
http://www.amazon.com/Sciences-Blind-Spot-Scientific-Naturalism/dp/158743170X/ref=pd_sim_b_img_2

Darwin Day info: http://www.darwinday.org/

Humanist Info: Institute for Humanist Studies
http://humaniststudies.org/hm3.html

Evolution Weekend info:
http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/rel_evolution_weekend_2008.htm

Info on the Inquisition against the Cathars: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharism

Thomas Henry Huxley quote: Science commits suicide when it adopts a creed.

"Destroy the Author of Things in order to Understand the Infinite Universe."
-- Daniel C. Dennett, "noted atheist" and professor of philosophy at Tufts in a January 2009 Presidential Lecture at Stanford University. The words are his translation of an acrostic he authored in Latin for the letters D-A-R-W-I-N substituted for the letters I-C-T-H-U-S in the popular "Jesus fish" symbol.

I don't want my child being taught religion at school! Oh, really? Then you better get down there right away, because if he or she is in any public school science class he or she is being taught religion in school. From grade school on, and especially in high school, government established science classes have become a safe haven for teaching your child religious doctrine. But not for all religions, mind you; only those with certain views on the "author of things". So, again, if you really don't want your child being indoctrinated with the religious views of those religions, go now, quickly, and file a complaint with your local school board. Or don't ever again complain about "religion" being taught in science class.

Surprised? Didn't you know that materialistic evolution, preached publicly as "evolution" or "Darwinism", is the religious belief of many major religions? Take Unitarian Universalists, for example, the religion close to that of Charles Darwin himself for much of his life. Those "non-creedal" believers of nothing in particular and everything natural in general find Darwinism perfectly consistent with their "free faith". I'm sure they are perfectly pleased to have your Johnny taught (on the public dole) beliefs which they find agreeable. Refusing to be "bound by a statement of belief", the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, a self-described "liberal religion" embraces the naturalistic/materialistic beliefs of religious favorites such as Humanism, Paganism, Atheism/Agnosticism, and "other beliefs" all of which hold some form of materialistic evolution consistent with their beliefs about the "author of things". And all of them, you can be sure, are delighted that your school is teaching your sweet baby Jane their beliefs about where she came from.

And Unitarian Universalists are just the tip of the religious iceberg floating in your child's science waters. Learning about the Darwin fish courtesy of the U.S. government gives your student a head start on the road toward full-fledged Atheism, Secular Humanism, Scientology, Transcendental Meditation and Wicca, all of which have all been held by U.S. courts to be religions according to the U.S. Constitution. It seems those atheist/humanist/wiccan/what-but-no-who believers who wished to claim the mantle of "religion" for the purpose of dodging the draft or getting "churches" into prisons have spoiled it for the rest of you no-godders; U.S. courts correctly look at religion functionally, as opposed to whether or not God is involved. So even though God is not involved in Darwinism, Darwinism is involved in religion.

Evolutionists agree. Take the Darwinists at the University of California at Berkeley. Wishing to comfort you that it is a "misconception" that "evolution and religion are incompatible", those government actors are spending your tax dollars to assure you that "most religious groups have no conflict with the theory of evolution or other scientific findings." In fact, according to these state-sponsored theology advisors, "in the scientific community there are thousands of scientists who are devoutly religious and also accept evolution." Yes, there are no doubt thousands of atheists, humanists, pagans, and maybe even a wiccan or two, all of which, like Daniel Dennett, are devoutly religious in their own godless way and accept evolution. But why is this government organization acting under the Constitution of the United States openly admitting this? Is it constitutionally permissible to teach science consistent with only certain government-approved religious beliefs?

No, one would think not. Consider: why is it OK to teach Darwinism, which Darwinists insist is "compatible" with "most religious groups", but it's not OK to teach material, observable, testable evidence of intelligent design, a theory which is compatible with other religious groups? Hmmm? Is it because regardless of the material evidence intelligent design theory necessarily invokes a supernatural agent? But doesn't the question of a supernatural agent, let's just say God, play both ways? How is it that science consistent with a "no God exists" religious belief is permissible under the Constitution, but science consistent with a "God exists" religious belief is not? Yes, your Johnny's definitely being taught religious beliefs in science class.

Ever since Humanism was introduced as "Religious Humanism" in the first Humanist Manifesto, the cat's been out of the bag on the dogmatic nature of the "no God exists" crowd. Consider the very first religious affirmation of Humanism: "Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created." Having conveniently disposed of a "beginning" to explain, Humanists follow with the religiously necessary second tenet: "Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process." And what might that continuous process be? Might it be the process taught to your child in the name of science, perhaps with Dennett's atheist fish as a visual aid?

Funny, isn't it, how it's the intelligent design crowd that's censored because their beliefs are "religious"? Like housecats hearing a can opener, dogmatic Darwinists jump into action at the first faint sound of intelligent design in the public schools. Failing to appreciate their cat theology of indifference to an otherwise all-providing master as just one religious view that stands in stark contrast to the theology of those who are the master's best friend, they hiss and scratch to protect the hegemony of a science "compatible" only with their religious views. Labeling any attempt at introducing any non-Darwinian evidence as "creationism in disguise" only serves to force the issue: what is Darwinism disguising?

No matter how the question "where did we come from?" is answered, the answer will be "compatible" with one religious view or another. Why is it, then, that only a certain class of religious views are permitted in the public school science classroom? Whether it's the views of "non-theistic" Friends (Quakers) or Gaia enthusiasts, or the Society for Universal Immortalism, why are our children being indoctrinated in the religious views of certain religions? And why is it that it is only the liberal, godless religions that merit special accomodation in the classroom?

Maybe you think it's OK if your child is prepared by the U.S. government with the requisite religious beliefs to be Unitarian Universalist. Or fully fit to be a Buddhist. Or amenable to the ideas of the Non-Theistic Friends. Maybe you are fine with the government sending your child on his way toward being a run-of-the-mill atheist. If so, why is it not also OK for the U.S. government to influence your child for theistic religious beliefs with observable, testable evidence of intelligent design?

Because in the science class it doesn't matter if it's also religious as long as it's true!

Oh, really?

Roddy Bullock is a freelance writer and the Executive Director of the Intelligent Design Network of Ohio and is the author of The Cave Painting: A Parable of Science, published by and available from Access Research Network.

Send comments to: roddybullock@idnetohio.com.

If you like this essay, go here for many more.

Copyright (c) 2008 Roddy M. Bullock, all rights reserved. Quotes and links permitted with attribution.

Publisher and agent inquiries welcome.

References:

Daniel Dennett quote: http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2009/january21/prezlecsr-012109.html

Religious affiliation of Charles Darwin: http://www.adherents.com/people/pd/Charles_Darwin.html

Unitarian Universalism Association of Congregations beliefs: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IVAandreligion.shtml

University of California at Berkeley stating that Darwinism is consistent with some religious beliefs, but not others: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IVAandreligion.shtml

Humanist Manifesto: http://www.edge.org/documents/ThirdCulture/n-Ch.7.html
Non-theistic Friends: http://www.nontheistfriends.org/

Society for Universal Immortalism: http://www.universalimmortalism.org/

Views of L. Ron Hubbard (Scientology) found here: http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:I4HYUDhNZ6EJ:www.newswithviews.com/guest_opinion/guest59.htm+scientology+darwin&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us. Here is a quote: Moreover, Hubbard religiously adhered to the Gnostic myth of Darwinism. In Dianetics, he writes (emphasis in original):
It is fairly well accepted in these times that life in all forms evolved from the basic building blocks: the virus and the cell. Its only relevance to Dianetics is that such a proposition works--and actually that is all we ask of Dianetics. There is no point to writing here a vast tome on biology and evolution. We can add some chapters to those things, but Charles Darwin did his job well and the fundamental principles of evolution can be found in his and other works. The proposition on which Dianetics was originally entered was evolution. (69; emphasis added)

"Gould supposes what he has to suppose, and Dawkins finds it easy to believe what he wants to believe, but supposing and believing are not enough to make a scientific explanation."
-- Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial

We all know how the giraffe got its long neck, right? Yes, the poor short-necked versions ate up all the leaves on the low branches, and only their lucky longer-necked brothers and sisters could eat. And eating leads to survival to reproduce. Not eating rarely aids in living long enough to reproduce, so voila!, "evolution" preserves the lucky and kills the unlucky, who are never to be seen again (including, incidentally, in the fossil record). So we are regaled with many such "just so" stories to "explain" evolution. When examined closely, almost any account of evolutionary development, such as that of the wing or the eye, involves mostly "supposing" to get from point A to point B. Supposing is fine for imagining; but supposing falls short of explaining, much less proving.

The fact that Darwinists are quick to presume elaborate imaginations to be akin to factual accounts for the origin of something as complex as a working eye is both amusing and troubling. On the one hand, like ancient andabatae, Darwinists make great spectacle as they thrash about in their imaginations (imagination being their only guide). Formidable in appearance only, alternating probes and thrusts in impressive form, Darwinists seem oblivious to the futility imposed by their armored helmets of philosophy. On the other hand, unlike the ill-fated andabatae (all of whom no doubt would risk removing the helmet for the ability to see), the groping blindness of today's Darwinists is self-imposed, evoking a certain pity. What purpose can be served by steadfastly insisting on a view of reality that does not admit certain lines of scientific inquiry, regardless of the evidence?

Unfortunately, the answer to the question above is that science has evolved to the precarious predicament of being guardian of a worldview. Changes in scientific understanding often trigger a change in worldviews. In his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn includes a chapter entitled, "Revolutions as Changes in World View" which explores how worldviews change with scientific developments. Simple examples such as how Aristotle and Galileo understood the motion of pendulums can illustrate how fundamental shifts in scientific understanding affect how one views all of nature, i.e., one's worldview.

But the change in worldview brought on by understanding the difference between one view or another with respect to pendulum dynamics hardly rises to the level of change that theories of origins require. Discussing theories of origins may make for wearisome academic debates, but the truth of the matter (i.e., the actual, unchangeable, historic happening of the origin of living beings) has profound implications with respect to all areas of life--legal, political, and ethical--to name a few. At bottom, the fact of our existence means the truth of our origins must be either that we are matter-caused, i.e., matter is all that exists and energized matter alone produced everything from rocks to rocket scientists through unplanned, unguided motion, or we are intelligently created, i.e, matter was intelligently manipulated to create the cosmos and everything in it. There are no other choices, and theories built on one of these assumptions must necessarily be false.

Mainstream science has chosen to stake its flag squarely and immutably in the worldview associated with the matter-only assumption of philosophical naturalism, requiring all theories to assume matter is all that exists, or, at least, matter is all that matters. Such a stance is understandable and relatively harmless when the object of study is applied science, like studying pendulums or building rockets. But with respect to origin of life theories, science is championing the cause of naturalism unnecessarily. Contrary to the oft-repeated rhetoric, naturalistic Darwinism is not necessary to study and understand any area of science any more than is intelligent design, or even special creation. For example, photosynthesis, planetary motion, life cycles, even genetics, can each be studied and understood, as well as applied to solve practical problems, without recourse to any theory of origins, including the study of Darwinism. In fact it's done in laboratories everyday.

Why, then, do mainstream scientists guard Darwinism so fiercely? First, it seems that, almost by definition, one can't be a mainstream scientist without paying public homage to Darwin. Second, it must be appreciated that many people are convinced that Darwinism represents the truth with respect to origins. Not ever having been exposed to contrary evidence, such scientists are under the impression that there is no contrary evidence. Even more so, Darwinism has a symbolic value as the defining discipline dividing science and religion, and any attack on Darwinism is an attack on science itself. The attacks are all the more threatening because they always seem to come from "religious" people. Finally, like other religious people and their beliefs, many people who believe in Darwinism have never studied their chosen dogma; they believe it because that's what they've been taught and to think otherwise not only requires work, but is likely to make them look like charter members of the flat-earth society.

Obviously, objective scientific considerations are insufficient to explain the religious ferocity with which the evolutionist elites protect their Darwinian domain. There is more in play here than a simple scientific controversy, such as whether light is a particle or a wave, to give another example of a question that divided the scientific world for a time. No, the question of origins brings into play the question of ultimate worldview--which philosophy is correct for understanding reality? If naturalism is not the correct philosophy, i.e., matter is not all that exists, then weighty questions arise as to just what else may exist. The "what else" implies an intelligent "who else" that leads to a "why else" which causes one to see the world very, very differently from what naturalism would require.

Like surviving andabatae removing their unduly restrictive helmets, scientists willing to consider alternatives to philosophical naturalism can remove blinding restrictions on the mind and can see the world in an entirely different way. Such a paradigm shift has its professional risks, but those who are willing to honestly consider the alternatives to naturalism will no doubt find that the new way of seeing permits new ways of solving problems--solutions with fewer anomalies than those provided by naturalism. New theories of origins that consider intelligence, even God, can, then, join other scientific paradigm shifts, where, as Kuhn says, "Scientists then often speak of the 'scales falling from the eyes' or of the 'lightening flash' that 'inundates' a previously obscure puzzle, enabling its components to be seen in a new way that for the first time permits its solution."

As long as science is held hostage by the philosophy of naturalism, however, the scales on most eyes will remain, the puzzles will remain obscure, imaginations will continue, and "supposing" will have to suffice for explanation. Sophisticated "just so" stories will have to carry the evidentiary load, feebly substituting for scientific reasoning. That such "just so" stories go unchallenged from the mind's eye of Darwinists to the reading eyes of an unwary public is unfortunate. But that science would condone such behavior, risking its reputation for the honor of a philosophy, is tragic.

Let him who has eyes to see, see.

Roddy Bullock is a freelance writer and the Executive Director of the Intelligent Design Network of Ohio and is the author of The Cave Painting: A Parable of Science, published by and available from Access Research Network.

This month's essay adapted from End Note 79 of The Cave Painting: A Parable of Science.

Send comments to: roddybullock@idnetohio.com.

If you like this essay, go here for many more.

Copyright (c) 2008 Roddy M. Bullock, all rights reserved. Quotes and links permitted with attribution.

Publisher and agent inquiries welcome.

References:

Opening quote from: Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial (Downer's Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1991), p. 42.

"Just so" stories refer to Rudyard Kipling's book, Just So Stories, originally published in 1902. The book is a collection of fanciful tales with titles such as "How the Whale Got His Throat," "How the Camel Got His Hump," and the like.

Andabatae were Roman-era gladiators that were heavily armored, but their helmets had no eye holes; they fought without the benefit of their eyesight.

Kuhn quote from: Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1996), p. 111.

For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts can be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived.
-- Charles Darwin, Introduction to Origin of Species

An open letter to my Darwinist friends:

Good news, Darwinists. The data speaks for itself, and evolution is true. We are all evolving, slowly changing over time, with each generation exhibiting new levels of genetic diversity. And your ruthless (if not sacred) killing machine of natural selection fed by unstoppable random mutations remains intact for the most part. Yes, thanks to your unflagging zeal and devotion we now enjoy an ocean of facts and figures showing the power of unguided, random mutations and their short- and long-term effects on the living genome. Dutifully and invisibly replicating voluminous information day after day in complex cellular machinery designed, oops--that looks designed--to do just that, life does the best it can in its silently tedious task of begetting itself. You free-thinking skeptics of all but Darwin can rejoice with the rest us; we are indeed lucky to be alive.

But listen carefully, my friends. Your evolution lobby's biggest problem, and the reason why few but the most heavily invested truly believe, is that at a gut level, that instinctive impression of what makes sense that we all bear deep within us, your evolution story fails to convince. Yes, we are told about the magic wand of natural selection, and we all nod with a look that says, OK, if you say so. But how, we all privately ponder, can random mistakes in the finely tuned genetic code once, much less time after time, provide any beneficially new assembly instruction for unintelligent (that's what "natural" means) preservation from death (that's what "selection" means)? Pardon the rest of us, but this simply doesn't make sense.

Surely even the most surly of you hardened materialists putting full faith in eternal matter must marvel at the marvelously intricate cellular machinery operating like a bustling factory town in high season. And only minds indurate beyond hope can't but harbor a deep, secret wonder at how such deep, secret wonder could really just happen mindlessly. How did the cell's layers upon layers of complex coded instructions for multiple independent yet synergistically cooperating mechanisms come piece by piece from random and unplanned mistakes in a simpler code, with successive minor changes spanning millions of years? By way of crude and insufficient comparison, could the complex instructions of every component and every system of the space shuttle really come from unguided, purposeless mistakes in copying a set of instructions for, say, a little red wagon? Really? Even if we assume a true intelligent selector in place, really? (And, by the way, you've never told us where the instructions for that little red wagon come from.)

What the rest of us will never learn from you Darwinists because it's an inference derived from actual data is that our gut level sense about evolution is absolutely correct. Yes, the data supports Darwinism as far as it goes. Genetic changes, including mutations, appear to be frequent, chance, random events. But the data also confirms that, like everything else in nature, the undirected, randomly changing genome is not exempt from the laws of nature that demand that in the absence of intelligent intervention all natural processes of spontaneous change must tend to degradation and disorder. In nature, it is literally the law: the Second Law of Thermodynamics. And "natural selection," whatever its merits, unless it be super-natural can no more transcend natural law to intelligently code the genome than a river can transcend the law of gravity to flow uphill. In nature, no "theory of upness" can override the law of gravity; everything that goes up (or is up) must (and will) come down. It may fly, float, or get snagged on something for a moment, but it will come down. The same principle applies universally: time is not on the side of "upness" anywhere in nature.

So it's like a fresh breeze in a stuffy room when one happens upon the work of Dr. John C. Sanford, an experienced geneticist with impeccable credentials from Cornell University, who delights the reasonable scientific mind with one of those finally-someone-is-confirming-what-I-always-suspected-must-be-true moments. In his book, Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome, Dr. Sanford reveals the peer-reviewed studies from experts that show we were right to suspect the mysterious, law-defying "upness" of Darwinian theory all along. Importantly, Dr. Sanford explains the implications of what many Darwinists know but won't tell: the data shows virtually all genetic mutations, the only mechanism you Darwinists have to produce the raw material for new species, are either near neutral or deleterious, and natural selection is incapable of keeping up with all the negative changes. Using the language of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Dr. Sanford explains the data showing that not only do mutations fail to provide the raw material for novel phenotypic (i.e., bodily) features, but also that genetic entropy (i.e., disorder and information loss) is steadily increasing because natural selection simply cannot stave off the inexorable loss of information in the genetic code caused by mutations. In his words, the "Primary Axiom" of modern biology, i.e., that man is the product of random mutations and natural selection, not only is false, it can be shown false.

Using analogies, including the "red-wagon-to-space-shuttle" example, Dr. Sanford sets out in readable fashion the entropic case against natural selection as a mechanism of beneficial change in the information content of the genome. Consider one problem with natural selection: natural selection acts only at the phenotypic level (on the level of the whole organism) and not at the genotypic level (the molecular level of mutating nucleotides). That is, natural selection can only preserve or kill whole organisms, and cannot detect, much less choose the occassional "good" mutation. Of course this is true, and of course this renders natural selection nothing more than survival of the luckiest, without the necessary sensitivity to truly select for any given nucleotide sequence at the genetic level. Natural selection simply cannot "see" all the near-neutral and slight negative mutations (or even any positive mutations, which have rarely, if ever, been observed). What this means is that not only is natural selection incapable of "selecting" for "good" mutations, it cannot hope to keep up with the continuous torrent of negative mutations sufficiently to stop genetic entropy. According to Sanford, "Unless selection can somehow stop the erosion of information in the human genome, mutations will not only lead to our death, they will lead to the death of our species."

You see, we are all mutants with many thousands of information-degrading mutations already lodged in our genetic code. And the long-term prognosis is not positive; in short, our species, like all living organisms, continues to accumulate genetic information loss, such that we are evolving downward, not upward. Population geneticists have known this since at least 1957, and yet you Pollyanna's of popular Darwinism, who because you are sold-out Darwinists first and skeptical scientists second, ignore the evidence and believe a lie. Yes, let's speak plainly; it is a lie that natural selection can perform super-naturally simply because, by gosh, supernatural power must be assumed to explain your law-defying, bottom-up design--oops, again, occurrence--of information-rich coded machines. It is a fiction, a modern somehow-it-must-work, gosh-of-the-gaps, push-water-up-hill fantasy, this natural selection of yours.

We have four words for you, Darwinists: show us the data. Show us the data to support your theory that natural selection can prevent extinction, much less make any headway to new phenotypic novelty (much less new species). Then we might be interested in your scientific opinions. But until then, the data presents a more interesting scientific question: just where did our devolving genetic code come from in the first place? What gave us the low entropy of our original "upness"? What theory, perfectly consistent with the data, would support the idea that we (and all living organisms) are not evolving to a higher state, but slowly devolving from some higher state, perhaps a state of perfect genomic information content? Such a fascinating scientific question obviously leads to even more fascinating scientific questions about original creation. But how could any true scientist resist the thrill of such truth discovery?

In any event, in light of the data showing that with each mutation our genome experiences loss of information, we are not only lucky to be alive; we are lucky we are not extinct. It appears that the eventual and inevitable catastrophic "mutational meltdown" predicted by the data is many generations off. In the meantime, can we not use our scientific reasoning to consider the truth of our existence? What, if anything, would the idea of a truly supernaturally created genome that is now slowly degenerating over time imply about our history, our purpose and our existence?

Sadly, most of you Darwinists will react defensively to "facts ... adduced ... apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which [Darwin] arrived." That's understandable because even though many such facts plainly exist, in all your education you were never exposed to any scientific counter to the lie of natural selection as a positive change agent. And most people cannot admit to contrary facts when in an advanced stage of belief. But for any of you Darwinists who see the writing on the genetic wall and are willing to think outside your imposed consensus box, welcome.

Yes, evolution is the truth; it's just not the whole truth or nothing but the truth. So, (please) help us God.

Roddy Bullock is a freelance writer and the Executive Director of the Intelligent Design Network of Ohio and is the author of The Cave Painting: A Parable of Science, published by and available from Access Research Network.

Send comments to: roddybullock@idnetohio.com.

If you like this essay, go here for many more.

Copyright (c) 2008 Roddy M. Bullock, all rights reserved. Quotes and links permitted with attribution.

Publisher and agent inquiries welcome.

References:

John C. Sanford, PhD, Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome (Waterloo, NY, 2008). ISBN 978-0-9816316-0-8. Available from Amazon.

Bergman J. (2004). Research on the deterioration of the genome an Darwinism: why mutations result in degeneration of the genome. Intelligent design Conference, Biola University, April 22-23. As stated by Sanford, "Bergman (2004) reviewed the topic of beneficial mutations. Among other things, he did a simple literature search via biological Abstracts and Medline. He found 453,732 "mutation" hits, but among these only 186 mentioned the word "beneficial" (about 4 in 10,000). When those 186 references were reviewed, the presumed beneficial mutations were only beneficial in a very narrow sense and consistently involved loss-of-function (loss of information) changes. He was unable to find a single example of a mutation that unambiguously created new information.

"Mutational meltdown" occurs as a population's fitness continually declines and the fertility eventually begins to decline. It is the final phase of "error catastrophe", which is the biological situation where deleterious mutations are accumulating faster than selection can remove them. Unless reversed, error catastrophe leads to the extinction of a population.

Scientists should always state the opinions upon which their facts are based. ~Author Unknown

Oh boy. Here we go again. About once a year some science organization trots out a token "religious person" to insult the public by insisting that Darwinism and "faith" can coexist. This time it's Scientific American under the title The Christian Man's Evolution: How Darwinism and Faith Can Coexist. Without exception Scientific American and other institutions of mainstream science driven to such patronizing spend the intervening 364 days bemoaning every mention of intelligent design and demeaning every true scientist not afraid to infer the logical inference of design in nature. With genuine abhorrence in every word, institutions of science criticize intelligent design as nothing more than "creationism warmed over" and those who support it as guilty of . . . well, letting faith and science coexist. And yet these high-minded low downs who will ruin the career of any teacher even attempting to hint at intelligent design in the classroom nevertheless have the impudence to lecture the rest of us on the topic of their faith.

Before getting too exercised over the effrontery displayed by today's closed minded free thinkers, consider that the same logic used by Scientific American could be used to support the following headlines: How the Killing of Unborn Babies and Faith Can Coexist or How the Killing of Races We Don't Like and Faith Can Coexist or How Ruining Lives and Careers of Darwin Doubters and Faith Can Coexist or even How the Sacrifice of Virgins and Faith Can Coexist. You see, for every abhorrent practice and dangerous idea there is a "faith" with which it can co-exist. The question is simply which faith. And must we all be subject not only to the suffocating science but also to the offensive faith of those who deny intelligent design?

Scientific American's token de l'annee is Francisco J. Ayala, smiling from the page as one who has made a career of "proselytizing about evolution to Christian believers," and shamelessly proffered to us as a living example of the critical "how" of a Darwinism-faith coexistence. Never mind for the moment what one who lives to proselytize Christian believers would have to say about faith that has any true meaning; the thing speaks for itself. But consider from the atheist's perspective what a fantastic find is this pawn Ayala. More than a garden-variety tare among wheat such as the many prominent yet otherwise unremarkable "religious people" who deny that creation points to a creator, Ayala is an ordained Dominican priest. Such an abstruse status offers little more than token value to Darwinists but holds a certain esoteric panache among Christians, making Ayala a more curious catch, something akin to the oddity of a figless fig tree.

Not surprisingly, Ayala's "reconciliation" of faith and science is no more than an arbitrary requirement that both be strictly naturalistic, that is, letting neither be informed by the strong inference in nature of true, intelligent design. With that kind of reconciliation it's also not surprising that Ayala is "unwilling to affirm or deny a personal belief in God" and refers instead "to science-savvy Christian theologians who present a God that is continuously engaged in the creative process through undirected natural selection." Such tenuous wordplay satisfies only those taken captive by hollow philosophy because theologians of this kind are unlikely to be truth-savvy and cannot be Christians. Material evidence points unmistakably to a creator, not away, and Christians by definition are followers of Christ, who is the very creator God that nature attests to but which they deny. Just how are God- and evidence-denying theologians "savvy"?

And Christian or not, anyone who swallows Ayala's "science-savvy" line of reasoning lacks rational thinking ability. Like referring to an artist "continually engaged in the creative process through an undirected paintbrush," such a thought is pure sophistry, disconnected from any rational reality. The foisting of such silliness upon us all is exactly why, as the Scientific American article states, "convincing most of the American public [of the ability for Darwinism and faith to coexist] remains the challenge." Despite the best of Darwinists' exoteric ramblings, most Americans still think right. You might say we are designed that way.

One thing is for certain: faith in a creative God who created man in His image ex nihilo cannot coexist with a science that demands belief only in an unguided, purposeless process to miraculously turn nothing into something, and something into someone. And it's that faith that Darwinists ridicule and it's that faith that threatens the faith belief of every Darwinist--a faith belief for which there is no evidence--that an unintelligent process produced from eternal matter the requisite voluminous genetic information to build every new and useful feature of every living being. Richard Dawkins, a man admirable only for his consistency and right thinking on this point, would agree: there is simply no argument to be made that Darwinian faith and a faith in the creative God of the Bible can be rationally reconciled. And to humbly adapt phraseology from this source of limited admiration, it is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims that faith can coexist with naturalistic (unguided, purposeless) Darwinism, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).

The tragic irony is that it's that faith that aligns best with the material evidence in nature; there is simply no scientific reason to deny the creative work of a creative God. All of nature cries out intelligent design, and acknowledging such does nothing to hinder science or scientist. But insisting on denying intelligent design by saying (as did DNA co-discoverer Francis Crick) ignorant things like "biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see is not designed, but rather evolved," only serves to widen the divide between dogmatic materialist scientists and an open-minded, reasonable public.

It's time to drop the artificial "faith versus science" debate, and face the true conflict: science in the service of naturalism versus science in the service of truth. After all, everyone has faith. And either one's science will inform faith, in which the unmistakable material evidence of design in nature will lead to a natural faith consideration of an intelligent designer, or faith will inform science, in which a non-belief in a creative God will lead to stupid statements about a creator creating through undirected processes.

Please, dogmatic science institutions, until you are ready for real dialog on true faith and true science, spare us your tokens.

Roddy Bullock is a freelance writer and the Executive Director of the Intelligent Design Network of Ohio and is the author of The Cave Painting: A Parable of Science, published by and available from Access Research Network. Send comments to: roddybullock@idnetohio.com.

If you like this essay, go here for many more.

Copyright (c) 2008 Roddy M. Bullock, all rights reserved. Quotes and links permitted with attribution.

References:

The Christian Man's Evolution: How Darwinism and Faith Can Coexist, Scientific American, October, 2008. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-christian-mans-evolution

Richard Dawkins quote: Richard Dawkins, review of Blueprints by Donald C. Johanson and Maitland A. Edey, New York Times, April 9, 1989, sec. 7, p. 34. http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Reviews/1989-04-09review_blueprint.shtml

Francis Crick quote ("Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see is not designed, but rather evolved.") from Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit (New York: BasicBooks, 1988), p. 138.